Those following the progress of the Communications Data Bill have had a busy week. It started with media stories of Ben Hammersley, a Number 10 technology advisor warning of “disastrous consequences” should what he thought he knew of the Bill be passed. Then, reports emerged that various civil liberties groups had complained that they had not been properly consulted on any revised proposals, and that a group of 10 leading academics had written to the Prime Minister urging the Government to abandon the Bill and to work with the technical community and the police to devise an another approach which meets the needs of the law enforcement community.
The week continued with stories of various Coalition MPs
(including Rt Hon David Davies MP, Nick de Bois MP, Dr Julian Huppert MP and Dominic Raab MP) expressing their opposition to what they knew of the proposals, and it
culminated with the Deputy Prime Minister making some broad policy statements
in his weekly radio programme on LBC Radio on Thursday, and subsequently more
detailed comments in an article in today’s Daily Telegraph.
Yesterday afternoon, the Deputy Prime Minister also found
the time to write to me (and thousands of others) to explain that he would not
be supporting proposals to keep records of every website I visit and details of
who I communicate with on social media sites. But, he was careful to point out
that: “There is always a careful balance to strike between security and
individual liberty and I have always agreed that we must help our law
enforcement agencies keep up with the challenge of policing in the internet age
– like the technical issue of what to do when the challenge of policing in the
internet age – like the technical issue of what to do when there are more
mobile devices with not enough IP addresses to go round.”
A close reading of today’s article reveals that while the
Deputy Prime Minister has concerns about some aspects of the Government’s
proposals, he is not suggesting that nothing should be done. Indeed, there is
plenty that could be done that politicians from all parties would probably welcome,
as would (most of) the civil society groups, and the public at large.
So, while there is disagreement on the need to store
web logs, for example, there appears to be little significant disagreement on
other aspects of the Government’s proposals, such as the need to address the problem
of identifying devices that share IP
addresses; to review which public authority investigators should be able to access communications data; and for what purposes; to acknowledge the important role that specially
trained “Single Point of Contact” officers play in the data acquisition
process; to review the important role that the Interception of Communications
Commissioner and the Information Commissioner should play in ensuring that the safeguards against
abuse are adequate; and to consider the desirability of new criminal offences
for misuse of communications data.
Britain is not the only country to face the need to develop legislation
in this sensitive area. But, it is one of the first to be open about the
challenges that internet communications present to the law enforcement community. Parliaments in Australia, Canada and America (to
name but a few) are following this British debate very closely. What is agreed here could well be introduced over there.
Something needs to be done. And soon. So, I very much hope
that the Government shortly places before Parliament a Bill that deals with the
(relatively) non-controversial elements of its proposals, while at the same
time entering into a more intensive dialogue with representatives from industry and civil
society to achieve what the Deputy Prime Minister terms “a wider constellation
of support” in respect of the elements that evidently do require more debate.
Sources:
http://order-order.com/2013/04/25/listen-clegg-kills-snoopers-charter
.
Posts
