Dear friends

The Investigatory Powers Act will become law at the end of 2016.  This piece of legislation allows many government agency access to your browsing history without warrant. It is a massive invasion of privacy by the state into citizens lives.

Please write your MP, tell them they have lost a vote. The easiest way is via the website https://www.writetothem.com/

Below is my open letter to my MP. I am not a wordsmith, and that should be obvious, but do write your MP, and ask why they are exempt for this, and if you can make the point "An act which effectively provides a police "tail" on all members of the public at all times while they surf the internet, just in case it may be useful in the future, is not acceptable in a democracy, only in a police state."

Also, Sign the petition at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/173199

My letter to my MP:

Dear Alok Sharma 

Thank you for the replies to my previous letters, and to my email regarding signing of the petition to have the Investigatory Powers Act repealed.

This is an open letter, and I will be publishing it on-line as well as any responses to it.

I am writing over my deep concerns about the Investigatory Powers Act, and its brazen disregard for privacy. As such I have signed the petition to have this act repealed. I have also read the current government response (included at the bottom of this letter) and I find it completely inadequate. Anything other than the complete repeal of this Act is now and always will be inadequate. I cannot vote for anyone who does not vow to repeal this Act, and I have been and will continue to advise all I can to do the same.

Since signing, receiving the home office response, and your reply, it seems the loss in the Court of Justice of the European Union may force some revision, but for me it too late, and not enough. Mass data retention of innocent people is wrong. And if you believe otherwise, then you should not be my MP, nor anyone else's. 

Furthermore I oppose this as it assumes guilt, and collects unprecedented amounts of information about the electorate that may all be legal but when leaked,say by the corrupt present in any organisation, could still damage the individual.
Therefore the go to phrase of "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" as used repeatedly by your predecessor Martin Salter, and by the current administration is a misleading lie at best, but I consider it a deliberate deception.  As Edward Snowden has said "Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." 

Also, from Tony Blair onwards it seems that Arn Rand was correct when she said “There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” and an act which effectively provides a police "tail" on all members of the public at all times while they surf the internet, just in case it may be useful in the future, is not acceptable in a democracy, only in a police state.

But if you truly have nothing to hide and agree with this intrusive Act, then please provide me with your entire list of websites visited since you were first on the Internet. And do the same Mrs. May's as well, in the interests of full transparency, because if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear. 

"The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" - Captain Jean-Luc Picard.

This Act is my line, I will not back down, I will never stop campaigning against it. I will go dark, and my ISP will see nothing. I will advise everyone I can on how to continue to enjoy the internet with out fear of it being leaked or used against them. The supposed targets for this act know more than I do on how to be untracked, and it is trivial for me to do so! Everything about this law, the "safeguards", and they way it was passed make me ashamed of this so called free and open democracy. 

"If you criminalize privacy, then only criminals will have privacy." - Unknown

Finally, I would like to respond to some aspects of the Current response to the petition.

"The Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage. "
An outright lie. Scrap it was the main response, and that was not listened to at all.

"The Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act."
An outright lie. The act would not exist if this was remotely true. Also ISP's are hacked all the time, and you want them to store private information. You want corruptible people to have access to this? You want all those government agency's to have access to this? Privacy was shoe horned in at the end (Badly) in an effort to look like they cared. 

"Act includes tough sanctions – including the creation of new criminal offences – for those misusing the powers. "
Sure they do, except they will never be used, much like current legislation is not used to prosecute those in public office when they break the law. So not a lie, but as good one.

In summary, repeal this Act, because its utterly useless for its described purpose, because the criminals for which it is intended can bypass it with ease, and the Act it is, in reality, an instrument of state control of a free and open internet. 

Yours Sincerely
Ashley Black


Home office response to the petition as on the 30th November 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Investigatory Powers Act dramatically increases transparency around the use of investigatory powers. It protects both privacy and security and underwent unprecedented scrutiny before becoming law.

The Government is clear that, at a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services have the powers they need to keep people safe.

The Investigatory Powers Act transforms the law relating to the use and oversight of Investigatory powers. It strengthens safeguards and introduces world-leading oversight arrangements.

The Act does three key things. First, it brings together powers already available to law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies to obtain communications and data about communications. It makes these powers – and the safeguards that apply to them – clear and understandable.

Second, it radically overhauls the way these powers are authorised and overseen. It introduces a ‘double-lock’ for the most intrusive powers, including interception and all of the bulk capabilities, so warrants require the approval of a Judicial Commissioner. And it creates a powerful new Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee how these powers are used.

Third, it ensures powers are fit for the digital age. The Act makes a single new provision for the retention of internet connection records in order for law enforcement to identify the communications service to which a device has connected. This will restore capabilities that have been lost as a result of changes in the way people communicate.

Public scrutiny

The Bill was subject to unprecedented scrutiny prior to and during its passage. 
The Bill responded to three independent reports: by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; by the Royal United Services Institute’s Independent Surveillance Review Panel; and by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. All three of those authoritative independent reports agreed a new law was needed. 

The Government responded to the recommendations of those reports in the form of a draft Bill, published in November 2015. That draft Bill was submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The Intelligence and Security Committee and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee conducted parallel scrutiny. Between them, those Committees received over 1,500 pages of written submissions and heard oral evidence from the Government, industry, civil liberties groups and many others. The recommendations made by those Committees informed changes to the Bill and the publication of further supporting material.

A revised Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 1 March, and completed its passage on 16 November, meeting the timetable for legislation set by Parliament during the passage of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Over 1,700 amendments to the Bill were tabled and debated during this time.

The Government has adopted an open and consultative approach throughout the passage of this legislation, tabling or accepting a significant number of amendments in both Houses of Parliament in order to improve transparency and strengthen privacy protections. These included enhanced protections for trade unions and journalistic and legally privileged material, and the introduction of a threshold to ensure internet connection records cannot be used to investigate minor crimes.

Privacy and Oversight

The Government has placed privacy at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Act. The Act makes clear the extent to which investigatory powers may be used and the strict safeguards that apply in order to maintain privacy.

A new overarching ‘privacy clause’ was added to make absolutely clear that the protection of privacy is at the heart of this legislation. This privacy clause ensures that in each and every case a public authority must consider whether less intrusive means could be used, and must have regard to human rights and the particular sensitivity of certain information. The powers can only be exercised when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and the Act includes tough sanctions – including the creation of new criminal offences – for those misusing the powers. 
The safeguards in this Act reflect the UK’s international reputation for protecting human rights. The unprecedented transparency and the new safeguards – including the ‘double lock’ for the most sensitive powers – set an international benchmark for how the law can protect both privacy and security. 

Home Office