UK Home Secretary Wants Everyone's Metadata; But If You Ask For Hers, Gov't Says You're Being Vexatious

from the funny-how-that-works dept

Tue, Dec 29th 2015 8:29am — Mike Masnick

Theresa May, the UK Home Secretary who seems like a comic book version of a government authoritarian, is leading the charge in the UK for its new Snooper's Charter, officially called the "Investigatory Powers Bill," that is filled with all kinds of nasty stuff for making it easier for the government to spy on everyone. Among the many problematic elements is the demand for basically everyone's metadata. May dismissed the concerns about this by saying it's nothing more than "an itemised phone bill." Given that, Member of Parliament Keith Vaz noted to May that people might be interested to see May's itemized phone bill.

Soon after that, we noted that UK resident Chris Gilmour sent in a FOIA request for May's metadata. Specifically, he asked for the following:

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.

Not surprisingly, it appears he was not the only one to do so. UK newspaper The Independent sent in a FOIA request asking for:

... the web browser history of all web browsers on the Home Secretary Theresa May's GSI network account for the week beginning Monday 26 October. Feel free to redact any web addresses relating to security matters."

There may be other such requests as well -- but both of these requests got back the same basic response from the UK government. In both cases, the government rejected the requests, claiming they were "vexatious." Here's the response to Gilmour's:

We have considered your requests and we believe them to be vexatious. Section 14(1) of the Act provides that the Home Office is not obliged to comply with a request for information of this nature. We have decided that your request is vexatious because it places an unreasonable burden on the department, because it has adopted a scattergun approach and seems solely designed for the purpose of ‘fishing’ for information without any idea of what might be revealed.

The requests are similar in nature to a request the Home Office received in 2014 that the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) agreed was vexatious. The decision notice in question can be found at this link: https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/decisionnotice?keywords=FS50544833

Guidance issued by the ICO on vexatious requests can be found at this link: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1198/dealing-with-vexatious- requests.pdf

It appears that The Independent got an identical response (word for word). The folks at The Independent seem reasonably annoyed by this.

While the Government is widening its own powers to access the information of citizens, it is watering down the public’s right to access the Government’s information.

Either way, there seems to be a legitimate question to ask Theresa May: if there's no big deal about having the government go through your metadata and it's "just like an itemised phone bill," then why is it so "vexatious" for the public to ask for May's metadata?

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: data retention, foia, freedom of information, home secretary, investigatory powers bill, ipbill, metadata, public records, snooper's charter, surveillance, theresa may, uk, vexatious

43 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 8:18am

Ah hypocrisy...
We have decided that your request is vexatious because it places an unreasonable burden on the department, because it has adopted a scattergun approach and seems solely designed for the purpose of ‘fishing’ for information without any idea of what might be revealed.

Like the 'unreasonable burden' placed upon any company offering services in the UK, who are forced to gather up and make available to anyone who comes asking data from all of their customers?

Like the 'scattergun approach' of collecting everything possible, just in case it might become relevant at some time in the future?

Forget 'Snooper's Charter', I suggest it instead be called the 'Voyeuristic Hypocrites' Bill', as those pushing for it display both to a truly stunning degree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 8:35am

Either I'm supposed to have privacy too, or they're not allowed to have privacy either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 8:45am

time repeats....
Why does anyone think that this behavior is wrong? We had some time of something that could be called democracy and no we go back to the good old times of kings and peasants.

If you can't accept that then well... that is your problem because it will happen if we peasants want it or not. Even if we tried to pick up our forks they would send their knights aka heavily armed police and/or drones to keep the peace.

So I suggest your new workout involves crawling on your knees and bowing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glenn, 29 Dec 2015 @ 8:46am

Sorry... no snooping on the snoopers' poop. (Who watches the watchers?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 8:53am

Governments use personal information all the time to provide services. It doesn't mean all that information should be accessible by anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:10am

Either way, there seems to be a legitimate question to ask Theresa May: if there's no big deal about having the government go through your metadata and it's "just like an itemised phone bill," then why is it so "vexatious" for the public to ask for May's metadata?

Let's be honest here, a previous question should have been asked (if it hasn't already): if metadata is that 'unimportant' then why the Govt is spending a lot of money after it and a lot of tongues trying to convince everybody it's ok?

