The country was quite rightly up in arms over the News of the World’s devious phone tapping exploits.
And now a local newspaper is equally indignant after discovering that Suffolk’s most senior detective obtained the private mobile phone records of a 
journalist without his consent in a bid to discover who he had been speaking to.
Journalists are fiercely protective of their source of information, they risk going to prison rather than revealing his or her source, their reputation would be lost if they disclosed that valuable information given on the basis of trust and confidentiality.
Now it seems that if the police want to check out who a journalist has been speaking to on their mobile phone, then they can just go ahead and obtain the records without their consent.
This has naturally infuriated the editor of the East Anglian Daily Times, who has requested a full explanation from Suffolk’s Chief Constable. Reporter Mark Bulstrode only discovered his phone records had been obtained after making a request under the Data Protection Act.
Police have defended their action saying there was concern that the disclosure of information could have jeopardised an investigation into a serious crime, potentially resulting in an offender evading justice.
They obtained the phone records after the journalist approached the force with information about the reopening of an historic investigation. Despite the EADT agreeing not to run anything on the inquiry because of its sensitive nature, police wanted to know how they had found out about the case – so obtained the phone records.
However, it brought condemnation from Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, (my former editor at the Cambridge Evening News where he was fondly known as Captain Bob), who described it as “outrageous” and said he would be raising the matter with the Government. Shouldn’t there be a code of conduct which applies to this kind of action?
Local MPs are also disturbed by what happened. South Suffolk MP Tim Yeo said:
“I have never regarded mobile phone records as being especially secure – having said that I think the police would have to show good reason why they should take this kind of action.â€?
Chris Mole, Labour MP for Ipswich, said:
“It is not acceptable for them to go trawling through records on a fishing expedition without clear evidence.”
Reporters are bound to speak to their sources by mobile phone, but how safe is their source going to feel knowing that police can check up on the reporter’s phone records in this way? I wonder how commonplace this is, and whether a reporter’s emails are safe too from intrusive eyes, thanks to the skill of hackers. Does the digital age mean journalists can no longer keep anything secret?
Yes, there should be a code of conduct.Journalists often expose crime and government cover-ups so the police should not just be able to go through their phone records like this.
This is also controversial in America, where attempts are being made to slow the sale of cell phone records. See this link to a January 2006 story about Missouri’s effort to shut down locatecell.com. It wasn’t just cops who were buying: There were suspicious spouses, or employers worried about an employee’s defection, or criminals worried that one of their own may be speaking to the authorities on the side….
Haven’t researched it for awhile. Federal legislation was proposed, but I do not know its status.
But if records are made — and they are, for billing (many people here get records of each call made or received with their monthly statement) — they can be available to anyone who cares to look closely enough. Cell phone records are helpful when — for example — the driver of a car denies being on the phone at the time of the collision — and the records can show otherwise.
Wasn’t it the head of Oracle — Larry Ellison? — who said there is no longer any such thing as privacy?
I just couldn’t make my mind up on this one. I’ve bounced between civil rights and privacy to criminal activity. It’s a slippery slope.
Part of me thinks that the ends justify the means in terms of criminality, but I just don’t trust the powers that be to utilise this in the spirit it would be intended.
Like Crum posted it does have it’s uses (mobile phones). But d’ya know what Elle, where turning into such a big brother state that I’d have to side with you on this one. And, when it’s all said and done you make valid points about journalists. The paper didn’t run with the story at the end of day. So why did the police take it one step further?
It is fraught, this one, as Teri says, but you’re probably right on this.
Google for section 22 notice of the RIPA Act 2000. It allows the police to request phone records without a warrant.
Lots of geeks, including me, did quite a lot of letter writing at the time about it. But the BBC barely covered it, and parliament didn’t understand it (the Lords did better).
new laws (though i do not like most of them.. Still I feel the need to point out that most of them are a direct result of people having abused their rights and privileges..
Britains answer to the patriot act I think.
There should be a clear need for the police to intrude into any private records.
If information is so easily obtained now how bad will things be when we have all our records stored on the government data base and accessable by any civil servant.
Tejus…
“Still I feel the need to point out that most of them are a direct result of people having abused their rights and privileges..”
Please tell me what was wrong with the old system of going to a judge to get a warrant to search such records?
You are right Elle, journalists should be provided with the freedom and privacy to carry out their investigations and report with out any fear.
Even incidents of phone tapping also occur with ministers and beurocrats in India.
well these terrorist groups are well connected (though the cops always search the wrong people I must add) and by the time taken to a warrant is issued they often hear about it and move on.. so it is to spped up justice ( but that the incompetent labour never do mete out justice is another issue..)
I am not surprised, its the age old question who polices the police- I never thought I would see this happen to this country.
This incident will only alienate police/press releations at a time when they need to work together on solving the murder of Gemma Adams, as well as the disappearance of prostitute Tania Nichol, especially if it turns out to be another Ripper case.
I think the real issue here is the fact that this was an investigation into possible criminal activity – ie a police officer disclosing details of an investigation possibly for reward. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act this would be allowed. The journalist was never under investigation and any “collateral intrusion” into his private life will have been considered. I can only imagine it must have been a serious leak and possibly happened following other suspected leaks, for a RIPA to be authorised. I have enough trouble getting a RIPA authorised in the course of an ordinary investigation into harassment.
As for who polices the police: er… anyone heard of the IPCC, Media, Home Office, the Public, Freedom of Information Act…
Just had a thought: this article particularly scares police bloggers who have been chatting with publishers/journalists. See my blog tomorrow for some thoughts on this.
The journalist Mark Bulstrode and the East Anglian Daily Times newspaper should write to
the relevant RIPA Commissioner to get him to investigate the proportionality of the Communications Traffic Data request(s):
Rt. Hon. Sir Paul Kennedy,
The Interception of Communications Commissioner,
c/o PO Box 33220,
London,
SW1H 9ZQ
[…] Government to be quizzed over journalist’s phone records […]