Report of the Independent Surveillance Review
105
10. Multilateral collaboration: Government policy on intrusion should be capable of
being harmonised with that of like-minded open and democratic governments.
5.36
We believe that a state that continually and consistently applies these ten principles will
not find itself in abuse of its duties to its citizens or veering towards the over-mighty.
In the end, for an open society, the obtrusive powers held by the state can only be
based on consent.
Conclusions
5.37
In the sections below, the ISR Panel outline their conclusions relating to what they
consider to be the five most important themes of its review: bulk data collection and
data retention; maintaining the capabilities of the SIAs and law-enforcement agencies;
the warrantry system; the transparency of the oversight regime; and collaboration
between the public and private sectors.
5.38
The ISC’s and David Anderson’s reports make some 150 recommendations. We agree
with some but not all of them and are keen not to duplicate much of the good work
that has already been done. Below are our key recommendations drawing on published
reports, our visits to the police and SIAs and our evidence sessions at RUSI.
Maintaining the Capabilities of the Agencies
5.39
It was clear from the majority of the Panel’s visits and evidence sessions that the digital era
has created significant new challenges for the police, law enforcement and SIAs. They face
a diffuse threat from a variety of capable and technology-literate adversaries operating
across a number of different jurisdictions. The rapid development of ICT and Internetbased communications has challenged some of the traditional approaches, structures
and processes developed by law-enforcement and intelligence agencies over decades.
5.40
In order to carry out their primary function of ensuring the safety and security of the
British public, it is crucial that the agencies have the necessary powers. Given the degree
to which they may intrude upon a citizen’s privacy, it is right that these powers should be
codified in law. This legislation should clearly set out the circumstances in which intrusive
powers can be used, as well as the measures and safeguards in place to prevent abuse.
5.41
The Panel agree with both the ISC and the Anderson reports when they say that certain
pieces of existing legislation are unclear. While it may be unnecessary to reform all
legislation in this area (the SSA 1989 or ISA 1994, for example), there is a need to
introduce new legislation governing the authorisation and use of intrusive powers,
particularly as they relate to the interception of, and access to, digital communications.
5.42
This new legislation will need to clarify which public-sector organisations are able to use
such powers. Building on the current criteria relating to the use of investigatory powers,