Honestly. If it is that innocuous then why all the effort? Because it is NOT that simple (as TD and other places have repeatedly shown).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anomynuos Crowad, 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:21am

Re: time repeats....
Although kings-of-old were far less involved in the affairs of the peasants than any "democratic" regime has ever been. Of course, the problem is not necessarily the form of government but the technological tools available to it. Mass surveillance simply wasn't possible in those earlier times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:22am

Re:
It's called calling her bluff and/or exposing her lies.

She defends mass, indiscriminate metadata collection by claiming that it's harmless, yet when someone asks for her metadata suddenly that's invasive and unreasonable.

Anyone arguing for indiscriminate collection of private data, 'metadata' or not, especially those that defend the collection by claiming that it's 'harmless', should be forced to hand over their data first. 'Lead by example' as it were, and if they refuse then their proposal is tossed out and their hypocrisy noted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:24am

Well given that their default response to any FOIA request can be applied word-for-word in a blanket manner, respond in kind. Copy their response, replace those terms/names for applicable ones when you're presented with a request from the government.

Obviously this is a tactic that may not work, but it displays both the ridiculousness of such a response involving "vexatious" and double standard at play. If anything, could buy for time before the door is kicked in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:26am

Re:
The snoopers charter goes beyond any reasonable personal data required for government purpose, as it includes every phone call to your doctor,lawyer,dentist,pastor etc, along with every web site visit. Visit some Islamic websites to learn a little about Islam, and onto the surveillance lists you go..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:28am

I guess it can always be worse...maybe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syjp9lsWBhc
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:30am

Re:
It's almost funny how their own arguments from one place shoot to pieces their arguments elsewhere, and vice versa.

If the data isn't personally identifiable, then it's useless to identify criminals/terrorists/communists.

If the data isn't being sifted, sorted, and mined for significant tidbits as it's gathered, then it's useless to prevent anything, and at most can be used to spot what they may have missed after the fact.

The only way the data can be used to identify criminals is if it is possible to link 'metadata' to an individual.

The only way the data can be used in a preventative measure is if it is being combed through when it's gathered, rather than only when they're looking for something specific.

If their claims defending such programs are true, then the programs are useless at their stated goals, and need to be shut down. The only way for the programs to accomplish what they claim they do is if they're lying, in which case the programs need to be shut down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:33am

Re: Re:
Screw that... as your Lord and Overseer you just need to do as told you smarmy peasant!

I must be above the law to administer it! Now be silent!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crazy Canuck, 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:34am

Do as we say, not as we do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Quiet Lurcker, 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:40am

Technical Observation
I think the blanket refusal to respond is absolutely wrong. Let's get that perfectly clear at the outset.

On the other hand, there could be purely technical reasons why the request is difficult, maybe impossible to fulfill.

That said, why couldn't someone in Ms. Hays' office work with the requester to narrow the scope of the request?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:40am

Re:
THAT, was fucking awesome!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 9:50am

Re: Re:
...If the data isn't personally identifiable, then it's useless to identify criminals/terrorists/communists...

Are communists a threat these days? Years ago they were perceived as a threat, with a consequence being Senator McCarthy's 'witch hunt'. Said campaign included scrutiny of one's family, friends, and employer(s). And that was before the idea of metadata retention!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John85851 (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:07am

She has nothing to hide
I don't see why her office has an issue with the FOIA requests. After all, if she didn't do anything wrong then she has nothing to hide.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:26am

Re: Re: Re:
Said campaign included scrutiny of one's family, friends, and employer(s).

As the saying goes, 'The more things change...'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MadAsASnake (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:54am

Just astounding how accurately the FOIA response actually describes the situation:
- scatter gun approach (this is what the Govt is doing)
- the response is plainly vexatious
I wonder what GCHQ has on her?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MadAsASnake (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:55am

Re: Re: Re:
Terrorists are the communists du jour
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:00am

Re: Re:
Right, right? This dissonance will be maintained till they can't hide their censorious, tyrannical, psychopathic reasons. This decade may ass well be remembered in the future as the new dark ages in terms of control and censorship. I hope I'm wrong and things take a turn for the better. Each new attack, each new reaction seems to prove I'm right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tom (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:00am

At least I can check off the "Learn something today" box. I learned what 'vexatious' means. And to think I was reading this because my computer game was being very vexatious. Irony.

I wonder if the UK Home Secretary realizes the irony of her position on metadata?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:24am

Re: Technical Observation
It wasn't refused on technical reasons, they didn't even get to the technical side of things. It was refused outright.

