169 days to help Julian Huppert protect the internet from the prying eyes of the state

 I have a list of measures passed by this Coalition Government that I can't stand. I call it the FFS list. A measure has to be monumentally awful to get on to that list. The changes to the Immigration Rules that Theresa May is planning are on it, as is the removal of ESA from people after a year. It's a very short list, but it affects a lot of lives in an absolutely heart rending way.

Slightly different, but still in the same league, is the Draft Communications Bill published today. You can read all its 123 pages of measures and guidance notes here. I must confess I haven't yet, but I will. Nor do I claim to understand all of it. But that's ok, because there are people like Zoe who combine impeccable liberal credentials with an understanding of the technical nitty gritty. If this measure was passed in its current form, it would be straight on to the FFS list. Clause 1 is full of the sort of wide ranging power granted to a secretary of state that brings anyone who cares about civil liberties out in hives. Apparently it won't be used in an inappropriate way. Aye, right. Let's just not take that chance.

Thankfully, though, thanks to Nick Clegg putting his foot down, this Bill is purely a draft. If you've ever seen me write a blog post, you'll know that the first draft is nowhere near what eventually appears. Rather than allow the Home Secretary to tack a bit about Communications Data on to another crime bill, he's insisted that this issue is scrutinised within an inch of its life. If it hadn't been for Nick, make no mistake, this Bill would be being rushed through Parliament now, probably as part of another measure, and it would have very little scrutiny.This is different, though. We have 169 days to change things.

What happens now is that a Parliamentary Committee of 12 from both Lords and Commons hears evidence from a wide range of people with an interest in the Bill. Yes, the Police and the Home Office and the spooks will want to have their say, but so too will Liberty, Big Brother Watch, ISPs and the like.

What's particularly good is that one of our poster boys for civil liberties (well, you can't get much better than a former  Liberty Council member) Julian Huppert, MP for Cambridge. He's pretty well clued up on this as I've found during several Conference calls now. What he wants us to do is hone in on this Bill, dissect it and build an evidence based watertight case for amendments which provide the maximum safeguards.

Some of you will ask why we don't just kill it now. Well, we will if this scrutiny process doesn't come up with a Bill we can accept. But if we do that we are still left with RIPA, the 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which has been augmented with deeply authoritarian nasties over the years. Last year there were 540,000 data requests. That's far too many, and some only need the authority of a Police inspector. The Draft Bill does reduce the number of people who can get access to data but it needs to go further. As far as I'm concerned, the best form of authorisation comes from a Judge issuing a warrant so I want to see more of that.

So half a million data requests plus - and what for? The Home Office hasn't really broken it down, but I'd really like to see how many there are for different types of cases.

Anyway, your mission, dear reader, should you choose to accept it, is to go through the Bill with the finest tooth comb you have and help Julian build an absolutely watertight case for a massive redrafting of this Bill to improve it beyond recognition and ensure that the freedom of citizens to go about their business on the internet, to exchange bitchy Facebook messages, to indulge in secret geeky obsessions or just to indulge your Amazon habit without the unwarranted intrusion of the State. The Committee has to report by the end of November. That's just 169 days. So, get to it. Where we want to get is somewhere around the policy we passed earlier this year:

a) ensuring that there shall be no interception of telephone calls, SMS messages, social media, internet or any other communications without named, specific and time-limited warrants;

b) guaranteeing that any communications data kept by service providers in accordance with the EU Data Retention Directive are kept securely by the service providers, and that they be only released to government bodies with strict and strengthened safeguards;

c) ensuring that service providers are not mandated by law to collect communications data by any method that would also provide access to content information, unless specifically authorised by a warrant;

d) ensuring that service providers are not mandated by law to collect third-party communications data for non-business purposes by any method;

e) renegotiating the EU Data Retention Directive and changing how it is implemented into UK law, to provide a better balance towards privacy.

I will keep you posted as the Committee is formed. There will be two Lib Dems, Paul Strasburger, along with Julian. They will probably start taking evidence in September. I'll let you know how to contribute your views.

Oh, and by the way, if you read anywhere that Nick Clegg is happy with the draft bill, it's total bollocks. He hasn't spoken to the press about it. Both the BBC and the Daily Fail apparently had him quoted as being happy with it and he is not. And he's prepared to kill any bill that doesn't have appropriate safeguards.

These next five months are important for civil liberties. Let's demolish the nasties in this Bill clause by clause and end up with something workable and sensible which guarantees civil liberties - or nothing at all.

