Under new legislation the government "will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone in the UK" (BBC report). Former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis reacts:

Nick Pickles of Big Brother Watch also attacks the proposals, worrying that storage of private citizens' data will become a burden on business and may fall into the wrong hands:

Comments

[MarkGoodge]

This report - and all the others like it - appears to have been based on a single story in yesterday's Sunday Times. The ST article is very ambiguously worded and seems to have been designed to imply that the government is planning the kind of surveillance described by the BBC without giving any actual support for that assertion at all. It looks more like a piece of anti-government mischief-making by the ST than an example of factual reporting.

[radsatser]

We elect weak politicians, what do we expect!!

Obama says jump, Cameron says how high. Sarkozy and Merkel say jump, Cameron says how high. Jumped up technocrats in the civil service say jump, Cameron says how high.

We have got exactly the sort of politicians we deserve, so we can't complain that we had no advance warning of the type of people we were electing. This is one more nail in the coffin of this woefully incompetent and big brother government.

You should never again have the gall to have a pop at Labour for this sort of behaviour. Like the EU you say you are one thing in opposition, when in reality as a government you are always worse than Labour, and that is saying something.

As an afterthought if anybody says, 'If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about' in defence of this, I wish you the same treatment that Christopher Tappin received, who had committed no crime in this country.

[colliemum]

Nick Pickles has it spot on.

This is about Whitehall mandarins trying yet again to push this through, even though they failed when Labour was in power.

It is indeed time that the coalition ministers rein in the civil servants who propose policies and laws which are no different from what they proposed to Labour ministers.

[Jack Iddon]

100% right, clear, concise, accurate!

[Sandy Jamieson]

Civil Servants love Coalitions. It means they can divide and rule. Ive seen it in Local Government in that in hung Councils were more often than not you quickly realised the Officers are running the show.

The Home Office Mandarins and the Security Services have decided now is the time to re-introduce this discredited policy. They then till David Cameron/Theresa May one thing and Nick Clegg/Vince Cable another.

It was fairly obvious in May 2010 when it quickly came out that Gus O'Donnell was facilitating the meetings between the negotiating teams of the two Parties with Ciuvil Servants kaing notes.

Maybe the Coalition should have meetings without any of the Humphreys present

[robert]

What has David Davis got to hide or most of us for that matter.

[Harry Hill]

Far too glib to blame the civil servants. They advise, the government (Ministers) decide. There is clearly more to this and if so it is a despicable move, given the Conservative and Liberal rhetoric when Labour tried the same. Utter hypocrites.

[christina Speight]

This story is just another instance where the politicians of all parties don't tell us the truth!

This surveillance proposal comes straight from an EU Directive, We as members of the are legally bound to do as we're told. For years all politicians - Tories, LibDems, Labour and even UKIP [why them??? ] refuse to mention this fact.

Even the hot pasties row is because Brussels say we are not complying with the VAT Sixth Directive. But nobody anywhere puts the blame where it lies

Mark you did our representatives in Brussels agree to these madnesses in the first place? We should be told.

[FreedomLover]

This new internet surveillance legislation is similar to "Big Brother"-style laws that were rejected six years ago. Now internet companies will be instructed by the current Tory government to install hardware enabling GCHQ - the government's electronic "listening" agency - to examine "on demand" any phone call made, text message and email sent, and website accessed in "real time.

But don't we, as always, have an EU Data Retention Directive, otherwise known as Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006, hiding in the background?

This is the directive which requires member states to oblige providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks to retain traffic and location data for between six months and two years for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime?

The loathsome EU commission last year started a review of the rules, with a view to proposing an improved legal framework. It then followed that with a proposal for a comprehensive reform of the system.

Now, a few months later, up pops the as usual quisling UK government with some proposals of its own. Are we supposed to believe that this is a complete coincidence? Does anyone believe that, with data retention being an EU "occupied field", the British government is working entirely independently, and has not been instructed how to act by the commission on this?

