When Government departments, especially the Home Office, give advise, and make that advice contractually binding on its contractors, on how to avoid court rulings, then you know that there is something terribly wrong with this country.

This follows hard on the heels of the ECHR ruling on DNA, which the Home Office and the ACPO intend to ignore, and indeed obfuscate with spurious stats about linking profiles to crime scenes rather than convictions.

However, this advice concerns the activities of the National Identity Scheme.

The Whipped Senseless blog has linked to a copy of the Non-Disclosure agreement that companies tendering to work on the National Identity
Scheme have to sign. (keep a copy for future reference, just in case it 'disappears').

Other than the usual legal protection it gives the
company, several areas of the agreement should cause serious concern.

Clause 3.2c states that companies working on the NIS should limit
disclosure of information when required to do so by the courts.

“Consult with the Authority as to possible steps to
avoid or limit disclosure and take those steps where they would not
result in significant adverse consequences to the Authority”

If that was not enough, Clause 5 of the document provides the
grounds upon which the Home Office can secure access to the property,
computers and records of the company, its employees and subcontractors.
Such access would be at the “sole discretion” of the Home Secretary. No
search warrant or judicial oversight would be required.

That's right, the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith. Not the Home Office, the Police or the Identity & Passport Service (who run the NIS), but only the Home Secretary. So no political interference in the operational duties of those agencies then?.

This would mean, for example, if an employee of a software company
working on the ID scheme took a work laptop home with them, they could
face seizure of this computer from their domestic property without a
search warrant (or indeed, without any suspicion of a crime having been
committed).

Home Office ID Scheme Non-Disclosure agreement, 2007

Just what is going on with the NIS that the public or the courts must never know?

What do the Judges of this land think when Ministers place contractual obligations on their contractors to ignore the courts.

Wilson Doctrine and Parliamentary emails and the arrest of Damian Green MP
from Spy Blog

Business of the House: Government Information (Unauthorised Release) (4 Dec 2008)

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab):: A little while
ago I had a hand in getting the Prime Minister to reaffirm the Wilson
doctrine, and he extended it to modern electronic surveillance. On the
face of it, it would appear that the Wilson doctrine has been abrogated
by the police in this case. Clearly, the e-mails of the hon. Member for
Ashford (Damian Green) were looked at. I venture to suggest that he was
listened in to, and…

4 Dec 2008 : Column 143

Jacqui Smith: I am sorry my hon. Friend has not
received the reply to the letter, which I sent him yesterday and in
which I made it clear that the Wilson doctrine as outlined by the Prime
Minister has not been abrogated.

[...]

Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) (Lab) The Home
Secretary has been clear and unambiguous today. Will she go further on
the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)
about the Wilson doctrine? Can she reassure all hon. Members that our
home numbers, work mobiles and the phones that we use in this House are
covered by the Wilson doctrine, as well as our e-mail accounts?

Jacqui Smith: As I have suggested, the Wilson doctrine applies, and it applies as outlined by the Prime Minister.

4 Dec 2008 : Column 151

Remember that the Wilson Doctrine
is interpreted very narrowly by this Labour Government – the “seizure
of evidence” by the Police, when they grab someone's computer is notinterception of emails” in transit, although the end result in terms of betraying confidential information can be the same.

Since the whistleblower leak inquiry covers the last couple of years
or so, what exactly were the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism
Command granted access to, with respect to the Parliamentary email system ?

  • Were the Police granted access to all of the emails sent and received via Damian Green's Parliamentary email account ?
  • Were these emails restricted to only the ones sent to or
    from the Home Office whistleblower Christopher Galley (if , indeed, any
    such emails actually exist at all) , or were other emails from or to
    constituents, or correspondents of Damian Green, also scooped up in the
    data trawl ?
  • Were the Police granted access to the entire Microsoft
    Exchange server or shared folders containing correspondence from more
    than one MP and their constituents ?
  • Were they granted access to archives or backups, going back 2 or more years ?

There are separate questions about any content of any such emails
i.e. Interception (which is supposedly covered by the Wilson Doctrine)
and any email server logfiles which potentially betray the identities
of other whistleblowers or other confidential journalistic contacts
i.e. Communications Traffic Data. The latter is not covered by the Wilson Doctrine, but it should be.

It appears that Damian Green's Parliamentary email account was suspended on the Thursday of his arrest.

The Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin appeared to be clueless and not in command of any facts about exactly what privacy, confidentiality and privilege breaches there had, or had not been, regarding the Parliamentary email system.

