SubScribe
  • Home
  • General Election 2019
    • Random thoughts
    • Guest blog
    • Daily Express
    • Daily Mail
    • Daily Mirror
    • Daily Telegraph
    • i
    • Metro
    • The Guardian
    • The Sun
    • The Times
  • Brexit
    • Whitetops immigration
    • Theresa's travels
    • Gove and Trump
    • Theresa May's trousers
    • Brexit blog
    • Events
    • Daily Express
    • Daily Mail
    • Daily Mirror
    • Daily Star
    • Daily Telegraph
    • i
    • The Guardian
    • The Sun
    • The Times
    • Daily Star Sunday
    • Mail on Sunday
    • The Observer
    • The People
    • Sunday Express
    • Sunday Mirror
    • Sunday Telegraph
    • Sunday Times
    • Sun on Sunday
  • The schedule
  • Blogs
    • Editor's blog
    • Gameoldgirl's Notebook
    • Pictures and spreads
    • Press box
    • General Election
    • Ukraine revolution and the threat to the West >
      • Putin wants more than Crimea, he wants half of Ukraine
      • Putin, the Man of Destiny, and dreams of a Eurasian empire
  • The industry
    • The nationals
    • Press freedom >
      • Attacks on the Press
      • Al Jazeera on trial: why should we care about journalists? >
        • Al Jazeera on trial: Peter Greste
        • Al Jazeera on trial: Abdullah Elshamy
        • Al Jazeera on trial: the court hearings
        • Al Jazeera on trial: the final session
      • RIPA
      • RIPA and the protection of sources
      • RIPA and the Press: guest blog
      • Journalists under surveillance
      • World Press Freedom Day
      • Surrendering press freedom: guest blog
      • Michael Wolff and the free Press
    • Press regulation >
      • From Milly Dowler to Sir Alan Moses
      • Letter to Murdoch
      • Leveson inquiry: an expensive hiding to nothing
      • Press regulation, history, hysteria and hyperbole
      • Parliament, Hacked Off and self-regulation of the Press
    • Journalists in the dock >
      • Too embarrassed to look in the mirror?
      • The tally
      • Operation Elveden
      • Phone hacking
      • Operation Tuleta
      • Journalists on trial 2014 archive
    • Local papers matter >
      • Local newspapers have to change
      • Monty's vision
      • The Full Monty: the Local World vision put into practice
    • Whistle-blowers
    • Journalism shouldn't be for the elite
    • A question of trust
    • News judgment >
      • Daily Star Hallowe'en special
      • Tesco profits scandal
      • Manchester kennels fire
      • Lambing Live
      • Lottery winners separate >
        • Love and the lottery winners, part 2
      • Give us news not puffs
      • April Fool >
        • The giant banjo
        • Deceived or deceptive, the paper must take the rap
      • The art of Sunday editing
    • Peter Oborne quits >
      • Guest blog: Why I resigned from the Telegraph
      • Peter Oborne: The Telegraph strikes back
      • advertising v editorial
    • Award winners >
      • Regional Press Awards 2013
    • Obituary
  • SubScribe commentary
    • Paris terror attacks
    • Mohammed Emwazi and Isis killings >
      • James Foley murdered
      • The murder of Steven Sotloff
      • David Haines and Isis propaganda
    • Charlie Hebdo massacre >
      • Charlie Hebdo aftermath
    • Kidnapped Nigerian schoolgirls >
      • Nigeria's abducted girls and massacre
    • Ebola
    • Frontline reporting
    • Typhoon Haiyan
    • Obama's selfie
    • It takes all sorts to make a family >
      • This is what a flawed feminist campaign looks like
      • A level results day: bring on the token boys
      • Kellie Maloney faces the world
      • Women in trouble for getting ahead
      • Pregnant soldiers
    • Ashya King and the force of authority >
      • Stephen's story: did the Press help his cause or take over his life?
      • Colchester cancer scandal
    • Poppymania
    • Cameron's tax cut promise >
      • The blue-rinse bingo Budget
      • Politicians need their holidays too
      • Cameron's reshuffle: bring on the women
    • Brooks Newmark sting
    • Scottish referendum >
      • Scottish referendum: the final editions
      • Scottish referendum miscellany
      • The Queen speaks
    • The European elections audit >
      • Election audit: the last wordle
      • Election audit: Daily Mail
      • Election audit: The Times
      • Election audit: Daily Express
      • Election audit: Daily Mirror
      • Election audit: The Independent
      • Election audit: Guardian
      • Election audit: Daily Telegraph
      • Election audit: The Sun
    • Maria Miller
    • Harman, Hewitt and the paedophiles >
      • Hewitt apologises and the Sun picks up the cudgels
      • Mail v Labour trio, day 6: Harman capitulates and the bully wins
    • Immigration >
      • Katie Hopkins and drowned refugees
      • A year of xenophobia
      • The Express and immigration
    • Prince Charles and the floods >
      • Prince George
    • Food banks
    • Why is football more important than all the news? >
      • Cheerleading
      • Kelly Gallagher beats the world
      • Jenny Jones struggles against Kate and ManU
      • Reading Chronicle and football hooliganism
    • The weather
  • Odds and sods
  • OpEd
    • Oped December >
      • Politics 22-12-15
      • Brexit: 21-12-15
      • Politics 18-12-15
      • Politics 17-12-15
      • Politics 16-12-15
      • EU referendum: 15-12-15
      • Politics 14-12-15
      • Right-wing politicians 11-12-15
      • Donald Trump: 10-12-15
      • Donald Trump: 09-12-15
      • Politics: 08-12-15
      • Politics: 07-12-15
      • Syrian airstrikes 04-12-15
      • Syrian airstrikes: 03-12-15
      • Syrian airstrikes: 02-12-15
      • Labour and Syria: 01-12-15
    • OpEd November >
      • Syrian air strikes: 30-11-15
      • Autumn Statement: 27-11-15
      • Autumn Statement: 26-11-15
      • Russia in Syria: 25-11-15
      • Comment awards 24-11-15
      • Paris attacks: 23-11-15
