Parliament is about to embark on the long process of producing new
legislation that will replace the discredited Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa). It will address the needs for law
enforcement agencies to identify and track murderers, paedophiles,
criminals and terrorists across the rapidly expanding digital
communications arena. We should rejoice, as it is an opportunity for our
country to set a global gold standard of legislation to keep our people
safe and yet take due account of individual privacy.
Far from welcoming this opportunity, I have noticed a barrage of misguided and vitriolic comment often painting our police and agencies as a risk to freedom and heaping praise on Edward Snowden (May’s new surveillance powers face opposition, 5 November). We should be clear that the men and women in the agencies and police work tirelessly to ensure our greatest freedom, that of life itself. Snowden has, by releasing masses of classified material, made it inevitable that innocents will die who would otherwise have lived. This legislation is critical for the security of our people, so let’s stop using rabble-rousing, meaningless phrases and work to ensure it is fit for purpose when it becomes an act in 12 months time.
Alan West
House of Lords
• Yet another victory for terrorism conceded by the home secretary (Mass-snooping has been going on for years, November 5). With every such erosion of liberty and privacy, the society the government purports to be protecting is diminished. Even if it is possible to trust today’s government ministers, one cannot trust the next government, or the one after that, which will have access to this huge database. Governments continually seek to answer questions of the how and the where of terrorism but, it appears, never the far more important question: “Why do they do it?” Prevention is crucial and the actions of western governments towards the Palestinians, in Iraq and Libya, and, probably, in due course in Syria, feed seductive extremist voices and assist their recruitment efforts. A change of emphasis is urgently required.
Michael Meadowcroft
Leeds
• For “Peter” to say he wants the “debate to be informed by the facts” (GCHQ needs to collect bulk data to do its work, 5 November) is disingenuous in that without Edward Snowden there would be no facts or debate. All we ever have are half-understood inferences. We use these to judge the trustworthiness of governments. We know that there are secret courts with Kafkaesque proceedings. We know that peaceful protest organisations are frequently penetrated by the security services. We know that users of certain software are targeted by the security services, not for wrongdoing but assumed guilt. Bulk data access is to be granted by a blindfold judge. From experience we know that these powers will be misused and that the only thing worse than a state that knows everything about its citizens is one that thinks it knows everything.
Far from welcoming this opportunity, I have noticed a barrage of misguided and vitriolic comment often painting our police and agencies as a risk to freedom and heaping praise on Edward Snowden (May’s new surveillance powers face opposition, 5 November). We should be clear that the men and women in the agencies and police work tirelessly to ensure our greatest freedom, that of life itself. Snowden has, by releasing masses of classified material, made it inevitable that innocents will die who would otherwise have lived. This legislation is critical for the security of our people, so let’s stop using rabble-rousing, meaningless phrases and work to ensure it is fit for purpose when it becomes an act in 12 months time.
Alan West
House of Lords
• Yet another victory for terrorism conceded by the home secretary (Mass-snooping has been going on for years, November 5). With every such erosion of liberty and privacy, the society the government purports to be protecting is diminished. Even if it is possible to trust today’s government ministers, one cannot trust the next government, or the one after that, which will have access to this huge database. Governments continually seek to answer questions of the how and the where of terrorism but, it appears, never the far more important question: “Why do they do it?” Prevention is crucial and the actions of western governments towards the Palestinians, in Iraq and Libya, and, probably, in due course in Syria, feed seductive extremist voices and assist their recruitment efforts. A change of emphasis is urgently required.
Michael Meadowcroft
Leeds
• For “Peter” to say he wants the “debate to be informed by the facts” (GCHQ needs to collect bulk data to do its work, 5 November) is disingenuous in that without Edward Snowden there would be no facts or debate. All we ever have are half-understood inferences. We use these to judge the trustworthiness of governments. We know that there are secret courts with Kafkaesque proceedings. We know that peaceful protest organisations are frequently penetrated by the security services. We know that users of certain software are targeted by the security services, not for wrongdoing but assumed guilt. Bulk data access is to be granted by a blindfold judge. From experience we know that these powers will be misused and that the only thing worse than a state that knows everything about its citizens is one that thinks it knows everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment