The Crewe branch of the Co-operative Bank. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The Co-operative needs to set a higher standard

An open letter to outgoing chief executive Euan Sutherland.

Dear Mr Sutherland,

Congratulations on your resignation! If you do the honourable thing and leave without taking a pay-off, you could save Co-operative members like myself £3.6m in your salary alone over night - an impressively efficient move. 

I know your chair said that your pay-out was what other "comparable companies" offer, but really, most people join the Co-op because it is not a comparable company. At a time when the British public have spent billions bailing out mainstream banks, we kind of wanted something... different?

I know you were also fuming with how your pay was leaked and by the public outrage that has followed - particularly from Co-op members and candidates like myself - but you of all people should know that members are supposed to participate and hold executives to higher standards. That again is kind of the point of being a Co-operative. Plus, we were victorious. It seems that, unlike other banks, members have actually succeeded in removing you when you tried to get paid millions without actually delivering any results. 

Yes, the Co-op needs reform. But our bank didn't fail because it didn't pay its top people enough - it failed because it wasn't co-operative and accountable enough. More transparency and power to members would have dislodged the appalling Mr Flowers long ago. A bigger Co-operative movement would allow a greater and more talented range of board members to choose from. Better worker representation as well as customer representation might help find alternatives to laying off 5,000 staff as in your plan. Similarly, if you'd asked us about boardroom pay in this upcoming survey of yours, and listened, we might not be in this pretty pickle. 

Right now, the Co-op bank - just like all banks and the rest of the country - has a choice. Are we going to carry on with business as usual, handing out huge cheques regardless of success until the next crash, or are we going to fundamentally reform our banking system? It's something George Osborne should think about in the Budget next week, but don't worry, he won't mention it. 

But Co-operators will. Because "The Co-op" is more than just a nice brand. Its a set of ideas and values. We believe in creating a robust and local banking system that is accountable to local people. We believe that participation and shared ownership, not big bonuses, is what leads to better banking. Co-operators work together to be radical, not make isolated decisions to preserve hierarchies between the elites and the rest. We believe it's a time for boldness, not swallowing what failed in 2008.

Of course if you don't believe any of this, then maybe the Co-op isn't for you anyway. But don't worry - sadly you'll still find plenty of banks where you'll fit right in. 


Rowenna Davis 

Co-operative Labour Candidate for Southampton Itchen

Rowenna Davis is Labour PPC for Southampton Itchen and a councillor for Peckham

Show Hide image

7 problems with the Snooper’s Charter, according to the experts

In short: it was written by people who "do not know how the internet works".

A group of representatives from the UK Internet Service Provider’s Association (ISPA) headed to the Home Office on Tuesday to point out a long list of problems they had with the proposed Investigatory Powers Bill (that’s Snooper’s Charter to you and me). Below are simplified summaries of their main points, taken from the written evidence submitted by Adrian Kennard, of Andrews and Arnold, a small ISP, to the department after the meeting. 

The crucial thing to note is that these people know what they're talking about - the run the providers which would need to completely change their practices to comply with the bill if it passed into law. And their objections aren't based on cost or fiddliness - they're about how unworkable many of the bill's stipulations actually are. 

1. The types of records the government wants collected aren’t that useful

The IP Bill places a lot of emphasis on “Internet Connection Records”; i.e. a list of domains you’ve visited, but not the specific pages visited or messages sent.

But in an age of apps and social media, where we view vast amounts of information through single domains like Twitter or Facebook, this information might not even help investigators much, as connections can last for days, or even months. Kennard gives the example of a missing girl, used as a hypothetical case by the security services to argue for greater powers:

 "If the mobile provider was even able to tell that she had used twitter at all (which is not as easy as it sounds), it would show that the phone had been connected to twitter 24 hours a day, and probably Facebook as well… this emotive example is seriously flawed”

And these connection records are only going to get less relevant over time - an increasing number of websites including Facebook and Google encrypt their website under "https", which would make finding the name of the website visited far more difficult.

2. …but they’re still a massive invasion of privacy

Even though these records may be useless when someone needs to be found or monitored, the retention of Internet Connection Records (IRCs) is still very invasive – and can actually yield more information than call records, which Theresa May has repeatedly claimed are the non-digital equivalent of ICRs. 

Kennard notes: “[These records] can be used to profile them and identify preferences, political views, sexual orientation, spending habits and much more. It is useful to criminals as it would easily confirm the bank used, and the time people leave the house, and so on”. 

This information might not help find a missing girl, but could build a profile of her which could be used by criminals, or for over-invasive state surveillance. 

3. "Internet Connection Records" aren’t actually a thing

The concept of a list of domain names visited by a user referred to in the bill is actually a new term, derived from “Call Data Record”. Compiling them is possible, but won't be an easy or automatic process.

Again, this strongly implies that those writing the bill are using their knowledge of telecommunications surveillance, not internet era-appropriate information. Kennard calls for the term to be removed, or at least its “vague and nondescript nature” made clear in the bill.

4. The surveillance won’t be consistent and could be easy to dodge

In its meeting with the ISPA, the Home Office implied that smaller Internet service providers won't be forced to collect these ICR records, as it would use up a lot of their resources. But this means those seeking to avoid surveillance could simply move over to a smaller provider.

5. Conservative spin is dictating the way we view the bill 

May and the Home Office are keen for us to see the surveillance in the bill as passive: internet service providers must simply log the domains we visit, which will be looked at in the event that we are the subject of an investigation. But as Kennard notes, “I am quite sure the same argument would not work if, for example, the law required a camera in every room in your house”. This is a vast new power the government is asking for – we shouldn’t allow it to play it down.

6. The bill would allow our devices to be bugged

Or, in the jargon, used in the draft bill, subjected to “equipment interference”. This could include surveillance of everything on a phone or laptop, or even turning on its camera or webcam to watch someone. The bill actually calls for “bulk equipment interference” – when surely, as Kennard notes, “this power…should only be targeted at the most serious of criminal suspects" at most.

7. The ability to bug devices would make them less secure

Devices can only be subject to “equipment interference” if they have existing vulnerabilities, which could also be exploited by criminals and hackers. If security services know about these vulnerabilities, they should tell the manufacturer about them. As Kennard writes, allowing equipment interference "encourages the intelligence services to keep vulnerabilities secret” so they don't lose surveillance methods. Meanwhile, though, they're laying the population open to hacks from cyber criminals. 


So there you have it  – a compelling soup of misused and made up terms, and ethically concerning new powers. Great stuff. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.