Investigatory Powers Bill: why is Snooper's Charter so contentious?

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.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

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.

Sign up

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."