Dear Delegate
I am not a member of your party (or of any other, for that matter) but I have voted for you in the last three elections. Why? Because I thought that, alone of all the parties, you shared my values. One of the things that keeps me awake at night is the relentless growth of "the National Security state", and in particular the use of computer and network technology to provide comprehensive, fine-grained covert surveillance of entire populations.
So when I read your manifesto commitment saying that you would "Introduce a Freedom Bill. We will regulate CCTV, stop councils from spying on people, stop unfair extradition to the US, defend trial by jury and stop children being fingerprinted at school without their parents' permission" I cheered and gave you my vote. When the Coalition Agreement was signed, I noted with delight your party's intention to implement "a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion". You would "introduce a Freedom Bill"; "further regulate CCTV"; and, most important of all IMHO, "end the storage of internet and email records without good reason". Hooray!
And what do I find now? That the government of which your party is a member is pushing through parliament a bill – the Communications Data bill (CDB) – that comprehensively reneges on all of your libertarian promises and lofty sentiments. And I respectfully ask that you, as a delegate to your party's conference, think hard about how this came about, and what you feel you should do about it.
I don't have space in a short letter to describe the draft bill or analyse its numerous flaws, but in a way I don't have to. You can read the bill for yourself, and then you can peruse the transcripts of the proceedings of the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons that is currently considering it. (All are online via Hansard.) But the essence of the CDB is this: the growth of the internet and its penetration into our lives means that more and more of our daily communications are conducted online; furthermore, many of these communications are taking place via services like Facebook and Skype that didn't exist 10 years ago; the state and its security organs are perturbed by this because some of these communications will be nefarious; they wish to use computer technology to increase their capacity to monitor what's going on in cyberspace; and because of the astonishing scale of online communications nowadays, they think it's impractical to require them to use the time-honoured methods (like search or wiretapping warrants) by which democracies tried to ensure that state surveillance is justifiable and proportionate.
Instead, they effectively want log-in facilities to all communications services providers and the power to employ "Deep Packet Inspection" technology where they deem it necessary. And they want all this to be authorised just by a police officer or a minister.
The draft bill is riddled with flaws. Look at the commentaries by experts such as Professor Robin Mansell of LSE, or the evidence given to the joint committee by Professors Ross Anderson and Peter Sommer.
Your political masters will tell you that it's all very complicated, which it is. They will also assure that "the devil is in the detail" and if we can get the details right, then all will be well.
Well, actually, in this case the devil isn't in the detail – it's in the principles underpinning the bill. And they aren't complicated at all. If you wanted to put it in everyday terms, the CDB is the equivalent of a proposal that all household waste should be accumulated and kept for at least a year because somewhere in that Himalaya of trash there's bound to be evidence of wrongdoing.
Why am I telling you this? Because unlike the delegates to other party conferences, you have the ability to make party policy. And when the issue of the CDB comes up, ask yourself a simple question: is this what you came into politics to do — to facilitate the mission creep of the National Security State?
Yours respectfully,
John