(MintPress)—Proposed domestic surveillance legislation in the United Kingdom that would require internet providers to install real-time monitoring devices on all users’ systems, allowing government access to email and web traffic information, is causing outrage among civil rights groups who claim the measure infringes on privacy.
Even conservative leaders, including former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis, have referred to the new law as an excuse to snoop on ordinary people, joining organizations like Privacy International and Big Brother Watch in opposition to the proposal.
Controversy over the proposed British bill comes on the heels of a decade of ongoing domestic spying measures in the United States. Arguments for the measures claim the need for on-the-spot access to users’ accounts to combat piracy, crime and potential terrorist activities. Civil rights groups, including the ACLU, in the United States claim measures are a violation of fourth amendment rights, which guard against unreasonable search and seizures.
The debate isn’t much different in the UK.
According to Britain’s Internet Service Providers’ Association, the proposal would allow the UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) real-time access to all users’ information, in many cases without a warrant. Warrants would only be needed to access specific lines of communication.
Information accessible without a search warrant would include websites visited, length of communication among parties, and who users are communicating with. In order to access content of communication, the GCHQ would be mandated to obtain a warrant. While specific information regarding conversations on social networks like Facebook would not be accessible, who a person is communicating with through social networking would.
Growing trend in UK domestic surveillance
While the new system would undoubtedly allow for more surveillance of normal British citizens, the move is a continuation of ongoing spying efforts rolled back by the government in the last decade. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, introduced in 2000, gave government officials power to carry out surveillance and intercept communications on the grounds of national security. Heads of police and intelligence agencies can already give approval on requests to access information regarding websites visited and emails sent, although the contents of such emails are not available legally without a warrant.
Laws in the UK also currently mandate communication companies to keep logs for one year on all customers, which are made available to the police or intelligence agencies upon request.
The UK’s spy tactics are considered among the most invasive in the world, especially among democratic countries. Closed circuit television (CCTV) has for decades been a staple of UK surveillance measures, with estimates that one CCTV exists for every 14 people in the country — a phenomenon that has slowly been introduced into US surveillance practices.
In 2009, the Labour party proposed a government-owned database capable of collecting online information of all citizens — a move that met plenty of criticism by Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservative members. This time around, it’s the Conservatives proposing the measure, although not all leaders within that party are on board.
The legislative popularity on the current proposal will be determined when it is officially introduced next month, although a draft of the bill is expected to be released before that point. If passed, it would become law by the end of the year, adding to the country’s ongoing domestic surveillance programs.
UK Support and opposition
UK Prime Minister David Cameron spoke publicly in support of the proposed bill at a press conference Wednesday.
“It is the job of the prime minister to make sure that we do everything that is necessary to keep our country safe, particularly to keep our country safe from serious and organized crime and terrorist threats that we have faced in this country and still face in this country,” he said.
His inclusion of crime fighting insinuates powers would be extended to those in the realm of law enforcement. Cameron emphasized that civil liberties would not be violated, despite the law’s grab for more surveillance power.
Not all Conservatives are throwing support behind the bill. Davis has come out attacking the proposal, saying the UK already has the power to monitor who is communicating with whom via the internet. He has said he considers the new measure “an unnecessary extension of the ability of the state to snoop on ordinary people.”
A letter sent on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, signed by 17 MPs, does not give clear opposition to the bill, but praises Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg’s promise to allow time for legislators and the public to view the bill in full scope before decisions are made.
Taking US internet privacy laws to the next level
The UK law is essentially taking current United States internet privacy laws a step further, in regard to easy access practices by the government.
While U.S. laws have safeguards from unreasonable searches, recent measures taken by the government are calling into question the scope of spying powers. Patriot Act laws have allowed internet-based searches on the grounds of an administrative subpoena, which can be granted by the heads of law enforcement or intelligence agencies. Warrants are still lawfully needed to see specific contents of emails and phone calls.
However, violations of that law came into question in 2005, when it was revealed that a 2002 presidential order signed by Bush allowed access to thousands of lines of private communication with those communicating overseas. Officials within the administration said such access was needed to monitor Al-Qaeda activity.
President Barack Obama answered calls for renewal of key provisions of the Patriot Act, allowing for roving wiretaps and searches aimed at businesses and surveillance of non-American individuals suspected of possible terrorist activity, but who have no ties to terrorist organizations. Renewal of such practices will be up in 2015.
Arguments for rolling back privacy rights have largely fallen under the umbrella of monitoring suspected terrorists, protecting the U.S. from cyber attacks and policing piracy. But with every person in the United States a target of internet domestic surveillance, the legitimacy of that argument and the effectiveness of such measures is called into question. The method by which the government chooses whom to monitor is not publicly known. What is known is that the National Security Agency (NSA) is taking steps to create a national database capable of monitoring all citizens’ internet activity.
In a move that has largely gone under the radar, the NSA is in the process of building a $2 billion data center dubbed by local media as the ‘spy center.’ Plans for the building indicate that, when completed in September, 2013, the center will be five times that of the U.S. Capitol.
NSA Deputy Director Chris Inglis said at the groundbreaking of the Utah Data Center that the mission was to combat cyber security. Wired Magazine reported in March that while that might be the claim, the government leader who introduced the creation of the center in an October 2009 press conference was Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Collection Glenn Gaffney, who had experienced a long career in the CIA.
US: Domestic surveillance measures grow in past decade
Laws allowing easy access technological monitoring of U.S. residents and citizens is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to the battle between civil liberty groups and federal agencies.
Most recently, in February, an Associated Press report provided NYPD documents detailing the surveillance of muslim communities and liberal political groups.
A number of Occupy Wall Street protesters have also publicly revealed visits from NYPD detectives outside their homes and areas where private meetings are being held. While some detectives have said such techniques are vital to learn more about planned protests, those in the Occupy movement question the legitimacy of such tactics, claiming possible violations of privacy.
Documents released by the Associated Press detail the undercover operations of liberal groups by a NYPD officer, who traveled to the People’s Summit, comprised of groups united in opposition to U.S. foreign economic policy. Reports from the undercover operation revealed specifics regarding groups opposed to U.S. immigration and labor laws.
The NYPD has regularly targeted liberal groups for surveillance, but leaders from the organization have said they do not survey based on political affiliations. Instead, they say, it’s necessary to monitor protests and those involved, as violence could break out during such events.
While it is lawful for a government agent to go undercover in a public space, the NYPD drew criticism that surveillance went too far, infringing on the privacy laws of U.S. citizens.