Kettering CLP passes motion on mass surveillance

We’re very pleased that Kettering CLP has joined Battersea CLP in passing our model motion on data surveillance. For the full motion, see below.

CLP motion against mass surveillance

In 2013, the whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the existence of a mass surveillance programme operated by the UK government. It gives the government access to information such as who we send messages to and which websites we browse. This surveillance is not targeted at suspected criminals or terrorists, but rather at the entire population.

In July 2014, Parliament passed the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIP), entrenching aspects of mass surveillance into UK law. It passed with little scrutiny or debate.

This CLP notes:

  1. Information about our communications and internet use can reveal intimate details about our lives, including our health, legal and financial affairs, and relationships.
  1. There is a distinction between carrying out surveillance against an individual suspected of a crime or involvement in terrorism, and mass surveillance carried out against the whole population regardless of innocence or guilt.
  1. There is potential for abuse or misuse of surveillance powers. In recent years the security services and police have been accused of spying on or infiltrating groups of political activists, students’ unions, human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, charities like UNICEF, unions, and prominent individuals in the Labour Party like the Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan and Doreen Lawrence.
  1. The public are sceptical about mass surveillance. A poll from May 2014 shows that 88 percent of people believe their phone records, for example, should be kept private.
  1. The stated intention of the Conservative Party is to increase mass surveillance with further legislation in 2016 when DRIP expires.
  1. There is a need for the Labour Party to demonstrate it can responsibly balance privacy and security.
  1. The way DRIP was passed with little scrutiny or debate risks undermining public confidence in the security services and Parliament.

This CLP resolves:

  1. Any legislation dealing with an issue as complex and ethically challenging as data surveillance should always be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate, and it is regrettable that DRIP was not.
  1. Surveillance is a vital tool in tackling terrorism and crime, but it should only be used if there is reasonable suspicion of the subject’s involvement in such activity.
  1. The Snowden revelations have shown there is a need for greater oversight of the security services to ensure they have the public’s confidence. Authorisation of surveillance by a judge would also be a helpful step in ensuring proper accountability.

Event: CITIZENFOUR film screening

cfimage

We are very pleased to announce a special Labour Campaign for Human Rights screening of CITIZENFOUR, a new documentary about the Edward Snowden revelations.

If you would like to attend, please register with andrew.noakes@lchr.org.uk who will provide more details.

The screening will be on Wednesday 26 November at 7pm until 9:30pm, with a drinks reception from 6:30pm, at the Theatre Delicatessen in Farringdon (119 Farringdon Road), London. The film will be introduced by actor and director David Morrissey, who will also chair an interactive panel discussion with Chris Bryant MP and a representative from the Don’t Spy on Us coalition after the screening is finished.

The film explores Edward Snowden’s role in blowing the whistle on mass data surveillance by the NSA and GCHQ and the debate about privacy and security in the age of big data. Below is a full description of the film, together with some reviews.

—–

CITIZENFOUR is the new film from Academy Award nominee Laura Poitras. In January 2013, Laura Poitras several years into the making of a film about abuses of national security in post-9/11 America when she started receiving encrypted emails from someone identifying himself as “citizen four”, who was ready to blow the whistle on the massive covert surveillance programs run by the NSA and other intelligence agencies.

In June 2013, she and reporter Glenn Greenwald flew to Hong Kong for the first of many meetings with the man who turned out to be Edward Snowden. She brought her camera with her. The film that resulted from this series of tense encounters is absolutely unique in the history of cinema: a 100% real-life thriller unfolding minute by minute before our eyes.

The Guardian *****
“A triumph of journalism and a triumph for journalism.”

The Telegraph ****
“Everybody needs to see it”

The Financial Times
“A true-life spy thriller”

WIRED
“The sort of revelatory filmmaking that could only have been achieved by a director who was herself at the center of the story”

This screening is generously being hosted by public affairs and campaigns agency 89up.

Event: The war on terror and the new threats we face – in conversation with David Blunkett MP

Monday 24 November

“The war on terror and the new threats we face – in conversation with David Blunkett MP”

This is an LSE SU Labour event.

