The ins and outs of the Snoopers Charter

web snoopers charterYou may be forgiven for being confused over whether the Snoopers Charter (aka the Communications Data Bill)  is in or out.

Back in December Julian Huppert reported that the Joint Committee that was looking at the Bill had unanimously agreed that it would have to be significantly amended to be acceptable. In an article in the Independent he wrote: “We have gone through the Home Office proposals – and the results are damning. The Bill as it is simply cannot proceed. “

In April, Nick Clegg vetoed the Bill, and Julian Huppert greeted the announcement with much relief, having campaigned against it consistently since its inception. However, Jonathan Calder warned us to be vigilant.

The Bill was notable by its absence from the Queen’s Speech in May.

Then came the appalling murder in Woolwich, and it was not long before this was being presented by some as a reason for reviving the Snoopers Charter. Following that Daniel O’Malley argued on Lib Dem Voice that “We cannot give up the freedoms that our nation has held so dear and fought so hard for in the name of expedience.”

Over the last few days we have read in the Guardian the extraordinary news of the extent to which US National Security Agency had been extracting information from major online providers such as Google and Facebook about US and UK citizens, with, it claims, the explicit co-operation of GCHQ.

In spite of the public anger at those revelations, yesterday the Home Office confirmed that it still wanted to bring in enhanced Internet surveillance. Unnamed minsters are quoted as saying: “It does not change our position. The government is continuing to look at ways of addressing this issue with communication service providers. This may involve legislation.”

The fight is not over yet.

* Mary Reid is the Tuesday Editor on Lib Dem Voice.

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/34876 for Twitter and emails.

4 Comments

  • Richard Whelan 11th Jun '13 - 5:22pm

    I don’t know what you all think?

    I think as a party we need to have an open discussion on how we resolve the dilemma of protecting civil liberties at the same time as you maintain national security and come up with a practical liberal solution that can then be debated, firstly within the party, at say, one of our Federal Conferences next year, in the country at the next General Election, and finally, as part of negotiations to agree a future coalition if the next election results in a hung parliament.

    That is the only way I can see the party coming to a settled view on alternatives to secret courts and snoopers charters. If we oppose something, like the overwhelming majority of the party, myself included, do in this case, we don’t just need to oppose. We need to come up with practical alternatives as well.

  • “The fight is not over yet.” Really? The Snoopers Charter, it seems to me, lies somewhere between legal ‘window dressing’, and a technical, ‘rubber stamping’, of what is actually already happening. If I understand the implications of the last three days of revelations(?), then on both sides of the pond, Obama and Cameron can genuinely, and legitimately, stand up and say “Your government is NOT spying on you”
    What they fail to point out is that snooping on British (and European?), communications appears to have been out-sourced to the FSA (and thus cleverly maintains a legal arms length, from the British government). And who knows,.. perhaps Obama has a reciprocal (arms length), arrangement with GCHQ?
    So if this is anywhere near correct, and the ‘freedom and liberty’ horse has bolted, how will this ‘fight’ for our liberty, be undertaken?

  • Totally agree with Richard Whelan’s comment.

  • David White 14th Jun '13 - 2:57pm

    Oh dear, the usual pro-snooping bunch of failed NewLab ministers are supporting the equally useless OldCon mobsters in lusting for an official charter to give British spooks carte blanche to pry into everything about all of us. And who could those NewLab people be? Well, what a surprise! It’s Jack Straw, Alan Johnson, et al – the usual suspects.

    If nothing else could convince me that free access to my phone, emails, etc, is a bad idea, an unholy alliance ‘twixt OldCon and NewLab does the trick.

    Of course, there’s no use protesting. Well, we now know that all our spooks are getting all the info they want from their Yank counterparts without a new law to help ‘em!

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 ...?




Recent Comments

  • User AvatarRoland 24th Jul - 2:40am
    @Rob Parsons - re: evidence Changing your position! There is plenty of evidence that significant amounts of farmland has been and is being taken for...
  • User AvatarDavid Pollard 23rd Jul - 10:55pm
    Interesting than no one asked Ed about the Government decision to cave into the house builders and drop the 'zero energy' target for new homes...
  • User AvatarJonathan Brown 23rd Jul - 10:43pm
    Thanks Kerry. I don't doubt that some at least of the offence taken at these tweets is genuine, but if nothing else, we ought to...
  • User AvatarRichard Dean 23rd Jul - 10:06pm
    @Alice Following Joe Otten's wise advice, I will say no more. Thanks for an illuminating experience.
  • User AvatarAndi Ali 23rd Jul - 10:05pm
    Right now a lot of Palestinians have no clothes as the IDF have bombed their homes so are walking around naked. At the forthcoming lib...
  • User AvatarKerry Hutchinson 23rd Jul - 9:58pm
    I think Jonathan's piece strikes the right cautionary note. Of course freedom of speech does not entitle to indulge in racist or phobic remarks. But...