The UK's Independent Review of Terrorism Legislation has said, "it is time for a clean slate" when it comes to surveillance law in the UK. In his report published today, David Anderson QC condemned the current legislative framework as, "fragmented, obscure, under constant challenge and variable in the protections that it affords the innocent".
Anderson was tasked with reviewing surveillance law as a requirement of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act - one of the concessions gained by Labour and the Lib Dems in return for their support in rushing the Bill through Parliament last July.
Anderson, unsurprisingly, does not condemn mass surveillance in principle and endorses bulk collection by the security services, but the report does call for a radical overhaul of how surveillance is regulated.
Here are some of Anderson's key recommendations:
Legal reform: Since the Snowden revelations began two years ago, Parliament has further legislated for surveillance through DRIPA, the Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015 and amendments to the Computer Misuse Act to legitimise hacking by the security services. Anderson's damning verdict that the law, "is variable in the protections that it affords the innocent" can't be ignored. The report says: "A comprehensive and comprehensible new law should be drafted from scratch, replacing the multitude of current powers and providing for clear limits and safeguards on any intrusive power that it may be necessary for public authorities to use."
Warrants: Under the current system, warrants for surveillance are signed off by government ministers. This political authorisation is not independent, which means that it threatens what is necessary and proportionate. Anderson's recommendations that warrants should be signed off by judicial commissioners is a welcome shift away from politicial authorisation but it would be preferable for warrants to go through the courts and be signed by serving judges.
Snoopers' Charter: Anderson says that extending capabilities through a new Snoopers' Charter should only happen if there is, "a detailed operational case needs to be made out, and a rigorous assessment conducted of the lawfulness, likely effectiveness, intrusiveness and cost of requiring such data to be retained". So far the Government hasn't made such a case. In addition, it has made a report by Sir Nigel Sheinwald top secret. That report is believed to have suggested that a new international treaty could be a legal alternative to the Snoopers' Charter. Despite this, the Home Secretary Theresa May today told the House of Commons that the re-drafted Snoopers' Charter would be laid before Parliament in the autumn - although it would be scrutinised by a Joint Committee.
It is unlikely that Anderson's review and the Intelligence and Security Committee's Privacy and Security report would have happened were it not for Edward Snowden's revelations. Two years on, there are still many battles to be fought but one thing is certain - the status quo cannot continue. MPs from all parties must act in ensuring that we have surveillance powers fit for a democracy.
You can sign Open Rights Group's petiton against the Snoopers Charter here.
This blog was first posted on the Open Rights Group blog, and can be read here