Draft Communications Data Bill to be redrafted - No 10

 

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales: The Communications Data Bill is "absolutely incompetent"

Related Stories

No 10 says the PM remains committed to giving police and security services new powers to monitor internet activity, despite criticism of current plans.

The prime minister's spokesman said he accepted the criticism from MPs and peers of the draft Communications Data Bill and would re-write it.

Deputy PM Nick Clegg had threatened to block it unless there was a "rethink".

No 10 said bringing in new powers was a "government commitment" and everyone was "committed to fixing this problem".

He said: "We recognise this is a difficult issue. We will take account of what the committee said."

The deputy prime minister had earlier said he would block the draft Communications Data Bill and push for plans ensuring "the balance between security and liberty".

His comments came as a committee of MPs and peers criticised the bill's scope.

Civil liberties campaigners have described the proposals as a "snoopers' charter", but Home Secretary Theresa May insists they are vital for countering paedophiles, extremists and fraudsters.

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaderships agree on the need for new measures, but they disagree over their scope.

Nick Clegg: ''We need a fundamental rethink, go back to the drawing board''

The plans in the draft bill include:

  • Internet service providers having to store for a year all details of online communication in the UK - such as the time, duration, originator and recipient of a communication and the location of the device from which it was made.
  • They would also be having to store for the first time all Britons' web browsing history and details of messages sent on social media, webmail, voice calls over the internet and gaming, in addition to emails and phone calls
  • Police not having to seek permission to access details of these communications, if investigating a crime
  • Police having to get a warrant from the home secretary to be able to see the actual content of any messages
  • Four bodies having access to data: the police, the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, the intelligence agencies and HM Revenue and Customs

A report from the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Bill, made up of MPs and peers, accepted a new law was needed to help police fight crime and tackle security threats organised online.

But it warned ministers would be able to demand "potentially limitless categories of data" unless the draft bill was amended.

Data Communications Bill

  • The Bill would extend the range of data telecoms firms have to store for up to 12 months
  • It would include, for the first time, details of messages sent on social media, webmail, voice calls over the internet and gaming, in addition to emails and phone calls
  • The data would include the time, duration, originator and recipient of a communication and the location of the device from which it was made
  • It would not include the content of messages - what is being said. Officers would need a warrant to see that
  • But they would not need the permission of a judge to see details of the time and place of messages, provided they were investigating a crime or protecting national security
  • Four bodies would have access to data: the police, the Serious and Organised Crime Agency, the intelligence agencies and HM Revenue and Customs
  • Local authorities would face restrictions on the kinds of data they can access

It called for "safeguards" over the new powers to prevent abuse and accused the government of producing estimates of the cost of implementing the plans which were not "robust" enough.

The "net benefit figure" was "fanciful and misleading", it said.

The MPs and peers added that the draft bill paid "insufficient attention to the duty to respect the right to privacy" and went "much further than it need or should for the purpose of providing necessary and justifiable official access to communications data".

Mr Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, said the committee had raised "a number of serious criticisms - not least on scope, proportionality, cost, checks and balances, and the need for much wider consultation".

"It is for those reasons that I believe the coalition government needs to have a fundamental rethink about this legislation. We cannot proceed with this bill and we have to go back to the drawing board."

But he added: "The committee did not, however, suggest that nothing needs to be done. They were very clear that there is a problem that must be addressed to give law enforcement agencies the powers they need to fight crime. I agree.

"But that must be done in a proportionate way that gets the balance between security and liberty right."

'Secret notices'

In its report, the committee said the home secretary would be given "sweeping powers to issue secret notices to communications service providers, requiring them to retain and disclose potentially limitless categories of data".

But it added: "We have been told that she has no intention of using the powers in this way. Our main recommendation is therefore that her powers should be limited to those categories of data for which a case can now be made."

If these powers needed to be enhanced in future, this should be done with "effective parliamentary scrutiny", it said.

The home secretary wants the bill in place next year.

This bill wasn't dreamt up by Tory ministers in the coalition.

The previous Labour government came up with the first plans after the intelligence and security community said it needed modern tools to combat modern threats - threats organised online rather than through invisible ink messages left under park benches.

So the controversy is not about the bill's aim, but its scope - something we have seen in other pieces of security legislation since the coalition took office. Powers to hold terror suspects in their own home and the current bill to protect state secrets in courts were both cut back as part of coalition compromise. In each case ministers aimed to protect the primary purpose.

The question is whether this particular bill will be able to do its job if it goes through the same exercise - and that's why Nick Clegg will face claims of playing politics with security.

Security minister James Brokenshire told BBC Radio 4's Today programme there was a "legitimate debate" to be had.

He added that he wanted to "rebalance" the bill, so that "it's properly reflecting the needs of the collective and the needs of the individual".

Mr Brokenshire also said: "If there were to be any extension, that would have to be through the full scrutiny of Parliament. We are saying very clearly that we accept that."

He added: "We know that we need to work this through the coalition."

For Labour, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the government was "making a complete mess of a very important issue".

"It is important that the police and security services can keep up to date with modern technology, but this bill is too widely drawn, is unworkable and gives far too much power to the home secretary without proper safeguards."

She added: "It is astonishing that the Home Office have had so little discussion with the internet companies who need to deliver this legislation. The Government have been slipshod with this bill from the word go."

A Home Office spokesman said: "This legislation is vital to help catch paedophiles, terrorists and other serious criminals and we are pleased both scrutiny committees have recognised the need for new laws.