      • Politics: 20-11-15
      • Paris attacks 19-11-15
      • Terrorism: 18-11-15
      • Paris attacks 17-11-15
      • Paris attacks 16-11-15
      • Politics: 13-11-15
      • Politics 12-11-15
      • Politics: 11-11-15
      • Britain and Europe: 10-11-15
      • Remembrance: 09-11-15
      • Sinai jet crash: 06-11-15
      • UK politics 05-11-15
      • UK politics: 04-11-15
      • State surveillance: 03-11-15
      • Poliitics: 02-11-15
    • OpEd October >
      • Politics: 30-10-15
      • Tax credits: 29-10-15
      • Tax credits: 28-10-15
      • Tax credits: 27-10-15
      • Lords v Commons: 26-10-15
      • UK politics: 23-10-15
      • Politics: 22-10-15
      • Xi Jinping: 21-10-15
      • Xi Jinping: 20-10-15
      • China visit: 19-10-15
      • Politics: 16-10-15
      • Politics 15-10-15
      • Politics: 14-10-15
      • EU referendum 13-10-15
      • Europe: 12-10-15
      • Politics 09-10-15
      • Cameron's speech: 08-10-15
      • Conservatives: 07-10-15
      • Conservatives: 06-10-15
      • Conservatives: 05-10-15
      • Politics 02-10-15
      • Labour conference 01-10-15
    • OpEd September >
      • Politics 01-09-15
      • Europe 02-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 03-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 04-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 07-09-15
      • Migrant crisis 08-09-15
      • OpEd: Drone strikes 09-09-15
      • OpEd: Migrant crisis 10-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 11-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 14-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 15-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 16-09-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 17-09-15
      • OpEd: Labour 18-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 21-09-15
      • OpEd: "Pig-gate" 22-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 23-09-15
      • OpEd: VW 24-09-15
      • OpEd: Volkswagen 28-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 25-09-15
      • OpEd: Politics 29-09-15
      • Oped: Labour conference 30-09-15
    • OpEd August >
      • OpEd: Calais 03-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 04-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 05-08-15
      • OpEd: Kids Company 06-08-15
      • OpEd: Kids Company 07-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 10-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 11-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 12-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 13-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 14-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 17-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 18-08-15
      • OpEd: Labour 19-08-15
      • OpEd: Student debt 20-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 21-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 24-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 25-08-15
      • OpEd: Politics 26-08-15
      • OpEd: Jeremy Corbyn 27-08-15
      • OpEd: TV shootings 28-08-15
    • OpEd July >
      • OpEd: Grexit 01-07-15
      • OpEd: Heathrow 02-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 03-07-15
      • OpEd: Taxation 06-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 07-07-15
      • OpEd: Budget 08-07-15
      • OpEd: Budget 09-07-15
      • OpEd: Budget 10-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 13-07-15
      • OpEd: Greece 14-07-15
      • OpEd: Iran 15-07-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 16-07-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 17-07-15
      • OpEd: Boris Johnson and Greece 20-07-15
      • OpEd: counter-terrorism 21-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 22-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 23-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 24-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 27-07-15
      • OpEd: Lord Sewel 28-07-15
      • OpEd: Labour 29-07-15
      • OpEd: Calais 30-07-15
      • OpEd: Calais 31-07-15
    • OpEd June >
      • OpEd: Fifa 01-06-15
      • OpEd: British politics 02-06-15
      • OpEd: Charles Kennedy 03-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 04-06-15
      • OpEd: Fifa 05-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 08-06-15
      • OpEd: Europe 09-06-15
      • OpEd: politics 10-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 11-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 12-06-15
      • OpEd: Politics 15-06-15
      • OpEd: Social mobility 16-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 17-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-06-15
      • OpEd: Greece 19-06-15
      • OpEd: Greece 22-06-15
      • OpEd: Greece 23-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 24-06-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 25-06-15
      • OpEd: Brexit 26-06-15
      • OpEd: Tunisia 29-06-15
      • OpEd: Grexit 30-06-15
    • OpEd May >
      • OpEd: Election 01-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 05-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 06-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 07-05-15
      • OpEd: Election 08-05-15
      • OpEd: Scotland 11-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 12-05-15
      • OpEd: The Labour party 13-05-15
      • OpEd: The Labour party 14-05-15
      • OpEd: Ukip and Labour 15-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-05-15
      • OpEd: The NHS 19-05-15
      • OpEd: The Labour party 20-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 21-05-15
      • Oped: UK politics 22-05-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 26-05-15
      • OpEd: Europe 27-05-15
      • OpEd: The Queen's Speech 28-05-15
      • OpEd: Fifa 29-05-15
    • OpEd April >
