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 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/24/rifkind-porter-debate-miranda-surveillance

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Henry Porter v Malcolm Rifkind: surveillance and the free society Henry Porter v Malcolm Rifkind: surveillance and the free society
(25 days later)
Henry Porter is a journalist specialising in liberty and civil rights, and Malcolm Rifkind is a Conservative politician and the former foreign secretary.Henry Porter is a journalist specialising in liberty and civil rights, and Malcolm Rifkind is a Conservative politician and the former foreign secretary.
Dear Sir MalcolmDear Sir Malcolm
A few years ago we were on the same panel talking about Labour's plans for the ID card and the threat to personal privacy that it entailed. You had to leave, so did not hear my words about personal privacy being the defining quality of a free society. I have little doubt you would have agreed with them, for what I said was uncontroversial to any democrat.A few years ago we were on the same panel talking about Labour's plans for the ID card and the threat to personal privacy that it entailed. You had to leave, so did not hear my words about personal privacy being the defining quality of a free society. I have little doubt you would have agreed with them, for what I said was uncontroversial to any democrat.
You were in opposition then. Today, as the Snowden revelations show the extent to which the American and British governments are spying on their citizens, you are sounding a very different note – one that is surprisingly authoritarian for the head of parliament's intelligence and security committee, which after all is charged with representing the public in the oversight of the secret activities of the intelligence agencies.You were in opposition then. Today, as the Snowden revelations show the extent to which the American and British governments are spying on their citizens, you are sounding a very different note – one that is surprisingly authoritarian for the head of parliament's intelligence and security committee, which after all is charged with representing the public in the oversight of the secret activities of the intelligence agencies.
Without even acknowledging the misuse of Labour's terror laws, you say the police were correct to detain Glenn Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, at Heathrow for nine hours, and you further insist that the government was within its right to threaten the Guardian's editor and send technicians into these offices to destroy computer hard drives. You claim these actions weren't to save the government embarrassment, but to protect the country from terrorists. We all agree that some things have to be kept secret but the revelations these past two months have not been about the fight against terrorism, rather the near-total surveillance of all private communications, involving the collaboration of the internet giants, computer manufacturers and telecommunications companies. There can be few things of greater public interest in a democratic society, yet the government tries to suppress the story and does not even acknowledge these concerns.Without even acknowledging the misuse of Labour's terror laws, you say the police were correct to detain Glenn Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, at Heathrow for nine hours, and you further insist that the government was within its right to threaten the Guardian's editor and send technicians into these offices to destroy computer hard drives. You claim these actions weren't to save the government embarrassment, but to protect the country from terrorists. We all agree that some things have to be kept secret but the revelations these past two months have not been about the fight against terrorism, rather the near-total surveillance of all private communications, involving the collaboration of the internet giants, computer manufacturers and telecommunications companies. There can be few things of greater public interest in a democratic society, yet the government tries to suppress the story and does not even acknowledge these concerns.
This isn't good enough in a free society.This isn't good enough in a free society.
The slew of terror laws passed after 9/11, both here and in the US, have been used to vastly extend the power of the intelligence services, and this has largely gone unrestrained and unscrutinised by committees like yours. In America, there has been a degree more concern in the political establishment than in Britain, and President Obama has announced a full review of the NSA's surveillance programmes. But here the ISC has been alarmingly compliant. Following revelations about the Prism eavesdropping programme in June, the ISC held a brief inquiry that exonerated GCHQ and did absolutely nothing to raise concerns about the under-appreciated powers granted to the agency by Labour's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.The slew of terror laws passed after 9/11, both here and in the US, have been used to vastly extend the power of the intelligence services, and this has largely gone unrestrained and unscrutinised by committees like yours. In America, there has been a degree more concern in the political establishment than in Britain, and President Obama has announced a full review of the NSA's surveillance programmes. But here the ISC has been alarmingly compliant. Following revelations about the Prism eavesdropping programme in June, the ISC held a brief inquiry that exonerated GCHQ and did absolutely nothing to raise concerns about the under-appreciated powers granted to the agency by Labour's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
So little did your committee and the government – in fact the whole political class – engage with this profound threat that the successor at the Foreign Office, William Hague, felt able to dismiss the issue with that simple-minded phrase from the Labour era: you having nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.So little did your committee and the government – in fact the whole political class – engage with this profound threat that the successor at the Foreign Office, William Hague, felt able to dismiss the issue with that simple-minded phrase from the Labour era: you having nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.
