LibLink: Julian Huppert on 1984, the Telecommunications Act and the crucial need for scrutiny of its use

GCHQ Bude by Paul WalterOver on Open Democracy, our old friend Julian Huppert writes an excellent piece on his work as an MP looking at the scrutiny of UK state surveillance. He points to the 1984 (yes really) Telecommunications Act and the little debated clause 94 which gives the relevant Secretary of State virtually limitless powers to order telecoms companies to do anything without any parliamentary scrutiny.

Julian describes his trail of investigation to shed some light on what is and has been done under clause 94:

I kept pushing, and eventually the prime minister asked one of the other commissioners, the Interception of Communications commissioner to oversee section 94 directions. I was delighted, and eagerly awaited the report. Were these used once a year? Once a day? Some sort of reassurance would have been good.

The report came out in July. Two things stood out. The first is that even this commissioner, asked to investigate, couldn’t find out how many times these extreme powers had been used. To quote from the report:

“There are, however, some considerable challenges in this regard. The challenges stem from the fact that the directions are secret as allowed for by statute, can be given by any Secretary of State and do not automatically expire after a certain period. There does not appear to be a comprehensive central record of the directions that have been issued by the various Secretaries of State. My office is therefore not yet in a position to be able to say confidently that we have been notified of all directions.”

So he doesn’t know about all of them, and to make things worse, even those he has looked at he can’t tell us about at all, because they are still covered by the secrecy clause in section 94! Heller meets Orwell.

Julian concludes that this lack of oversight needs urgent fixing.

You can read the full article here.

* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in LibLink.
Advert

2 Comments

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.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

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

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Peter Martin
    Gerard, Sarah Olney may well be a "practising Roman Catholic " but do we know this was her sole reason for opposing the Assisted Dying Bill? There's usually...
  • Gerard
    Sarah Olney placed her own personal religious beliefs over the potential needs of her constituents today. I refer of course to the Assisted Dying Bill. Needless...
  • David Raw
    @ Jack I'm afraid you fail to accept it was a free vote on a non party issue and was a matter of personal conscience, Jack. No less than fifteen Liberal Democ...
  • David Raw
    @ Jack. It was a perfectly reasonable question, Jack, and I’m afraid you haven’t answered it....
  • George Thomas
    It follows the position of what I believe is a majority of UK population of supporting Israel but being against these unlawful settlements. Maybe not brave in t...