      • OpEd: Election 01-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 02-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 07-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 08-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 09-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 10-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 13-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 14-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 15-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 16-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 17-04-15
      • OpEd: SNP 20-04-15
      • OpEd: Refugees 21-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 22-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 23-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 24-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 27-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 28-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 29-04-15
      • OpEd: Election 30-04-15
    • OpEd March >
      • OpEd: Election 31-03-15
      • OpEd: Depression 30-03-15
      • OpEd: Prince Charles 27-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 26-03-15
      • OpEd: David Cameron 25-03-15
      • OpEd: Singapore 24-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 23-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 20-03-15
      • OpEd: the Budget 19-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-03-15
      • OpEd: race in Britain 17-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 16-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 13-03-15
      • OpEd Jeremy Clarkson 12-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 11-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 10-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 09-03-15
      • OpEd: Scotland 06-03-15
      • OpEd: Isis 05-03-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 04-03-15
      • OpEd: Radicalisation 03-03-15
      • OpEd: Russia 02-03-15
    • OpEd February >
      • OpEd: UK politics 27-02-15
      • OpEd: minority party leaders 26-02-15
      • OpEd: the Greens 25-02-15
      • OpEd: Rifkind and Straw 24-02-15
      • OpEd: world affairs 23-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 20-02-15
      • OpEd: Chelsea and racism 19-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 18-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 17-02-15
      • OpEd: Copenhagen 16-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 13-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 12-02-15
      • OpEd: politics 11-02-15
      • OpEd: politics 10-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 09-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 06-02-15
      • OpEd: Isis atrocity 05-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 04-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 03-02-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 02-02-15
    • OpEd January >
      • OpEd: rape law 30-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics, 29-01-15
      • OpEd: Greece 27-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 28-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 26-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 23-01-15
      • OpEd: Chilcot inquiry 22-01-15
      • OpEd: Page Three 21-01-15
      • OpEd: anti-semitism 20-01-15
      • OpEd: religion and freedom 19-01-15
      • OpEd: world politics 16-01-15
      • OpEd: election debates 15-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 14-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 13-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 12-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 08-01-15
      • OpEd: Charlie Hebdo 09-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 07-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 05-01-15
      • OpEd: UK politics 06-01-15
  • You have to laugh
  • Backnumbers
    • Front pages December >
      • Front pages Dec 27-31
      • Front pages Dec 20-26
      • Front pages Dec 6-12
    • Front pages November >
      • Front pages Nov 29-Dec 5
      • Front pages Nov 22-28
      • front pages Nov 15-21
      • Front pages Nov 8-14
      • front pages Nov 1-7
    • Front pages October >
      • Front pages, Oct 25-31
      • Front pages Oct 18-25
      • front pages Oct 11-17
      • Front pages Oct 4-10
    • Front pages September >
      • Front pages Sept 27-Oct 3
      • Front pages Sept 20-26
      • Front pages Sept 13-19
      • Front pages Sept 6-12
      • Front pages Aug 30-Sept 5
    • Front pages August >
      • Front pages August 23-29
      • Front pages Aug 16-22
      • Front pages August 9-15
      • Front pages Aug 2-8
    • Front pages July >
      • Front pages July 26-Aug 1
      • Front pages July 19-25
      • Front pages July 12-18
      • Front pages July 5-11
      • Front pages June 28-July 4
    • Front pages June >
      • Front pages June 21-27
      • Front pages June 14-20
      • Front pages June 7-13
      • Front pages May 31-June 6
    • Front pages May >
      • Front pages May 24-30
      • Front pages May 17-23
      • Front pages May 10-16
    • Front pages April >
      • Front pages May 3-9
      • Front pages April 26-May 2
      • Front pages April 19-26
      • Front pages April 12-18
      • Front pages April 5-11
      • Front pages Mar 29-Apr 4
    • Front pages March >
      • Front pages Mar 22-28
      • Front pages Mar 15-21
      • Front pages Mar 8-14
      • Front pages Mar 1 - 7
    • Front pages February >
      • Front pages Feb 22-28
      • Front pages Feb 16-21
      • Front pages Feb 9-15
      • Front pages Feb 1-8
    • Front pages January >
      • Front pages Jan 25-31
      • Front pages Jan 18-24, 2015
      • Front pages Jan 11-17
      • front pages Jan 4-9, 2015
      • Front pages Dec 29-Jan 3
  • About SubScribe
  • Join the SubScribers
  • Contact us
  • Subscribe to SubScribe