We all have something to fear from these surveillance powers, for none of us can guarantee the benevolence of governments in the future. What we must conclude from this reaction is that the government is determined to preserve these powers at any cost and in the process will abuse laws that were never intended to obstruct the legitimate business of journalists to hold those in power to account.We all have something to fear from these surveillance powers, for none of us can guarantee the benevolence of governments in the future. What we must conclude from this reaction is that the government is determined to preserve these powers at any cost and in the process will abuse laws that were never intended to obstruct the legitimate business of journalists to hold those in power to account.
This is a deeply troubling development because yet again it supports the claim that, once in government, champions of democracy like yourself cannot be trusted to look after the interests of the public, and simply preside over an extension of the state's powers. This adds to the general cynicism about politics and increases the distance between the governors and the governed.This is a deeply troubling development because yet again it supports the claim that, once in government, champions of democracy like yourself cannot be trusted to look after the interests of the public, and simply preside over an extension of the state's powers. This adds to the general cynicism about politics and increases the distance between the governors and the governed.
Best wishes, HPBest wishes, HP
Dear HenryDear Henry
I recall the occasion when we both opposed Labour's plans for ID cards. I would do so again if Cameron and Clegg proposed them. I'm sure we agree that even in a free society there has to be some loss of privacy to meet equally important public needs. The Inland Revenue needs to know our income. The police, with warrants, must be allowed to search a person's home if a crime has happened. ID cards, however, would have produced no significant benefit that would have justified the loss of privacy.I recall the occasion when we both opposed Labour's plans for ID cards. I would do so again if Cameron and Clegg proposed them. I'm sure we agree that even in a free society there has to be some loss of privacy to meet equally important public needs. The Inland Revenue needs to know our income. The police, with warrants, must be allowed to search a person's home if a crime has happened. ID cards, however, would have produced no significant benefit that would have justified the loss of privacy.
You correctly refer to the ability of the US and UK intelligence agencies, nowadays, to intercept emails and phone calls on a very large scale. That was not only technically impossible but also unnecessary in the past. Until the end of the cold war the priority of the intelligence agencies was to protect us from Soviet espionage and find out what they were up to. Terrorism, apart from the IRA, was not a major problem.You correctly refer to the ability of the US and UK intelligence agencies, nowadays, to intercept emails and phone calls on a very large scale. That was not only technically impossible but also unnecessary in the past. Until the end of the cold war the priority of the intelligence agencies was to protect us from Soviet espionage and find out what they were up to. Terrorism, apart from the IRA, was not a major problem.
Sadly, the 7/7 bombings showed that terrorists today often come from within our own population. They regularly use emails and phone messages to plan terrorist acts. We need to get access to them. While GCHQ may have the technical ability to intercept anyone's communications, they obviously have no interest in well over 99.5% of them. And even for the tiny number they wish to examine, they cannot do so without a full warrant. These warrants are all open to subsequent inspection by the intelligence commissioners, who are judges.Sadly, the 7/7 bombings showed that terrorists today often come from within our own population. They regularly use emails and phone messages to plan terrorist acts. We need to get access to them. While GCHQ may have the technical ability to intercept anyone's communications, they obviously have no interest in well over 99.5% of them. And even for the tiny number they wish to examine, they cannot do so without a full warrant. These warrants are all open to subsequent inspection by the intelligence commissioners, who are judges.
