CONTENTS

politics first | Special Section: Cyber Crime
Lord Brian
Paddick,
Liberal Democrat Home
Affairs Spokesperson in
the House of Lords
ADVERTORIAL
The Prime Minister’s invasive and
expensive attack on our privacy
102
Whilst Theresa May fought her battle for Downing Street in front of the
TV cameras of the national media, she kept up her personal fight against
online privacy in Parliament. The Investigatory Powers Bill has been
slowly moving through the House of Lords over the Summer. It is a much
needed piece of legislation which updates the laws our security services
use to deal with the realities of the modern, digital, world. Unfortunately,
as it currently stands, it completely fails to fulfil this aim and, instead,
acts as an authoritarian and overreaching power grab.
In the Lords, as they did in the Commons, Labour, lacking the fight
to offer any real opposition, are making backroom deals which see most
of the Bill pass unopposed. The Liberal Democrats will still make a
stand, fighting for changes to the Government’s ability to hold on to our
web histories, fighting to protect journalists’ sources, fighting to protect
communications between lawyers and their clients, and fighting for
legislation which is both necessary and proportionate.
The Liberal Democrats recognise the vital role that the police and the
security services play in keeping us safe. We also recognise the need
for trust between state agencies and the public, not least to ensure the
flow of community intelligence - even more vital as the terrorist threat
changes in nature and criminals become more sophisticated.
In order to be effective, the police and the security services need
to have powers to carry out surveillance, including the interception of
communications, the retention and acquisition of “who called who,
when and where” data and even being able to hack into mobile phones
and computers of drug dealers and terrorists. That will involve intrusion
into people’s privacy, but unless there is no other practical means of
achieving the objective, intrusion into innocent people’s privacy should
not be allowed, and even then it should be subject to the highest levels
of scrutiny.
The major bone of contention for Liberal Democrats is allowing
the Government to hold on to everyone’s web history. Everything that
every innocent citizen searched for, no matter how personal, no matter
how mundane, no matter how far outside Government interest it is,
Government agencies, including the police, can crawl all over it on the
basis of mere suspicion and without a warrant.
If they had existed in the past, those rules would have hurt me
personally. Twenty-five years ago, when I was married to my wife, Mary,
I believed I was gay. Should I have been able to keep that situation
private? What if someone today was in that position and wanted to
research using the internet to get some help and guidance, for fear of
talking to anyone and letting the cat out of the bag? That is just one
example where “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear”
is not the same as “if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve got nothing
to worry about.” There have been numerous examples of the police
wrongly disclosing sensitive personal information in the past and these
vast oceans of data could easily be hacked, even by journalists.
But it is not just that unprecedented intrusion which makes retaining
everyone’s web histories a bad move - they simply will not work in
practice. At least one other country has tried to do the same thing and
failed. They can easily be evaded by taking the simplest of precautions
and they could cost millions of pounds in set-up costs alone. Even if
the provisions get through Parliament, they are likely to be struck down
by our courts eventually, who will likely view them as disproportionate.
The big question is how much money will the government have wasted
before they are sent back to the drawing board?
The security services MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have said that they do not
need internet connection records because they can get the information
they need by other means. You do not need internet connection records
to defeat serious crime or terrorism.
We need reform of our surveillance laws; we need to build a legal
framework which works with modern threats that are often plotted online.
But we must build systems which work. Legislation must be capable
of being implemented by the security services who we are asking to
operate under it. What is being put together by this under-opposed
Government does not meet what is demanded of it. Our society will be
worse off, not better protected.