Who's watching Big Brother Watch?

"HELP US CHALLENGE THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL." That's the heading on a recently received email from Big Brother Watch regarding an advertising campaign that the organisation is supporting. It's part of a coalition entitled: DON'T SPY ON US.

In March 2016, the second reading of the 245-page bill was voted on in the House of Commons. It was passed by 281 votes to 15 votes. That means it's further down the road and is well on the way to be written into law.

The DON'T SPY ON US coalition is currently looking for donations. The target is £20,000. The idea is to fund adverts in the newspapers, billboards, social media, etc. It sounds like a trivial amount for such a big task. But you have to start somewhere. Regardless, we called Big Brother Watch to ask about the new Investigatory Powers Bill and hear the problem straight from the horse's mouth. We spoke to a horse named Renata Samson, chief executive (image on the right). Here's a summary of what went down...

"Why should we be concerned about this bill?" we said.

"It's all on the website," she said. "There are over 900 pages."

"Yes," we said, "and we've already read lots of material on your site and elsewhere, but we really don't understand what the problem is. Can you enlighten us?"

"What do you mean?"

"Just explain succinctly why we should object to this bill."

"What do you mean?"

"As I said, we don't see what the problem is here."

"Then if you don't see a problem, you're probably happy with the bill."

"No. You misunderstand. It's not that we don't see 'a problem'.  That is to say, we haven't looked at 'the problem' and don't feel that it is a problem. We just can't see what you're warning us about."

"What do you mean?"

"In your email, you say that you want support in challenging this bill."

"Yes."

"Well what bit exactly do you want to challenge? And how?"

"Are you happy to have the government scrutinising everything you do?"

"Not really. But I can't see that the government is interested in everything we do."

"Are you happy with the government having unlimited access to datasets?"

"They already have unlimited access to datasets, legally or otherwise, such as national insurance numbers and the electoral role and the telephone directory and so on. Are you objecting to those?"

"No. But you're obviously happy with the bill."

"Not at all. Broadly speaking, we're generally suspicious of government snooping activity and any new bill. We're just trying to discover which bits are the specific problem."

"I don't understand."

"What's happening is that a lot of people, including yourself, are yelling 'fire', but we can't see the smoke let alone the flames."

"Who are you?"

"We're an online magazine for motorcyclists. We're called Sump. We look at classic bikes, modern bikes, cultural news, legal news, road safety news, social events and anything that we think might interest our visitors. And take note that we're generally supportive of Big Brother Watch. But your latest email hasn't told us anything about the problem. It's just asking for money."

"Look, what exactly do you want here?"

"Clarification. We want to be persuaded as to why, collectively, we should object to this bill and thereby help fund your ad campaign."

"It's not our campaign. We're simply supporting it. And it's not our job to convince you."

"Isn't it?"

"No."

"Isn't it part of your remit to try and get support for your cause?"

"No."

"So you're publishing a warning, but you don't care if we heed it?"

"You can decide for yourself if you want to support the campaign."

"Naturally. But that's the point. We don't understand what we're supposed to decide about. Shouldn't you try and convince us?"

"Convince? No. We're just telling you what's happening."

"Well what is happening? Summarise it as a headline, if you will."

"It's over 900 pages."

"Yes, but there's always a headline."

"You mean that you want us to explain how the new Investigatory Powers Bill has gone too far in intruding into people's private lives?"

"Careful. That sounds suspiciously like a headline."

Click.

Here at Sump we must be very stupid [careful, someone might believe that - Ed] because we really have looked at thousands of words on this bill. We've searched Google asking about the PROS AND CONS. We've looked at KEY POINTS OF THE NEW BILL. We've looked at SUMMARIES. We looked at WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU. We've read the official government blurb. We checked with Wikipedia. We asked the Beeb. We looked around.

The problem is that it's hard to see how anything in this bill is actually any different to what's already going on. As we understand it, the intelligence services will have greater rights enshrined in law to snoop on terrorists as opposed to doing it anyway. As we understand it, new provisions on storing and accessing general internet records will come into force. As we understand it, there are new powers of "bulk accessing" such data (as opposed to searching for specific individuals or issues). And there will be new rules regarding obtaining judicial warrants permitting deeper intrusion into an individual's internet/email activity (meaning the actual content rather than simply the addresses).

But still, we were looking for details of where Big Brother Watch would draw the OBJECTION line, and that wasn't forthcoming. There's simply been nebulous statements that this bill should be challenged. Well we'll happily help do that, if only on general principle. We just don't know what to write on the placards.

Of course, just because the government is snooping illegally, that doesn't mean we should automatically rubber stamp the more nefarious activities of MI5 and MI6 and Co. And we certainly want to help stamp out terrorism and organised crime (as opposed to disorganised crime?). But we can't manage 900 pages of gobbledegook. We want the crib card version.

Snooping in itself isn't necessarily wrong, take note. Coppers, for instance, are paid to snoop. They stand at the roadside or prowl around in cars looking for trouble. That's their job. Trading Standards officers and Environmental Health officials also snoop. That's their job. The world is full of people snooping under rocks and peering through passports and studying X-rays. But that, in itself, doesn't necessarily make snooping bad. It's a necessary evil. Let's get over it. What we perhaps really need is a deeper analysis into the "culture" of snooping and explore what it really means rather than simply object to further snooping powers.

Don't misunderstand us. We'd love to live in a world where there is no need for CCTV cameras, neighbourhood watch groups, coppers, secret agents, border control, health and safety fascists, traffic wardens, doctors, Big Brother Watch groups, and so on. But that ain't the world in which we live. So we'd better get real.

The government has explained why it feels it needs the new powers. It's probably overstepping the mark somewhere, of course. Governments invariably do. But organisations such as Big Brother Watch need to do a lot more than simply object and throw 900 pages in our faces.

We're not intelligence analysts. We're not political lawyers. We're ordinary people; plumbers, truck drivers, engineers, shop assistants, tree surgeons, builders, nurses, labourers and journalists. We don't have the time or the wit to challenge complex parliamentary instruments without some clear, plain-speaking, succinct guidance from people who both understand the problems, and care about converting us.

Organisations such as Big Brother Watch need to do more than hang up the phone when facing challenges of its own competences. Instead, it needs to ante-up and develop convincing responses and justifications before suggesting that the rest of us should consider taking up arms against parliament.

www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk

— Sam 7