Do you not realise (clearly Mr Snowden didn't when he claimed asylum in Moscow) that these safeguards are what differentiate surveillance in the US and the UK from Russia and other authoritarian countries?Do you not realise (clearly Mr Snowden didn't when he claimed asylum in Moscow) that these safeguards are what differentiate surveillance in the US and the UK from Russia and other authoritarian countries?
If you are against intrusions on privacy, why do you not oppose CCTV cameras that are in every town, which have helped catch criminals and terrorists, and which the public warmly welcome?If you are against intrusions on privacy, why do you not oppose CCTV cameras that are in every town, which have helped catch criminals and terrorists, and which the public warmly welcome?
You are wrong to imply that I agreed with the use of the Terrorism Act to detain Miranda. I have publicly supported an investigation by the terrorism adviser to ascertain whether it was justified. He will be able to find out what evidence the police had and whether it justified the use of that act. Whatever the answer on that issue, what is not in doubt is that the Guardian saw fit to pay Miranda's airfare, which suggests they expected him to be bringing more classified material that Snowden had stolen.You are wrong to imply that I agreed with the use of the Terrorism Act to detain Miranda. I have publicly supported an investigation by the terrorism adviser to ascertain whether it was justified. He will be able to find out what evidence the police had and whether it justified the use of that act. Whatever the answer on that issue, what is not in doubt is that the Guardian saw fit to pay Miranda's airfare, which suggests they expected him to be bringing more classified material that Snowden had stolen.
Forgive me for saying that you are talking nonsense when you say the increased powers of the intelligence agencies have "largely gone unscrutinised" by the intelligence and security committee, which I chair. Did you not read our public report which criticised the government's original proposals in the Justice and Security Act for closed-court proceedings, as being far too wide? Have you not seen our public response on the proposed new communications data bill, which slated the government for proposals which were too woolly and without sufficient safeguards?Forgive me for saying that you are talking nonsense when you say the increased powers of the intelligence agencies have "largely gone unscrutinised" by the intelligence and security committee, which I chair. Did you not read our public report which criticised the government's original proposals in the Justice and Security Act for closed-court proceedings, as being far too wide? Have you not seen our public response on the proposed new communications data bill, which slated the government for proposals which were too woolly and without sufficient safeguards?
And are you making these criticisms without even knowing that in the last year we have been successful in getting the government to concede major new powers to the intelligence and security committee?And are you making these criticisms without even knowing that in the last year we have been successful in getting the government to concede major new powers to the intelligence and security committee?
For the first time, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ will have lost the power to refuse the ISC's demands for information. For the first time, the ISC's staff will be able to go into the intelligence agencies' offices and identify the material the ISC will wish to see. For the first time, the ISC will have a statutory right to investigate the operational activity of the intelligence agencies, even if they and the government would rather we did not. Do you not accept that these reforms are not just evidence that the ISC now has real power but also indicate that the government (and the opposition) accept the need for real, independent oversight of how intelligence is obtained and used?For the first time, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ will have lost the power to refuse the ISC's demands for information. For the first time, the ISC's staff will be able to go into the intelligence agencies' offices and identify the material the ISC will wish to see. For the first time, the ISC will have a statutory right to investigate the operational activity of the intelligence agencies, even if they and the government would rather we did not. Do you not accept that these reforms are not just evidence that the ISC now has real power but also indicate that the government (and the opposition) accept the need for real, independent oversight of how intelligence is obtained and used?
Do you accept that the real difference between a democratic and an authoritarian government, in the modern world, is not whether there need to be intrusions on personal privacy but whether, when they occur, there are real safeguards to prevent abuse.Do you accept that the real difference between a democratic and an authoritarian government, in the modern world, is not whether there need to be intrusions on personal privacy but whether, when they occur, there are real safeguards to prevent abuse.
