I think the Register has this one right. The post makes three points:
1) Next years general election (probably to take place in May) makes this a bad time to bring forward legislation that might provoke negative headlines. (Henry Porter has a nice point about the timing as well: with all the recent column inches covering the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down, proposing big increases in surveillance invites comparisons with the Stasi all too easily).
2) Internet Service Providers, whose cooperation is needed for the scheme, are currently resistent. Before proceeding, government has to convince them of its merits and feasibility.
3) The players who want this (GCHQ, SOCA, ACPO, the Security Service, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Agency and the Met) are not going away anytime soon:
Note that GCHQ and friends will still be around after the next election, as will their demands for IMP.
Ever the political pragmatists, the Tories know this well, and the section of shadow justice minister Dominic Grieve's recent speech on reversing the rise of the surveillance state was notably soft on IMP.
He said a Conservative government would submit the proposals to the Information Commissioner's Office to assess their impact on privacy. The ICO has already said it believes the case for mass surveillance of the internet has not been made.
No comments:
Post a Comment