Councils use bugs to spy on public illegally
Councils and other official bodies are using hidden tracking devices to snoop on the public, a report by Sir Christopher Rose has disclosed.
By Christopher Hope Whitehall Editor
Published: 7:00AM BST 22 Jul 2009
Officials have continued to use the gadgets, which allow them to follow covertly people, despite a warning that the practice is prohibited.
The scale of the secret operations was set out in a report published on Monday by Sir Christopher, the chief surveillance commissioner. He found that the number of official surveillance operations increased last year, despite a government pledge to reduce them for trivial offences.
Sir Christopher also criticised the Home Office for trying to make it easier for the police to use legally covert surveillance.
“It should not be acceptable that the use of covert powers is made 'easy’ for any public authority,” he said. It was important that “covert surveillance is necessary, proportionate and carried out in a way which is compliant with human rights”.
Sir Christopher’s report said that the tracking devices could only be used “for the prevention and detection of 'serious crime”.
Documents released earlier this year showed how, in 2007, the Environment Agency attached one of the trackers to a vehicle in order to monitor suspected dumping of illegal waste. Sir Christopher’s office reprimanded the agency. The mistake was blamed on erroneous advice from the Home Office stating that “affixing a magnetic device to a vehicle on the public highway” was “not a criminal offence”.
Monday’s report showed that the total number of surveillance operations by public bodies on members of the public under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) increased last year to 9,894. The total for the previous year was 9,535.
A separate report, also published on Monday, disclosed that more than 100 councils made formal requests last year to gain access to people’s telephone bills and email accounts.
RIPA was introduced to combat serious crime, but there was widespread criticism after councils started to use it to tackle trivial offences such as dog fouling.
Sir Christopher criticised the Home Office for “confusing” councils when it issued a code of practice. “It is likely to be confusing if ministers urge public authorities not to use powers given by Parliament against particular activities which are plainly within the legislation.” He said it would be better to strip councils of the powers.
Alan Johnson, the Home Secretary, said: “These powers can make a real difference, whether enabling us to gain intelligence to prevent a terrorist attack or tackling anti-social behaviour and rogue traders.”
