Leading article: Still a snoopers' charter, for all the concessions
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.According to the Home Secretary, the innocent have nothing to fear from plans to expand the state's powers to snoop on all digital communications. Would that that were so.
Some increased powers are, indeed, necessary. Fraudsters, paedophiles and terrorists are too often using social media and online gaming sites to communicate with each other. Law enforcement needs to keep up. And the Government has made some concessions, requiring "case-by-case" oversight by a surveillance commissioner, for example.
But grave questions remain. How far are the proposals technically feasible? Do the benefits justify the cost? Most worrying of all, however, is that police and security services will not need a warrant. Even without the actual content – with only the who, what, when and where – such access oversteps the mark. As it stands, therefore, this is still a snoopers' charter.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments