UK Home Secretary Says Don't Worry About Collection Of Metadata; FOIA Request Made For Her Metadata

from the well,-this-should-be-interesting dept

Fri, Nov 6th 2015 11:38am — Mike Masnick

With the release of the new UK Snooper's Charter, UK Home Secretary Theresa May tried to justify the collection of phone and internet records as nothing more than being like an "itemised phone bill" and therefore nothing to worry about. Keith Vaz replied that there is plenty to be concerned about when the government can look at such records:

I know you said the information is equivalent to an itemised bill but there's a lot of information in an itemised bill.

If I were to look at your itemised telephone bill and you were to look at mine we might be surprised at who we were telephoning.

But, in response to Vaz, May apparently insisted that there was nothing at all in her records that anyone might find surprising -- leading some to question whether this was May agreeing to release her phone and internet records. Apparently Chris Gilmour decided to find out for sure, and has filed a Freedom of Information request in the UK for a bunch of May's records (found via Ryan Gallagher).

Dear Home Office,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I hereby request the following information from and regarding the Rt Hon Theresa May MP (Con), Secretary of State for the Home Department (the "Home Secretary"):

1) The date, time, and recipient of every email sent by the Home Secretary during October 2015.

2) The date, time, and sender of every email received by the Home Secretary during October 2015.

3) The date, time, and recipient of every internet telephony call (e.g. "Skype" call) made by the Home Secretary during October 2015.

4) The date, time, and sender of every internet telephony call (e.g. "Skype" call) received by the Home Secretary during October 2015.

5) The date, time, and domain address of every website visited by the Home Secretary during October 2015.

Yours faithfully,

Chris Gilmour

Should be interesting to see the responses to that request, huh?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: chris gilmour, internet records, metadata, phone records, surveillance, theresa may, uk

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

JoeCool (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 11:44am

Obviously
It will be "Sorry, but National Security prevents us from releasing that info." She's not one of the "little people" after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 12:10pm

Her husband probably pays the bills and she's never actually seen one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 12:25pm

So...
...no data from telephone calls that are not internet telephony?

Or does the UK no longer have any POTS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re: So...
  POTS record collection is a foregone conclusion. Thus, no new privacy issues would be revealed by either the release or the refusal to release them.
  
  That's where the brilliance of this request lies: specifically requesting the metadata that the MP considers unimportant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2015 @ 4:30pm
    
    Re: Re: So...
    Exactly
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 5:20pm
  
  Re: So...
  No, apparently we don't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 12:47pm

"It's just metadata."
There's an article somewhere and I wish I could locate it again, which tells the story of the CIA growing crazy about moles because the Russians pretty much knew who among the embassy personnel around the world were CIA agents. Apparently their career and postings were public information (it's just metadata) and the Russians figured out just which careers/career patterns fingered the agents to near-certainty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 4:45pm
  
  Re: "It's just metadata."
  It‘s probably not that hard to investigate, especially in a free society. Just monitor the activities of any suspects to see what they do with their time. Do they have a job? How do they pay their bills. Where do government agents tend to meet? I am sure the Russian government has the resources to hire (private) investigators that can look into the lives of suspects. It can't be that hard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 7 Nov 2015 @ 3:37am
  
  Re: "It's just metadata."
  yes, i read that one too, interesting stuff...
  turns out one smart kgb type had a list of criteria he had garnered over the years that when winnowed through gave them about a 99.99% chance of 'guessing' (it wasn't guessing) who was/wasn't a cia stooge in state dept clothing...
  a LOT of it was such stupid, elementary stuff, you REALLY do wonder about the 'intelligence' of so-called intelligence agencies...
  for example, they were too fucking cheap to mix it up when a new spook was introduced into the embassy fold, so they were put up in the SAME FUCKING HOUSE the previous spook was given... same with their local cars, etc...
  herp derp
  there were other clues, as far as real state dept types would have on their record they went to a certain school for state dept 'stuff', while the spooks skipped class...
  when they put all these together, they had a near fool-proof method of spotting the spooks, DUE TO OUR OWN laziness and stupidity...
  no wiretaps, no backdoors, no blackbag jobs, no social engineering (although i'm sure they do all those too), just plain open records and holmesian ratiocination...
  AS IF anyone with two INDEPENDENT eyes can't tell all this spookery has NOTHING to do with the russkies or red chinee, and EVERYTHING about keeping the rabble in line in der faderland...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2015 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re: "It's just metadata."
  This one...?
  
  http://www.salon.com/2015/09/26/how_to_explain_the_kgbs_amazing_success_identifying_cia_agent s_in_the_field/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 12:55pm

i can't possibly tell you how relieved i am to know that there's no problem whatever with storing metadata. i very much look forward to ms may's illustration of that assurance by sharing hers from the month of october.

