“We recognise the distinction drawn by the Minister between the degrees of intrusion caused by the interception of communications and access to communications data,” the report’s authors write.
“In our view, however, access to communications data by a relevant authority has a significant impact on an individual’s privacy. We note the increase in requests for access to communications data in recent years and the large number of organisations empowered by RIPA to make such requests.
“Whilst communications traffic continues to increase and diversify, the provisions of RIPA in respect of communications data are not well understood. We recommend that the Home Office use the opportunity afforded by the latest review of RIPA codes of practice to take steps to raise public awareness of how and why communications data might be collected and used.”
“For each new organisation authorised under RIPA to request access to communications data, the Home Office should produce a statement setting out the purposes for which the data will be used and evidence that access to communications data represents a proportionate response in terms of the problem to be addressed and the impact on individual privacy,” the report says.
Proportionality
“Any assessment carried out by the Home Office should apply a test of proportionality: a potential intrusion which might be justified by the need to investigate terrorism would not be justified by efforts to tackle minor crimes such as littering.
“We note in the context of debate on the application of RIPA authorisations, the range of views on whether or not actions such as adjusting CCTV cameras constitute surveillance as defined by the Act.
“We also have serious concerns about the deployment of surveillance in relation to less serious crimes, which have been raised by-amongst other things-the use of RIPA powers to establish the validity of an application for admission to a school.
“The Home Office should undertake a public consultation on the levels of authorisation which should be required for various surveillance activities and the purposes which would justify different levels of intrusion.
Finally, the report refers to the report into covert monitoring in prisons finalised earlier this year: “We are concerned by the implications for Members of Parliament of the events investigated by Sir Christopher Rose. Constituents must be able to speak freely to their Members of Parliament without fear of intrusion by the state. We reserve the right to return to this issue in due course.”