Suggestions that the USA has been “moving away from bulk” must be seen in
the light of this narrow meaning of the term: see further 3.63-3.65 below.
1.9.
Whether a broader or narrower definition is preferred, it should be plain that the
collection and retention of data in bulk does not equate to so-called “mass
surveillance”. Any legal system worth the name will incorporate limitations and
safeguards designed precisely to ensure that access to stores of sensitive data
(whether held by the Government or by communications service providers
[CSPs]) is not given on an indiscriminate or unjustified basis.11 Such limitations
and safeguards certainly exist in the Bill.
Terms of reference
1.10.
The terms of reference for the Review were decided upon by the Home
Secretary, in consultation with the Opposition, and set out in the document at
Annex 2. This states:
“The review will examine the operational case for the investigatory powers
contained in Parts 6 and 7 of the Investigatory Powers Bill, including the
‘Operational Case for Bulk Powers’ document which was published alongside
the Bill at Introduction on 1 March. The review will report to the Prime
Minister, with a copy sent to the Intelligence and Security Committee of
Parliament (ISC). It will build on the previous reviews by the ISC, David
Anderson QC and the Surveillance Panel convened by the Royal United
Services Institute. The review will inform Parliament’s consideration of the
need for the bulk powers in the Bill.
The review shall consider the operational case for:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Bulk Interception
Bulk Equipment Interference
Bulk Acquisition (Communications Data)
Bulk Personal Datasets.”
The requirements of the Terms of Reference as regards process are reproduced
in 1.28 below.
1.11.
As will be apparent, the function of this Review is limited to consideration and
discussion of the operational case for the powers under review. I am not asked
to opine on:
(a) what safeguards it is appropriate to place upon the powers under review; or
11
The Shadow Home Secretary, Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP, said in the second reading debate “it
is lazy to label the Bill as a snoopers’ charter or a plan for mass surveillance.”: Hansard HC 15
March 2016, vol 607 col 825. Joanna Cherry QC MP for the SNP preferred the term
“suspicionless surveillance”: col 840.
4