But why do successive British governments keep hiding from the true "Elephant in the Room" in such situations? Why don't they tell the truth, & say "the EU is the source of this EVIL new legislation"! Why not? Because the quisling British ministers each time would look like a bunch of pathetic pansies, wouldn't they - if they told the truth that they were as always cow-towing to the pernicious EU's demands again! Time to leave the EU, I say! And be free of Brussels' evil laws like this new internet surveillance one.

[figurewizard]

Just what is this government trying to do to itself? This might come across as a reasonable proposal for mandarins and MPs closeted in a Westminster committee room but to the public at large it will be regarded as a stinker.

[FreedomLover]

Good work, Christine. As you will see, I've put in some more on the same theme immediately below.

[Vir Cantium blog]

Christina, you're right of course.

The government could, though - if it had the balls - adopt the French approach and leave said directives in the 'in tray' for the duration. Not refusing to implement them, but never actually getting round to doing so either.

(Needless to say, though, we'd still be Better Off Out.)

[It doesn't add up...]

Try the Daily Mail::

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2123512/New-snooping-law-allow-Government-access-everybodys-emails-texts-internet-browsing.html

Who are you a stooge for?

[It doesn't add up...]

You would not be so complacent if you had lived in any of the countries that had or have similar policies. Such absolute power is ALWAYS abused.

[It doesn't add up...]

What you omit is that these laws were not the original invention of the EU: after public revulsion to Labour's plans to implement them here which were nothing to do with the EU but everything to do with control freakery, they simply lobbied Brussels to make them into a Directive (just slightly watered down from the original) - and they succeeded.

[It doesn't add up...]

"We're from the government and the peasants are revolting."

will become

"We're the peasants and the government is revolting."

[Disgusted of Devon]

"Who are you a stooge for?"

Uncle Dave?

[Edward Huxley]

You are right, Cameron & Co. are never going to tell us the truth about this, or anything else. UKIP does its best, but the three main parties have almost identical policies on the EU. Surrender and hide the truth.

[It doesn't add up...]

The EU Directive comes from lobbying by previous Labour governments after they decided they couldn't get such proposals through Westminster without the help of the EU.

[Alexandra]

When is everybody going to wake up this going to be a more despised Government than Labour?
This is really the last straw who is the party that represents the views of British people?
Radsatser and Christina Speight sum up eloquently.

[David Hankey]

This nor any other Government has the right to adopt nor implement such a policy. This is purely and simply an invasion of privacy and probably human rights.

I have no problem with the terrorist and criminal element in all of this but please, please do not tar us all with the same brush.

Again we see something aimed at a minority but will affect the majority. What an absolute diabolical way of going on.

[Disgusted]

I am not a member of any political party and never will be, but have always voted Conservative. Whilst I personally have nothing to hide and have no personal fears about my e-mails or internet use, if this proposal as I understand it becomes law, I will not vote for any major party again. There is already too much current legislation used illegally against the general public by local councils and many other official bodies.

[Richard M.]

As I have repeatedly said on this website,(though no votes in my favour), Cameron is pure Brown in his policies. I can hardly believe the Mr Brown left number 10, the way things are going.

If DC wants to unite even more electors against him, he is going the right way.

[Edward Huxley]

Telegraph online, you can vote on this, 93% against.

[Sandy Jamieson]

The stupidity of the whole proposal is such that you can guarantee that weeks before the regulations are implemented, it will be possible to by pass the system by using remote servers say in somewhere like the Bahamas or Bermuda or Montenegro

The Securiocracy are tryting to resist the tide

[Philip]

Even after the recent debacles, this anti-conservative "Conservative"-led govt keeps on digging.

[Mike Barnes]

Absolutely sickening how only 3 years ago both Tories and Lib Dems lied, pretending they were opposed to the principle of this.

And now they are doing what Labour couldn't manage. I really don't have words for the contempt in which I hold all 3 major parties at the moment.

[Philip]

And while they weaken laws and order with trendy things like elected police commissioners, they increase the Big Surveillance State potentially, at least, affecting the privacy of the law-abiding.

[Denis Cooper]

I have to disagree with David Davis on this, and also disagree with most of those commenting here.

