Watchdog calls for internet terror law
BRITAIN’S terror watchdog today called for an overhaul of surveillance laws as he warned that “no-go areas” on the internet for police and intelligence agencies should be minimised to protect the public.
David Anderson QC said that it would “abdicate the rule of law” if there were parts of the internet that terrorists, paedophiles and other criminals knew were out of bounds to the state.
He said a “world class” law was needed to prevent this and ensure that the bulk collection of phone, email, text and other data continues.
The power of the intelligence agencies and police to obtain warrants to read the content of such material should also be retained.
But he argued that new safeguards, including greater judicial scrutiny and a new surveillance watchdog, were needed to ensure public confidence.
Mr Anderson’s findings came in a 373-page report to the Prime Minister on the future of surveillance laws.
It was commissioned following warnings from the intelligence agencies and police that technological changes, such as encryption, were making it harder to access vital information.
Critics — who have seized on revelations by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden about the scale of data collection by GCHQ and American agenc ie s — h ave ac c u s e d mini st e r s o f seeking a “snoopers’ charter” that will intrude unnecessarily on privacy.
Mr Anderson, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, today said he was not calling for “extensive new powers”.
But he said: “No-go areas for law enforcement should be minimised as far as possible, whether in the physical or the digital world.
“Were it to be otherwise, entire channels of c o mmunic at i o n could be reduced to lawless spaces in which freedom is enjoyed only by the strong, and evil of all kinds can flourish.”
Mr Anderson’s report says the new law should retain powers requiring companies to store bulk telecoms and other data. This would allow police and intelligence agencies to obtain such data under a warrant to discover with whom suspects have been in contact.
The report says “strict additional safeguards” should include judicial au th o r i s a t i o n fo r warr a nt s a nd a “tighter definition” of when access to such material should be permitted.
On interception powers, which enable the content of such data to be read, the report says future warrants should be authorised by a judge except in national security cases. It recommends that these should be authorised by a Secretary of State, but should still be subject to review by a judge. Other safeguards should include limiting interception warrants to six months and a new surveillance watchdog to replace the three existing bodies.
Mr Anderson also says intelligence agencies should not have a “master key” to break automatically encrypted data. Nor should there be other powers allowing “back door” access into communications networks.
The report urges Parliament to consider whether its Intelligence and Security Committee should have its members elected, rather than appointed, and be chaired by a person from outside the governing party.
As evidence of the value of surveillance powers, the report cites the discovery of a plot by the head of one London gang to order the shooting of a rival.