UK online surveillance laws 'undemocratic'

[super jumbe]

Clear new laws are needed to cover security services' powers to monitor online activity, the UK's terror watchdog has said.

David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, described the current set-up as "undemocratic", likening it to an "old car that has been on the road for 15 years and has been patched up several times".

Ministers want new laws to help police and agencies monitor online threats.

But critics have dubbed government proposals a "snoopers' charter", warning the plans will infringe privacy.

Home Secretary Theresa May said the report provided a firm basis for consultation on the new legislation which would come in the autumn.

Mr Anderson's report, called A Question Of Trust, was commissioned as part of the government's plans to modernise what types of activity security agencies can capture in their pursuit of criminals and terrorists.

The current legislation pre-dates most internet-led communications such as apps and social media.

The report recommends that:

Security and intelligence agencies should have powers to carry out "bulk collection" of intercepted material but there must be "strict additional safeguards".

Judges should authorise requests to intercept communications, limiting the home
secretary's current role in deciding which suspects are so monitored.

Proposed "snoopers' charter" powers must be subjected to "rigorous assessment" of whether they would be legal or effective.

The definition of communications data should be "reviewed, clarified and brought up to date".

Investigatory powers explained

Communications data: The information that reveals who was in contact with whom and when, but not the actual content. Agencies already have some of these powers, such as
to gather logs of phone calls or emails.

Intercepted communications: The actual content of the message, such as a secret recording of a phone call or capturing the actual words in an email. Agencies need ministerial authorisation to gather this information.

New communications data powers: The government wants agencies to be able to gather any type of online communication if they need it to combat serious crime or terrorism.

And Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said Labour had backed the Anderson review because it had already concluded current laws were no longer fit for purpose.

"Technology has moved on. But neither the law nor the oversight have," she said. "Reforms are needed. We need to get them right. In a democracy we need to protect both our liberty and our security."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33092894

[rds60h]

I can understand the concerns of "Snooper's Charter" style surveillance legislation, but I also understand the crucial need for terrorist surveillance.
So my concern wouldn't be the legislation but the way the surveillance could be abused for other reasons.

[GastonJ]

Security and intelligence agencies should have powers to carry out "bulk collection" of intercepted material but there must be "strict additional safeguards".

They already do, and have done for a very long time. Though usually they get the US to do this for them, and we bulk collect data for the US. It gets around a lot of legal issues doing it that way. The UK are just wanting to make it legal, while in the US the government would not get away with making it legal.

It would appear that everyone in the UK is a suspect and all information, relevant or not, is collected and can be searched until something is found - doesn't matter what it is as long as it proves a law has been broken. The end justifies the means. It's the lazy way, collect all the information you can and then look for those that are guilty, instead of identifying those that are suspect and then intercept their communications. However it ups the crime detection rate for those that admit speeding on a motorway etc in an email or in a phone call. You'll likely find that any law officer cannot ignore someone breaking the law, so if they see/hear it, they'll take action. Yeah I've heard the "only those with something to hide have something to fear" often quoted phrase.

Time to start encrypting everything, or saying nothing. *shrug*

When the Nazis came for the communists,I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,I did not speak out;I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.

Martin Niem?ller

I do wonder, with the word terrorist being thrown about how they have identified so few so far when the resources are concentrated on such a small group of people. When they expand that to collecting information from up to 60 million people where will they get the resources from, or will they be privatising the sifting of the data/information, perhaps awarding the contract to a third party, say the NSA for instance? I would also suspect that the government will go further than the measures highlighted in David Andersons report. We all know that there are so few breaches of the data protection act and the like don't we, that and there will be safeguards in place

[Meat-Head]

Great why do the goverment want to listen to "claim free ppi, solar cells, cavity wall"

[GastonJ]

Great why do the goverment want to listen to "claim free ppi, solar cells, cavity wall"

Perhaps that if you do manage to get some of your own money back the government can reclaim tax on it as well. Never miss out on an opportunity to make some revenue. That would be why HMRC is one of the many LEA's that can request access to your data, even today. Obviously recovering very small amounts of tax from people with no money is serious and is covered under the terms "In the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime and for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom" since that is why HMRC are an LEA for that purpose and

• enables certain public bodies to demand that an ISP provide access to a customer's communications in secret;
• enables mass surveillance of communications in transit;
• enables certain public bodies to demand ISPs fit equipment to facilitate surveillance;
• enables certain public bodies to demand that someone hands over the keys to private information
• allows certain public bodies to monitor people's Internet activities;
• prevents the existence of interception warrants and any data collected with them from being revealed in court. <<-- This one always makes me laugh. If they can't use it in court, why have it?

Safeguards really worked well in the following didn't they

In April 2008, it became known that council officials in Poole put three children and their parents under surveillance, governed by RIPA, at home and in their daily movements to check whether they lived in a particular school catchment area. Council officials carried out directed surveillance on the family a total of 21 times.[7] This was in the context of rules which allow people who live in the school catchment area to enjoy advantages in obtaining a place at a popular school. The same council put fishermen under covert surveillance to check for the illegal harvesting of cockles and clams in ways that are regulated by RIPA.

However teh government are saying that what's in place isn't sufficient and they need more. Rather than me C&P, here's what's already available and to who

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000