Roger Godsiff Opposes Internet Snooping
Posted by Roger Godsiff, MP for Birmingham, Hall Green, at 09:41, Thu 3 May 2012:
In my opinion a balance has to be struck between the rights of ordinary people to be able to communicate without ‘big brother’ watching them and also the need for vigilance in tracking internet usage involved in terrorism or potential terrorist activities and also criminality and money laundering.
As you know proposals were floated towards the end of the last Government for greater surveillance of various forms of internet traffic but I was not convinced then, neither am I now, that there needs to be blanket legislation brought in. It is much better, in my opinion, if the security services seek the permission of the Home Secretary if they feel there is a need to monitor the internet traffic of certain individuals as is the case now when permission has to be sought from the Home Secretary for phones to be tapped.
Neither I nor the Leadership of the Labour Party have any control over what the Coalition Government intend to bring forward in the forthcoming Queens Speech but if there are proposals to greatly widen the scope of the existing legislation then I will almost certainly be opposing them and I very much hope that other colleagues in the Labour Party, including the leadership of the Parliamentary Party, also oppose them.
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by Ian Soady, 12:49, Thu 3 May 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
Thoroughly agree. Thanks for this.
Posted by Tahir Mahmood, 18:06, Thu 3 May 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
I totally agree with Roger, the powers of the police etc are already there and I for one am not convinced at all with widening them powers. We have to stop this orwellian society!
Posted by Paul Holloway, 18:38, Thu 3 May 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
Agree.
You can implement every security countermeasure conceivable, but anyone determined enough will be able to circumvent them. As such, legislation such as is guaranteed to resoundingly fail to meet its stated objectives of preventing terrorism or detecting serious criminality. Of course, it will have the side benefit (from the perspective of the authorities) of withdrawing privacy from everyone else - the largely law-abiding masses.
The absolute bare minimum that any such legislation needs is a review by independent security experts - real experts - who are able to confirm that the measures would allow the anti-terrorism/crime objectives to be met. Sadly I fear that such confirmation would be practically to obtain, and nor do I expect the coalition would voluntarily seek it.
Posted by Mohammed Hemraj, 12:16, Thu 10 May 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
Whether we like it or not snooping is here to stay even if the Governments deny that it is not happening. Newspapers may also be resorting to snooping. The personal actions of some Governments have created problems and to solve them snooping is considered as necessary. The solution is not to write and send an email which may be inappropriate. The culprits may resort to sending a coded message to avoid scrutiny.