UK telecoms companies will have to keep phone call logs for a year under a new law, which comes into force in October. The law does not apply to records of internet activity, such as web surfing, email, and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) phone calls.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Data Retention (EC) Regulations (draft; the final Regulations were unavailable at time of writing) were approved by the House of Lords on Tuesday and signed into law by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith on Wednesday.<\/p>\n
“Communications data, such as mobile phone billing data, have a proven track record in supporting law enforcement and intelligence agency investigations and are a vital investigative tool,” said Lord Bassam of Brighton, who proposed the adoption of the Regulations this week in the House of Lords. “Without this data, the ability of the police and the Security Service painstakingly to investigate the associations between those involved in terrorist attacks and those who may have directed or financed their activity would be limited,” said Bassam. “The police and the Security Service’s ability to investigate terrorist plots and serious crime must not be allowed to depend on the business practice that happens to be employed by the public communications provider that a particular suspect, victim or witness used.<\/p>\n
The Home Office conducted a consultation on the regulations with the public and industry and said the telecoms industry told it that the collection of internet data was too complicated to be include in the current rules.<\/p>\n
“Many respondents felt that the complexity surrounding the internet make the draft regulations an inappropriate framework for implementation of the internet aspects as this would present particular technical and resourcing issues,” said a Government response to the public consultation.<\/p>\n
http:\/\/www.theregister.co.uk\/2007\/07\/27\/data_retention_law_passed\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-regulations"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1690","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1690"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1690\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4177,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1690\/revisions\/4177"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cybersecurityinstitute.com\/blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}