Britain is not perfect in this respect. I have no doubt that further reforms will be needed. But the combination of independent, all-party parliamentary oversight with judges appointed as intelligence commissioners and the secretary of state's personal approval needed before the content of emails and phone calls can be scrutinised, goes further to protect the citizen than any other country in the world except the US, which has comparable, if not identical, safeguards. If you don't agree, tell me who does it better? Russia? France? Israel? China?Britain is not perfect in this respect. I have no doubt that further reforms will be needed. But the combination of independent, all-party parliamentary oversight with judges appointed as intelligence commissioners and the secretary of state's personal approval needed before the content of emails and phone calls can be scrutinised, goes further to protect the citizen than any other country in the world except the US, which has comparable, if not identical, safeguards. If you don't agree, tell me who does it better? Russia? France? Israel? China?
Regards, MalcolmRegards, Malcolm
Dear Sir MalcolmDear Sir Malcolm
It is really surprising how once liberty-loving conservatives like yourself advocate a society where total surveillance is the norm. You argue that we should exchange a little liberty for security, but these systems of surveillance did not prevent the Boston bombs or the Woolwich killing this year. Result: we have neither liberty not security.It is really surprising how once liberty-loving conservatives like yourself advocate a society where total surveillance is the norm. You argue that we should exchange a little liberty for security, but these systems of surveillance did not prevent the Boston bombs or the Woolwich killing this year. Result: we have neither liberty not security.
This is not just about terrorism and the avoidance of unnecessary deaths, is it? If it were, governments would place these vast resources to deal with the 1,750 road deaths last year in the UK and the 50,000 deaths in the US from handguns between 2006 and 2010. No, this is about what the NSA calls the "mastery of the internet", in other words gaining greater control over society. This means we are building a vast apparatus that may some day facilitate an oppressive regime. The alliance of governments and big corporations simply overwhelms the ability of elected assemblies to hold them to account.This is not just about terrorism and the avoidance of unnecessary deaths, is it? If it were, governments would place these vast resources to deal with the 1,750 road deaths last year in the UK and the 50,000 deaths in the US from handguns between 2006 and 2010. No, this is about what the NSA calls the "mastery of the internet", in other words gaining greater control over society. This means we are building a vast apparatus that may some day facilitate an oppressive regime. The alliance of governments and big corporations simply overwhelms the ability of elected assemblies to hold them to account.
Britain is not genetically predisposed to a state of liberty. The slight chill that has descended on discussion of these matters, both in media and parliament, is a worrying sign. As a society, we should be much less in the thrall of the intelligence agencies than we are.Britain is not genetically predisposed to a state of liberty. The slight chill that has descended on discussion of these matters, both in media and parliament, is a worrying sign. As a society, we should be much less in the thrall of the intelligence agencies than we are.
Limitations of space prevent me from answering your points in full, but I did read your reports on secret courts and the draft communications data bill because I was writing about both. I am pleased that you have not yet backed the abuse of terror laws to arrest David Miranda, however I also notice that you did not address the key point that we cannot guarantee the benevolence of future governments. You ask us to trust government and its agencies, but is that really so wise after the rendition of suspects for torture in Libya by MI6 and the multiple abuses of surveillance and investigatory powers by the police?Limitations of space prevent me from answering your points in full, but I did read your reports on secret courts and the draft communications data bill because I was writing about both. I am pleased that you have not yet backed the abuse of terror laws to arrest David Miranda, however I also notice that you did not address the key point that we cannot guarantee the benevolence of future governments. You ask us to trust government and its agencies, but is that really so wise after the rendition of suspects for torture in Libya by MI6 and the multiple abuses of surveillance and investigatory powers by the police?
Best wishes, HP Best wishes, HP
Dear HenryDear Henry
I don't mind being criticised for what I do believe in but not for what I don't. I do not believe that total surveillance should be the norm. Nor do the British public. That is why MI6, MI5 and GCHQ cannot read anyone's emails or listen to their phone conversations without a warrant from the foreign secretary or the home secretary, who can only grant such a warrant to help catch terrorists or serious criminals.I don't mind being criticised for what I do believe in but not for what I don't. I do not believe that total surveillance should be the norm. Nor do the British public. That is why MI6, MI5 and GCHQ cannot read anyone's emails or listen to their phone conversations without a warrant from the foreign secretary or the home secretary, who can only grant such a warrant to help catch terrorists or serious criminals.
