ISPs and the IWF are not public institutions, they are not subject to judicial review. 52
Instead, the IWF offers an internal appeal procedure. 53
Internet Surveillance
The U.K., together with the United States, was ranked as one of the worst offenders
against individual privacy rights in the democratic world by Privacy International for
2007. 54
Among areas of great concern are the estimated 4 million CCTV cameras installed
in practically every corner of Britons’ social life. 55 Based on the EU Data Retention
Directive but at times exceeding its scope, the data retention scheme in the U.K. took
a significant step forward. There are ‘‘hundreds of thousands’’ of requests from state
agencies to communications providers for traffic data. 56
In the U.K., the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent authority with the goal of promoting access to official information and protecting personal
information. It is also responsible for enforcing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). 57
The commissioner has a broad mandate but only minimal enforcement powers. 58 A
new act has been proposed to amend the DPA and give the ICO the authority to
impose fines for deliberate data protection breaches. 59 The ICO reports to Parliament
and is sponsored by the Ministry of Justice. 60 Recently, concerns have arisen over ISPs
tracking user activity to customize viewed ads. 61 The commissioner himself warned in
2004 that the U.K. was in danger of becoming a ‘‘surveillance society.’’ This concern
was reiterated in the House of Lords’ February 2009 report entitled ‘‘Surveillance: Citizens and the State.’’ 62 However, after a review of the situation the ICO noted that as
long as users are ‘‘informed when a cookie is placed on their computer, given clear
and comprehensive information about the purpose of the storage and given the ability
to refuse it being placed on the system . . . there does not appear to be any detriment to
users,’’ and that the developing companies are not in violation of the Data Protection
Act 1998. 63
The U.K. government’s power to collect communications data is primarily addressed
in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). 64 Warrants to approve the
collection of communication content are issued by the Secretary of State upon proof
that the intrusion is necessary and proportionate when balanced with individuals’ privacy interests. 65 The Secretary of State has broad powers that are loosely regulated. 66
The collection of noncontent data, including subscriber information, traffic, and location data, can be authorized without a warrant by various public officials. 67
As for other electronic surveillance, the Foundation for Information Policy Research
notes that even before the events of September 11, 2001, the U.K. was utilizing sophisticated systems for electronic surveillance against crime. The foundation warns that
United Kingdom
361
Instead, the IWF offers an internal appeal procedure. 53
Internet Surveillance
The U.K., together with the United States, was ranked as one of the worst offenders
against individual privacy rights in the democratic world by Privacy International for
2007. 54
Among areas of great concern are the estimated 4 million CCTV cameras installed
in practically every corner of Britons’ social life. 55 Based on the EU Data Retention
Directive but at times exceeding its scope, the data retention scheme in the U.K. took
a significant step forward. There are ‘‘hundreds of thousands’’ of requests from state
agencies to communications providers for traffic data. 56
In the U.K., the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent authority with the goal of promoting access to official information and protecting personal
information. It is also responsible for enforcing the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). 57
The commissioner has a broad mandate but only minimal enforcement powers. 58 A
new act has been proposed to amend the DPA and give the ICO the authority to
impose fines for deliberate data protection breaches. 59 The ICO reports to Parliament
and is sponsored by the Ministry of Justice. 60 Recently, concerns have arisen over ISPs
tracking user activity to customize viewed ads. 61 The commissioner himself warned in
2004 that the U.K. was in danger of becoming a ‘‘surveillance society.’’ This concern
was reiterated in the House of Lords’ February 2009 report entitled ‘‘Surveillance: Citizens and the State.’’ 62 However, after a review of the situation the ICO noted that as
long as users are ‘‘informed when a cookie is placed on their computer, given clear
and comprehensive information about the purpose of the storage and given the ability
to refuse it being placed on the system . . . there does not appear to be any detriment to
users,’’ and that the developing companies are not in violation of the Data Protection
Act 1998. 63
The U.K. government’s power to collect communications data is primarily addressed
in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). 64 Warrants to approve the
collection of communication content are issued by the Secretary of State upon proof
that the intrusion is necessary and proportionate when balanced with individuals’ privacy interests. 65 The Secretary of State has broad powers that are loosely regulated. 66
The collection of noncontent data, including subscriber information, traffic, and location data, can be authorized without a warrant by various public officials. 67
As for other electronic surveillance, the Foundation for Information Policy Research
notes that even before the events of September 11, 2001, the U.K. was utilizing sophisticated systems for electronic surveillance against crime. The foundation warns that
United Kingdom
361