Julian Huppert MP talks to bloggers on web snooping plans

Last Wednesday night, I took part in a conference call Julian Huppert MP and other bloggers who were interested in any potential web snooping plans. When I say interested, I mean "would start frothing at the mouth if any of our MPs voted for anything remotely like what was being touted in the media at the beginning of April. In fact, most of us want to see a rolling back of the powers which already exist.

Despite our concern, a draft Bill was announced in the Queen's Speech. Julian Huppert wrote for Liberal Democrat Voice that 

I am delighted to see that, following Nick Clegg’s intervention, the Bill in the Queen’s Speech is in draft form only. This is absolutely crucial, as it will force the Home Office to tell people what they are actually planning to do, rather than refusing to give any specifics, which has long been the case. It will lead to a full and open discussion – in public – about the level of data surveillance we are prepared to accept in the name of national security.

A Select Committee – perhaps the Home Affairs Select Committee, which I serve on, or one set up specifically for this task – will go through all the details. It will seek and listen to expert opinion from outside Westminster, and not just listen to the requests of the police and the security services. The onus must be on the Home Office to prove to us that these measures are needed, and that they are proportionate. ‘A spook told me’ is not a valid argument.

It was really good of Julian to make himself available to talk us through what happens next. What's clear is that had Nick Clegg not put his foot down, there would be an actual Bill in the Queen's Speech, to be debated in Parliament straight away. Worse, it would more likely have been part of another Bill so on its own wouldn't even have got that much parliamentary scrutiny. This isn't happening. We're getting a draft, at some point in the next few weeks, instead. That will then be given over to a Committee - perhaps the Home Affairs Select Committee, or a special one set up as was done for libel reform.

That Committee will scrutinise it within an inch of its life. They will be able to take evidence from anyone who's interested, from civil liberties groups to technical experts. After the scrutiny process, the Government will look at what the Committee has said. Only if Liberal Democrats were satisfied with the proposed legislation would a full Bill be forthcoming. If it is unacceptable to us, it won't happen.

I would not have thought that our whips would expect most of our MPs to vote for anything disproportionate that granted sweeping powers. Julian said that we have to be careful what powers we grant to the security services because they will use all of them.

The Home Office is used to a pretty easy ride for its authoritarian proposals. It certainly had one from Labour who were quite happy at the thought of locking people up without charge for 3 months. It's having to get used to the fact that Liberal Democrats are different and are not going to let them have their own way all the time. They've already had to back off from a full bill, and they are no doubt going to have to go further.

Julian was quite candid that when the draft bill comes out, there will be stuff in it that we are not going to like, that will be unpalatable to all of us. What he wants us to do is focus in very specifically on what needs to be changed. He has a reasonable amount of technical knowledge, but there are people in the party who have much more and he wants to hear from them.

Having been involved in the development of measures on libel reform, which went through a similar process, Julian was a keen advocate of this way of doing things, as he mentioned in his LDV article:

First, we have fantastic news about libel reform. I am delighted that the Defamation Bill will finally come into being. As Liberal Democrats we have long made the case that our libel laws are out-dated and in desperate need of improvement.  Our current system unfairly favours the rich because the cost of lawsuits means ordinary people find it very difficult to defend themselves against false allegations. Citizens face great costs if they are accused of libel, regardless of the facts. This has had a chilling effect: justice for those with wealth, not truth, on their side. And we’ve seen libel tourism too – cases brought here because of our lax libel laws.

This Bill should address that problem, and give every person in the UK access to justice and the ability to defend their name and reputation. All of this while protecting free speech. I am very pleased to see that the Bill will give scientists and academics more protection from libel action. At the moment many scientists and academics face a real dilemma when it comes to revealing their research for fear of being sued.  The cases of Simon Singh and Peter Wilmshurst have shown just how bad this can be.

On a personal level, I have been pushing on this for a while – I served on the Joint Committee that studied the draft Bill, and I expect the final version to be much improved. I pressed Ken Clarke on this recently and he confirmed that peer-reviewed research should be protected from libel actions. The Defamation Bill is an achievement championed by Liberal Democrats, and one that we can be proud of.

I had been aghast at some of the things being talked about in April and there were indications that certain people in the Westminster Bubble weren't getting it. I feel a great deal more reassured now that we're all on the same page. Julian Huppert being part of the process is a large part of that - the man used to be on the Council of Liberty, for goodness' sake. He can be trusted on this issue. Not only that, but he's shown willing to listen to what people who are experts in this field in the party have to say.

I suspect strongly that there is still a long way to go in terms of winning our case within the Government on this, but the more focused and forensic our dissection of the proposals, the more chance we have of  seeing off unnecessary, illiberal and intrusive measures.