I think you must be confusing Britain with Russia and China, where the intelligence agencies are free to read anyone's emails in order to crush political dissent. I know of no British politician who wants that. Do you?I think you must be confusing Britain with Russia and China, where the intelligence agencies are free to read anyone's emails in order to crush political dissent. I know of no British politician who wants that. Do you?
You claim that "exchanging a little liberty for security" has not worked in Britain because of the terrible killing of Lee Rigby at Woolwich. That was a tragic act of terrorism. But do you not know, or have you forgotten, that Lee Rigby was the only person killed in Britain by Islamic fanatics since the 7/7 bombings in 2005?You claim that "exchanging a little liberty for security" has not worked in Britain because of the terrible killing of Lee Rigby at Woolwich. That was a tragic act of terrorism. But do you not know, or have you forgotten, that Lee Rigby was the only person killed in Britain by Islamic fanatics since the 7/7 bombings in 2005?
Do you not know, or have you forgotten, that every year since 2005 the intelligence agencies have foiled several terrorist plots in Britain where the terrorists, if they had been successful, would have murdered hundreds of men, women and children?Do you not know, or have you forgotten, that every year since 2005 the intelligence agencies have foiled several terrorist plots in Britain where the terrorists, if they had been successful, would have murdered hundreds of men, women and children?
Do you not know that in virtually every one of these cases the terrorists have been stopped, and in many cases arrested, in part because the intelligence agencies and police were able to get access to their emails and phone messages?Do you not know that in virtually every one of these cases the terrorists have been stopped, and in many cases arrested, in part because the intelligence agencies and police were able to get access to their emails and phone messages?
You say that "we are building a vast apparatus that may some day facilitate an oppressive regime". Thank you for acknowledging that Britain does not have an oppressive regime at present! Nor will we ever if terrorists and fanatics can be stopped in their tracks.You say that "we are building a vast apparatus that may some day facilitate an oppressive regime". Thank you for acknowledging that Britain does not have an oppressive regime at present! Nor will we ever if terrorists and fanatics can be stopped in their tracks.
I am amused that you say "Britain is not genetically predisposed to a state of liberty". I think that means you are disappointed that most of your fellow citizens do not agree with you. In fact the British are predisposed to a state of liberty. Where they disagree with you is in believing that, subject to the proper safeguards, we need to use modern communications technology to defeat the terrorists and criminals who try to use that same technology to destroy our freedom.I am amused that you say "Britain is not genetically predisposed to a state of liberty". I think that means you are disappointed that most of your fellow citizens do not agree with you. In fact the British are predisposed to a state of liberty. Where they disagree with you is in believing that, subject to the proper safeguards, we need to use modern communications technology to defeat the terrorists and criminals who try to use that same technology to destroy our freedom.
Of course, as you say, we cannot guarantee the benevolence of future governments. That is true in every democracy. Do you not accept, however, that what is different about Britain compared to Russia or China is that when abuse is discovered, as with extraordinary rendition, it is fully investigated, and safeguards are strengthened to ensure that it will not happen again. That is the true test of liberty, not a society where there is never abuse. That is unrealistic.Of course, as you say, we cannot guarantee the benevolence of future governments. That is true in every democracy. Do you not accept, however, that what is different about Britain compared to Russia or China is that when abuse is discovered, as with extraordinary rendition, it is fully investigated, and safeguards are strengthened to ensure that it will not happen again. That is the true test of liberty, not a society where there is never abuse. That is unrealistic.
Cheer up! Britain, despite being one of the main targets for Islamic terrorists, has so far foiled most of their efforts while remaining one of the most free countries in the world.Cheer up! Britain, despite being one of the main targets for Islamic terrorists, has so far foiled most of their efforts while remaining one of the most free countries in the world.
