This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/13/watchdog-questions-need-for-new-counter-terrorism-powers
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Watchdog questions need for new counter-terrorism powers | Watchdog questions need for new counter-terrorism powers |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The official reviewer of terrorism laws has cast doubt on the necessity of Theresa May’s proposal to levy fines against tech companies for failing to remove extremist content. | The official reviewer of terrorism laws has cast doubt on the necessity of Theresa May’s proposal to levy fines against tech companies for failing to remove extremist content. |
| Max Hill QC, who has prosecuted in many of the most significant terror trials of the past decade, also questioned whether there was a need to “beef up” Tpims, the measures used to restrict terror suspects’ movements, but said there was a case for their increased use. | Max Hill QC, who has prosecuted in many of the most significant terror trials of the past decade, also questioned whether there was a need to “beef up” Tpims, the measures used to restrict terror suspects’ movements, but said there was a case for their increased use. |
| In an interview with the BBC, Hill questioned whether the police and security services needed new laws or powers in the wake of the Manchester and London Bridge attacks | In an interview with the BBC, Hill questioned whether the police and security services needed new laws or powers in the wake of the Manchester and London Bridge attacks |
| He said: “It’s perfectly natural that we should all feel that we must do more, we must do something to combat what we are facing. My view coming into the scrutiny which we are told the prime minister wants to conduct is that we do have the appropriate laws in place, and that essentially the police and security services, and those whose job it is to keep us safe, do have the powers at their disposal.” | He said: “It’s perfectly natural that we should all feel that we must do more, we must do something to combat what we are facing. My view coming into the scrutiny which we are told the prime minister wants to conduct is that we do have the appropriate laws in place, and that essentially the police and security services, and those whose job it is to keep us safe, do have the powers at their disposal.” |
| He pointed out that Tpims – terrorism prevention and investigation measures – had been strengthened in 2015 to include powers to require a suspect to move up to 200 miles away from their homes and families. | He pointed out that Tpims – terrorism prevention and investigation measures – had been strengthened in 2015 to include powers to require a suspect to move up to 200 miles away from their homes and families. |
| Hill said it was right that the spotlight should fall on tech companies, but he had seen the police unit that identified extremist material online in action and witnessed the cooperation it received from the tech companies in getting the material taken down. “It is a question of the bulk of the material rather than any lack of co-operation in dealing with it,” he said. | Hill said it was right that the spotlight should fall on tech companies, but he had seen the police unit that identified extremist material online in action and witnessed the cooperation it received from the tech companies in getting the material taken down. “It is a question of the bulk of the material rather than any lack of co-operation in dealing with it,” he said. |
| In questioning the need for moves to strengthen Tpims and legal action against tech companies, Hill has quietly challenged two parts of May’s four-point plan to tackle extremism that she announced in the aftermath of the London Bridge attack and which she has said will form a key part of next week’s Queen’s speech. | In questioning the need for moves to strengthen Tpims and legal action against tech companies, Hill has quietly challenged two parts of May’s four-point plan to tackle extremism that she announced in the aftermath of the London Bridge attack and which she has said will form a key part of next week’s Queen’s speech. |
| May has announced before talks with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, a plan to create a new legal liability for tech companies to remove extremist content, backed up by fines if they fail to act. | May has announced before talks with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, a plan to create a new legal liability for tech companies to remove extremist content, backed up by fines if they fail to act. |
| “Today I can announce that the UK and France will work together to encourage corporations to do more and abide by their social responsibility to step up their efforts to remove harmful content from their networks, including exploring the possibility of creating a new legal liability for tech companies if they fail to remove unacceptable content,” she said. | “Today I can announce that the UK and France will work together to encourage corporations to do more and abide by their social responsibility to step up their efforts to remove harmful content from their networks, including exploring the possibility of creating a new legal liability for tech companies if they fail to remove unacceptable content,” she said. |
| Labour’s Yvette Cooper, a former chair of the Commons home affair select committee, welcomed the move. “Social media companies like YouTube have been getting away with a dangerous and irresponsible approach to extremism for too long. Still today YouTube is showing illegal propaganda videos for banned jihadi and neo-Nazi extremists. They have a disgraceful disregard for the law,” she said. | Labour’s Yvette Cooper, a former chair of the Commons home affair select committee, welcomed the move. “Social media companies like YouTube have been getting away with a dangerous and irresponsible approach to extremism for too long. Still today YouTube is showing illegal propaganda videos for banned jihadi and neo-Nazi extremists. They have a disgraceful disregard for the law,” she said. |
| “The cross-party home affairs select committee called for a system of fines and stronger legislation. So if that is what the British and French governments are working on now, that is really welcome. They need to make rapid progress, because online radicalisation is a very serious threat, and this problem has been growing for a long time.” | “The cross-party home affairs select committee called for a system of fines and stronger legislation. So if that is what the British and French governments are working on now, that is really welcome. They need to make rapid progress, because online radicalisation is a very serious threat, and this problem has been growing for a long time.” |
| The Open Rights Group expressed strong doubts. Its director, Jim Killock, said: “To push on with these extreme proposals for internet clampdowns would appear to be a distraction from the current political situation and from effective measures against terror. | |
| “The government already has extensive surveillance powers. Conservative proposals for automated censorship of the internet would see decisions about what British citizens can see online being placed in the hands of computer algorithms, with judgments ultimately made by private companies rather than courts. Home Office plans to force companies to weaken the security of their communications products could put all of us at a greater risk of crime.” | “The government already has extensive surveillance powers. Conservative proposals for automated censorship of the internet would see decisions about what British citizens can see online being placed in the hands of computer algorithms, with judgments ultimately made by private companies rather than courts. Home Office plans to force companies to weaken the security of their communications products could put all of us at a greater risk of crime.” |
| He said both proposals could result in terrorists and extremists switching to platforms and services that were more difficult for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor. |