Menu
UK Parliament

Committee takes evidence from Commissioners and international technical experts

5 January 2016

Image of UK Parliament portcullis

The Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill in the first of three sessions, takes evidence from the Information Commissioner about his responsibilities and those of his office should the draft Bill become law. The second panel explores the technical aspects of the Bill and international comparisons. The final session sees the Committee speak to the New Zealand equivalent of the role that would be created in the UK through the Bill. 

Witnesses

Wednesday 6 January in Committee Room 4A, Palace of Westminster

At 2.15pm

  • Christopher Graham, Information Commissioner

At 2.45pm

  • Jesper Lund, Chairman, The Danish IT Political Association
  • William E. Binney, retired Technical Director of the United States National Security Agency

At 4.10pm

  • Sir J. Bruce Robertson, New Zealand Commissioner of Security Warrants (via video link)

Possible questions

Possible questions in the first session include:

  • You have suggested that the Information Commissioner's role in auditing retained communications data needs strengthening. In what way would you want to see the draft Bill amended to reflect a strengthened role?
  • At what point are privacy rights engaged when it comes to the collection, retention and processing of data? Does a person have to read information for an intrusion to occur, or could the rights of a person who is the subject of the data also be infringed by its automated analysis?
  • Are you satisfied that throughout the Bill there is sufficient separation between those who authorise and those charged with oversight? 

Possible questions in the second session include:

  • How would the capabilities of UK law enforcement and security and intelligence agencies under the draft Bill, if enacted, compare with those of their counterparts in the USA and Denmark?
  • The Committee has heard much anecdotal comment on the Danish experience with the session logging data retention scheme which operated from 2007 until 2014. How did the Danish scheme compare to the proposals in the draft Bill for the retention of internet connection records? Is there a way to define ICRs in an unambiguous way?
  • Is there a good operational case for the provisions in the draft Bill on bulk interception, bulk acquisition of collection of communications data and bulk equipment interference?

Possible questions in the third session include:

  • How does the role of the proposed Investigatory Powers Commissioner compare to your own?
  • Are the proposed methods of appointment and removal of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and his or her supporting Commissioners appropriate? Do you support term limits? If so, is three years an appropriate term?
  • How easy is it in practice for you and a Minister both to take the necessary decisions within tight timeframes? Have there ever been situations of such urgency that you have been unable to authorise a warrant to the necessary timeframe?

Further information

Image: iStockphoto