The Truth about the Investigatory Powers Bill


After the UK government unveiled the Investigatory Powers Bill, which Edward Snowden described as “the most intrusive and least accountable surveillance program in the West”, the issue of government surveillance needs to be addressed again. If Snowden’s revelations achieved anything, it made us aware that we must be careful of everything we say, everything we read, everything we write, everywhere we go and everyone we communicate with, because it is all recorded by the government. Privacy is essentially dead, and the IP bill, according to Snowden, attempts to “fit the law around spying, rather than making spying fit the law”.

Freedom vs. Security

When it all comes down to it, government mass surveillance is about freedom versus security. The first point to make is government can’t give freedom, it can only take freedom. The great victories of liberty, whether it was the achievement of freedom of speech, or the achievement of many social freedoms and economic freedoms we enjoy today, all came about after long and hard fought battles between the people who wanted their liberty and the government who had taken it away. The right to privacy is one of these rights, and it would be a mistake and a dishonour to those who fought to achieve it, to give it up so carelessly.

Next, governments tend to argue that mass surveillance is necessary for national security. In the modern world, there is an existential terrorist threat, and so the citizens need to be spied on in order to keep them safe, or so the argument goes. Firstly, terrorism would be much less of a problem if Western governments hadn’t gotten involved overseas in the first place. The term ‘Blowback’ was coined by the CIA to describe the unintended consequences of interventionist foreign policy. The Isis members in Aleppo, Syrialatest example being how the US fuelled the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, by getting involved in the middle-east, and supplying rebels with arms. And so, governments are making us less safe by their own foreign policy.

Secondly, the threat of terrorism has been largely overstated by governments. Studies show that the number of Americans killed by terrorists is about equal to the number of people killed by lightning, by deer, or by peanut allergy. Yet, it would be absurd to give up our rights to deal with the deer problem, just as it would be equally absurd for the government to spend billions on prevent lightning.

Third point is that there is little evidence that suggests that mass surveillance has made people more safe. Experts say that NSA surveillance has played little role in foiling terror plots, and senators Wyden and Udall argued that “We have not yet seen any evidence showing that the NSA’s dragnet collection of Americans’ phone records has produced any uniquely valuable intelligence.” A prominent report claimed that the collection of all phone metadata is not a necessary tool to combat terrorism, and the government “does not cite a single case in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent terrorist attack,”

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear

We’ve all heard this argument. Most recently Conservative MP Richard Graham, speaking in defence of the IP Bill. Supporters of mass surveillance repeatedly say it, unknowingly quoting Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels – the originator of the phrase. The argument has been debunked time and time again.

Firstly, there is a much stronger case for the argument to be applied to governments than citizens. We live in a democracy, and the government is elected and funded by the people. Shouldn’t it follow that governments be completely open and transparent? After all “nothing to hide, nothing to fear”.

Second, there are many things that people had to hide which are now legal that used to be illegal. For example, it used to be against the law to be homosexual. Homosexuals used to have to hide the fact that they were homosexual to escape punishment from government. The civil rights movement, women’s rights, interracial marriage, gay marriage and so on would never have been allowed if nobody had anything to hide.

Finally, the best argument, comes from Edward Snowden, who said: “Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.”

UK Government announces “Most Intrusive Surveillance Regime in the West”


The UK government have announced a new bill which expands surveillance powers, this time named the ‘Investigatory Powers Bill’ (IP Bill). The IP Bill requires internet providers to record the browsing history of every single person in the UK for up to a whole year. This information will be accessible by the police and security services, who will also have access to see the apps that people have used on their smartphones and tablet devices, and when they used them. The bill will also give police and security services new powers to hack into devices and networks.

The government claims that local authorities will not have access to the data, and only the websites visited will be recorded, not individual pages within the site. Further details about browser history can be requested by police and security services, but this requires Home Secretary’s approval.

