Liberty - Protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

• MAY 2012: The Coalition Government has revived plans to extend the collection and storage of “communications data” – the records of email, text and phone calls – for the entire population. We are a nation of citizens, not suspects. Say NO to the snoopers' charter.

State sanctioned surveillance against specific individuals takes place on a massive scale, using the broad and confusing framework created under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) which regulates the use of and access to surveillance by public bodies.

This involves five types of different surveillance:

1. Interception of communications – e.g. listening to telephone calls, reading letters and emails
2. Intrusive surveillance – e.g. placing bugs and filming in private places
3. Directed surveillance – e.g. filming and covertly monitoring specific people generally in public places
4. Use of covert human intelligence sources – e.g. informants and undercover operatives
5. Accessing communications data – e.g accessing the record (but not the content) of emails, telephone calls and websites visited.

Under RIPA hundreds of public bodies have access to the last three types of surveillance including over 470 local authorities. Surveillance can be authorised for a wide range of purposes which includes such vague purposes as preventing ‘disorder’ or collecting tax.

The last three types of surveillance can be self-authorised by the body seeking to use the powers. Interception of communications and some types of intrusive surveillance are authorised by the Home Secretary and other types of surveillance are largely self-authorised.

Liberty believes that RIPA must be reformed to ensure that intrusions into personal privacy are all properly authorised and comply with human rights principles of necessity and proportionality.

The main changes we are calling for are:

• All interception of communications and intrusive surveillance should be authorised by judicial warrant.
• All other types of surveillance should be independently authorised and depending on the level of intrusion, some powers may require authorisation by a magistrate.
• The number and type of public bodies that have access to surveillance powers should be reduced.
• Surveillance is too often authorised for vague, broad or trivial reasons and powers should only be used in more serious situations.
• The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is where most applications for review of surveillance powers must go, but the procedure is fundamentally flawed and needs to be overhauled.

Liberty’s position on RIPA is set out in greater detail in this consultation response (PDF)

The Coalition Government included RIPA in their 2010 Review of Counter Terror and Security Powers - read our response to the Counter Terror Review consultation (PDF).

The Home Office Counter-Terror Review reported back in January 2011 and provided welcome proposals in relation to local authority use of a number of RIPA powers. These included the following:

• Certain RIPA powers – namely directed surveillance, use of covert human intelligence sources and accessing communications data - should only be exercisable by a local authority with a Magistrate’s approval. This approval should be additional to authorisation currently required from a local authority senior manager as well as the general oversight provided by elected councillors.
• Where authorisation is sought for directed surveillance, there will be a further threshold to be met, which will require the case being investigated to involve an offence carrying a maximum custodial sentence of six months or more. There will be an exception for applications for directed surveillance where the alleged criminal conduct relates to underage sales of alcohol and tobacco, which do not meet the extra threshold but for which the Review concluded directed surveillance is necessary to provide corroborating investigation.