"We have now considered the committees' recommendations carefully and we will accept the substance of them all. But there can be no delay to this legislation. It is needed by law enforcement agencies now."

The Intelligence and Security Committee, which has sent a classified report on its findings to Prime Minister David Cameron, after speaking to the security services, called for more detail to be included in the draft bill.

It recommended that it be "future-proofed" to ensure extra powers are not added without scrutiny, adding that there had been "insufficient consultation" between ministers and internet providers.

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +13

    Comment number 208.

    The fact that virtually everyone commenting on this is weighing up the benefit of this Bill and the risk of 'terrorism' and deciding they would prefer the 'terrorism' risk says just how bad this idea is.

    It will give the police a trawler net instead of a fishing rod, but with it will come many victims of injustice and destruction of the freedoms that this country is built on. Do not allow it!

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 207.

    This incompetent govt can't get anything right first time, can they? No wonder Flashman believes in "second chances", more back of the fag packet thinking from this useless govt that is wasting money doing everything twice, if it's not the West Coast fiasco then it's something else. They are wasting £ms because they can't be bothered to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s!

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 206.

    The bill was always a mistake.

    Watering it down will defeat is original misguided objective and will be another expensive Government white elephant

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 205.

    @187.CodeDebugger

    proxy server wouldnt work because the government are going to be getting info the isp too. so if they wanted info on yourself and knew your name then they can get all your history from the isp in a nice little data package. proxy only masks your ip meaning it would stop them from tracing you. VPN or TOR works better.

  • rate this
    +10

    Comment number 204.

    The government is doing the terrorists' job for them.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 203.

    Whatever you do never mention Anna in your texts. It comes up as Bomb when using predictive text . . . and that's the last we'll see of you buddy.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 202.

    @189 that wouldn't be the tenants of the Palace of Westminster then. That lot are naive, and trying to push a nationalist policy that certain late dictators would be proud of.

    Wouldn't be the current managers of our Security services either, who demonstrate a total lack of understanding of what they're up against.

    Fancy hitting up Anonymous to see if they can spare some people to take over?

  • rate this
    +64

    Comment number 201.

    The problem with legislation like this is that, as history has shown, if Governments are able to abuse it, they will.

  • rate this
    +9

    Comment number 200.

    As a few have pointed out already, this measure is nothing but a hinderence for any 'real' terrorist. VPN and routing software that even an 8 year old can access and use now provides cover that even M16 can not break. This is simply Orwells 1984 boot pushing further in to the face of the UK population. All in all, it's ironic really how the BBC comments on North Korean internet being draconian!

  • rate this
    +17

    Comment number 199.

    175 "I'm sure the electorate will congratulate you for this at the next GE."

    You don't get it do you? It doesn't matter which party is in power. They will all enact similar legislation, back the banks, put the interests of Big Business PLC way before that of the people.
    Global capitalism OWNS them all!! That's why they want to watch people like you and I who aren't exactly chuffed about it all!

  • rate this
    +10

    Comment number 198.

    Doesn't make sense. Terrorists etc. would just communicate in a different way. They are obviously wanting to track us, the general public. Would this even be legal in Scotland? Did any of us vote for this?

  • rate this
    +53

    Comment number 197.

    The joke of this is that the government will make the ISPs foot the bill for this and the ISPs will make you foot the bill in return. You'll be employing the people who spy on you.

  • rate this
    +10

    Comment number 196.

    Right...

    The day this becomes law is the day I start to encrypt my data.

    And no, I don't have anything to hide, just not happy about snoopers. I always thought stalking and being a peeping Tom were against the law...

  • rate this
    +7

    Comment number 195.

    184. Who do you think the government gets money from? The government doesn't pay for anything; we do.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 194.

    if they're planning on doing this, how long will it be before they want to track everything on our phones/tablets and even our landline phones

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 193.

    well all that will happen ( prob does any way ) is that the bad guys thru botnets use some one elses pc to do the job, prob thru Tor or some other ip obscuring device. Only the stupid terrorists will be caught. This new law is just window dressing? I cant see that the security services are demanding it. If they are, that makes me very worried at their ineptitude or their intentions?

  • rate this
    +44

    Comment number 192.

    This whole idea is so half-baked! Those with something to hide will still be able to avoid any of these proposals and the rest of us don't matter in this context.

    Drafted by people who haven't a clue how to deal with the issues.

  • rate this
    +5

    Comment number 191.

    'Good Cop, Bad Cop'.

    Clegg and Cameron are on the same team. This bill will have been discussed between them.
    I do smell the essence of deception where the bill is deliberately made wider ranging with more power than is needed in order for it to be challenged.

    Than it can be watered down to an intent (probably still exceeding that which is necessary) and claim success by both parties. Win-Win.

  • rate this
    +6

    Comment number 190.

    This really is a disturbing idea. This country is becoming a police state and the politicians, banks and media are out of control. What happens if there is a real need to stop these out of control people? Anyone who wants to do the right thing for liberty and freedom will be monitored under this bill and arrested. Human Rights state a persons right to a private life, this surely breaches that?

  • rate this
    -48

    Comment number 189.

    This blog is like a University for Anarchists.
    All competing with each other for who can sat the most radical trendy anti authority post.
    Grow up and leave our protection to the professionals.

 

Page 22 of 32

 

More Politics stories

RSS

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.