There is one day left: We need you to call your MP. The Government want the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill passed tomorrow, despite the fact that DRIP was only announced a few days ago! Make sure your MP votes against the Bill tomorrow Call the House of Commons switchboard on 020 7219 3000 and ask to speak to your MP. Your MP is: Mr Simon Burns Weve included notes on what to say at the bottom of this email. The Government dont want to give anyone time to fully scrutinise it, or to ask the difficult questions about why the UK is reinstating Data Retention after the European Court of Justice ruled the previous Data Retention system incompatible with fundamental human rights. It will be voted on in the Commons on Tuesday and the Government intend the Lords to vote it through on Thursday. This is dangerously quick. Thats why we need you to phone your MP today! You might be about to grab your lunch, or go to a meeting, but please pick up the phone and urge your MP to vote against DRIP. It only takes a few minutes and MPs dont get many calls from their constituents – so it makes a real impact. They can skim over an email, but if you can talk to them, thats the best chance we have of making a difference. To help make your phone call as straightforward as possible, weve given you the key information to tell your MP below. ORG have written a Myth List of Data Retention with the top 5 arguments your MP might throw at you and how to respond to them. Call your MP now to tell them to take Internet surveillance seriously. Call the House of Commons switchboard on 020 7219 3000 and ask to speak to your MP. Your MP is: Mr Simon Burns Thank you! Best wishes, Ruth What to say to your MP What is DRIP? The Data Retention Investigatory Powers Bill (DRIP) will require internet and phone companies to keep their customers’ communications data for up to a year. It is being rushed through parliament this week: MPs will vote on Tuesday and the Lords will vote on Thursday. DRIP will replace the Data Retention (EC Directive) Regulations 2009. The legal basis of these regulations has been uncertain since the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) found the EU Data Retention Directive 2006/24/EC to be invalid. The ruling was very clear: keeping everyone’s data in case they ever commit a crime seriously interferes with our right to privacy and our right to a private family life. Additionally clauses 3-5 extend UK surveillance law - RIPA - to US and foreign companies. These measures are controversial, not related and there is no evidence that there is any reason for the rush. Below are 5 arguments that the Government is using to justify it’s passing - and the real reasons why it shouldn’t. 1. “This is an emergency” The CJEU ruling was delivered on 8 April, 2014. The government has had 3 months to address the court’s findings. We believe that it is the threat of legal action by Open Rights Group and other organisations that has prompted this ‘emergency’ legislation - not the threat of terrorism or criminal activity. The government should not mislead us about the urgency of this legislation. Given its significance and the threat to our civil liberties, It should not be passed without proper parliamentary scrutiny. Background: After the CJEU ruling, Open Rights Group and other organisations contacted the Home Office to ask them if they would be asking internet service providers to stop retaining data. In May, the Home Office responded by saying that ISPs should continue to retain data. Last month, over 1,500 ORG supporters wrote to their ISPs asking them to stop keeping their data. They responded by saying that they were acting under the instructions of the Home Office. 2. “This is not an extension of powers, it’s restoring the status quo” The Prime Minister said, “we are not introducing new powers or capabilities” but in fact DRIP does not just deal with Regulations that were made illegal by the CJEU ruling. Clauses 3 to 5 of the Bill make amendments to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). DRIP extends the governments surveillance powers in two ways: It extends the territorial scope of RIPA - this means that the government can issue interception warrants for communications data to companies outside of the UK. It extends the definition of “telecommunications service” within RIPA. This will include webmail services such as Gmail. What isn’t clear is what other kinds of internet services are included. 3. “It’s the only way we can catch criminals” We agree that the targeted retention of communications data can help the police to tackle serious crimes, such as terrorism and child abuse. However, the CJEU ruling outlined a low threshold for deciding to retain data. For example, if a serious crime is committed, data could be retained for a particular geographical region to support a criminal investigation. This means that the police could still retain data for specific investigations, rather than the blanket surveillance of all citizens. The CJEU ruling was clear that blanket data retention interfered with our right to privacy and our right to a private family life. Other European countries, including Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Romania and Sweden, have rejected it. These countries continue to tackle serious crime without undermining their citizens’ civil liberties through blanket data retention. 4. “There is a sunset clause” The Bill will expire on 31 December 2016. The government claims that this will ‘strengthen oversight and transparency’ but that date is two and a half years away. We believe that this date needs to be brought forward to 31 December 2014 and this can be amended or repealed very easily. If legislation is to be rushed through without debate, an earlier expiry date of 31 December 2014 would allow for public scrutiny over the next six months. This is a reasonable request even for those MPs who believe that this is an emergency situation. 5. “The Bill includes concessions that take into account the CJEU ruling” DRIP ignores the main part of the CJEU ruling - that blanket data retention severely interferes with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data. The government has claimed that other aspects of the Bill will strengthen oversight and transparency. For example, they claim it will restrict the number of public bodies that can request communications data. Yet this concession does not appear in DRIP or the secondary legislation that will implement it. There has been no acknowledgment of the legal requirement to preserve UK citizens’ right to privacy.
Posted on: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 14:41:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015