Yours ever, Malcolm Yours ever, Malcolm
Dear MalcolmDear Malcolm
Actually, I am pretty cheery, thank you, but not about the responsiveness of the political classes to this very serious issue. You go on about terror but simply won't countenance the debate concerning the democratic health of this country and the balance between reliable scrutiny and necessary secrecy.Actually, I am pretty cheery, thank you, but not about the responsiveness of the political classes to this very serious issue. You go on about terror but simply won't countenance the debate concerning the democratic health of this country and the balance between reliable scrutiny and necessary secrecy.
Although I have often listened with interest to what you've said during your long political career, I find these answers slippery and complacent. Do you really think the head of the ISC should be quite so openly partisan? You've raised hardly a murmur of concern in the three months since Edward Snowden's revelations began, and that seems to support the accusation that your committee is simply the figleaf of the executive and the intelligence agencies.Although I have often listened with interest to what you've said during your long political career, I find these answers slippery and complacent. Do you really think the head of the ISC should be quite so openly partisan? You've raised hardly a murmur of concern in the three months since Edward Snowden's revelations began, and that seems to support the accusation that your committee is simply the figleaf of the executive and the intelligence agencies.
Yes, terrorist plots have been intercepted and no one could be more pleased than I am – I covered the 7/7 bombings from early that day and saw the devastation. I have never once argued that the police and MI5 shouldn't have the powers to track down and intercept terrorists, and I certainly don't believe we are a totally surveilled society. However, I repeatedly said that Labour were creating the foundations for one, and that work now seems to be continued by the coalition. One wonders if any politician can resist the long game played by the Home Office and MI6's masters in the Foreign Office.Yes, terrorist plots have been intercepted and no one could be more pleased than I am – I covered the 7/7 bombings from early that day and saw the devastation. I have never once argued that the police and MI5 shouldn't have the powers to track down and intercept terrorists, and I certainly don't believe we are a totally surveilled society. However, I repeatedly said that Labour were creating the foundations for one, and that work now seems to be continued by the coalition. One wonders if any politician can resist the long game played by the Home Office and MI6's masters in the Foreign Office.
You are making a mistake to say that the British public is on your side. Actually, the public is probably making up its mind, because these are very complex matters, and obviously people want to be safe. But young people? A recent survey in the Economist suggests that the internet generation is much more libertarian than ours, and, of course, these are the people who will have to live with the consequences of the demonic alliance between the state and communications providers.You are making a mistake to say that the British public is on your side. Actually, the public is probably making up its mind, because these are very complex matters, and obviously people want to be safe. But young people? A recent survey in the Economist suggests that the internet generation is much more libertarian than ours, and, of course, these are the people who will have to live with the consequences of the demonic alliance between the state and communications providers.
You say that our society is good at addressing abuse when it is uncovered (usually by newspapers like the Guardian and Observer) Really? Have we had a full account of the involvement of the intelligence agencies in torture and rendition? I don't think so. Was it in the cause of transparency that your government introduced closed material procedures – secret courts – into civil law, which may mean that claims against the British government will not be heard in open court?You say that our society is good at addressing abuse when it is uncovered (usually by newspapers like the Guardian and Observer) Really? Have we had a full account of the involvement of the intelligence agencies in torture and rendition? I don't think so. Was it in the cause of transparency that your government introduced closed material procedures – secret courts – into civil law, which may mean that claims against the British government will not be heard in open court?
This issue is not just about terror, Malcolm, and you are being disingenuous to present the Snowden revelations in the narrow and populist terms that you have here.This issue is not just about terror, Malcolm, and you are being disingenuous to present the Snowden revelations in the narrow and populist terms that you have here.
With slightly less than warm wishes, but have a good bank holiday neverthelessWith slightly less than warm wishes, but have a good bank holiday nevertheless
Dear HenryDear Henry
I note with interest that each time I have shown your accusations to be ill-informed, you try to change the goalposts! Now you suggest that I am partisan in support of the intelligence agencies. What makes you think that you, as a journalist, are objective? Is it not only facts that are sacred and not polemic?I note with interest that each time I have shown your accusations to be ill-informed, you try to change the goalposts! Now you suggest that I am partisan in support of the intelligence agencies. What makes you think that you, as a journalist, are objective? Is it not only facts that are sacred and not polemic?