Date: Monday 24 November
Time: Drinks reception: 5:30pm. Main event: 6pm – 7:15pm
Venue: London School of Economics, room STC.S421, St Clements building (at the end of Houghton Street)

The event will start with a 30 minute discussion between David Blunkett and the respective chairs of LCHR and LSE SU Labour, and then invite questions from the audience for the remaining 45 minutes.

The discussion will focus on Blunkett’s experiences as Home Secretary during the war on terror, how we can deal with the new threats Britain faces from jihadi groups like ISIS and extremism here at home, and the state of civil liberties in the wake of revelations about mass data surveillance carried out by GCHQ and the NSA.

About David Blunkett:

David Blunkett had just been promoted to serve as Home Secretary in Tony Blair’s government when Al-Qaeda attacked the United States on 9/11. He was immediately confronted with the new threat of Islamist terrorism on Britain’s streets.

In the wake of 9/11, Blunkett pushed through controversial anti-terrorism measures. But he has also expressed concern about the balance between liberty and security following the Snowden revelations. He remains a key figure in the debate on tackling terrorism in the UK.

LCHR at Labour Conference

LCHR at Labour Conference

LCHR will have an active presence at Labour Conference this year. For the first time we will be hosting our own fringe, in partnership with Amnesty International. All LCHR supporters who are attending Conference are welcome to join us. The details are below, alongside two other fringes that we’re supporting. You can also see our Conference guide here.

LCHR’s fringe

“From the Human Rights Act to diplomacy abroad – consistency and human rights”

Monday 22 September, 5:45pm
Manchester Central, Global Development Hub, Charter Gallery

The fringe will explore the importance of setting an example on human rights at home in order to strengthen Britain’s role as a global human rights champion.

Speakers: Sadiq Khan MP, Shadow Justice Secretary; Kerry McCarthy MP, Shadow Foreign Office Minister, Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK; Richard Hermer QC; and Richard Howitt MEP

——-

Other fringes LCHR is supporting:

Don’t Spy on Us campaign

“Surveillance: where do we draw the line?”

Sunday 21 September, 6:30pm
Anthony Burgess Museum, Chorlton Mill, 3 Cambridge Street, M1 5BY

Speakers: Yvette Cooper MP, Shadow Home Secretary (TBC); Claude Moraes MEP, Chair of the European Parliament’s Justice and Home Affairs Committee; Tom Watson MP; Jim Killock, Open Rights Group; Ewen MacAskill, the Guardian; Carly Nyst, Privacy International

——-

Liberty

“On liberty: discussion on the future of human rights in the UK”

Tuesday 23 September, 7:30pm
Manchester Central, Charter 3

Speakers: Emily Thornberry MP; Diane Abbott MP; Kevin Maguire, the Daily Mirror

LCHR fringe at Labour Conference

Join LCHR at Labour Conference! We will be co-hosting a fringe with Amnesty International and all LCHR supporters are welcome. Here are the details:

“From the Human Rights Act to diplomacy abroad – consistency and human rights”

Monday 22 September, 5:45pm 
Manchester Central, Global Development Hub, Charter Gallery

The fringe will explore the importance of setting an example on human rights at home in order to strengthen Britain’s role as a global human rights champion.

With:

Sadiq Khan MP, Shadow Justice Secretary
Kerry McCarthy MP, Shadow Foreign Office Minister
Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK
Richard Hermer QC, Matrix Chambers
Richard Howitt MEP (Chair)

Battersea CLP passes DRIP motion

This week Battersea CLP passed a robust motion on data surveillance. Proposed by Battersea CLP member and LCHR supporter Dan Garrigan, the motion came after the legislation nicknamed DRIP (Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act) was rushed through Parliament in the absence of proper scrutiny. Concerned with potential indiscriminate use of the bill, its lack of transparency, and scarce accountability, Dan said on his blog:

“Anything that fundamentally disrupts the balance between the individual’s right to privacy and national security must be very carefully examined and the onus must surely fall on the state to demonstrate why further impingements of our liberty are necessary.”

The motion below is an important contribution to the debate on data surveillance and helps to sustain the pressure on the Government for a revision of the enshrined legislation.

