The Prime Minister and Home Secretary should be asking themselves what exactly it is they are trying to protect from these terrorists, if not the basic freedoms of their citizens? They would likely argue that if we've done nothing wrong, we have nothing to hide - and should therefore be more than happy for the government to snoop in on our messages. But that's not the point.
The Snoopers' Charter re-introduced the same powers that have just been declared illegal - and added new, even more intrusive, ones. But creating a new law for 2017 cannot let the Government circumvent the human rights law that protects us. So today Liberty has launched The People vs the Snoopers' Charter - a legal challenge against this authoritarian surveillance regime, backed by the ordinary people subjected to its gaze.
It was the Government's appeal that sent the case back to the CJEU, where the High Court asked for clarification of its ruling on the Data Retention Directive. The Prime Minister may live to regret this. Her decision to push on regardless with the Investigatory Powers Act suggests that she thought the CJEU's ruling may have been limited.
The five things you need to know on Wednesday, November 30… 1) DONALD, DUCK! At PMQs a fortnight ago, Jeremy Corbyn exploited
I do not believe that Parliament has given this Bill the thought it deserved and is weaker for that lack of serious challenge. For these reasons, I would urge that people keep signing the petition, and continue building the number up. Parliament must be shown that there is still a great deal of concern.
Is the government the real enemy? Or is it the hackers...
If you think GCHQ are the only ones that can view your browsing history you might want to think again. The newly enforced
The Investigatory Powers Bill (otherwise known as the Snoopers’ Charter) is finally here and there’s absolutely nothing we
Despite voicing their concerns about these powers, one question has still lingered on my mind: what exactly prevented the Silicon Valley giants from being able to block the disclosure of sensitive, private communications prior to the proposal of the bill?