Report of the Independent Surveillance Review
103
bargain on state surveillance and interception of communications. To be sustained, such
a grand bargain would contain within it three distinct deals.
5.30
One deal is between the UK state and the citizen. The evidence in this Review indicates
that the public in Britain is generally supportive of the work and expertise of the SIAs
and of the requirements of intelligence-led policing. There has not been a strong popular
outcry against the revelations of bulk data collection for intelligence purposes, though
there is certainly evidence of some unease at the prospects of its misuse, whether by
government or industry. There is certainly a problem of trust in the system of oversight,
and particularly the lack of popular visibility of the oversight arrangements that currently
exist. A clear and transparent new legal framework and a more coherent, visible
and effective oversight regime should be the basis for a public discussion about the
appropriate and constrained power the British state should have to intrude into the lives
of its citizens. This would be the essence of a new deal between citizen and government.
5.31
The second deal would be a better shared understanding between the government, CSPs
and internet firms. These companies should not be seen as disinterested observers as
democratic governments try to square the circle between the security of the citizen and
their right to privacy. Internet firms have a major stake in open societies. Without them,
the Internet would not exist in its present form, and beyond complying with the law
they have a responsibility to help sustain open societies even as the industry attempts
to respond to customer concerns.
5.32
The third deal would be between the signatory states of the Convention on Cybercrime.16
This would involve a process to spell out a common political goal among these countries,
to reconcile democratic principles with the new political challenges posed by internetbased technology and to harmonise the different legal jurisdictions in this field as much as
possible. This would transcend, but should be consistent with, the current EU framework.
5.33
The majority of these signatory states can be seen as a core of essentially democratic and
open societies, whose agreement would have wider international impact. It would help
mitigate concerns that intelligence-partnering arrangements could circumvent national
law; that is, where material gathered under a different national legal jurisdiction might
be shared. Common and explicitly adopted principles would make this less problematic
and also reduce the scope for abuse of process by any of the individual countries.
5.34
If progress towards these three deals is possible, then the Panel believe that a new
bargain can be struck that would be enduring in the face of unpredictable technological
change and evolving legal frameworks. It is very unlikely that the new legal framework
currently under discussion in Britain will be the last, and the questions this Review has
tackled will be posed again in the future.
16. With the exception of Russia and San Marino, all forty-seven countries of the Council of
Europe are signatories to the Convention, in addition to Australia, Canada, Japan, South
Africa and the United States.