i'm sure she will consider october to be the first installment of an ongoing campaign to assuage our concerns, since, you know, there's no problem doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 12:59pm

if metadata was so useless, none of the security forces would be interested in collecting it and definitely not interested in sifting through it all, especially if the chance of finding something in this 'phone bill' was almost negligible! this is typical May, trying to subdue outrage, just as what happened in the US, when in fact metadata gives an abundance of information. the real issue is that if there were some nefarious people, plotting some nefarious crime, would they be stupid enough to not cover their tracks? this is nothing to do with terrorism but all to do with every government worldwide trying to do whatever it can to make sure of forewarning when the people are angry about something, like TPP and intend to make their opinions and feelings known! it will also serve to forewarn companies when customers are upset and intend to try to do something, which is a major reason why TPP and deals like it are so bad! they are handing the run ning of the planet to the elite and the people will have no recourse against them, but will have to pay out of taxes when a company uses ISDS!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy2020 (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 1:03pm
  
  Re:
  It's one of the great cons of the system. You are supposed to make your opinion known in the "right" way so they can plan for your opposition and deflate it.
  
  If you make your opinion known is some other way then you are a disruptive malcontent and/or criminal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2015 @ 1:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    These are NOT the droids you are looking for!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 6 Nov 2015 @ 11:41pm

It should be fun to see how they react as they tried to play the 'it's just meta-data' card.
On the one hand they can spin some story about not releasing it because security... but then they have to admit it is useful information.
On the other hand they could release it... and have people construct a very useful timeline revealing all sorts of things using only 'meta-data'.

It is nice to see a politician backed into a corner where there is no good answer that doesn't destroy their own arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ALASTAIR BAKER, 7 Nov 2015 @ 12:08am

MetaData
Its been a while since I was in the Army but I was taught about such a thing as Signals Intelligence (SigInt for short)

A technique developed during WW2 by Bletchley Park for analysing communications to determine a great deal of information (about your enemy), without even knowing what the messages were.

I may be old fashioned and behind the times, but this MetaData sounds exactly like that, only 70 years later.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 7 Nov 2015 @ 12:51am
  
  Re: MetaData
  Oh they know full well that metadata is incredibly valuable and can be used to learn a ton about a person, they just lie and claim that it's 'harmless', hoping that people don't realize just how information they can gather with 'just' metadata.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 7 Nov 2015 @ 12:57am

Not a chance
While I love that he called her bluff, and it's about time someone did, there is no chance they'll release the required data.

At most they'll comb through the requesting records, removing anything that would provide real data before releasing the butchered records, but more likely they'll give some pathetic excuse as to why they simply cannot comply with the request.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2015 @ 10:11pm
  
  Re: Not a chance
  There's always the mandated copying and servicing fee so until an advance payment of some outrageously preposterous amount is received...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 8 Nov 2015 @ 2:44am
    
    Re: Re: Not a chance
    "... and after all the numbers have been added up, it looks like the cost to hand over the requested information will be... ten pounds more than you have."
    
    "You mean ten pounds more than I have at the moment? That's easy enough to fix, I'll just borrow some money from someone."
    
    "Oh no no no, I mean exactly what I said, the cost will be ten pounds more than you have at the time of the transactions. It will always be ten pounds more than you have, no matter how large or small that number is."
    
    "... in other words, it will always cost more than I have, making the request impossible to pay for, and the information always out of reach."
    
    "It does rather seem that way doesn't it? Now then, if that was all, I will bid you goodbye."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Nov 2015 @ 10:23am

UK like US is a control freak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Nov 2015 @ 4:32pm

Just another stupid person forcing their will on others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arioch (profile), 8 Nov 2015 @ 6:42pm

Collecting What?
The fact that this has even been proposed shows the total lack of basic internet awareness of the average UK politician.
This in itself is somewhat worrying.

Living in the UK, I already know that my ISP cannot collect metadata from me because of my habitual use of a VPN service and TOR. Hell, I'm one of the good guys, don't they realise that the bad guys are going to hide themselves even more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 10:53am
  
  Re: Collecting What?
  They'll realise, then create even more laws, then they'll realise again, then create even more laws......till we have something that is a shadow of what it could have been
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:07am

Pass laws to piss people off, then wonder why, people are pissed off with them

Governments representing governments.....what happened to governments representing people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt Dodd, 10 Nov 2015 @ 2:24pm

This FOIA request appears to be an amended copy of one that I made back in 2012: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/theresa_mays_internet_history
[ link to this | view in chronology ]