Would it really be practical for an investigator who was exploring a possible network of would-be terrorists to go to a magistrate and explain why he wants to know whom A has been contacting by email over the past year or two, and obtain a warrant to empower him to get that information, and then later in the day go back to the magistrate and ask for a warrant to also check the email contacts of B, C and D, and then the next day ask permission to check on E, F, G and H, and so on?

Why should we expect that the magistrate would be scrupulous in examining each application for a warrant before he signed it, rather than assuming that the investigator must have good reasons?

Even if the magistrate demanded detailed reasons why he should sign, rather than trusting the investigator, could the magistrate himself necessarily be trusted with all of the sensitive background material which may underpin the request by the investigator?

It would be absurd if there was an atrocity because a magistrate had decided not to sign a warrant allowing the investigator to check the email contacts of a certain person, because the investigator was not at liberty to tell the magistrate what was already suspected about that person from information provided by a secret source which must be protected.

[christina Speight]

I'm grateful to find so much support here for my hurried intervention . I have meanwhile drafted a letter to the Telegraph on 3 of the issues which they may well edit out if recognition!!!

It reads - -
"I am astonished at the general attitude to a number of issues which have made the headlines lately, Almost all of these are blamed on the government. whereas the reality is that the government’s hands are tied.

First let us look at the question of the imposition of VAT on to hot take-away foods. The truth is that VAT was imposed on such goods in 1984 (fish & Chips for example) but Brussels claimed that such items as pasties and sausage rolls should be similarly charged and that Britain was in breach of the VAT Sixth Directive. Hence the change in the budget.

In the same way the coming rise in Royal Mail stamp prices stems from other EU Directives which force the Royal Mail to deliver other companies’ pre-sorted bulk mailings at a loss! Another directive has produced the ludicrous method of charging by weight and size which frankly few understand. Finally, in order to privatise the service it must be profitable otherwise state subsidy is alleged by the EU . So the price of stamps is forced up, thanks to Brussels not the Brirtish government

Today we have the ultimate! The British government is castigated for proposing major changes to surveillance laws which give the government the power to monitor e-mail exchanges, website visits and phone calls of every person in the UK. The reason for this is that we have a Data Retention Directive, otherwise known as Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006?

This directive requires member states to make providers of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks to retain traffic and location data for between six months and two years for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime. Once again it is Brussels’ doing.

The puzzle, however, is why have successive governments and parties in the UK connived at this shifting of blame ? It’s only effect is to disguise the extent to which we are no longer masters in our own country. I can understand why the 3 parties of recent governments have all accepted the blame so as to disguiser their subservience. But why does this also apply to UKIP who throw mud at the other parties at such issues but rarely point the finger at our true masters? "

[Denis Cooper]

That Directive is here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0054:0063:EN:PDF

I note in particular:

"(17) It is essential that Member States adopt legislative measures to ensure that data retained under this Directive are provided to the competent national authorities only in accordance with national legislation in full respect of the fundamental rights of the persons concerned."

"Article 4

Access to data

Member States shall adopt measures to ensure that data retained in accordance with this Directive are provided only to the competent national authorities in specific cases and in accordance with national law. The procedures to be followed and the conditions to be fulfilled in order to gain access to retained data in accordance with necessity and proportionality requirements shall be defined by each Member State in its national law, subject to the relevant provisions of European Union law or public international law, and in particular the ECHR as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights."

At the end, the UK was one of a fair number of EU member states which declared their intention to postpone implementation pursuant to Article 15(3).

Also, maybe worth pointing out to the government:

"(24) In accordance with paragraph 34 of the Interinstitutional agreement on better law-making (1), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interests of the Community, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public."

[Wayward.]

It's groundhog day! Just when you thought that having got rid of Blair/Brown/Labour and their 40 day detention, identity cards, electronic supervision and general Goebbels-like propaganda, it is now restarting over again. Do you remember the vehemence with which the Conservative opposition objected to these things? Well it's proof positive that the whole political class is determined to put us all in our place.

[mark taha]

We all have something to hide and the right to hide it.We fought this in opposition and should reject it in government.

