Skip to main content

Snooping Bill raised from the dead

Even after it was killed this spring, the government did not give up on handing itself more power to spy on us, says JIM JEPPS

FOR THE last 20 years we’ve seen consistent attempts to increase the powers of the state against its citizens. 

Not a month goes by when we haven’t been told that a pressing crisis means we must lock people up without charge, put people on trial in secret, introduce “terror” legislation that then inevitably gets used in all kinds of non-terror situations and constant justifications for giving the secret services the ability to pry into pretty much anything they like.

Dark times are full of shadows and our fears of the unknown are used against us to justify every new law, every illegal extradition, every police shooting.

When the “Snooping Bill” (officially named the Data Communications Bill) got bogged down in the parliamentary mud recently it did not signal an end to this constant pushing at the edges of our civil liberties — it just meant they would come back for a second go. 

Now the new “emergency” Data Retention and Investigation Powers Bill deals with pretty much exactly the same issues, but all to be signed, sealed and delivered in just one week with the backing of all three main parties.

Announcing the Bill, David Cameron said: “We face real and credible threats to our security from serious and organised crime, from the activity of paedophiles, from the collapse of Syria, the growth of Isis in Iraq and al-Shabab in east Africa. 

“I am simply not prepared to be a prime minister who has to address the people after a terrorist incident and explain that I could have done more to prevent it.”

Despite the fact that no-one on that list of perpetrators is likely to commit a terrorist act in Britain — no matter what else they may get up to — this is reminiscent of the worst elements of the Blair years when bogey men were paraded before us to justify out-of-proportion legislation whose use will sprawl far more widely than keeping tabs on al-Shabab.

There is no emergency that justifies rushing this legislation through. This is, in fact, a response to the European Court of Justice which ruled that the government’s current approach is illegal under human rights legislation. The only real threat is to the prestige of the government. 

We’ve seen this all before. Edward Snowden has said of the Bill: “The NSA [the US National Security Agency] could have written this draft... They passed it under the same sort of emergency justification. They said we would be at risk.”

The proposals deal with companies at home and abroad that provide telephone and internet connections to British customers. It obliges those companies to retain the “communications data” of their users. 

This includes who we’re ringing and when, as well as boosting the powers of “legal intercept” — listening in on the calls and reading the emails of those on watch lists.

More worrying still is that the Data Retention and Investigation Powers Bill is designed to “clarify” the law on bugging phones by police and security services because providers were turning down requests. 

So while Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg was at pains to reassure his liberal supporters (if any remain) that this Bill is simply to retain powers the authorities already have, its remit is explicitly about increasing the ease with which we can be bugged by breaking down the resistance of communications companies. Perhaps this is just part of Clegg’s campaign for his right to be forgotten by future generations.

In April a group of academics voiced concerns at the now sunk Data Communications Bill: “This crosses a line no democratic country has yet crossed, paying private companies to record what their customers are doing solely for the purposes of the state.” 

Yet now we’re on rewind with the new surprise Bill backed by the three main parties. 

As David Davis MP said in the Daily Mail: “Don’t be persuaded by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s reassurances that ‘this is about maintaining what we already do rather than extending it.’ 

“This is the man who insisted on including in the coalition agreement the promise that ‘we will end the storage of internet and email records without good reason.’ So what happened to that promise?

“The arguments marshalled are near-identical to those rejected by the committee of the Lords and Commons that reviewed the government’s proposed ‘snoopers’ charter,’ and which led to that being thrown out.”

Lib Dem support was apparently bought with a commitment to an annual “transparency report” — but surely they realise that its utility will entirely rely on how transparent the transparency report is? 

Clegg’s either being incredibly naive or is simply looking for a bone to throw his supporters. Take your pick.

It’s no particular surprise that Labour is on board with this kind of authoritarian legislation. It’s simply a continuation of their “War on Terror” agenda, but the fact that all three mainstream parties are whipping in favour of the Bill speaks volumes for how corrupted our democratic system has become.

If you can’t get your new laws through when subjected to the proper processes, ditch the scrutiny and rush them through in a week without proper debate. 

For any legislation to be rushed out in this way, let alone significant legislation, demonstrates how damaging the three-party consensus has been — because that consensus certainly does not exist in the country.

The European Court of Justice has already ruled that the current rules are illegal under human rights law. 

It said that legislation must provide exceptions for people whose communications must be confidential, restrict access to defined, serious crimes that are a threat to public security, limit access to that which is strictly necessary — but this law is about retaining all of our data, without exception.

It also ruled that the government keep retention periods as low as possible and that data should be destroyed when no longer needed — this legislation wants data to be held permanently.

This Bill is going to go through but that doesn’t mean we have to accept it. This is a fight that needs to go on because, as Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty points out, “it seems that all three party leaders have done a deal in private. No privacy for us and no scrutiny for them.”

OWNED BY OUR READERS

We're a reader-owned co-operative, which means you can become part of the paper too by buying shares in the People’s Press Printing Society.

 

 

Become a supporter

Fighting fund

You've Raised:£ 13,288
We need:£ 4,712
3 Days remaining
Donate today