Investigatory Powers Bill: why is Snooper's Charter so contentious?
Security services want to modernise surveillance legislation, but critics have huge privacy concerns
Home Secretary Theresa May will today publish the new Investigatory Powers Bill, a draft bill that has been dubbed the "snooper's charter Mark III". It is the latest in a series of attempts to modernise surveillance legislation to reflect the growth in online communication. Prime Minister David Cameron has said it is one of the most important pieces of legislation of this parliament.
Why is it needed?
Security services claim the current legislation is no longer fit for purpose and that communication between terrorists, which increasingly occurs online, has become difficult to monitor, putting the country at risk. Surveillance revelations by the US whistle-blower Edward Snowden, they argue, have pushed terrorist communication further underground. The act would also bring the patchwork of existing legislation under one umbrella for the first time.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Why is it contentious?
Powers to intercept people's electronic communications has prompted huge concerns over privacy. "The bill will enshrine the security services' licence to hack, bug and burgle their way across the web," claims The Guardian.
The bill looks likely to include a requirement for internet companies to retain data on domain addresses for 12 months, allowing authorities to trace the websites a suspect has visited – but not a full browsing history of pages or content unless a warrant is authorised.
The oversight and authorisation of surveillance has also come under much scrutiny. Last year, the home secretary, foreign secretary and Northern Ireland secretary signed 2,700 warrants for more intrusive spying by MI5, MI6, GCHQ and law enforcement agencies, a task that some critics believe should fall to independent judges not politicians. According to The Times, the new draft surveillance laws will allow a panel of specially trained judges to review the national security warrants and overrule the judgments of senior ministers if necessary. The new judicial commission will decide whether the warrants – for surveillance such as tapping phones or hacking the computers of suspects – are necessary and proportionate under the law. The BBC says the government is also promising other "strict safeguards", including a ban on councils accessing people's internet records and a new offence of misuse of the data.
Haven't we been through this before?
The home secretary tried to secure similar powers in the last parliament, but they were blocked by the Liberal Democrats. An emergency Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act was forced through successfully last year, but it was agreed that this should be replaced by fully scrutinised legislation in 2016.
Hasn't May 'backed down' over some parts of the bill?
May has tried to distance the new proposals from the original 2012 Investigatory Powers Bill and yesterday confirmed that some of the more contentious powers due to be included have been dropped. She has promised "world-leading oversight arrangements" within the bill and said it would not include powers to restrict encryption, as had been previously expected. But critics have dismissed this as political spin. The Home Office is "once again offering 'concessions' concerning things it was never likely to do", said the Guardian. This "noise" allows for "convenient silence about the 500,000-plus times a year that communications data, such as call records, is tapped without any warrant at all", says the newspaper.
Will the proposals go through?
The home secretary is likely to face staunch opposition, although the challenges will largely depend on what is revealed in the bill today. For example, the shadow home secretary Andy Burnham has said there is "broad acceptance" that new powers are needed, but stressed that judges should "have the final say" on the most intrusive warrants. The Liberal Democrats have also threatened to use the House of Lords to block the bill if it goes "too far". Barrister David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism laws, suggested this morning that there are still more revelations to come when the bill is announced this afternoon.
After failing to get the original 'Snooper's Charter' through, May's team will avoid making any mistakes this time around, suggests legal commentator David Allen Green. Writing in the Financial Times, he says: "One would not be surprised if more planning by senior officials has gone into getting this bill through than into any one anti-terrorism exercise in the last few months."
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
Shahnaz Habib's 6 favorite books that explore different cultures
Feature The essayist and translator recommends works by Vivek Shanbhag, Adania Shibli, and more
By The Week US Published
-
'Why is the expansion of individual autonomy necessarily always good?'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
Will the murder of a health insurance CEO cause an industry reckoning?
Today's Big Question UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was shot and killed in what police believe was a targeted attack
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
John Prescott: was he Labour's last link to the working class?
Today's Big Quesiton 'A total one-off': tributes have poured in for the former deputy PM and trade unionist
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Last hopes for justice for UK's nuclear test veterans
Under the Radar Thousands of ex-service personnel say their lives have been blighted by aggressive cancers and genetic mutations
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Will Donald Trump wreck the Brexit deal?
Today's Big Question President-elect's victory could help UK's reset with the EU, but a free-trade agreement with the US to dodge his threatened tariffs could hinder it
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
What is the next Tory leader up against?
Today's Big Question Kemi Badenoch or Robert Jenrick will have to unify warring factions and win back disillusioned voters – without alienating the centre ground
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
What is Lammy hoping to achieve in China?
Today's Big Question Foreign secretary heads to Beijing as Labour seeks cooperation on global challenges and courts opportunities for trade and investment
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Is Britain about to 'boil over'?
Today's Big Question A message shared across far-right groups listed more than 30 potential targets for violence in the UK today
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
UK's Starmer slams 'far-right thuggery' at riots
Speed Read The anti-immigrant violence was spurred by false rumors that the suspect in the Southport knife attack was an immigrant
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
How could J.D. Vance impact the special relationship?
Today's Big Question Trump's hawkish pick for VP said UK is the first 'truly Islamist country' with a nuclear weapon
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published