PRO-CIVIL liberties politicians have raised concerns over the revelations that policing body the Scottish Recording Centre (SRC) had access to mass surveillance from UK secret services.
After the nature of the SRC was revealed in files leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, researchers have also proposed developing an independent approach to communications security in Scotland.
Scottish Green Party justice spokesman person and ex-police officer John Finnie MSP said: “Liberty refer to the security agencies ‘drowning in data’ and cite the example of missed information in advance of the tragic death of the soldier Lee Rigby.
“While st the public will readily understand the need to monitor threats to public safety, it’s apparent that this blanket surveillance lacks any proportionality, is highly inefficient and has little, if indeed any, legal basis.
“Only this week, we have seen Conservative and Labour MPs walk hand in hand through the lobby at Westminster to pass the Investigatory Powers Bill, in the face of strong, evidenced and principled opposition from Greens, SNP, Plaid and the SDLP. Ironically, we also learn that a leaked report from 2012 says that GCHQ doesn’t need those new powers anyway – and that tells you all you need to know about how out of hand this industrial intrusion on citizens’ privacy has become.
“I also learn from those reports that a Scotland-based surveillance unit called the Scottish Recording Centre was part of this intrusive mix and that parliamentarians may have been misled about how this mass data has been handled.
“Everything points to this UK-wide surveillance machine as being both out of control and entirely incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I intend raising this matter in Parliament with the cabinet secretary for justice.”
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael, who opposed the charter, added: “Days after the Tories and the Labour Party backed a snoopers’ charter that will see our online activity recorded for a year, we learn that a secret Scottish facility could have been trawling though our information with no real oversight.
“Our intelligence services do vital work in keeping us safe – but that does not mean they should have carte blanche to invade our privacy. We need to know who within the UK and Scottish governments was aware of this work and what safeguards – if any – were in place to ensure Scottish workers were not complicit in breaking privacy laws.”
The SNP, who criticised the ‘bulk collection’ of data, led opposition to the bill, but declined to comment.
The SRC controversy raises questions over how an independent Scotland would manage the balance between security service powers and the right of the general population to privacy.
Alistair Davidson, a SNP activist who authored the report ‘Scottish sovereignty in an age of mass surveillance’, advocates a greater use of open source software and encrypted communication to ensure transparency and privacy.
“The Scottish government would be well-advised to oppose mass surveillance,” Davidson said.
“Quite apart from the ethical and legal issues, bulk recording of internet traffic by the UK secret services would pose a serious threat to the sovereignty of an independent Scotland. “If the security services watch all internet traffic that enters and leaves the British Isles, then state and commercial secrets would both be under threat.”
Loz Kaye, co-founder of Open Intelligence Think Tank, added: “The new surveillance law currently going through Westminster makes it clear that Scottish ministers have powers to issue interception. Yet there has been no proper opportunity for the Scottish people or parliament to have a say over how these powers will work. “It’s clear any new oversight body and powers must have input from Holyrood, and clarity on any specific Scottish security and intelligence agency.”
High UK spending on the security services means that an independent Scotland could would likely make substantial financial savings on security services. Three other e three Commonwealth members of the "Five Fife Eyes" network – Canada, Australia, and New Zealand – all spend far less per capita than the UK on spy activity.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here