UK 'Snooper's Charter' Torn Up; Now What?

from the not-over-yet dept

Thu, Apr 25th 2013 9:32am — Glyn Moody

Since the UK government published the draft version of its Communications Data Bill -- better known as the "snooper's charter" -- with plans to store data about every British citizen's emails, mobile calls and visits to Web sites, there has been almost total opposition to it from everyone else. Indeed, there has been growing resistance even within the UK government's ranks, largely from the smaller of the coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats. Here's what the party's leader and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, has been up to, as described by one of the Liberal Democrat MPs, Julian Huppert:

Nick refused to allow the Bill to go ahead, and forced the Home Office to publish the Bill as a draft, allowing us all to see what the Home Office were planning. Nick appointed Paul Strasburger and I onto a Committee to scrutinise it in detail. We went through the evidence, heard from many experts and published a cross-party report. This was damming of the Home Office proposals -- it unanimously describe some of the Home Office information as 'fanciful and misleading'.

Following Nick's intervention and our report, the Home Office was given the chance to rethink. To build a proper case and look for proposals which were proportionate to the problem.

However, instead of trying to answer the huge range of criticisms of the proposed Bill, the Home Office simply insisted that such an intrusive system of surveillance was needed. As a result: Nick has just this morning announced that he has killed off the Data Communications Bill, dubbed the "snooper’s charter".
By withdrawing the support of the Liberal Democrats, Clegg makes it practically impossible to pass the Bill, since the UK government will lack the requisite majority to push it through. However, this is by no means the end of the story.

Clegg will be under huge pressure from the Prime Minister, David Cameron, and his Conservative party colleagues, to agree to some slightly watered-down proposals. Cameron will doubtless invoke all the usual reasons -- tackling terrorism, paedophiles, organized crime etc. -- knowing that this plays well with enough of the electorate that Clegg won't be able to ignore it completely. So we can probably expect to see new plans in due course. The question then becomes to what extent they address the huge flaws in the original snooper's charter, and whether they represent an approach that is truly "proportionate to the problem", as the cross-party report puts it. If they don't, the battle will doubtless begin again.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: nick clegg, snooper's charter, uk

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

out_of_the_blue, 25 Apr 2013 @ 9:49am

What, they're kicking Google out?
"store data about every British citizen's emails, mobile calls and visits to Web sites"

Why is that okay if a supposedly commercial entity does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2013 @ 9:55am
  
  Re: What, they're kicking Google out?
  "Why is that okay if a supposedly commercial entity does it?"
  
  It's not necessarily OK (depends on how it's used), but at least there's a degree of separation between commercial entities and the government. That separation is also why the US government cares so much about CISPA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2013 @ 9:56am
  
  Re: What, they're kicking Google out?
  Because with a commercial entity you tend to have to opt in by using their service. With the government it would be optin if you use *any* service. FUD flinger.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2013 @ 9:59am
  
  Re: What, they're kicking Google out?
  You aren't even trying anymore.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 25 Apr 2013 @ 10:03am
  
  Re: What, they're kicking Google out?
  Why is that okay if a supposedly commercial entity does it?
  
  Because you can, as I do, choose not to use that service.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 25 Apr 2013 @ 11:26am
  
  Re: What, they're kicking Google out?
  Why is that okay if a supposedly commercial entity does it?
  It's not, but:
  A/ At least one has a choice whether to give the commercial entity the data. In contrast the government compels information whether one wants them to have it or not.
  
  B/ In the UK there are, at least theoretically, limits as to what the commercial entity can do with the data gathered.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2013 @ 12:06pm
  
  Re: What, they're kicking Google out?
  The worst case with commercial entities is that insurance becomes more expensive, or you fail to get a job. While with a government, the worst case is jail under terrorist laws, in a secret court, where you do not know what evidence is being used against you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 25 Apr 2013 @ 12:09pm
  
  Re: What, they're kicking Google out?
  The commercial entity only gets data you willfully provide them. Technically they don't spy on you (ie: they don't read your e-mails and stalk you as if you were some terrorist). I know you'll accuse Google of doing so without any evidence while foaming like a mad dog but until you provide evidence it's a no no. And usually one commercial entity stores only one part of what was mentioned, never all of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2013 @ 9:50am

Information is power
Welcome and surprising news about a country whose government generally cares so little about privacy. Meanwhile, in the United States, the NSA collects information on all communications, despite the absence of a law allowing it to spy on Americans.

Information is power. The Internet facilitates the spread of information. For a government to maintain its monopoly over democratic self-rule, it is therefore essential for the government to have a surplus of information and for the people to have far less of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2013 @ 4:08am
  
  Re: Information is power
  Here bloody here
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 25 Apr 2013 @ 10:09am

I wouldn't get too excited, folks. Puppet Clegg rolled over on the NHS, he rolled over on tuition fees, he rolled over on the Justice and Security legislation. The smart money is on him rolling over on this, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 25 Apr 2013 @ 12:10pm
  
  Re:
  I think the money is on his pocket making him roll and bark like an obedient puppy. But it could be just me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2013 @ 10:15am

You're all guilty because some of you are guilty...think of the children.

/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2013 @ 10:22am

You aren't a child-touching terrorist mobster are you? Only they would oppose this bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2013 @ 10:23am
  
  Re:
  /sarc
  
  by the way
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2013 @ 10:26am
    
    Re: Re:
    I find it sad that it's necessary to add a sarcasm tag to distinguish your post from those of certain other persons.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 25 Apr 2013 @ 11:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I find it sad that it's necessary to add a sarcasm tag to distinguish your post from those of certain other persons.
      I find it even sadder that it's barely possible to distinguish the government's usual arguments from that of the "other persons" you mention... and they don't do sarcasm.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2013 @ 10:25am

the main reason for the 'snooper's charter' is because the USA government want it brought in and the UK government is shit scared of doing anything to upset them (god knows why that is!). that would enable better information to supposedly be available and shared between the two nations, although i give no prizes for which nation would want to get the most and which one would want to give the least!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Howard (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 6:08am
  
  Re:
  Such databases can be stolen, "hacked", traded behind closed doors and then used to prosecute. That's why they're collecting it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RyanNerd (profile), 26 Apr 2013 @ 7:01am

Orwell 1984
I hate how Orwell got the year wrong, and I hate how close he predicted it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]