If the terrorists cannot be allowed to win, why is the State attacking our freedom?

View image | gettyimages.com
Monday 19 January, 2014
The threat of terrorism has been a part of British life for half a century. 
The Troubles in Northern Ireland left more than 3,500 dead, including the victims of  bombings in Omagh, Birmingham, Aldershot, Guildford, Deal, Warrenpoint, Manchester, Eniskillen and Hyde Park, the Bloody Sunday shootings, and individual murders such as those of Lord Mountbatten, Airey Neave, Ian Gow and Ross McWhirter. Two soldiers who found themselves in the middle of an IRA funeral procession were dragged from their car and brutally despatched.
With every horror came the assertion "the terrorists will never win". Their objective was, we were told, to destroy the British way of life through fear. That could not be allowed to happen; there would be no negotiations with murderers, no payment of ransoms to kidnappers.
There was, of course, negotiation, which led to the Good Friday Agreement and a sort of peace.
There were also big changes in the British way of life. If you left a suitcase unattended or a car in the wrong place in the Seventies, you were liable to find on your return that it had been blown up. 

Apart from the Troubles, acts of terrorism have killed fewer than 350 people in this country in the past 30 years - and most of those were the result of two incidents: the Lockerbie bombing of 1988 and the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005.
We are frequently told that we are at greater risk than ever before, that various plots that might have resulted in mass slaughter have been foiled by our security services, and that we must remain vigilant at all times.
We have allowed people to be detained for extended periods without trial, we have accepted the presence of CCTV systems in our town centres and on our roads, we subject ourselves to scanners and swabs and offer up our bags to be searched when we want to catch a train or a plane, go to a concert or visit a museum. We cannot even take a bottle of water from one side of an airport to the other.

The Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris two weeks ago brought another round of security reappraisals.
Britain has never experienced an attack such as that on the magazine's offices in which the killers were gunmen looking for specific people, rather than bombers striking at targets chosen for their publicity value.
This assault by a pair of thirtysomething brothers on three old men who drew pictures for a living and their colleagues was characterised in splash headlines as an attack on freedom, a war on democracy. It was probably nothing so grand, but it was certainly an attack on freedom of speech, and it led to the extraordinary sight of world leaders marching arm-in-arm through the streets of Paris at the head of a crowd of a million or two people proclaiming "Je suis Charlie".
How could this be? Heads of state and government leading a protest march over the deaths of 12 people? Ah, but remember this wasn't about 12 people. It was about that most sacred right: freedom of expression.

And how do our leaders propose to protect that freedom? By increasing the State's right to spy on us. The security services (among other public bodies) can already look at our phone and email records to see who we're talking and writing to. They can also, in certain circumstances, tap our phones, bug our offices and train a telescope on our bedroom windows. Now David Cameron wants to ban apps such as SnapChat and WhatsApp that allow the encryption of messages sent across the web, so that nothing is private.
The idea has not been well-received and it may in any event prove impossible to implement, but it does not bode well for freedoms that are already under attack in the name of national security.
Tomorrow is the final day of consultation on a new set of guidelines on the way the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act is used, and in the present climate the chances of their being altered in the interests of public and personal liberty must be remote.
This law was pushed through by the Blair Government in 2000, going from its first appearance in the Commons to the statute book within five months. It was intended to give public bodies weapons to tackle terrorists and organised criminals who were using "modern" technology such as mobile phones and email. 
It didn't take long for councils to start using the Act to justify spying on families for such trivial matters as when they put out their dustbins. That sort of behaviour was stamped on, but there are still about half a million requests to carry out some sort of surveillance operation under the Act every year.

One of those requests concerned the Sun political editor's mobile phone. Police checked Tom Newton Dunn's phone records to try to find out who had leaked the "Plebgate" story that led to the downfall of the government chief whip Andrew Mitchell. That investigation unveiled the whistleblowers in the case and cost them their jobs.

There is little public sympathy for journalists who demand special consideration when they get what is sometimes seen as a taste of their own medicine. In this case, however, it really matters. And not only for journalists; it matters for doctors, lawyers, accountants and other professionals -  and for their clients.
After the Mid Staffs hospital scandal, this Government promised to protect people who spoke out about malpractice in all walks of life. But who will come forward about anything if their lives are going to be made a misery and their livelihoods put at risk? 
It is essential that people are able to talk to journalists on matters of public interest without fear that their cover will be blown. It is essential that lawyers are able to speak to their clients, doctors to their patients without someone checking on when and where they had their conversations.

Shortly after Andrew Norfolk of the Times started writing about the systematic enforced prostitution of young girls in Rotherham, he was presented with a huge dossier showing that police, councillors and council officials had been aware of what was going on. When he wrote the next story on the back of that material, the council's response was to start an investigation - not into the abuse, but into the leaking of information.
It has become almost standard practice: a wrong is publicised - whether it's an MP playing Candy Crush or a consultant exposing hospital errors - and the first response of the authority concerned is "hunt the leaker".
Press Gazette reported in October that over the past five years the Metropolitan Police had instigated 300 internal leak investigations, most of them using RIPA. Last month it followed that with the news that five central government departments had conducted 60 such inquiries over the same period. This is not what the Act was designed for.

