Bulk personal datasets
"Bulk personal datasets" is the UK government's euphemism for datasets containing personally identifiable information on a large number of individuals, as part of mass surveillance in the United Kingdom and on citizens around the world.
The term was first used publicly in March 2015 by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, and is subject to significant controversy.
Other UK Government departments have programmes utilising bulk personal datasets, one of which is the care.data programme in the Department of Health and National Health Service. In health, bulk personal datasets are created as a by-product of providing direct care.
Controversy
The judicial body which oversees the intelligence services in the United Kingdom, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, ruled that the legislative framework in the United Kingdom does not permit mass surveillance and that while GCHQ collects and analyses data in bulk, it does not practice mass surveillance.[1][2][3] A special report published by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament also came to this view, although it found past shortcomings in oversight and said the legal framework should be simplified to improve transparency.[4][5][6] This view is supported by independent reports from the Interception of Communications Commissioner.[7][8] However, notable campaign groups and broadsheet newspapers continue to express strong views to the contrary,[9] while others have criticised these viewpoints in turn.[10][11]
References
- ^ "GCHQ does not breach human rights, judges rule". BBC News Online. 5 December 2014. Retrieved 6 December 2014.
- ^ "IPT rejects assertions of mass surveillance". GCHQ. 5 December 2014. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
- ^ "List of judgments". Investigatory Powers Tribunal. 5 December 2014. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
Quote: # A declaration that the regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and/or Upstream does not contravene Articles 8 or 10 ECHR. # A declaration that the regime in respect of interception under ss8(4), 15 and 16 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 does not contravene Articles 8 or 10 ECHR and does not give rise to unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14, read together with Articles 8 and/or 10 of the ECHR.
- ^ "UK surveillance 'lacks transparency', ISC report says". BBC News Online. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
- ^ "Privacy and Security: A modern and transparent legal framework". Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
- ^ "Intelligence and security committee report: the key findings". The Guardian. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
- ^ "Statement by the Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office (IOCCO) on the publication of the Interception of Communications Commissioner's Report 2014" (PDF). Interception of Communications Commissioner. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
- ^ "Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner" (PDF). Interception of Communications Commissioner. March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
- ^ "UK surveillance laws need total overhaul, says landmark report". The Guardian. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
- ^ "Terrorism is price worth paying, says liberty lobby". The Times. 13 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
- ^ "GCHQ doesn't need any lectures from Liberty". The Times. 13 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
  | This article relating to law in the United Kingdom, or its constituent jurisdictions, is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
 | This human rights-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
 | This database-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |