Your search terms are highly sensitive and very private. They are also uniquely identifiable. Examining what you search for can reveal deeply personal facts about you, such as your online reading habits, medical history, finances, sexual preferences and political affiliations.

A database of search terms, linked to subscriber accounts, would be a clear violation of the privacy rights of everyone who uses the Internet in Europe.

I’ve written to my MEPs urging them not to sign Written Declaration 29 and to withdraw their signature if they have already signed. You should do the same – it takes two minutes through writetothem.com

Here’s my letter (but, as always, please use your own words for maximum effect).

Dear Timothy Kirkhope, Edward McMillan-Scott, Andrew Brons, Godfrey Bloom, Diana Wallis and Linda McAvan,

Written declaration 29 [pdf] calls on the European Commission to extend the data retention directive (2006/24/EC) to Internet search-engines. If this were to happen all private searches done on Google et al would be monitored. I feel this would be an intolerable violation of article 8 ECHR privacy rights.

Written declaration 29 is being marketed within the European Parliament by using an emotionally-loaded picture of a child and talking about the need to set up an ”early warning system” to combat child abuse. Laudable though that aim is, as a technical expert it’s my opinion that these measures cannot achieve it, and the marketing is therefore misleading. Some MEPs have already said they feel they have been misled into signing the declaration because of the way in which it was presented to them.

If the declaration is adopted the names of the signatories will be made public.

If you have signed written declaration 29 and feel you have been misled I urge you to withdraw your signature.

Christian Engström MEP has published more information on his website.

British civil liberties have been dismantled systematically since 2001. The National Identity Register, biometric passports, the NHS spine, Contactpoint and the Vetting and Barring Scheme are just a few of the most egregious privacy invasions we have suffered.

Our every move is watched with suspicion by the authorities. ANPR systems record every journey we make. Video and audio Surveillance Systems (SS) watch us in every public space and many private ones too. Thousands of public bodies abuse their RIP Act powers to spy on us for trivial reasons. The police can stop us and search us arbitrarily, and they keep “pre-crime” databases on the innocent. Our private communications are monitored, analysed and recorded both by the Government and private companies.

Yet often MPs want one rule for us and another for them. The children of MPs can be “shielded” on ContactPoint to protect their privacy – but ours can’t. Very few MPs have an ID card even though ministers have been doing everything in their power to coerce the public into “volunteering” for them. Many MPs voted to exempt themselves from the Freedom of Information Act, to protect their “privacy”, whilst passing laws that erode ours.

When it comes to liberty in Britain today, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. This hypocrisy has to end and the systematic assault on our civil liberties must be reversed.

The Power2010 campaign is conducting a letter writing campaign asking Prospective Parliamentary Candidates to:

…commit that, if you are elected, you will vote to repeal the Identity Cards Act 2006 and will defend our privacy as fiercely as you would defend your own and that of your family.

The above reproduces what I sent to Sheffield Central PPCs. You can take part in the campaign here.

I couldn’t have done much more to attract his attention.

In response I have received a single form-letter from a Government department, which restated the policy to which I was objecting without addressing any of my points, accompanied by a covering letter from Mr. Caborn’s office addressed “Dear constituent.” My follow-up letters have thus far failed to elicit an acknowledgement let alone a reply.

When the day came for my issue to be debated in the House of Commons fewer than 5% of MPs bothered to turn up. Richard Caborn was not among them.

Politicians who want to understand why voter apathy is so high should begin by considering how they treat their constituents.

Change is coming to Sheffield Central as Richard Caborn is retiring at the General Election – but will it be change for the better? I have two questions for the Prospective Parlimaentary Candidates competing to replace him:

If you are elected, will you promise to:

1. Act in the interests of your constituents first and your party second?
2. Engage with your constituents whether or not you agree with them?

Please answer in the comments or by email (all responses will be published here). If you choose not to respond then I guess that answers my second question regardless…

I am writing to you in your capacity as Leader of the House of Commons. My MP Richard Caborn may have made representations to you already on my behalf however I wanted to emphasise how important this matter is to me.

Please ensure the Digital Economy Bill benefits from the full scrutiny of all our elected representatives in the House of Commons. It should receive a second reading, a committee stage, a third reading and a report stage. If necessary, the passage of clauses 11-18 in particular should be delayed until after the general election, when there will be sufficient time to address line-by-line their many shortcomings.

You will be tempted to ignore this letter because you suspect it’s part of a throw-away campaign orchestrated by partial interests. Not only would such suspicion be unfounded, to succumb to it would be to ignore real anger and frustration at the way this issue is being handled, felt by the very people charged with building the UK Digital Economy: our technical experts. A search on Twitter for the hashtag #debill will confirm the outrage being expressed by net-savvy people all over the UK.

You will be told the measures in the Bill are uncontroversial and have cross-party support however more than 12,000 people have written to their MPs to protest them in the last week alone. I’m sure you will have received some of these letters personally.

You will be told the Bill is essential to protect our creative industries – by deep-pocketed lobbyists working for those industries, who have themselves drafted some of the most contentious clauses of this Bill. Lord Whitty said during the Third Reading debate in the house of Lords, “I regret to say that during the course of our consideration of the Bill, we have seen one of the worst examples in my memory of the political parties being captured by a producer interest. That applies not only to the Government and the bringing forward of the Bill, but to the opposition Front Benches as well.”

Given the current furore over lobbyist influence this Bill could prove to be political dynamite!

Lastly, and most frustratingly of all, you will be told this Bill will reduce copyright infringement on the Internet. Nothing could be further from the truth. Encryption services such as IPredator and HideMyAss, and products like the Pogoplug, rendered this legislation ineffective before it was even drafted. If you don’t believe me, consult an independent technical expert, or ask for the advice of the security services.

I support the right of creative people to make a living from their art. I do not condone copyright infringement. This is not about getting something for nothing – it’s about defending democracy, justice and human rights.

If you feel for political reasons that a Digital Economy Bill *must* pass into law during this Parliament, please remove clauses 11-18 of the present draft, and offer to bring them back for proper scrutiny in a new Bill after the election.

Thank you

Write your own letter to Harriet here: http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/HarrietHarman
Come to a protest against the Bill in London or Sheffield on the evening of 24 March.

I have put fingers to keyboard once again, therefore, resulting in the following missive to the noble Lords who came up with the idea.

Dear Lord Howard of Rising (CON) and Lord Clement Jones (LD)

I am alarmed by your proposed Amendment 120a to the Digital Economy Bill and would like to explain why I think you should abandon it.

I have followed closely the passage of the Bill through Parliament and have written to both my MP and the members of the Lords Science and Technology Committee to express my views on the proposals to tackle copyright infringement in particular.

I am proud of the way opposition members of the House of Lords, such as yourself, have tried to hold the Government to account on issues such as disconnection without trial; defences and access to justice for those accused; excessive Ministerial powers to change copyright law through secondary legislation; and protection for public Internet-access providers such as libraries, universities and private businesses.

I feel I must protest anew the inclusion of measures such as Clause 11 and Amendment 120a that give the Government the ability to censor the Internet.

There are two problems with such proposals:

1) They will not have the desired effect on copyright infringement.

If you seek independent expert advice you will discover that dedicated infringers can use technologies such as anonymous proxies, virtual private networks and onion-routing to get around any blocking mechanism employed by ISPs. These tools are widespread in other countries that censor the Internet, such as China, Iran and Australia.

2) State censorship is wrong in principle.

In the wake of the expenses scandal I need hardly remind you that sometimes people publish information the state would rather they didn’t. The proposed measures would give the Government the ability to force ISPs to block any content it doesn’t like. This would be an unprecedented attack on individual liberty, press freedom and freedom of expression.

I implore you to abandon Amendment 120a and to vote down Clause 11.

If you’ve read this far you’re obviously as concerned as I am about Amendment 120a. Please write to Conservative Lord Howard of Rising and Lib Dem Lord Clement Jones and tell them in your own words what you think about their proposals.