You are actually quite wrong to say that either I or the intelligence and security committee always defend MI6, MI5 and GCHQ. Our published reports heavily criticised the misuse of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. We strongly supported press criticism of their involvement, some years ago, in extraordinary rendition.The ISC also highlighted abuses in the past treatment of detainees and helped draft much tougher new rules that the agencies now work under.You are actually quite wrong to say that either I or the intelligence and security committee always defend MI6, MI5 and GCHQ. Our published reports heavily criticised the misuse of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. We strongly supported press criticism of their involvement, some years ago, in extraordinary rendition.The ISC also highlighted abuses in the past treatment of detainees and helped draft much tougher new rules that the agencies now work under.
One of our priorities, as soon as the police queries are complete, will be to investigate the [Abdel Hakim] Belhaj allegations that MI6 collaborated with Gaddafi in his rendition back to Libya.One of our priorities, as soon as the police queries are complete, will be to investigate the [Abdel Hakim] Belhaj allegations that MI6 collaborated with Gaddafi in his rendition back to Libya.
What you clearly don't understand is that the ISC has two duties, not one. The first is to criticise and condemn the intelligence agencies if they exceed their powers or act foolishly. The second, just as important, is to defend them and declare their innocence when unfairly attacked by journalists or politicians. They cannot defend themselves. We are determined to do so, but only when the facts justify it.What you clearly don't understand is that the ISC has two duties, not one. The first is to criticise and condemn the intelligence agencies if they exceed their powers or act foolishly. The second, just as important, is to defend them and declare their innocence when unfairly attacked by journalists or politicians. They cannot defend themselves. We are determined to do so, but only when the facts justify it.
May I, in a friendly spirit, say that our exchanges have actually shown that we have more in common than either of us might have imagined.May I, in a friendly spirit, say that our exchanges have actually shown that we have more in common than either of us might have imagined.
You say you accept "that the police and MI5 need the powers to track down and intercept terrorists". You have acknowledged that we are not a totally surveilled society. You accept that MI6 and MI5 have been very successful in intercepting terrorist plots. Your main concern, you say, is what a future less benevolent government might do.You say you accept "that the police and MI5 need the powers to track down and intercept terrorists". You have acknowledged that we are not a totally surveilled society. You accept that MI6 and MI5 have been very successful in intercepting terrorist plots. Your main concern, you say, is what a future less benevolent government might do.
I, for my part, strongly agree that there must be a much greater public debate on the role of the intelligence agencies and the need for surveillance. These are not just words. The ISC will be holding, in the autumn, the first ever public evidence session with the heads of MI6, MI5 and GCHQ before the cameras in Parliament. I also agree that there must be the fullest examination as to whether use of the Terrorism Act was appropriate in the Miranda case.I, for my part, strongly agree that there must be a much greater public debate on the role of the intelligence agencies and the need for surveillance. These are not just words. The ISC will be holding, in the autumn, the first ever public evidence session with the heads of MI6, MI5 and GCHQ before the cameras in Parliament. I also agree that there must be the fullest examination as to whether use of the Terrorism Act was appropriate in the Miranda case.
Most important of all, I accept that in a free society the burden of proof must be on the government to show both why intrusions into privacy are, sometimes, necessary, and that there are safeguards and independent oversight in place to ensure that these intrusions are not abused, either by the intelligence agencies or by the government itself. Given the need for the fullest public debate, all credit to the Observer for allowing you and me to get these weighty matters off our chests.Most important of all, I accept that in a free society the burden of proof must be on the government to show both why intrusions into privacy are, sometimes, necessary, and that there are safeguards and independent oversight in place to ensure that these intrusions are not abused, either by the intelligence agencies or by the government itself. Given the need for the fullest public debate, all credit to the Observer for allowing you and me to get these weighty matters off our chests.
Regards, MalcolmRegards, Malcolm
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.