Do GCHQ/MI5 etc need more powers to fight terrorism?

[Tonsko]

Troubleatmill said:

Give them licence to do their job.

They already have it. They just want more, unfettered and ungoverned access.

[Troubleatmill]

Tonsko said:

Troubleatmill said:

Give them licence to do their job.

They already have it. They just want more, unfettered and ungoverned access.

Why do they need it?

[marshalla]

Troubleatmill said:

Why do they need it?

Speaking as someone who works on the periphery - I have no idea. The current powers seem perfectly adequate when used correctly. The current controls are "light touch", but do require justification of actions in a way that the proposals don't.

The only consolation is that if these new powers are granted, there'll be so much time wasted on fishing expeditions that someone will have to introduce controls to cut costs and improve efficiency again. Frankly, they're struggling with the amount of data they already have to process.

[andy_s]

Giving them more power is a sop to the masses to say they are doing something; politicians are happy to give them more powers as this is free. What they need is more resources, but that costs money, which politicians are less enthusiastic about.

It just shows they aren't serious about it at all, but would like you to think they are.

[carinaman]

http://order-order.com/2015/01/23/spooks-threaten-...

[Tonsko]

Turns out many of the Lords are aware of the attempt to abuse parliamentary privilege. I'm hopeful!

[Terminator X]

There will always be a risk no matter what you do so both sides need to be balanced. Govt have enough powers already imho.

TX.

[voyds9]

Troubleatmill said:

"Do GCHQ/MI5 etc need more powers to fight terrorism?"

I have no idea.
I am more inclined to believe GCHQ heads than politicians though.

And... I'd prefer that our spooks do not need to explain to every citizen exactly what it is that they need to monitor. ( Because... the bad guys then know what mediums to avoid )
Give them licence to do their job.

Let's be honest.... they aren't really going to be allocating resource to monitoring the latest "What Car.." threads on PH.

That's rather like taking your car to the main agent and getting them to fix it, they will do an excellent job, bring it back like new but at a cost.

The bloke under the arches can keep it running perfectly well for a fraction of the cost.

The cost to liberty and my pocket may be too great to be GCHQ safe. I prefer a more tempered and pragmatic approach.

[Tonsko]

If anyone is interested, the Lords will be debating the Comminications & Data Act insertion shortly.

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meet...

...and here's the details, amendment 79-99.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbi...

[Tonsko]

Some Lords are for it, others are against. A rough straw poll from me watching it, (although I missed the start), there are more Lords against the Communications and Data bill being included than there are for. In the last 6, only 1 was for including them.

The arguments against mainly seem to contain variations around the theme that the security services have the powers they already need; the met doesn't know how many (to the nearest hundred) databases that they have on people and also that those databases aren't searchable; that the amendments do not contain the alterations that a 5 month joint committee recommended on the original bill that was presented.

The debate is ongoing.

Edited by Tonsko on Monday 26th January 18:25

[carinaman]

Thank you. I am interested, but I am not on Twitter so therefore unable to Tweet Peers in the HoL.

Thanks for the link to the player, I am listening now.

Edited by carinaman on Monday 26th January 18:28

[Jasandjules]

If I thought it would not be abused, or that they needed it, I might consider that it could be justified. However, I feel that our freedom is more important than this. The freedoms my grandparents fought for and against the tyranny and state policing that they now propose are too valuable to give up based on miniscule risks.

[Tonsko]

Even the Lords who AGREE with the need for comms interception, don't think these amendments are appropriate, due to the changes made in the joint select committee not being implemented.

[Tonsko]

carinaman said:

Thank you. I am interested, but I am not on Twitter so therefore unable to Tweet Peers in the HoL.

Thanks for the link to the player, I am listening now.

I went through a load who are on twitter this weekend and tweeted about 70 of them Got a reply from one, who wouldn't be there, due to being abroad, haha, but when pressed he said that many were aware of the way this was being introduced on the sly, so to speak.

[andy_s]

Watch what you say about my beloved government . You are being analysed by a machine, to whatever end for whoever is in power...god bless them.

[carinaman]

Warsi was good.

I hope they get done by 19.00 as I want to watch Top Gear. This woman is making a valid point that they're cynically exploiting what happened in Paris in a run up for an election and they had it on the shelf waiting in their back pocket to play it.

[Tonsko]

I think this is the wrap up. There will be a vote shortly. IT's looking encouraging, must admit.

[carinaman]

Do we need democracy? I am missing The Archers AND Top Gear.

[carinaman]

Nice gag from King, though it doesn't cancel out his role in this stitch up.

[Tonsko]

Amendments rejected!