{"id":2957,"date":"2015-11-11T11:02:02","date_gmt":"2015-11-11T16:02:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/diplomacy\/?p=2957"},"modified":"2016-02-20T13:36:19","modified_gmt":"2016-02-20T18:36:19","slug":"changing-safeguards-in-britains-intelligence-community","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.shu.edu\/journalofdiplomacy\/2015\/11\/changing-safeguards-in-britains-intelligence-community\/","title":{"rendered":"Changing Safeguards in Britain\u2019s Intelligence Community"},"content":{"rendered":"

The <\/span>twitterverse<\/span><\/a> has been up in arms this past week about what Internet users are calling an undemocratic and \u201cbreathtaking\u201d attack on privacy. A new \u201c<\/span>Investigatory Powers Bill<\/span><\/a>\u201d (frequently described as the \u201csnooper\u2019s charter\u201d) was presented to the British Parliament this past Wednesday for initial review and consulting. It is slated to be introduced as a bill come the New Year. In order to become a law, it will have to pass in both houses of the British Parliament. An incredible amount of the rhetoric used by major British media outlets in covering this bill makes it sound as if Britain is facing a momentous occasion to see whether or not George Orwell\u2019s <\/span>1984<\/span><\/i> will really come true. In a tweet yesterday, renowned hacker group Anonymous shared a Guardian <\/span>article that reads<\/span><\/a> \u201cU.K. Snooper\u2019s Charter makes George Orwell look like he lacked vision.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The forward in the draft bill, written by the Right Honourable Theresa May, highlights missing persons, child exploitation, and drug cartels as the predominant threats that warrant the proposed increase in intelligence power. Indeed, the first case study in the published document referenced a child sexual exploitation case involving the lead singer of the band <\/span>Lostprophets<\/span><\/i>, Ian Watkins; a case based on recovered emails and other web-based communications. It is easier to sell a product when you\u2019re using it to save children and missing persons, but many UK citizens are concerned about what these newly proposed powers would mean for themselves and their families. If you are an average citizen of the United Kingdom reading this right now, and you\u2019re curious about what this new legislation means to you, you can find a helpful breakdown <\/span>here<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ideally, according to this forward, these powers will be subject to \u201crobust safeguards and visible, effective oversight.\u201d Emphasizing oversight has been a hugely important aspect of the publication of this bill. The draft bill seeks to consolidate existing powers of the three parties that currently serve as overseers for the intelligence community, create some new oversight mechanisms altogether and update legislation to accommodate an era where communication is largely Internet-based. This draft bill has been lauded as the result of three reviews and 198 resulting recommendations regarding the use and oversight of investigatory powers by the U.K.\u2019s intelligence agencies. According to the text of the draft bill, there are currently three oversight bodies in the United Kingdom, which is \u201cmore confusing than a single, authoritative body which has all the skills and resources it needs.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

A recent <\/span>article by the Economist<\/span><\/a> notes that this draft bill has experienced more consensus than surveillance bills of the past, likely helped by the fact that the U.K.\u2019s <\/span>Liberal Democrat party lost 49<\/span><\/a> seats this past May (they served as the main pro-privacy voice in the legislature). The main changes in this bill involve requiring judges to issue a warrant before an intelligence agency can acquire the data, communications agencies to hold onto all their client\u2019s data for 12 months (lest they become suspect of anything), and authorities will allegedly not be allowed to know which specific web pages were viewed, rather the category of Internet usage. One of the major concessions in the draft bill is that it does not \u00a0require \u00a0technology companies to avoid or build \u201cback doors\u201d to encryption mechanisms, although some <\/span>commentators are still angry<\/span><\/a> that \u201cend-to end\u201d encryption (where the only actors who can access the information are the two users involved) is still banned. It is also suggested that the \u201cbulk inference\u201d and \u201cbulk data retention\u201d parts of the bill refer to giving the intelligence bureaus relatively explicit power to hack into the systems of suspects and retain mass surveillance of its population, wording that is worrisome to British privacy and civil-liberties groups. <\/span><\/p>\n

The draft bill’s measures include<\/span><\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n