The key point in this overuse/abuse of the legislation by the police is that it requires only the signature of a senior officer for someone's phone or email data to be checked. This, as the Cameron clip above explains, is not about reading the contents - but if you're looking to blow a source you don't need to;  the mere knowledge of who's talking to whom is enough
When it became known that Tom Newton Dunn's phone records had been checked, the acting Interception of Communications Commissioner promised an investigation, peers and the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee expressed outrage, and a petition set up by Press Gazette editor Dominic Ponsford - who has been in the vanguard of this fight -  was signed by 1,650 people. Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian said that journalists needed to learn new ways of protecting their sources -  such as learning encryption (much good may that do them if Cameron gets his way).
The Home Office responded by promising new guidelines.

The objective of the Press Gazette petition was modest: a requirement that police should obtain the permission of a judge, rather than one of their own officers, before accessing people's data.
But the new guidelines put forward by Theresa May do not include that provision - they merely require the police to "note" when the person whose records they are examining is in a professional working under conditions of confidentiality. 
Today a letter signed by 100 editors, including every one of the national newspapers, has been presented to the Home Office asking it to amend the guidelines again to take that one step further.
This is not a case of bleating journalists, it is about protecting personal liberty - the very thing successive politicians have told us terrorists cannot be allowed to steal. Please add your voice to the campaign by contacting the Home Office before the consultation ends at 11.45pm tomorrow.
If it helps, the NUJ has produced a draft letter that can be copied and pasted into an email.


Other voices


Picture
 Privacy and trust is crucially important to the British public and our professions. We need to be assured that certain data will always remain confidential in all but exceptional and extreme circumstances.
Insufficient regard for professional confidentiality undermines the public’s trust in our individual members, organisations and our public institutions.
We are united in our belief that the current system needs to be changed.
We have seen a growing number of instances where data and surveillance powers have been seriously and repeatedly overused. This has included police using secret methods to expose journalistic sources and to monitor journalists' activities and it has also been revealed that the intelligence agencies have been spying on conversations between lawyers and their client.  
Our organisations agree that access to professional data should be protected in law and should be subject to independent, judicial oversight. Using codes of practice – such as the draft code under RIPA - undermines the rule of law.
- Professionals for Information Privacy Coalition 
(Bar Council, Law Society, NUJ, British Association of Social Workers)

Picture
The right to keep sources anonymous is the bedrock of investigative journalism. Without it, you cannot do your jobs. Without it, the corrupt and the crooked sleep easier in their beds. It’s a sacrosanct principle...
RIPA was passed to help with the fight against serious criminal wrongdoing, not to impede fair and legitimate journalism, no matter how awkward that journalism may be for police officers and local councils.
The legislation should never be used to spy on reporters and whistleblowers who are going about their lawful, vital business.
- Sajid Javid, 
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport

Picture
 For centuries institutions, callings and professions have considered the confidentiality of certain communications to be sacred. I am thinking of the law, medicine, the church, parliamentarians and journalists and their oath, or obligation, to clients, or patients, or sources, or constituents or communicants.
But a Home Office consultation document has decided that in future the state will not feel bound by these conventions or promises or practices. The Home Office wants the police to feel free to authorise themselves to access the phone and email records of journalists and priests and lawyers and doctors – and even MPs...
These are things that are core to how we live and work in a free country. It cannot be for a few security officials in the Home office to overthrow them.
- Alan Rusbridger, Guardian Editor 

Picture
RIPA... is not there for the police to go after the communications information data that journalists might have got totally properly as part of their profession. I think there should be a judge sign-off. 
- Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister

Picture
I have written to all Chief Constables and directed them...to provide me with full details of all investigations that have used RIPA powers to acquire communications data to identify journalistic sources. 
My office will undertake a full inquiry into these matters and report our findings to the Prime Minister and publicly so as to develop clarity in relation to the scope and compliance of this activity.
I fully understand and share the concerns raised about the protection of journalistic sources so as to enable a free press.
- Sir Paul Kennedy, Acting Interceptions Commissioner