Narrowing the scope defeats the reason for the filing. They want everything, why shouldn't we ask for the same?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:30am

Re:
Ah, but they only asked for the metadata!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter, 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:40am

But....but...but......
But we are the Gubberment. We make the rules for the little people to follow. What made you think they were ever for us to follow?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 12:29pm

thing here is we very clearly see may's opinion of how potentially dangerous harvesting this information may be. that she has no concerns for the people whose information she wants harvested is about as close to let them eat cake as you are going to find.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
J.R., 29 Dec 2015 @ 1:24pm

Re:
Great find. We need a lot more reporting like this as 99% of reporters and "anchors" (that mean they are dead weight?) are boot-licking sycophants ready to accept every stupid government statement as the word of God,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeremy2020 (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 1:38pm

Re: Re: Re:
There will need to be a violent revolution as this point and the public's will isn't there yet. Let's hope it gets there in time to stop full on orwell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
nasch (profile), 29 Dec 2015 @ 2:05pm

Re: Re:
That's not a real reporter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 4:00pm

Uk, the testbed

so many things wrong over the last couple of years

Just because you CAN do something, doesnt mean you SHOULD do something

The cameras
The software
The spying
The lying
The warmongering
The empire
The forcing
The manipulation
The disgusting or misguided schemes
The self bias
The superiority
The confidence bordering on the arrogance
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2015 @ 8:58pm

Re: Ah hypocrisy...
Yeah, do as we say, not as we do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Klaus, 29 Dec 2015 @ 10:58pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.theguardian.com/gnm-archive/gallery/2015/mar/28/poll-tax-riots-revisited-in-pictures

The UK authorities, already Orwellian in 1990, never saw this coming, and it brought down Thatcher's notoriously hard-right-wing government. Since then, governments around the planet have had to tread a careful line between the creative syphoning off of tax revenue to their friends in business, and maintaining a civil order.

This is not always easy, especially at a time you want to down-size your military and police forces...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/622437/George-Osborne-spending-review-UKIP-army-poli ce-budget-cuts
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Klaus, 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:08pm

Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't really matter. Anyone who gets to say...

"ex-commercial PR man, old Etonian", and occasional pig-fucker, David Cameron, would like to bomb Syria"...

and gets over 1.5M views on YouTube, gets a standing ovation from me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Klaus, 29 Dec 2015 @ 11:20pm

Re:
"...I wonder what GCHQ has on her?"

Well, if you consider that the current UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, had oral sex with a dead pig, then the scope is extremely broad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2015 @ 1:39am

The nobles do not care for the serfs that get uppity about perceived equality. They only have the rights they are granted by their betters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2015 @ 1:42am

Re:
That would imply those ruling your country view everyone as equal instead of just slaves to be given whatever rights those in charge deign to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2015 @ 1:43am

Re: time repeats....
There is always time for a good old fashioned peasants rebellion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2015 @ 3:44am

Re: Re: Re:
That is very ironic since he actually reported more real news than any reporter I have heard in a long time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Dec 2015 @ 8:58am

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

I wrote a script to combat this. They can have fun trying to figure out if I actually visit bestiality sites, proxies, disposable webmails, [...], porn every few minutes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Protean 8, 30 Dec 2015 @ 1:05pm

UK & Dark Side of the Moon
Pink Floyd has already been there and done that with the song, "Us and Them" in the early seventies release of "Dark Side of the Moon."

Don't most aristocrats actually believe they are above us? Aren't most of those working for them told this from the start and forced to believe them? Its a lifelong abysmal form of slavery. That's why the world is all mucked up for us little people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 31 Dec 2015 @ 5:59am

You can't spy on me!
You can't spy on me! I'm the Queen of Spies! Sayeth Madame May...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
alan m dransfield, 24 Dec 2016 @ 11:31pm

Dransfield Vexatious Decision GI/3037/2011
We now know the ICO has acted as a Tory gatekeeper for the past decade ref the ICO/FOIA laws. The Dransfield Vexatious decision which is the UK Leading Court Precedence was made by a Rogue Judge and is now regularly used as a scapegoat get out of Jail Free card. The Tory's spent thousands of pounds tryingto scuppa the Hungarian NGO Magyar Helsinki Bizottsag and we now know why. The PM TM was at the forfront of all this Vexatious BS and she now would have the word believe she is squeaky clean. The PM position ref the abuse of Vexatious exemptionsis untenable and she MUST resign. Alan M Dransfield The Vexatious King of England
[ link to this | view in thread ]