 

CLP motion against mass surveillance

In 2013, the whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the existence of a mass surveillance programme operated by the UK government. It gives the government access to information such as who we send messages to and which websites we browse. This surveillance is not targeted at suspected criminals or terrorists, but rather at the entire population.

In July 2014, Parliament passed the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIP), entrenching aspects of mass surveillance into UK law. It passed with little scrutiny or debate.

This CLP notes:

  1. Information about our communications and internet use can reveal intimate details about our lives, including our health, legal and financial affairs, and relationships.
  1. There is a distinction between carrying out surveillance against an individual suspected of a crime or involvement in terrorism, and mass surveillance carried out against the whole population regardless of innocence or guilt.
  1. There is potential for abuse or misuse of surveillance powers. In recent years the security services and police have been accused of spying on or infiltrating groups of political activists, students’ unions, human rights organisations such as Amnesty International, charities like UNICEF, unions, and prominent individuals in the Labour Party like the Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan and Doreen Lawrence.
  1. The public are sceptical about mass surveillance. A poll from May 2014 shows that 88 percent of people believe their phone records, for example, should be kept private.
  1. The stated intention of the Conservative Party is to increase mass surveillance with further legislation in 2016 when DRIP expires.
  1. There is a need for the Labour Party to demonstrate it can responsibly balance privacy and security.
  1. The way DRIP was passed with little scrutiny or debate risks undermining public confidence in the security services and Parliament.

This CLP resolves:

  1. Any legislation dealing with an issue as complex and ethically challenging as data surveillance should always be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate, and it is regrettable that DRIP was not.
  1. Surveillance is a vital tool in tackling terrorism and crime, but it should only be used if there is reasonable suspicion of the subject’s involvement in such activity.
  1. The Snowden revelations have shown there is a need for greater oversight of the security services to ensure they have the public’s confidence. Authorisation of surveillance by a judge would also be a helpful step in ensuring proper accountability.

If you are a Labour member and would like to propose a similar motion then please contact andrew.noakes@lchr.org.uk.

LCHR statement on emergency data retention law

We are concerned about the plans to introduce emergency legislation governing collection of personal communications data.

The proposed legislation will force phone and internet companies to retain data about who we call and send messages to, in addition to when and where from. This data will then be used by the government for surveillance. The data gathering is indiscriminate, meaning millions of innocent people can be spied on.

There are many questions about data surveillance that need to be addressed through proper parliamentary scrutiny and public debate.

Can we trust the security services not to misuse these powers? There is a long history in Britain of intelligence agencies and police conducting inappropriate surveillance and clandestine operations, including spying on benign activism groups, the union movement, and even people like Doreen Lawrence.

Do these powers go too far in undermining privacy? A recent poll showed 88 percent of the public think it’s important to maintain the privacy of their phone records. And yet this bill would allow mass collection of these same records.

Will these powers even be effective? The Quilliam Foundation, an anti-extremism think thank, says mass surveillance will backfire, further fuelling terrorism.

We need time to address these questions. MPs need time to understand and scrutinise what is being proposed. If this is simply rushed through, the public will suspect an establishment “stich-up”, which will in turn undermine confidence in the security services. LCHR would like to see the passage of this bill delayed to allow time for a proper debate.

This is an important issue for Labour. We must show people that today’s Labour Party can be trusted to responsibly balance privacy and security. That’s why we need more time to look at these proposals.

Please send an email to your MP asking them to ensure there is a proper debate. You can use the sample text below. You can find out who your MP is here. If you click on their name you will be taken to a page with their e-mail address.

—-

Dear

I am writing because I am concerned about the announcement that emergency legislation regarding the collection of personal communications data will be rushed through Parliament.

The legislation will force phone and internet companies to retain data about who we call and send messages to, in addition to when and where from. The data collection will be indiscriminate and it will then be used by the government for surveillance.

I believe you and other MPs must have the time you need to consider this intricate issue. It is not possible for MPs to scrutinise and debate this legislation over the course of a few days.

I am writing to ask you to press for this bill to be delayed so that it can be fully understood and debated, and so the public can be confident that new powers are justified.

Yours sincerely,