This article is from the source 'guardian' 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.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/26/legal-experts-greater-scrutiny-surveillance-laws

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Legal experts call for greater scrutiny of surveillance laws Legal experts call for greater scrutiny of surveillance laws
(about 17 hours later)
An alliance of prominent academics have signed a letter to the government warning against any expansions of state surveillance without the full involvement of parliament and the public. An alliance of prominent academics has signed a letter to the government warning against any expansions of state surveillance without the full involvement of parliament and the public.
The letter’s 38 signatories, led by LSE law professor Andrew Murray and University of East Anglia lecturer in IT law Paul Bernal, call on the new government “to ensure that any changes in the law, and especially any expansions of power, are fully and transparently vetted by parliament, and open to consultation from the public and all relevant stakeholders”.The letter’s 38 signatories, led by LSE law professor Andrew Murray and University of East Anglia lecturer in IT law Paul Bernal, call on the new government “to ensure that any changes in the law, and especially any expansions of power, are fully and transparently vetted by parliament, and open to consultation from the public and all relevant stakeholders”.
They warn that previous expansions of state power have frequently been introduced in a manner “seemingly designed to stifle robust democracy consideration”. In February 2015, for instance, the Home Office published a draft code of practice granting the intelligence services the authority to hack into computers, domestically and overseas, for the first time.They warn that previous expansions of state power have frequently been introduced in a manner “seemingly designed to stifle robust democracy consideration”. In February 2015, for instance, the Home Office published a draft code of practice granting the intelligence services the authority to hack into computers, domestically and overseas, for the first time.
The signatories write that despite the fact hacking “is a much more intrusive form of surveillance than any previously authorised by parliament”, the government sought to authorise it through a code of practice rather than through primary legislation, which would require a parliamentary debate and scrutiny.The signatories write that despite the fact hacking “is a much more intrusive form of surveillance than any previously authorised by parliament”, the government sought to authorise it through a code of practice rather than through primary legislation, which would require a parliamentary debate and scrutiny.
Similarly, the government granted the police and intelligence services effective immunity from criminal liability for hacking through a simple “clarifying amendment” to the Serious Crimes Act 2015. The newly legal ability on the part of the state to hack into computers “also threatens the security of all internet services”, the letter details, “as the tools intelligence services use to hack can create or maintain security vulnerabilities that may be used by criminals to commit criminal acts and other governments to invade our privacy”.Similarly, the government granted the police and intelligence services effective immunity from criminal liability for hacking through a simple “clarifying amendment” to the Serious Crimes Act 2015. The newly legal ability on the part of the state to hack into computers “also threatens the security of all internet services”, the letter details, “as the tools intelligence services use to hack can create or maintain security vulnerabilities that may be used by criminals to commit criminal acts and other governments to invade our privacy”.
“The government should not be permitted to surreptitiously change the law whenever it so desires, especially where such changes put our privacy and security at risk,” the signatories conclude.“The government should not be permitted to surreptitiously change the law whenever it so desires, especially where such changes put our privacy and security at risk,” the signatories conclude.
“We are calling on all members of the House of Commons, new and returning, and of all political persuasions to support us in this by ensuring parliamentary scrutiny is applied to all developments in UK surveillance laws and powers as proposed by the current government,” they add.“We are calling on all members of the House of Commons, new and returning, and of all political persuasions to support us in this by ensuring parliamentary scrutiny is applied to all developments in UK surveillance laws and powers as proposed by the current government,” they add.
The letter is signed by legal and cybersecurity experts from across the UK, including professors from the universities of Oxford, Essex, Sussex and Durham. It is being sent to all 650 MPs in parliament on Tuesday morning.The letter is signed by legal and cybersecurity experts from across the UK, including professors from the universities of Oxford, Essex, Sussex and Durham. It is being sent to all 650 MPs in parliament on Tuesday morning.