Despite strongly opposing a similar measure when the then Labour government introduced it in 2009, the Conservatives and Liberals who rule Britain today have now proposed their snooper’s charter. The Communications Data Bill has provoked fierce criticism across the political spectrum. Under it, the intelligence services and police will have access, without warrants, to all text messages, phone calls, emails, and internet connections. Internet users, visitors to social networking sites, and telephone users will all be subject to interception or supervision, or both, any or all of the time. Officials will be able to seek court injunctions against British internet and telephone companies which fail to comply, and the government has gone even further than Labour by planning to pay overseas-based firms like Facebook and Twitter to hand over information on web and mobile phone use.
The Bill, however, is riddled with problems. Even an official impact assessment states that significant risks to privacy are involved. Secondly, it has not been clarified what additional threat needs to be addressed, not least because the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 already gives the police and other bodies vast powers; they have made over 550,000 interception requests a year. The 2000 Act, furthermore, is so comprehensive that the courts have had to stop municipal bodies from engaging in total surveillance. Thirdly, British ministers now routinely evade parliamentary scrutiny by using delegated powers to make legislation of primary importance, and can create even more repressive powers after the law is on the statute books. Judicial review is also time-barred, and the British judiciary is usually reluctant to oppose the executive when the latter cites national security. In addition, the proposed law only calls for voluntary cooperation by non-U.K. firms, but the £6 billion the new policy could cost the cash-strapped U.K. government dwarfs the sums respectively spent even by China and Qadhafi’s Libya on IT surveillance. Above all, the law could be useless, as those determined to evade detection could use proxy servers or fake IDs. The British upper chamber, the House of Lords, severely criticised such measures in 2009, but without a major parliamentary rebellion the plan will become law. There could be few better examples of the increasing grip of the security services on the executive. The presumption that all human beings are potentially suspect is tantamount to governance by a doctrine of Original Sin.
Keywords: Communications Data Bill, UK surveillance, right to privacy
"While the Anglo-Americans pontificate pompously to the rest of the world on freedom of
expression, transparency, democracy, claiming that they are the very citadel of liberty and
equality, their actions speak louder than words."
And they try to impose their will on poorer nations by politics, economic sanctions, military
warfare, united nations, world bank, and corrupt local politicians who wag the tail for every
pat by the human rights violators and infringers. The only exception, surprisingly, appears to
be China, but they too might catch up to the 'global standards'.
According to the tenets of common law, at least originally, even an accused or a suspect is
not a criminal until and unless the charges are established by verifiable evidence. To assume
that all peoople are a suscpect is write in law that everyone is a criminal. And that will do
nothing but repeat the witch hunts of the past.
There is no need for the new law to intercept & supervise all personal
activities on the grounds of national security,As said in the article
the act of 2000 gives these Agencies all the required powers.
The British appear to be excellent students of Indira Gandhi Guruji!!
While the Anglo-Americans pontificate pompously to the rest of the world on freedom of expression, transparency, democracy, claiming that they are the very citadel of liberty and equality, their actions speak louder than words.
Slowly but steadily the UK authorities are clawing into personal liberties of it's people. The
right-wing press aids & abets in this & in a very foreseeable future we will have a
dictatorship of the ruling mafia running the mother of all parliaments. Pity really, for a great
country is going to the dogs because the leaders are incapable of managing it's decline!
I don't know why any bill passed in the parliament of an insignificant country is of the slightest important - apart from the fact that we should not be making similar gargantuan blunders by passing similar bills. The UK and most Western countries carry out excessive surveillance. Overreach by law enforcing authorities is rampant, but cover-ups take place more often than not. Once a flawed bill is passed, it sets up a minefield of legislation which collectively lowers the threshold for committing an offense. Spend a few years in the UK, and you'll know what I'm talking about.
Your editorials are known for the academic excellence they exude. The last sentence in the write-up really encapsulates a nobler and a finer thought. The Communications Data Bill the United Kingdom purports to make law signals a serious and significant message. It warns us of the days George Orewell has predicted. The Big Brother starts watching you!
"At the end of the whole day of working with people you want some
privacy."
A welcome bill; such a bill should be adopted by all nations - it will definitely help in curbing terrorism.
Please Email the Editor