Downing Street faces fight over call to strip ministers of surveillance powers
|
Version 0 of 1. A battle is looming over privacy after Downing Street distanced itself from a proposal to strip ministers of their powers to authorise surveillance warrants, one of the key recommendations in a new report on intelligence agency snooping. The 373-page report published on Thursday – A Question of Trust, by David Anderson QC – describes existing legislation covering surveillance as “fragmented” and “obscure” and urges the government to wipe the slate clean with a new bill. Related: UK intelligence agencies should keep mass surveillance powers, report says Anderson’s report, commissioned by David Cameron last year, recommends that a new judicial body, the Independent Surveillance and Intelligence Commission, take responsibility for approval of warrants from the home and foreign secretaries, a move welcomed by privacy campaigners. But the prime minister’s spokeswoman hinted that Downing Street will be wary about adopting this, saying the authorities need to be able to “respond quickly and effectively to threats of national security or serious crime”. The home secretary, Theresa May, speaking in the Commons, was careful not to endorse the proposal. “Today, I am not in a position, and do not intend, to say that the government are going to do one thing or another.” May said she would publish a draft surveillance bill in the autumn and legislate before the end of 2016. She promised there would be a proper overhaul of investigatory powers legislation and not “simply rebranding existing law”. She welcomed Anderson’s conclusion that internet and phone companies should be required to continue with the mass collection of private communications, and renewed her determination to enhance those powers through a revived snooper’s charter. The government could face not only a sustained campaign from privacy campaigners but a potential alliance of Labour MPs and Tory rebels. The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, told the Commons she backed significantly stronger oversight, including the new judicial body and the judicial authorisation of warrants. David Davis, one of the Conservative MPs most engaged in the privacy campaign, said: “I think the government will lose that battle if they choose to fight.” He predicted half-a-dozen Conservative rebels would back up Labour and “bring our system into line with the rest of the world”. Anderson, the UK’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said in his report that existing legislation, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa), had outlived its usefulness. “A comprehensive and comprehensible new law should be drafted from scratch, replacing the multitude of current powers and providing for clear limits and safeguards on any intrusive power that it may be necessary for public authorities to use,” he said. Crucially, Anderson supports the retention of bulk data collection by GCHQ and other intelligence agencies, one of the main concerns raised by US whistleblower Edward Snowden. “The capability of the security and intelligence agencies to practise bulk collection of intercepted material and associated data should be retained (subject to the ruling of the courts) but used only subject to strict additional safeguards,” Anderson said. The safeguards include “a tighter definition of the purposes for which it is sought, defined by operations of mission purposes”. Related: A question of trust? Anderson report lays out tests for surveillance laws There would also be curbs against snooping on journalists, lawyers and other groups. The report said that when communication data is sought from people handling privileged or confidential information, including doctors, lawyers, journalists, MPs or ministers, “special consideration and arrangements should be in place”. The new judicial body would be responsible for all surveillance warrants, according to the report. As well as approving individual warrants, the judicial commissioner would also be responsible for a new bulk data collection warrant in limited circumstances. Anderson gives an example of bulk data collection under the heading of “attack planning by ISIL [Islamic State] in Iraq/Syria against the UK”. Anderson also makes clear that this would not affect existing programmes of communications data surveillance. The intelligence agencies, including GCHQ, have been expressing concern about the increasing use of encryption to protect privacy, with internet providers beginning to offer this as standard. Anderson, in his report, does not propose legislating on the issue. He said few propose that the state should hold a master key to all communications. “Far preferable, on any view, is a law-based system in which encryption keys are handed over [by service providers or by the users themselves] only after properly authorised requests.” Related: Security services' powers to be extended in wide-ranging surveillance bill GCHQ and other intelligence agencies are likely to be satisfied with the recommendations. GCHQ successfully fought to retain its bulk collection powers and Anderson agreed. In contrast with the UK, the US Congress last month placed curbs on bulk collection of phone records by the intelligence agencies. Privacy campaigners also largely welcomed Anderson’s recommendation to scrap Ripa and introduce a new judicial commissioner, among other proposals, while expressing unhappiness at the proposed retention of bulk data collection. Eric King, the deputy director of Privacy International, said: “This is the final nail in the coffin for Ripa.” He added: “David Anderson’s strong recommendations for improvement are the first step towards reform, and now the burden is on the government, parliament and civil society to ensure that reforms go further and ensure that once and for all, our police and intelligence agencies are brought under the rule of law.” Anderson said he could not condone Snowden’s disclosure. National security had suffered, he added, but there had also been benefits from the disclosure of some of the intelligence agency capabilities. “The opening up of the debate has, however, come at a cost to national security: the effect of the Snowden documents on the behaviour of some service providers and terrorists alike has, for the authorities, accentuated the problem of reduced coverage and rendered more acute the need for a remedy,” the report says. |