Nick Clegg: Snoopers’ charter is not going to happen with Liberal Democrats in Government

Julian Huppert has already joyfully welcomed Nick Clegg’s decision to veto Tory plans on web snooping. However, I thought I’d give you the chance to hear Nick Clegg’s words from Call Clegg this morning. I certainly wasn’t expecting such an unequivocal statement. He has given himself no wiggle room at all. This is what he said:

What people have dubbed the snoopers’ charter, I just have to be clear with you, that’s not going to happen. In other words, the idea that the Government will pass a law which means there would be a record kept of every website you visit, of who you communicate with on social media sites, that’s not going to happen. It’s certainly not going to happen with Liberal Democrats in government. We all committed ourselves at the beginning of this Coalition Government to learn the lessons from the past, where Labour overdid it, tried to constantly keep tabs on everybody. We have a commitment in the Coalition Agreement to end the storage of email and internet information unless there is a very good reason to do so. Of course we need to support, and I’ve spoken to senior police officers and people from the security services, of course we need to support them. They’ve got very significant powers already which I support them in deploying to go after criminals, to keep us safe. There are technical issues about how, as technology changes you got to update that. For instance, we’ve all got more and more mobile devices but there aren’t enough IP addresses to go round and we need to straighten that out and that’s clearly something the Government will do. We will work with the police and others to do so. But this idea of a snooper’s charter, as it’s been dubbed, where a law is passed where there is a record kept of all the websites that you visit, of who you communicate with on social media sites, I’m afraid I think that’s not necessarily workable nor proportionate so it’s not going to happen.

As I understand it the IP address issue does not require legislation.

Nick added:

There is work that clearly needs to be done on issues where I think most reasonable people would think you do need to keep up with technology, particularly this issue where you have to make sure you’ve got an IP address attached to every device, you don’t. The police say that’s a big issue and you’ve got to look at that. But I think the full scale approach of basically saying you are going to just scoop up and horde huge amounts of data, for instance, literally recording every website that you ever visit, and everybody visits, so that you’ve got this great treasure trove of data that you can then dip into if you need to, I don’t think the British public will support that. I don’t think it’s in many ways necessarily workable for various technical reasons there are large parts of the internet industry, the internet service providers, who say it’s not necessarily technically feasible, and I don’t think it’s necessarily proportionate. We’ve got to get the balance right between giving the police, of course, the tools they need to do the job, but they need to do so in a way that also gets the balance right between liberty and security, between privacy and what law enforcement agencies do.

This will undoubtedly please party activists and shows the value of the leadership and the party working together on issues, listening to each other and getting the right result. Julian Huppert’s work on this issue has been extremely helpful along with the contribution of party members like Dr Jenny Woods. Let’s be clear: if the Liberal Democrats were not in Government, these authoritarian, illiberal and draconian measures would probably be law by now. It was Nick Clegg putting his foot down last year, and insisting on a draft bill which was carefully scrutinised and rejected last December that set us on the road to today. This is a very significant protection that Liberal Democrats have won for the British people.

No ifs, buts or maybes, Nick has done a good job on this one.

* Caron Lindsay is Co-Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings

Read more by or more about , , , or .
This entry was posted in News.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/34252 for Twitter and emails.
Advert

9 Comments

  • Good best thing you done in ages but sadly IC Orwellian Control freaks in all parties getting stronger SAD

  • Hooray! And a week before the local elections is, shall we say, helpful. Well done.

  • “As I understand it the IP address issue does not require legislation.”

    No but if government don’t get a move on and adopt IPv6 then there may well be…

  • “Nick Clegg: Snoopers’ charter is not going to happen with Liberal Democrats in Government”

    The problem with that statement is that it just highlights all the things that have been allowed to happen with Liberal Democrats in government.

  • Fantastic news.

  • Richard Gadsden 26th Apr '13 - 8:19am

    The IP issue, translated back into techno-speak is lsNAT.

    If ISPs or MNOs use lsNAT then multiple customers will share a public IP address. At the moment, if you call an ISP and say “which customer of yours was using 82.84.56.237 at 8am yesterday”, they can say who. Now that customer might have a local NAT, so you’d have to do some work to identify the device, but you know which DSL line it was.

    Under lsNAT, the ISP will say “these 10 customers were using that IP at that time”, which is much more difficult for the police.

    LsNAT looks to be more likely for MNOs than for fixed-line ISPs. Even if they implement IPv6, there’s still the choice between a dual-stack solution and NAT64, and IPv4 traffic coming from NAT64 translators is going to be just as difficult to get back to the source as lsNAT IPv4 traffic.

  • @Steve – “The problem with that statement is that it just highlights all the things that have been allowed to happen with Liberal Democrats in government.”
    What a mean spirited comment! Maybe Steve isn’t a Lib Dem but if he is – how about celebrating when our leader has the balls to do this? It is far from the first time that the Lib Dems have demonstrated these qualities but a particularly resounding and significant one. Have the Steves of this world any perception of how much political courage and tenacity it takes to do something like this as the junior party in a coalition?

    I am one of many who are proud of you, Nick.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarDaniel Henry 22nd Nov - 2:07pm
    Good article - I very much agree!
  • User AvatarStevan Rose 22nd Nov - 2:07pm
    Referring to people who seem to believe, from their posts, in "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" as Marxist...
  • User AvatarA Social Liberal 22nd Nov - 1:49pm
    Stuart You are right, internment and exclusion orders were part of the fight against Irish terrorism - they were also a huge recruiting tool for...
  • User AvatarGlenn 22nd Nov - 1:41pm
    Almalric, About 72 % of the population want stricter immigration controls with about 56% wanting much stricter controls. Unlike you I don't think this is...
  • User AvatarStuart 22nd Nov - 1:38pm
    @Sarah Noble "Cooper saying that 'it’s not racist to be worried about immigration'… Labour are sleepwalking into racist reactionaryism" Would you prefer it if Cooper...
  • User AvatarGF 22nd Nov - 1:29pm
    Ross - Thanks for making that point in reply to Andrew Colman which saved me the trouble. As Andrew correctly says no Parliament can restrict...