We are transported back in time to early 2016. The draft Investigatory Powers Bill has been through its pre-legislative Parliamentary scrutiny. Somewhere in Whitehall a committee is discussing drafting changes.
- “Next item please.
- ‘Related communications data’. A bit ticklish, this one.
- What seems to be the problem?
- We carried over ‘Related communications data’ from RIPA, but built on it.
- By built on, you mean expanded?
- Yes.
- How much did you build on it?
- Quite a lot. In RIPA related communications data was a subset of communications data.
- So we would expect. A qualifier such as ‘related’ should limit the scope of the main defined term.
- Yes. But in the draft Bill we ended up with a superset, not a subset.
- You mean broader than communications data?
- Yes.
- So related communications data now includes data that is not communications data?
- Yes.
- This could be serious. We had enough trouble with ‘Data includes any information that is not data’.
- Sorry about that.
- We had better find a new name.
- We’ve had an idea. We have focused on promoting the new culture of clarity, openness and transparency.
- I see. What have you come up with?
- Well, this data is revealing about people’s daily lives. ‘Lifestyle information’ would sum it up nicely.
- This data is collected by GCHQ isn’t it?
- Yes indeed. It can be more useful than content. And the Bill imposes fewer controls than for content on how they use it.
- I see. I wonder if ‘Lifestyle information’ is quite what we are looking for.
- But clarity, openness, transparency….
- Of course. But this is legislation, not a press release. Doesn’t this data include machine communications? Not much life there.
- Something a bit more neutral, then?
- Perhaps. Suggestions anyone?
- The Intelligence and Security Committee said that information associated with communications was the primary value of bulk interception. How about ‘primary data’?
- Pleasingly abstract, has a certain logic. But not quite there, I fear.
- Well, if not primary it must be secondary. Ha! Ha!
- ‘Secondary data’. Perfect. Next item please.”
- “Next item please.
- ‘Related communications data’. A bit ticklish, this one.
- What seems to be the problem?
- We carried over ‘Related communications data’ from RIPA, but built on it.
- By built on, you mean expanded?
- Yes.
- How much did you build on it?
- Quite a lot. In RIPA related communications data was a subset of communications data.
- So we would expect. A qualifier such as ‘related’ should limit the scope of the main defined term.
- Yes. But in the draft Bill we ended up with a superset, not a subset.
- You mean broader than communications data?
- Yes.
- So related communications data now includes data that is not communications data?
- Yes.
- This could be serious. We had enough trouble with ‘Data includes any information that is not data’.
- Sorry about that.
- We had better find a new name.
- We’ve had an idea. We have focused on promoting the new culture of clarity, openness and transparency.
- I see. What have you come up with?
- Well, this data is revealing about people’s daily lives. ‘Lifestyle information’ would sum it up nicely.
- This data is collected by GCHQ isn’t it?
- Yes indeed. It can be more useful than content. And the Bill imposes fewer controls than for content on how they use it.
- I see. I wonder if ‘Lifestyle information’ is quite what we are looking for.
- But clarity, openness, transparency….
- Of course. But this is legislation, not a press release. Doesn’t this data include machine communications? Not much life there.
- Something a bit more neutral, then?
- Perhaps. Suggestions anyone?
- The Intelligence and Security Committee said that information associated with communications was the primary value of bulk interception. How about ‘primary data’?
- Pleasingly abstract, has a certain logic. But not quite there, I fear.
- Well, if not primary it must be secondary. Ha! Ha!
- ‘Secondary data’. Perfect. Next item please.”