[Edward Huxley]

Great letter Christina but you are being unfair to UKIP. Nigel Farage and others never hesitate to tackle our masters in Westminster as well as the other lot in Brussels, however, we don`t get the same media coverage as the three main [parties.

What we all want is OUT, why attack those on the same side as you?

[christina Speight]

See my postring immediately above about the true source of these horrors!

[christina Speight]

I'm sorry Edward but UKIP too concentrates its fire in such issues on the stooges at Westminster instead of constantly urging people to look elsewhere. UKIP has every right to do that but it seems tactically to prefer to go along with the pretend politics. If you can jolly them up I'd be delighted.

[Edward Huxley]

I`ll do me best.

[Wayward.]

We are all very aware that all these directives come in from the EU in Brussels, and have been for a long time. As you say the puzzle is that government never likes to point this out. Why? Because they prefer to pretend that they retain some remnant of power. If people realize fully that nearly all our laws are made in Brussels they may wake up and say "Why are we paying for 650 MPs who are quite impotent and even 1000 Lords who are merely superannuated geriatrics slumbering away on red leather benches at our expense".

[It doesn't add up...]

How do you think it all operated in the days before RIPA? Remember, it required the HOME SECRETARY to authorise wire tapping.

Even with all the mass immigration we have had, the numbers of potential terrorists are very small. The numbers of people who disagree with the government or its predecessor or the local council are much larger. If you had lived in states that operate with permanent bugging of the citizenry, as I have, you really might not be so much on the side of the would-be oppressors.

[Elizabeth M]

Christina Speight and her anti friends are becoming laughable freaks. Everything wrong in the world is caused by the EU. They will be blaming the weather on the EU soon so demented have they become. One example. What happened when Labour brought forth this Big Brother survelliance idea? Opposition by we who love freedom killed it. Remind us you freakies what the EU did? Answer: Zilch. Nothing. Not a dickybird. So much for Christina and her fevered imagination. The woman is bordering on in*****y. This is an important issue. We must defeat it. And comprehensively. David Davis is right. But aiming our 'guns' at the EU is wide off the mark. We do what we did last time. Defeat it here. And stop blaming civil servants. It would not see the light of day if out of touch Cameron and out of touch May and Osborne were not pushing it. They are the enemy not the EU whatever specious nonsense the blessed Christina utters

[MRA]

Are we mad? Britain invents the internet. We foolishly allow the Americans to dominate it and gain much of the wealth produced by 'our' (Tim Berners-Lee) invention - Google, Facebook et al. And now we are going to give our ISP business to foreign companies. For that is what will happen if the Coalition goes forward with this Big Brother snooping legislation. I did not vote for my private emails to be read. Period. No one in Britain voted for their private emails to be read. We know security oversight is needed in special cases. But it stops there. Wholesale snooping is not correct. It is not moral. I and millions like me will de register from our existing British ISP's and register with foreign ISP's and/or proxy servers that GCHQ etc etc have no control over. Who will gain income; foreign ISP's and Proxy Servers. What a way to build Britain's internet business in the 21st century. These 'out of touch' politicians are truly bad for Britain and our growth going forward. And certainlythey are BAD for liberty, freedom of speech, and our personal human rights. To think that a Conservative government would even consider such an imposition of a limitation on personal freedom. Truly appalling. Totally out of touch. Got it guys and girls: If you do not want your personal emails to be read find a PROXY SERVER or foreign ISP.

[Annie R]

You will be telling us next Mark that the Sunday Times video of Cruddas is a work of fiction. Pleeease. Get real.

[christina Speight]

You don't have toi rude to make your point. Call me a freak but as I don't bury my head in the sand or fail to think for myself I'm at least an original kind of freak. But it's not me that is so mad to deny what's smelling under here very nosde. Silly so and so.

Well - er - most things are caused by our membership of the EU. Sometimes we connive, sometimes we're outvoted but ALWAYS we pretend that Westminster decides.

