Labour scores review of Snoopers' Charter's bulk powers from UK.gov Bulk hacking and data collection powers in the Snoopers' Charter are going to be scrutinised by an independent reviewer grudgingly appointed by the government after pressure from Labour. Theresa May's plans to rush the Investigatory Powers Bill into law follow years of similar methods being used to introduce more surveillance …
Though you have to wonder why Labour collectively abstained in the last vote regarding this bill in parliament. Also, if this independent review does - like several committees and experts before - challenge the bill and comes to equally damning conclusions, will government actually listen, or just try to push it through anyway?
In any case, the longer it can be delayed to put those powers into law, the better.
"Though you have to wonder why Labour collectively abstained in the last vote regarding this bill in parliament. "
My understanding is that Labour are not opposed to the bill in principle - after all it is nominally about regulating the investigatory powers of the police and spooks. By voting against it in the first reading, they would have given the impression of being against law and order, which would have given 'Call me Dave' ammunition for his childish attacks on the Labour leader during PMQs, and also given the right-wing press (also known as the mainstream press) a field day.
What they did, quite rightly IMHO, is say that they cannot support the bill unless several problems with it are addressed. By doing so, they have allowed it to reach this stage, where an independent review can be made.
If this review makes recommendations, especially those concerning basic human rights such as the right to privacy, and suitable amendments are not forthcoming from Ms May et al, then fully expect them to vote against it in the next reading.
The thing to remember is that the Tories (currently*) have an absolute majority, so in order to bring the bill down, Labour will need to convince not only the other parties, but also a portion of the Tory party to vote against the bill. The best way to do this would be to go through the due process of having the bill examined, and fault found with it, thereby putting forward a strong argument for voting against it. If the govt. then get it through with a slim majority and the Lords vote it down (as they almost certainly will), then there is a stronger argument against using the Parliament Act to force it through.
All of this bypasses the point that some sort of legislation is required to properly regulate what the spooks and the Peelers are up to, rather than leaving them with the blanket 'emergency powers' they currently have.
*This may of course change, if certain serious allegations of electoral irregularities are found to be with substance.
@"The thing to remember is that the Tories (currently*) have an absolute majority, so in order to bring the bill down, Labour will need to convince not only the other parties, but also a portion of the Tory party to vote against the bill"
Queens speech did Theresa Mays hyperbole: "on the manifesto pledge on communications data to strengthen the ability to disrupt terrorist plots, criminal networks and organised child grooming gangs".
Now think of recent headlines like: "Tom Watson bombshell: paedo ring 'linked to Heath/Thatcher ..."
Hyperbole doesn't work if you've used it against your own people and their heroes.
@"All of this bypasses the point that some sort of legislation is required to properly regulate what the spooks and the Peelers are up to, rather than leaving them with the blanket 'emergency powers' they currently have"
What emergency powers? Making more laws they don't obey won't fix it.
What needs to happen is a house cleaning, like the German 'Gerhard Schindler' cleanout. Preferably before another election under their unwanted influence.
"so in order to bring the bill down, Labour will need to convince not only the other parties, but also a portion of the Tory party to vote against the bill. The best way to do this would be to go through the due process of having the bill examined, and fault found with it, thereby putting forward a strong argument for voting against it"
Funny how Labour are interested in due process now they are in opposition but when they first drafted the snoopers charter were having none of it. The reverse is true of the Tories, strongly opposed to the snoopers charter while in opposition but now they're in they've renamed it the IPB and are pushing it through.
Two faced weasels the lot of 'em. Not to mention spineless puppets of those really pushing for legalisation of bulk surveillance - Whitehall.
Quite. I was going comment thusly:
"Labour's Keir Starmer previously said the party would refuse to the let the bill progress through Parliament untilthe government conducted an independent review into the new powers and definitions included within itthe next time they're in power, at which point they'll be all for it or something similar."Fixed it!
And I now have commented as such.
Since the party roles have reversed in the government snooping arena, we now have the poacher turned gamekeeper taking advice from the gamekeeper turned poacher. What could possibly be wrong with that?
But note that they are not overlords because the monitoring probes never approach from above.
Another failure in the run up to the Leasership bun(g)fight.
Many Tory ministers and Ex-ministers have been seen prancing about before chucking hats in the ring.
IDS, Boris 'the unfeasbly useless' Johnson etc.
Not to be confused with the EU thang but it all seems to be wrapped up together for the main contenders.
David Andersons 'A Question of Trust' was, by and large, supportive of the proposed powers. Now he is being asked to perform a review which requires the employment of two other technical experts in order to assist him. These people need appropriate security clearances in order to look inside The Security Services and presumably will not be able to fully report on their discoveries but rather grunt yes or no. It sounds very similar to the Public Bill Committee Stage whereby it appears people had to take the word of Mr John Hayes, Minister for Security and extremely pro IPBill, because he was the only one with the security clearance to question The Security Services and report to the committee. IIRC he repeatedly argued that the powers were required but suggested he could not say why because that would give the game away and no-one else had the clearances to be given any details so.... Will David Anderson get any further or, no offence meant to Mr Anderson, are we going to see another wash wash?
I would say the first thing in any review is to list the data feeds. Who gets what data on what claimed legal basis. Such a list would have to be obtained under oath to avoid omissions. It has to be comprehensive and cover all private sectors source too.
If the data is so unimportant, that it can be obtained freely, then how can the *feed* of that data be so important as to be hidden from the public and MPs?? How can Parliament regulate stuff that is hidden behind a bunch of hyperbole.
Step 1. Sunshine.
None of the "4 horsemen of the apocalypse" excuses. If there's a data feed, there has to be a legal basis and that has to be known and public and reviewable.
"Right Minion. Think carefully."
"Sir?"
"In order to get Bulk Data Base Access Rights you have to be properly vetted."
"Sir?"
"Did you ever dig about in your Parents wardrobe to find out what your Christmas Presents were?"
"That's a relief Sir. I thought it was just me but your secrets' safe."
"Damn! Think Carefully!"
"Oh! Err, I'm sure others may have done but I always waited until the day of disappointment."
"Good Man. Now then the User Name is "User". The Password is "Pass".
"Is that it Sir?"
"Come on Man write them down. You might forget them."
"Gosh. Good Idea Sir." scribble scribble.
"Welcome aboard."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
