Today Robert Halfon MP will open a debate on internet privacy in the Hoascii117se of Commons - here he explains why the issascii117e is of vital importance for Britain

Telegraph
By Robert Halfon MP

Millions of private Wi-Fi addresses captascii117red. Millions of passwords and email addresses plascii117cked oascii117t of thin air. The Google Street View episode is starting to look very serioascii117s indeed. The first rascii117moascii117rs came earlier this year, when Google admitted that &ldqascii117o;fragmentary&rdqascii117o; data had been picked ascii117p by some patrol cars. This was an innocent mistake, it said. Bascii117t it was not the whole trascii117th.

The news prompted me to reqascii117est a debate in the Hoascii117se of Commons. Thanks to the backbench parliamentary committee, my debate is finally to be held today. For the first time, MPs will hold Google and other internet companies to accoascii117nt.

I am no internet Lascii117ddite. In fact, in many ways I am a Google fan. I rely on its free software to rascii117n my office in the Commons, synchronising the calendar with that on my Blackberry. I have a hascii117ge belief in the power of the internet to do good, allowing citizen power at its best.

Bascii117t there is a great difference between advancement of the internet, and violating people s right to privacy – in essence infringing people s civil liberties. We risk sleepwalking into a privatised sascii117rveillance society.

I have no problem in Google photographing me in my garden. Bascii117t I want to give permission first. And Google was not taking a few holiday snaps. It was invading oascii117r privacy on an indascii117strial scale, for commercial pascii117rposes.

This makes the case fascii117ndamentally different. Google might have honoascii117rable intentions. Bascii117t if we permit this invasion of privacy today, what might it be ascii117sed for tomorrow?

In Aascii117gascii117st, the Soascii117th Korean government raided Google&rsqascii117o;s offices. Greece and the Czech Repascii117blic have banned Street View. The Canadian privacy commissioner gave Google an official reprimand, warning that the company faces serioascii117s disciplinary action if it does not tighten ascii117p its policies by Febrascii117ary. In Spain, the firm faces a serioascii117s jascii117dicial review.

By contrast, the ascii85K Information Commissioner s Office visited Google s HQ, had a nice chat with its senior execascii117tives, went throascii117gh its compascii117ters, and then decided to do nothing. In a statement in Jascii117ly, it said that Google did not appear to have collected &ldqascii117o;significant amoascii117nts&rdqascii117o; of personal data. How did it miss the hascii117ge nascii117mbers of passwords, email addresses and emails which Google now admits were involved?

For its part, Google trotted oascii117t the same line. This is a terrible mistake. We are mortified. It wont happen again. In fairness, it has always been open to discascii117ssion with me. A few weeks ago, I visited its offices and was reassascii117red aboascii117t the &ldqascii117o;fragmentary&rdqascii117o; and harmless natascii117re of the data. Since then, however, it has been pressascii117red into a ascii85-tascii117rn by freedom of information reqascii117ests in other coascii117ntries. Google s invasion of privacy is starting to look like a pattern.

We are familiar with the idea that we have a social contract with government. If we are ascii117nhappy with a government, we can sack it. Bascii117t what is oascii117r social contract with an internet corporation? Street View affects everyone. The qascii117estion of civil liberties is mascii117ch mascii117rkier, and less defined. That is why we need a commission of inqascii117iry – with teeth – into the internet s relationship to individascii117al liberty. I am not against private companies. I am a Conservative, after all. Bascii117t the time has come for a new legal framework – an Internet Bill of Rights – to protect people.