Calls for greater surveillance after Woolwich
The head of the intelligence and security committee has become the latest senior figure to suggest the government should revive plans for a massive expansion of surveillance powers in the wake of the Woolwich killing.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, speaking to the BBC, appeared to give his backing to a revised communications data bill, also known as the snoopers’ charter, in order to battle terrorism.
He said terrorists are increasingly using social networks to avoid intelligence services’ monitoring, and stressed that current legislation was drawn up before such social networks existed.
Mayor of London Boris Johnson and former home secretary John Reid have also suggested the bill’s provisions should be re-examined. Had it made it to the statute books, the legislation would have obliged internet service providers (ISPs) and mobile phone companies to keep, for a year, details of all communication in the UK, but not the content itself (a full explanation of its provisions can be found here).
The bill was dropped from the Queen’s speech following opposition from the Liberal Democrats, as well as civil campaigners, libertarian Conservatives and some communications companies.
In the wake of the horrific events in Woolwich some are seeking new powers which may have avoided the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby and which can prevent such atrocities in future. The comms data bill seems a tempting option.
Added to which, the intelligence services had already travelled some way down the road towards enacting the legislation. Since May 2010, £400m has been spent working out how it might be put into action.
Those who favoured the bill believe the arguments behind it are as strong today as they have ever been, and have, in fact, been strengthened by events in Woolwich. But those relying on those events to lobby for the bill’s resurrection face a challenge in convincing their opponents that enhanced surveillance powers would have made a difference.
MI5 has confirmed that Michael Adebolajo, one of the suspects in Drummer Rigby’s killing, was on their radar. If their concerns were solid and tangible, they would have a strong case for asking the home secretary for permission to monitor his communications under existing powers such as the regulation and investigatory powers act.
If it emerges that the intelligence services fell short in their assessment of Adebolajo, those opposed to enhanced surveillance will argue that rather than more legislation, better use needs to be made of current powers.
Follow Geoff White on Twitter