NO2ID

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... sfeed=true

Cameron rebukes Clegg over secret courts and email monitoring

Cameron says plans were approved by both Tory and Lib Dem ministers and people should wait to see the details

* Nicholas Watt in Tokyo
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 10 April 2012 08.10 BST

David Cameron has issued a pointed rebuke to Nick Clegg after the Liberal Democrats raised concerns about controversial government plans to monitor emails and to allow judges to sit in secret in some trials.

As he flew to Japan on a trade mission, the prime minister said that leading Liberal Democrat cabinet ministers had sat on the committees which approved the plans.

...

Clegg's intervened on the monitoring of emails after a furious row with the Home Office. In a Guardian interview, he joked that he would "defer" to Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, after civil liberties groups objected to plans to give the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) real-time access to Skype, instant message and email data.

But the deputy prime minister said he supported the plans because they would simply allow the authorities to access the information they were entitled to on more traditional forms of communication – where a call is made, when and by whom. He was annoyed with the Home Office for failing to do enough to dismiss a story in the Sunday Times last week which said the coalition was reviving plans, dropped by Labour in 2006, to monitor the actual content of emails.

Cameron said: "On telephone calls and emails, no one is talking about changing the rules and snooping into the content of somebody's telephone calls or emails. You still need a warrant signed by the Home Secretary for that.

"All we're talking about here is making sure we're keeping up with technology. We have always been able to see who people are contacting through phone calls. It used to be the case that the communications data of 90% of calls could be accessed – but that's not the case with Skype and other new technologies.

"I think it's important that people see the detail and hear the arguments. You've got to remember that this was a national security council where sitting round the table was Chris Huhne, Nick Clegg, Ken Clarke – people from impeccable civil libertarian backgrounds. I think when people see the detail they will understand this is a very sensible way of keeping up with technology and not a snoopers' charter. And I wouldn't, as prime minister, sanction something that was."

...

Ah, but

In order for the home secretary to be able to sign a warrant that allows inspection of the contents of the messages and for that warrant to have any effect #deep breath#

THERE HAS TO BE A COPY OF THE CONTENT TO DAMN WELL LOOK AT

So warrant or not the content is being recorded, and as far as I am aware the service provider is charged with retaining it.

Or perhaps the prime minister could confirm that the recording of traffic content between a specified small group of suspected terrorists will not take place until after a warrant has been issued and further that the routine recording of content for the general population, just in case, will not take place at all ?

Until such assurances are received this plan can be stuffed where the sun does not shine, sideways.

"signed by the Home Secretary"

WARRANT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS INSPECTION

Signed by PC Plod

for Home Secretary"

It's called "delegation of powers"