A Spying Government?

What it is and what its implications are

Many of you have most likely heard the word ‘CIA’ or ‘spying’ or even how China was supposedly extracting information from TikTok;  and you even be fearing that Eton WiFi is sucking the secrets out of your phone, but less of you might have heard of the Investigatory Powers Act. However, if you’re interested in knowing how much privacy you actually have or what the government/Eton College can and can’t see what you do, then this article is for you.

The Investigatory Powers Act was a UK law set out in 2016 that governed the surveillance and interception of communications. Sometime referred to as the “Snooper’s Charter” due to its disregard of privacy it had many aspects and today I will outline what the Investigatory Powers Act was, its consequences on the public, what it is now and why that is important.

Firstly, it is essential to know what the Act did, in order to understand its effect. The main purpose was bulk data collection which allowed intelligence agencies to collate data such as search history or phone records without a target. This meant that they didn’t need evidence to track or monitor anyone’s online activity. The Act also gave authorities permission to hack or intercept communications with the appropriate warrant, as well as bypassing encryption. Finally, telecommunications companies were told to retain key details about communications, (who contacted whom, at what time and for how long) again without the need for a warrant or evidence. Overall, the Act reduced public privacy and the overall consensus was that it raised issues in regards to civil liberties.  This raised public awareness for their privacy and led to the formation of civil society groups such as Liberty and Big Brother Watch.

One of the posters published online by Big Brother Watch comparing the Investigatory Powers Act to the dystopian novel of ‘1984’

Ultimately, this led to a period of legal challenges between 2018 and 2020, where the UK’s high court ruled in favour of Liberty and adopted the notion that bulk collect of data on that scale was unlawful. Then, in October of 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rule that the UK’s mass data retention laws, which  included the Investigatory Powers Act, violated EU law due to legal juxtaposition with data protection and fundamental rights.

But why is it relevant today?

Well, on April 23rd 2024  the Investigatory Powers Act (Amendment) Act was adopted by UK Parliament. For companies, especially tech firms, the new legislation introduces stricter requirements regarding lawful access to data. Notably, businesses may need to consult with the UK government before rolling out security updates, potentially delaying important software improvements. This could make companies more vulnerable to cyberattacks while weakening privacy protections globally. Tech giants like Apple have voiced strong opposition, fearing the changes might force them to weaken encryption or delay security enhancements, with some even threatening to pull services from the UK over concerns of government overreach.

The amendment also has impacts on us – the public; whilst it does take steps toward reducing criminal activity online it also expands the government’s authority to collect and store personal information, including internet connection records. However, most browsers and other software allow for optional coverage on these, for example the well known ‘incognito mode’ for Chrome, prevents the browser from recording your history, as well as other activity data.

Similarly, this ties into something many of you will have heard of; cookies. Unfortunately I’m not talking about the edible ones but rather the ones you accept when you enter a website. Ever wondered what accepting actually means? Well, accepting cookies means you’re giving a website permission to store files on your device and use your data. This can improve your browsing experience and remember information such as your Chess.com password but it also means that that information can be accessed by the government if need be and is not limited to the user.

Ultimately, the amendment has seen critics from the likes of TechUK, privacy rights organisations and parliamentary publications. The main consensus is that the law increases control of the government over its citizens as well as preventing the development of security technologies like end-to-end encryption. However, in an age where technology is a major tool for crime and corruption, it is also argued that control is paramount for ensuring the safety of people.