Surveillance is already here, get used to it

As David Cameron makes more of a case for a revised “Snoopers Charter” we assume two things.

1. Surely, that means we aren’t already being snooped on?
2. A strong legal framework would be the only conceivable way this would ever be passed.

Unfortunately, both are untrue. As more information is attained via government leaks (read Snowden) a picture is beginning to emerge of a more surveilled society, what Cameron wants is to make it easier.

As it currently stands, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) is generally used as grounds for surveillance of digital communications (along with the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, but thats another long story). This act actually gives certain public bodies (Police, MI5, GCHQ) access to intercept any data, which is encrypted or not, through inception methods (source), what the main point to stress here, is that it is only through a warrant would this power is ever conceivably be allowed.

However, what Cameron wants is the omission of a warrant and to also remove key encryptions from communications. This is where the main issue arises, aside from the headline of “iMessage and WhatsApp could be banned” is in essence a scapegoat of a wider issue, and that is of security practices being undermined in a digital area where Conservatives want “Tech City” to thrive. This will not happen in a warrantless environment of inception of communications.

So, to reiterate point one, we are definitely already being surveilled, what the snoopers charter will actually do is increase the size of the “haystack” when trying to find the proverbial “needle”. As Cameron uses the Charlie Hebdo shooting as an excuse to further the Conservative own goal of a totalitarian surveillance system what he fails to recognise is that Frances own surveillance system is in essence the UK’s to a factor of ten in terms of intensity (ID Cards, more rigorous courts) and through this it’s appropriate to infer that a wider scope in powers will in no way reduce the chances of terrorist attacks.

Finally, point two. This is a rather implied notion that oversight is inferred through the process of law making, oh how I wish that was true. In fact, quite the opposite, the “Privacy and Civil Liberties Board” was first evisaged in 2014 to give oversight to such bills we are discussing today, and yet an amendment was made in the past week to rename the board to the “Counter Terrorism Oversight Panel”. A wide interpretation of a privacy and civil liberity narrative in society.

The surveillance state is already here, what Cameron wants is an easier time of it and unfortunately, he’ll be probably get it.