Every piece of surveillance legislation proposed by government in the last generation has inevitably been "crucial" to stop terrorists, peadophiles and criminal masterminds who haunt the public consciousness. The new fear is that the internet is giving those with malicious intent a new tool to disrupt – or end – the lives of the law-abiding. So nearly every year we see another piece of draconian legislation aimed at taking control of the internet. In 2012, we had the draft Communications Data Bill (or Snooper’s Charter), the most draconian piece of surveillance legislation ever proposed in a democracy. In the summer of 2014, the DRIPA Act was shoved through parliament in 48 hours. It was so illiberal our courts have ruled it breaches the law.
Now, Theresa May strikes a different tone. May now believes in new safeguards to protect our privacy, including judicial authorisation of surveillance requests, a key demand of the “civil liberties lobby” who have gone from being maligned to praised in the House of Commons. Oversight of our intelligence agencies – woefully lacking in the past – will be improved with a strengthened commissioner. Yet, as ever, the devil will be in the detail of this legislation. The government still hasn’t weaned itself off collecting our most private data, it’s this battle that will determine how we remember this Bill.
The Government wants to enhance the bulk collection and interception of data to keep us safe. The truth is that terrorists have known for some time that the internet is a bad way to communicate. Bin Laden’s compound had no internet connection, he wrote his emails in advance and his associates used internet cafes to send them. The killer of Lee Rigby, Michael Adebowale, was highly security-conscious - as a parliamentary report put it “MI5 noted that Adebolajo was a “difficult [suspect] to investigate due to his security-consciousness”. He would use pay phones rather than smart phones and barely use electronic communications. The fact is, criminals are already on the Dark Net using highly encrypted communications tools far beyond the reach of our government and police, as brilliantly described by Jamie Bartlett. These tools are also used by dissidents in authoritarian states to hide from the state and protect their free speech and their lives. The Investigatory Powers Bill can’t stop this. The technology is too complex, evolving too quickly, and is distributed among a network of internet activists who will do anything to protect human rights activists working in dangerous places.
Politicians don’t understand this. They just don’t get that legions of coders are building technologies to make private communications easier and cheaper. So the parliamentary debate felt like shadow boxing. MPs all agreed new powers were needed, but none understood that the powers they will be signing into law will not be particularly effective in tracking terrorists, but will be good at capturing the data of law-abiding citizens. So every Briton’s internet history will be logged to prevent crime, but crime bosses and terrorists using the Dark Net can’t be traced. The real concern is that this data, alongside the bulk retention of data, will not be used to prosecute serious crimes, but petty misdemeanors. Protesters in breach of the peace, whistleblowers breaking the Official Secrets Act or school catchment area cheats. The police will have the data to drag up minor crimes 12 months ago to prosecute people they wish to lock away. Go ahead, you may say, but as we saw with the outrageous use of the previous RIPA Act by local councils to prosecute people for low level nuisance, the potential for abuse is huge.
Campaign groups like Don’t Spy On Us called for comprehensive legislation to reform the law, wanted judicial authorisation for surveillance requests, improved oversight, and no return for the “Snooper’s Charter”. Having won all these concessions, it would be churlish to say the least, to not thank the Home Secretary for listening. There’s some good in this Bill – in particular the double-lock to ensure democratically elected politicians and our independent judiciary sign off on all surveillance warrants.
Yet, big questions remain. Is the bulk collection of data lawful, will it be effective and does it offer value for money at a time of police cuts? Is Britain really going to become the first major democracy to log every website its citizens visit? Is this legislation going to enable the mass intercept of all our communications and allow the hacking of our personal devices? Parliament said little on this today, and the response from the Labour frontbench was woeful. We cannot rely on technology to solve complex human problems, we need human intelligence to fight crime. In the choice between police and intelligence officers and the bloated surveillance technology pushed by US corporates, the choice should be clear. The best safeguard of our liberty is eternal vigilance, the same is true for our security.
Mike Harris is CEO of 89up and advises the Don't Spy On Us campaign
