This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/emergency-data-law-government-railroading-through-legislation-on-internet-and-phone-records-9596695.html
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Emergency data law: Government 'railroading' through legislation on internet and phone records | Emergency data law: Government 'railroading' through legislation on internet and phone records |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| The Government was accused today of railroading through an emergency law to allow the state to retain personal data held by internet and telephone companies. | The Government was accused today of railroading through an emergency law to allow the state to retain personal data held by internet and telephone companies. |
| David Cameron and Nick Clegg insisted that the controversial move was needed to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence agencies could maintain their existing ability to access telecommunications data they need to investigate criminal activity and protect the public. It follows a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling in April that an EU directive allowing data retention for 12 months was an invasion of privacy. It covers the detail of who is in communication with whom but not the content of their messages or phone calls. | David Cameron and Nick Clegg insisted that the controversial move was needed to ensure that law enforcement and intelligence agencies could maintain their existing ability to access telecommunications data they need to investigate criminal activity and protect the public. It follows a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling in April that an EU directive allowing data retention for 12 months was an invasion of privacy. It covers the detail of who is in communication with whom but not the content of their messages or phone calls. |
| The Prime Minister and his deputy said internet and phone companies also wanted a clearer legal framework to cover their dealings with the security services when the content of communications between terrorists and people involved in serious crimes is intercepted. They argued that the state would “lose track” of some dangerous individuals without a new law. | The Prime Minister and his deputy said internet and phone companies also wanted a clearer legal framework to cover their dealings with the security services when the content of communications between terrorists and people involved in serious crimes is intercepted. They argued that the state would “lose track” of some dangerous individuals without a new law. |
| The emergency Data Retention and Investigation Powers Bill was approved by a special Cabinet meeting today and announced at a rare joint press conference by Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg. It will be rushed through Parliament before the summer recess. It will have a “sunset clause” under which it will have to be renewed after two years. During that period, there will be a review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which has been criticised for allowing excessive surveillance. | The emergency Data Retention and Investigation Powers Bill was approved by a special Cabinet meeting today and announced at a rare joint press conference by Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg. It will be rushed through Parliament before the summer recess. It will have a “sunset clause” under which it will have to be renewed after two years. During that period, there will be a review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which has been criticised for allowing excessive surveillance. |
| David Cameron and Nick Clegg insisted that the controversial move was needed to ensure that law and intelligence agencies could maintain access to data they need to investigate criminal activity (Getty) Although the Labour Opposition is backing the Bill, some MPs are unhappy about the way it is being rushed through without a full debate. Tom Watson, the Labour MP, said he would vote against some aspects of the measure. He said the Government was aware of the ECJ ruling six weeks ago but had waited until the dying days of Parliament to railroad it through. “It is ramping up the rhetoric on it. This is a stitch-up and a secret deal between the three parties,” he said. | David Cameron and Nick Clegg insisted that the controversial move was needed to ensure that law and intelligence agencies could maintain access to data they need to investigate criminal activity (Getty) Although the Labour Opposition is backing the Bill, some MPs are unhappy about the way it is being rushed through without a full debate. Tom Watson, the Labour MP, said he would vote against some aspects of the measure. He said the Government was aware of the ECJ ruling six weeks ago but had waited until the dying days of Parliament to railroad it through. “It is ramping up the rhetoric on it. This is a stitch-up and a secret deal between the three parties,” he said. |
| Mr Cameron made clear that he was not reviving a “snooper’s charter” bill to extend the state’s powers to retain data, which has been blocked by the Liberal Democrats, but hinted that this measure would be revived if the Tories win next year’s general election. | Mr Cameron made clear that he was not reviving a “snooper’s charter” bill to extend the state’s powers to retain data, which has been blocked by the Liberal Democrats, but hinted that this measure would be revived if the Tories win next year’s general election. |
| He said: “It is the first duty of government to protect our national security and to act quickly when that security is compromised. As events in Iraq and Syria demonstrate, now is not the time to be scaling back on our ability to keep our people safe. The ability to access information about communications and intercept the communications of dangerous individuals is essential to fight the threat from criminals and terrorists targeting the UK. | He said: “It is the first duty of government to protect our national security and to act quickly when that security is compromised. As events in Iraq and Syria demonstrate, now is not the time to be scaling back on our ability to keep our people safe. The ability to access information about communications and intercept the communications of dangerous individuals is essential to fight the threat from criminals and terrorists targeting the UK. |
| Tom Watson, the Labour MP, said he would vote against some aspects of the measure (Getty) The Prime Minister added: “No government introduces fast track legislation lightly. But the consequences of not acting are grave. I want to be very clear that we are not introducing new powers or capabilities – that is not for this Parliament. This is about restoring two vital measures ensuring that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies maintain the right tools to keep us all safe.” | Tom Watson, the Labour MP, said he would vote against some aspects of the measure (Getty) The Prime Minister added: “No government introduces fast track legislation lightly. But the consequences of not acting are grave. I want to be very clear that we are not introducing new powers or capabilities – that is not for this Parliament. This is about restoring two vital measures ensuring that our law enforcement and intelligence agencies maintain the right tools to keep us all safe.” |
| Mr Clegg said: “We know the consequences of not acting are serious, but this urgency will not be used as an excuse for more powers, or for a ‘snooper’s charter’. I believe that successive governments have neglected civil liberties in the pursuit of greater security. We will be the first government in many decades to increase transparency and oversight, and make significant progress in defence of liberty. But liberty and security must go hand in hand. We can’t enjoy our freedom if we’re unable to keep ourselves safe.” | Mr Clegg said: “We know the consequences of not acting are serious, but this urgency will not be used as an excuse for more powers, or for a ‘snooper’s charter’. I believe that successive governments have neglected civil liberties in the pursuit of greater security. We will be the first government in many decades to increase transparency and oversight, and make significant progress in defence of liberty. But liberty and security must go hand in hand. We can’t enjoy our freedom if we’re unable to keep ourselves safe.” |
| Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, accused the Government of “using the threat of terrorism as an excuse” for the new law. He said: "Not only will the proposed legislation infringe our right to privacy, it will also set a dangerous precedent where the Government simply re-legislates every time it disagrees with a decision by the ECJ. The ruling still stands and these new plans may actually increase the amount of our personal data that is retained by ISPs, further infringing on our right to privacy. Blanket surveillance needs to end. That is what the court has said." |