4 Dec 2008 : Column 152

Richard Benyon (Whip, Newbury, Conservative)

Further to the point made by Andrew Mackinlay concerning our e-mails
and the House of Commons server, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that the
House of Commons server is covered by the Wilson doctrine, and that it
cannot be accessed by the police or any other authorities to access our
e-mails in order to investigate circumstances that we lawfully as Back
Benchers and Members of this House have taken up on behalf of our
constituents and others?

Michael Martin (Speaker)

As the Chairman of the House of Commons Commission, I have a serious
responsibility to look after the computer system that we all use,
including myself. I will look into this matter, rather than give an
off-the-cuff answer from the Chair.

Speaker Martin had nearly a week to look into this particular matter, what is he hiding ?

Unless the Members of the House of Commons clear up these questions this Monday, not
“after the Police inquiry has finished” (this took 18 months in the
“cash for honours” inquiry involving the then Labour Prime Minister
Tony Blair and his henchmen), then how can any members of the public
trust that their communications with their constituency MPs will not be
betrayed in future “leak inquiry” collateral damage and data trawling ?

Surely it is time for Members of Parliament to use strong
encryption to protect their privileged constituency correspondence from
snooping by the Government and others ?

Where has this nation arrived at in 10 years under Labour, ably assisted by the LibDem's and Tories, that even MP's must now protect themselves from an overbearing and authoritarian state.

But, there is another way.

The Conservatives and Libdems must also change their views on big
government, they must eradicate the lies, bullshit and spin, and they
must be seen to be
acting on behalf of the people of Britain or they too will be swept
away with Brown when the tide of discontent reaches its tipping point.



Wilson Doctrine and Parliamentary emails and the arrest of Damian Green MP
from Spy Blog

Business of the House: Government Information (Unauthorised Release) (4 Dec 2008)

Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) (Lab):: A little while
ago I had a hand in getting the Prime Minister to reaffirm the Wilson
doctrine, and he extended it to modern electronic surveillance. On the
face of it, it would appear that the Wilson doctrine has been abrogated
by the police in this case. Clearly, the e-mails of the hon. Member for
Ashford (Damian Green) were looked at. I venture to suggest that he was
listened in to, and…

4 Dec 2008 : Column 143

Jacqui Smith: I am sorry my hon. Friend has not
received the reply to the letter, which I sent him yesterday and in
which I made it clear that the Wilson doctrine as outlined by the Prime
Minister has not been abrogated.

[...]

Mr. Parmjit Dhanda (Gloucester) (Lab) The Home
Secretary has been clear and unambiguous today. Will she go further on
the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay)
about the Wilson doctrine? Can she reassure all hon. Members that our
home numbers, work mobiles and the phones that we use in this House are
covered by the Wilson doctrine, as well as our e-mail accounts?

Jacqui Smith: As I have suggested, the Wilson doctrine applies, and it applies as outlined by the Prime Minister.

4 Dec 2008 : Column 151

Remember that the Wilson Doctrine
is interpreted very narrowly by this Labour Government – the “seizure
of evidence” by the Police, when they grab someone's computer is notinterception of emails” in transit, although the end result in terms of betraying confidential information can be the same.

Since the whistleblower leak inquiry covers the last couple of years
or so, what exactly were the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism
Command granted access to, with respect to the Parliamentary email system ?

  • Were the Police granted access to all of the emails sent and received via Damian Green's Parliamentary email account ?
  • Were these emails restricted to only the ones sent to or
    from the Home Office whistleblower Christopher Galley (if , indeed, any
    such emails actually exist at all) , or were other emails from or to
    constituents, or correspondents of Damian Green, also scooped up in the
    data trawl ?
  • Were the Police granted access to the entire Microsoft
    Exchange server or shared folders containing correspondence from more
    than one MP and their constituents ?
  • Were they granted access to archives or backups, going back 2 or more years ?

There are separate questions about any content of any such emails
i.e. Interception (which is supposedly covered by the Wilson Doctrine)
and any email server logfiles which potentially betray the identities
of other whistleblowers or other confidential journalistic contacts
i.e. Communications Traffic Data. The latter is not covered by the Wilson Doctrine, but it should be.

It appears that Damian Green's Parliamentary email account was suspended on the Thursday of his arrest.

The Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin appeared to be clueless and not in command of any facts about exactly what privacy, confidentiality and privilege breaches there had, or had not been, regarding the Parliamentary email system.