Picture
Politicians say that terrorism laws should be used where relevant and proportionate. The police have used RIPA when it was neither. Journalism is not terrorism nor criminal.
- Bob Satchwell, Executive Director, Society of Editors

Save Our Sources logo
See Press Gazette's stories here
Whistleblowing charity blog
Police media leak investigations
Nick Clegg calls for judicial authority
The case of Sally Murrer
Heroes and villains of 2014



The editors' letter
Picture
We, the undersigned, believe that the Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice as drafted provides wholly inadequate protection for journalists’ sources.

The revelation that the Metropolitan Police and other forces have used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to view the phone records of The Sun and its political editor and other journalists in order to identify and punish lawful police sources has caused widespread alarm across the journalism industry.

The new code appears to do very little which would stop a repeat of such abuse of RIPA.

The Act was intended for tackling serious crime such as terrorism but it is clearly being used by police in relation to relatively minor crimes.

The new code states: “Communications data is not subject to any form of professional privilege – the fact a communication took place does not disclose what was discussed, considered or advised.”

The mere fact a public official has contacted a newspaper is highly privileged information.

That an individual has contacted a lawyer or doctor tells us little. But the fact they have contacted a journalist identifies them as a source and exposes them to recrimination.

It is in everyone’s interest that the state recognises the over-arching importance of protecting the confidentiality of journalists’ sources.

Public sector whistleblowers will not come forward to journalists in future if law enforcement agencies have the power to view journalists’ phone records at will The new guidelines merely state that the degree of interference with privacy “may be higher where the communications data being sought relates to a person who is a member of a profession that handles privileged or otherwise confidential information (such as a medical doctor, lawyer, journalist, Member of Parliament, or minister of religion).

“Such situations do not preclude an application being made. However applicants, giving special consideration to necessity and proportionality, must draw attention to any such circumstances that might lead to an unusual degree of intrusion or infringement of privacy, and clearly note when an application is made for the communications data of a medical doctor, lawyer, journalist, Member of Parliament, or minister of religion.”

The new guidelines also state that RIPA requests involving journalists can continue to be signed off internally at the agency concerned.

RIPA requests for journalists’ phone records should carry the same safeguards as already exist under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act when it comes to police requests for journalistic material and should be extremely rare.

RIPA requests involving the telecoms records of journalists (and so, also their sources) must require the approval of a judge who is best placed to balance the public interest in disclosure of the information versus the over-arching public interest in respecting the confidentiality of journalists’ sources.

The new Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice must explicitly prevent law enforcement officials viewing the phone records of journalists who are not themselves under suspicion of committing any crime.

The draft code only makes reference to “the degree of interference with privacy” and says nothing about the issue of state interference with press freedom. This is why a judge must consider the case for overriding source protection.

The code needs to balance the seriousness of the alleged crime against the public interest in protecting the confidentiality of all journalistic sources and potential whistleblowers.

The guidance needs to make it clear that a public official communicating information to a journalist without official approval (ie. a leak) cannot be sufficient justification for a RIPA telecoms request.



Picture
Editor's blog
Give Hacked Off credit where it's due

Tim Crook 

Attack on sources undermines democracy

Gameoldgirl
Follow @gameoldgirl


comments powered by Disqus

How you can be a SubScriber


Sign up for email updates (no spam, about one a month)...

I'd like to become a SubScriber

* indicates required

...make a financial contribution
I'd like to subscribe
There will never be a charge for reading SubScribe, 
but if you would like to make a donation to keep it going, you can do so in a variety of ways
by pressing this button.
Thank you.

Quick links

Picture
Main sections:
The industry
The schedule
Press freedom
Press regulation
News judgment
Phone hacking
Front pages
Picture
About SubScribe
Send an email


Blogs:
Pictures and spreads
Editor's blog
Press Box
Gameoldgirl's notebook
OpEd 
You have to laugh

Picture
The old blog