Theresa_May_9670221_217757cIn defence of her bill, Theresa May argued that current laws on online surveillance were out-dated, and needed to be
modernised. She stated: “I am clear we need to update our legislation to ensure it is modern, fit for purpose and can respond to emerging threats as technology advances.” In addition, she argued that some websites have become “safe havens” for terrorists and serious criminals.

The Labour party pledged support for the bill, with shadow home secretary Andy Burnham claiming that the “safety of constituents” were more important than “party politics”. However, the Lib Dems, who tend to be the only party that defend civil liberties, are more sceptical. When in coalition government, they blocked a similar bill dubbed the ‘snooper’s charter’, and Nick Clegg has questioned whether there are flaws “under the bonnet” of the new legislation.

The government also plans to prohibit end-to-end encryption, which is the technology used by popular chats such as WhatsApp and Apple’s iMessage. But founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, has lambasted the plan, arguing that attempts to ban end-to-end encryption is “like trying to ban math, it’s just not going to happen.” He continued, claiming that “governments don’t understand technology very well” and encouraged Apple to stop selling iPhones in the UK if the law goes ahead.

Unsurprisingly, notorious whistleblower Edward Snowden, has come out in opposition to the bill. According to Snowden, the IP Bill legitimises mass surveillance, and is “the most intrusive and least accountable surveillance regime in the West.” He pointed out that even just the logging of an IP address can be enough to deduce private information about an individual. It is important to note that the proposed level of online monitoring in the UK is illegal in the US, Canada and many European countries.

Why People Don’t Vote


The General election is fast approaching, which means that it’s time for people to decide who to vote for. It is generally accepted that voting is an important part of a functioning democracy, nevertheless there are many people who don’t partake in voting – just 65% turned out to vote in 2010. Why is this the case? There are many different reasons, one is simply because people are badly informed – they can’t name candidates that are running, they are unaware of the massive effects that government policy has on their lives, and they are generally apathetic towards politics.

Barack Obama recently proposed the idea of compulsory voting in order to fix this problem, however not only does this violate freedom of speech (freedom of speech includes the freedom to not speak), but also the idea that you can create a well-informed public by simply forcing them to vote is absurd. Surely it should be the job of politicians to rouse people from their apathy by giving them something to vote for, by having strong set of principles and by addressing the major issues that people are going to agree with. Forcing people to vote sounds like something that would occur in North Korea (which it actually does) or the Soviet Union, not in the ‘free world’.

So, why do people care so little about politics? Well, it could be argued that it is completely rational to be ignorant of politics. The fact is, it takes a lot of time to become well-informed. You have to spend time following the news either by reading a newspaper, reading online or watching the news, or ideally all of these things. The time spent following politics could be spent doing other thing that are more productive, joyful and important to your own personal life, such as family and career. That is not to say that becoming politically aware is a bad thing, however some people simply have more important things to worry about. They see politics as an annoying hindrance rather than something that is beneficial. Fundamentally there is an incentive problem with voting. The chance that your vote will change the outcome of an election is practically zero, and the political process has done little more than leave people frustrated.

But it’s not just badly informed people who don’t vote. There are many well-informed people who choose not to vote. They recognise that government performance has simply not improved by voting in different parties. Whether it has been the Labour party or the Conservative party in power, the problems are still the same. The warfare-welfare state continues to grow and our civil liberties are being eroded. Politicians remain untrustworthy, with a consistently bad record of lying, false promises and manipulation. Nick Clegg lied about tuition fees. The Labour party initiated NHS privatisation and expanded the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Public spending increased in both Margaret Thatcher’s and David Cameron’s Conservative governments. What we constantly see is a pattern of the opposite outcomes of what each were elected to do.

So there are many valid and rational reasons why people don’t vote. That is not to say voting is completely useless. If you see a candidate that you genuinely agree with, vote for them. However don’t be surprised when they change their policies if they come to power. Though, it’s not all bad; at the moment UK politics is becoming a multi-party system, rather than a two-party system. This could potentially be good for democracy, with more options of who to vote for, maybe we will see an increase in voter turnout in this year’s election.