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 2 Version 3
Emergency data law: Government 'railroading' through legislation on internet and phone records Emergency data law: David Cameron plots to bring back snoopers’ charter
(about 11 hours 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. David Cameron is planning to revive the controversial “snoopers’ charter” through a wide-ranging review of the laws allowing public bodies to access private communications, which he announced today alongside emergency surveillance legislation.
The legislation requires that personal communications data is held for 12 months, giving law enforcement access to metadata of phone calls, emails, text messages and the like. Metadata includes information about the time messages are sent and the location of the sender, but not the actual content. The “Big Brother” law backed by the Prime Minister and Theresa May, the Home Secretary, would require internet firms to store records of every website visited by subscribers in the past 12 months and their use of social media.
Laws requiring telecommunication companies to retain this information were first introduced across Europe following the 7 July bombings in 2005, but an EU directive passed this April ruled that data retention of 12 months was an invasion of privacy. The Communications Data Bill, as it is officially known, was blocked by the Liberal Democrats last year on the grounds that it would infringe privacy. Together with Labour, the party pressed for an independent review of the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) in the hope it will lead to greater safeguards on surveillance by state agencies – including curbs on allowing phone calls to be intercepted when a serious crime or terrorist act is suspected.
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. But Mr Cameron has other ideas and hopes the review, to be completed by 2016, will bolster the case for the “snoopers’ charter” by recommending the state takes new powers to keep pace with new communications techniques used by criminals.
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. For now, the state’s existing powers will be maintained, thanks to emergency legislation that Mr Cameron and Nick Clegg announced today, which will be rushed through Parliament next week. This will require phone and internet firms to store email and phone calls for 12 months, and will allow the police and security services investigating serious crimes to access details of who a person spoke to, and when, but not the content of their communication.
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 Prime Minister and his deputy won the backing of Ed Miliband for the Data Retention and Investigation Powers Bill, which they insist will preserve the status quo rather than extend state snooping.
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. But the prospects for more far-reaching powers that would be contained in the contentious law now hinge on the outcome of next year’s general election. A Conservative-led government would seek to bring back the charter, while a Labour-run one would be unlikely to do so.
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 said he hoped the review would enable politicians to avoid a “party political ding dong”, adding: “I hope we can build consensus for taking further action.”
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: “I am pretty clear where I stand in this debate. We must debate the civil liberties issues and the capabilities issue for the future.”
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.” The jointly backed powers announced today will confirm that foreign-based firms should hand over limited data harvested in Britain – a move seen as a tacit admission that Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, may have revealed surveillance work that did not enjoy international legal backing in his high-profile leaks.
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.” Internet and phone companies, mainly in the United States, had warned they would soon start to delete such records following a ruling in April by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that an EU directive infringed privacy.
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." 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)
Mr Cameron argued that some companies also wanted a clearer legal framework to cover the interception of communications by terrorists and criminals, which requires a warrant.
Labour and the Lib Dems claimed credit for the wider review, which had previously been resisted by Mr Cameron, and for other safeguards announced today which include:
* The emergency law will lapse in 2016, so any replacement can be considered fully by Parliament;
* A new privacy and civil liberties board, based on the American model, will oversee the security services;
* Fewer public bodies will be able to access phone and internet data; councils will have to go through a single central authority;
* Data cannot be collected to protect the “economic well-being” of the country, only to combat terrorism and crime;
* Annual transparency reports on how surveillance powers are used.
Mr Cameron told a joint press conference with Mr Clegg: “We face real and credible threats to our security from serious and organised crime, from the activity of paedophiles, from the collapse of Syria, the growth of Isis in Iraq and al-Shabaab in East Africa.I am simply not prepared to be a prime minister who has to address the people after a terrorist incident and explain that I could have done more to prevent it.”
Mr Clegg stressed: “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 ‘snoopers’ charter.’”
Labour expressed “serious concerns” about the “rushed process” to get the Bill on the statute book before Parliament’s summer break. But Mr Miliband said: “I am convinced major investigations into terrorism and organised crime would be jeopardised if we don’t pass legislation and that would jeopardise the security and safety of our citizens.”
Tom Watson, the Labour MP, said he would vote against some aspects of the measure (Getty)
But Tom Watson, a Labour MP and former minister, said he would vote against some aspects of what he called a “stitch-up and secret deal” between the three parties.
David Davis, the former shadow Home Secretary, claimed there was only a “theatrical emergency” because officials had been aware of the ECJ ruling since April.
Liberty, the civil liberties group, said the Government’s “existing blanket surveillance policy has been found unlawful in the courts for breaching human rights.”
Andrew Caplen, president of the Law Society, said: “We are concerned that introducing emergency legislation does nothing to enhance the rule of law or address the fact that we are increasingly becoming a surveillance society.”
Q&A: What the public should know about the emergency Bill
Q. Why is an emergency law being fast-tracked through Parliament?
A. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in April that an EU directive allowing the retention of data by internet and phone companies breached people’s privacy. The firms could start deleting data within weeks.
Q. Will the Bill give the state extra powers to spy on phone calls and emails?
A. No. The Bill maintains existing powers under which the police and security agencies  can access communications data and intercept suspects’ phone calls and emails. It will allow telecoms companies to retain data for 12 months, so law-enforcement agencies can use it when investigating terrorism and serious crimes.
Q. What’s the difference between communications data and intercepts?
A. Communications data reveals when, where and how people contact one another electronically, but not the content of any calls or emails. It is used in 95 per cent of all serious organised-crime cases and has aided every counter-terrorism investigation in the last decade. Law-enforcement agencies often use “retrospective” information to discover contact between suspects and victims, or place suspects at a crime scene. Legal intercepts allow police or security agencies to listen in on a suspect’s calls or view emails. Intercepts require a warrant signed by the Home Secretary and are subject to oversight by the Interception of Communications Commissioner.
Q. Why are Labour and the Liberal Democrats backing the emergency Bill?
A. They believe the existing powers are needed to combat terrorism and serious crime. In return for their support, they won some safeguards, including a full-scale review of the 2000 law covering access to private communications by public bodies.
Q. Is this the return of  the ‘snoopers’ charter’?
A. Not yet. The separate Data Communications Bill would have extended the requirement for firms to retain phone and email data to include records – but not the content – of everyone’s internet browsing, including their use of social-media sites like Facebook and mobile-phone messaging services. It was blocked by Nick Clegg. But David Cameron made clear he hopes the review will build a political consensus for such tougher measures.