Snooper's Charter May Not 'Increase' Surveillance... But Tries To Legalize Over A Decade Of Secret, Illegal Mass Surveillance

from the oh,-look-at-that dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about the UK's release of its new Snooper's Charter bill, where we noted that the government spin on it was fairly dizzying. I noted at the time that while the government kept insisting that it wasn't adding a requirement to backdoor encryption, that was misleading because the text of the bill indicated the government believed such a mandate already existed. And that's only the least of it. The bill and the discussion around it simply confirmed that the UK government engaged in mass surveillance for many, many years, and until now only a "tiny handful" of government ministers even knew about it.

That's kind of astounding.

And, amazingly, the government is using this fact to argue that the new bill is a good thing because it actually "limits and restricts" activity that it secretly engaged in for years and years. Everyone feared the "new" powers in the bill. And the astounding thing is that the government is now twisting this to quietly reveal that it secretly and illegally spied on people for years.
The government finally admitted on Wednesday that the mass surveillance of British citizens began in 2001 after 9/11 and was stepped up in 2005, using powers under national security directions largely hidden in the 1984 Telecommunications Act.

It is not known if government law officers sanctioned the use of the act in this way, but it appears the intelligence and security committee responsible for parliamentary oversight was not informed, adding to the impression of a so-called deep state operating outside the scrutiny of parliament.
It seems like it took a day or two for people to realize all of this, as everyone was so focused on the "new" powers they expected to be in the bill. It took everyone by surprise to find out that the bill was more about trying to "legitimize" illegal mass surveillance that had been going on without any oversight for over a decade.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Zero, 6 Nov 2015 @ 10:45am

    "It is not known if government law officers sanctioned the use of the act in this way, but it appears the intelligence and security committee responsible for parliamentary oversight was not informed, adding to the impression of a so-called deep state operating outside the scrutiny of parliament."


    Sounds like another example of an exercise in plausible deniability

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.