The Government is proposing that internet service providers and mobile
companies retain extensive records of our online contacts, emails and
phone calls and make them available to the police and intelligence
services so they can trace the activities of terrorists and other
criminals.
There are already voluntary agreements under which communication service
providers allow the security services access to such data. And it is
well known that the intelligence services already monitor the telephone
conversations of terror suspects and intercept other communications
(although this information cannot presently be used as evidence in
criminal prosecutions)
would be to make it easier for the authorities to gather what they want.
Of course, there is a strong case for the state being given access to
communications records if it can prevent acts of terrorism, or help to
bring fanatics to trial. But if the police and intelligence services are
to have blanket access to our phone and email records, what is to stop
them abusing this access? The idea that we can trust in the inherent
probity of the police will, sadly, no longer wash.
The Government points to the safeguards already in place under the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which specifies that requests
for surveillance powers must come from the top level of a public body.
But this is the same Act which permitted councils to spy on parents
suspected of lying about their address.
The lesson from the abuse of the loosely drafted RIPA Act is that it is
folly to expect restraint from those in public life. If you hand over
powers without rigorous checks, those powers will be abused. And as long
as we have a Government that behaves in such a cavalier manner towards
the privacy of the individual, every innovation it brings forward to
extend its own powers will inspire deep – and justified – mistrust.
Http://www.independ
respect-our-