4 Dec 2008 : Column 152

Richard Benyon (Whip, Newbury, Conservative)

Further to the point made by Andrew Mackinlay concerning our e-mails
and the House of Commons server, Mr. Speaker. Can you confirm that the
House of Commons server is covered by the Wilson doctrine, and that it
cannot be accessed by the police or any other authorities to access our
e-mails in order to investigate circumstances that we lawfully as Back
Benchers and Members of this House have taken up on behalf of our
constituents and others?

Michael Martin (Speaker)

As the Chairman of the House of Commons Commission, I have a serious
responsibility to look after the computer system that we all use,
including myself. I will look into this matter, rather than give an
off-the-cuff answer from the Chair.

Speaker Martin had nearly a week to look into this particular matter, what is he hiding ?

Unless the Members of the House of Commons clear up these questions this Monday, not
“after the Police inquiry has finished” (this took 18 months in the
“cash for honours” inquiry involving the then Labour Prime Minister
Tony Blair and his henchmen), then how can any members of the public
trust that their communications with their constituency MPs will not be
betrayed in future “leak inquiry” collateral damage and data trawling ?

Surely it is time for Members of Parliament to use strong
encryption to protect their privileged constituency correspondence from
snooping by the Government and others ?

Where has this nation arrived at in 10 years under Labour, ably assisted by the LibDem's and Tories, that even MP's must now protect themselves from an overbearing and authoritarian state.

But, there is another way.

The Conservatives and Libdems must also change their views on big
government, they must eradicate the lies, bullshit and spin, and they
must be seen to be
acting on behalf of the people of Britain or they too will be swept
away with Brown when the tide of discontent reaches its tipping point.



RIPA - Not Dead Yet
It seems that earlier reports of the demise of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) being used by our “respected” (lets be frank, I mean “loathed”) local councils to spy on us were somewhat premature.

Nanny's
Gestapo from Cambridgeshire County Council have used RIPA to spy on
eight paperboys thought to be working without permits.

Council
spies were sent undercover to spy on the local Spar shop in the village
of Melbourn, and take notes on the movements of the boys.

For why?

The
council used the evidence gathered to prosecute the shop's owners for
employing five of the boys (all over 13 years old) without the correct
documentation.

In Cambridgeshire it is against the law to employ
children without a series of forms being filled in, the owners of the
shop made an administrative mistake and did not complete all the
necessary documentation.

Why so much paperwork?

It seems that Nanny believes that carrying newspapers presents a health and safety risk, also working before 7AM is verboten.

Gosh, 7AM…yes that is early isn't it?

Heaven forefend that anyone has to work at that ungodly hour!

The owners of the shop have been given a six-month conditional discharge.

No
doubt the citizens of Cambridgeshire feel safer in their beds knowing
that RIPA is being used to protect them from the terrorist threat of
paperboys working without permits.

A truly loathsome use of RIPA. The councillors should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

By the way, can you guess which party runs Cambridgeshire?

Yes, that's right, yet again it's the Tories!

You
know the format by now, tell Cameron he will lose the next election if
he doesn't show that he intends to draw back the frontiers of the state
and get control of his local councils.

Hattip Nanny knows Best

RIPA - Not Dead Yet
It seems that earlier reports of the demise of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) being used by our “respected” (lets be frank, I mean “loathed”) local councils to spy on us were somewhat premature.

Nanny's
Gestapo from Cambridgeshire County Council have used RIPA to spy on
eight paperboys thought to be working without permits.

Council
spies were sent undercover to spy on the local Spar shop in the village
of Melbourn, and take notes on the movements of the boys.

For why?

The
council used the evidence gathered to prosecute the shop's owners for
employing five of the boys (all over 13 years old) without the correct
documentation.

In Cambridgeshire it is against the law to employ
children without a series of forms being filled in, the owners of the
shop made an administrative mistake and did not complete all the
necessary documentation.

Why so much paperwork?

It seems that Nanny believes that carrying newspapers presents a health and safety risk, also working before 7AM is verboten.

Gosh, 7AM…yes that is early isn't it?

Heaven forefend that anyone has to work at that ungodly hour!

The owners of the shop have been given a six-month conditional discharge.

No
doubt the citizens of Cambridgeshire feel safer in their beds knowing
that RIPA is being used to protect them from the terrorist threat of
paperboys working without permits.

A truly loathsome use of RIPA. The councillors should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

By the way, can you guess which party runs Cambridgeshire?

Yes, that's right, yet again it's the Tories!

You
know the format by now, tell Cameron he will lose the next election if
he doesn't show that he intends to draw back the frontiers of the state
and get control of his local councils.

Hattip Nanny knows Best