Our right to communicate without surveillance could be swept out the back door. Photo: Flickr/Yuri Samoilov
Show Hide image

Has terrorism already claimed its next victim in Britain: our right to privacy?

An uncivil liberty.

Following last week’s tragic events in France, the world has spoken out in solidarity against religious extremism, and in support of the freedom of expression. But alongside this, another narrative has emerged. In the name of safety, British officials have begun arguing in favour of stronger powers for the security services to intercept personal data.

Back in 2012, the Conservative government initiated the Communications Data Bill, legislation that quickly became known as the Snooper’s Charter. The proposed bill would allow security services the same surveillance access to people’s email, internet and social media use as it currently enjoys over traditional communication methods such as letters and landline calls.

David Cameron has said that he will reintroduce the Snooper’s Charter if May’s general election is won by the Conservatives, while both Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband have stressed the need for caution in legislating on areas with the potential to infringe upon civil liberties. The Liberal Democrats have already blocked attempts to pass the Snooper’s Charter under the coalition government.

Andrew Parker, director general of MI5, said soon after the Paris attacks that a similar event on British soil is “highly likely”. He also suggested that his agency’s inability to monitor digital communications is problematic in terms of preventing such an attack: “Whenever we lose visibility of what they are saying to each other, so our ability to understand and mitigate the threat they pose is reduced.”

But the Snooper’s Charter is unlikely to be the right move to support security services in their mission to defend the public against terrorism. The Intelligence and Security Committee report into the murder of Lee Rigby found that the soldier’s killers were known to the security services but deemed low risk. Ongoing surveillance was stopped due to a lack of funding for action on suspects classified at this level. In the case of Paris, too, the attackers were known to French intelligence, but limited resources were diverted away from continued monitoring.

Rather than an increase in surveillance powers, a more reasonable request would be for an increase in resources for the monitoring of low-risk suspects, including the recruitment of a new group of skilled intelligence analysts to do so. A more effective approach, as opposed to a wider-reaching net, would surely be more beneficial all round.

GCHQ already holds unprecedented abilities to intercept the online communications of citizens through its Tempora programme, as revealed in last year’s leaks by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The difficulty for security services at the moment is that their technological capacities far outweigh the scope of the legislation that currently exists. To some extent, the introduction of the Snooper’s Charter would be retrospective, looking to legally justify the abilities that GCHQ already have and implement.

The Lord Ashcroft poll released yesterday gives the Tories a six-point lead over Labour. If this is to be seen as a public reaction to Cameron’s position on how best to defend Britain against terrorism, we find ourselves in worrying times. As people take to the streets to celebrate and defend free speech in light of the Paris attacks, our right to communicate without surveillance could be swept out the back door.

Does Britain now stand as a nation prepared to hand over its civil liberties in the name of "safety"? If so, terrorism has already claimed its next victim: our right to privacy.

Lauren Razavi is a freelance columnist and features writer. Follow her on Twitter @LaurenRazavi.

Getty
Show Hide image

Lord Sainsbury pulls funding from Progress and other political causes

The longstanding Labour donor will no longer fund party political causes. 

Centrist Labour MPs face a funding gap for their ideas after the longstanding Labour donor Lord Sainsbury announced he will stop financing party political causes.

Sainsbury, who served as a New Labour minister and also donated to the Liberal Democrats, is instead concentrating on charitable causes. 

Lord Sainsbury funded the centrist organisation Progress, dubbed the “original Blairite pressure group”, which was founded in mid Nineties and provided the intellectual underpinnings of New Labour.

The former supermarket boss is understood to still fund Policy Network, an international thinktank headed by New Labour veteran Peter Mandelson.

He has also funded the Remain campaign group Britain Stronger in Europe. The latter reinvented itself as Open Britain after the Leave vote, and has campaigned for a softer Brexit. Its supporters include former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg and Labour's Chuka Umunna, and it now relies on grassroots funding.

Sainsbury said he wished to “hand the baton on to a new generation of donors” who supported progressive politics. 

Progress director Richard Angell said: “Progress is extremely grateful to Lord Sainsbury for the funding he has provided for over two decades. We always knew it would not last forever.”

The organisation has raised a third of its funding target from other donors, but is now appealing for financial support from Labour supporters. Its aims include “stopping a hard-left take over” of the Labour party and “renewing the ideas of the centre-left”. 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

0800 7318496