[Elizabeth M]

No Christina I should not be rude. And I apoligise. But you test the patience of Job. Your 'over the top' anti EU ism is daft. Britain will not leave the EU. It is where much of our trade is. And our foreign policy for hundreds of years has been to ensure no power becomes overmighty in Europe. Leaving the EU would allow it to become overmighty. That is why we are there. And we will remain in the EU. Period. So direct your animosity closer to home. Just because the EU says we should do something does not mean we do it. We simply ignore them. What are they going to do? Invade us? How many tanks do they have? We simply close our ears to them and tell them ever so nicely to F**k off. But on this issue we defeat it here at home by a massive response that we are not going to allow our personal emails to be read. Period. And if they try it on we do as MRA above suggests simply switch our ISPs to outside the EU. We play fire with fire. Its the British way. And we will win. We are not prone to defeat.

[Denis Cooper]

THERE IS AN EU DIRECTIVE.

It's been mentioned, it's been cited, it's been linked, it's been quoted; it's even been suggested that after Labour's plans were rebuffed ministers went off and urged that there should be a Directive so that if/when the plans were resurrected they couldn't be rebuffed without breaking EU law - which is not actually as far-fetched as it may seem, because it's pretty much what Heseltine did over postal services.

Here it is again in the Official Journal of the European Union, Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:105:0054:0063:EN:PDF

[Richard M]

Or is this just a cack-handed way to increase income for the Royal Mail ?
Any terrorists will just revert to plain old pen paper and envelopes, or is the government intending to open all mail as well?

What sickens me,is the clear opposition to this Big Brother policy when Tory and Libeal where not in office. Now, they jump at the chance to stuff this EU led (hat-tip to Christina Speight) guff down our throats.

No good Cameron making a "veto" when he is evidently fully intent on implementing these evil proposals. Might as well close the Press enquiry into the NOTW phone hacking and come clean with " We are going to nationalise eavesdropping as government policy anyway".

[Denis Cooper]

"Just because the EU says we should do something does not mean we do it."

That depends on how it's said; if it's said in a Recommendation then it's non-binding, but if it's said in a Directive then it's legally binding on the EU member state governments, it becomes one of the UK government's many "treaty obligations" and under our own national law UK ministers must seek to comply with it.

[CDR]

I've been using anon browsing for the past two years. I can be in any country I choose, in terms of IP address. Emails, bit trickier. Encryption needed, although "they" claim they won't be reading the contents (ho ho ho).The whole surveillance thing is disgusting, but entirely expected, given that we are living through the Days of Hell as prophesied. I can only say this....that henceforth we should now expect our government to declare all-out war against us, in terms of surveillance, tracking, legislation, taxation etc etc etc. This is but the beginning.
The majority are made to suffer for the misdeeds of the minority (who, in most cases, will have figured their way around the surveillance problems and gone off into a completely different scenario). It's all part of a bigger agenda.
"What a way to build Britain's internet business in the 21st century." Indeed.

[Denis Cooper]

As I understand it would still need a warrant to read the content of a suspect's emails, which would be the equivalent of tapping his phone.

I don't know what the correct procedure was or is for checking up on calls made to and from a phone - in the past watching Midsomer Murders I've remarked upon the ease with which Barnaby's assistants can get phone companies to provide a list of numbers for calls to and from a phone, without any delay to get a warrant, but then I've also remarked that they don't seem to bother about getting a warrant before they have a quick snoop around inside a house without the resident's consent.

No warrant is necessary to follow somebody in real space to see who he meets, and then to extend the surveillance to some of his contacts, so arguably no warrant should be needed to do the same in virtual space.

The point is how investigators can explore connections between individuals to spot potentially dangerous networks among the masses of interactions, almost all of which have nothing to do with terrorist plots, and I don't think that could be done effectively if every new contact thrown up required a new warrant.

I'm not on the side of oppressors, I'm on the side of innocent people who might otherwise be blown to pieces or poisoned or incinerated or irradiated or shot or beheaded.

[RutlandReliable]

David Davis twice uses the phrase "The simple truth " In this area of surveillance the Truth is rarely Simple. Also has he ditched the tie to Modernise his image ? He is a good politician.