Skip to main content

Workers look at their phones while walking at the Canary Wharf business district in London on February 26, 2014.

EDDIE KEOGH/REUTERS

British lawmakers debated the balance between privacy and security Tuesday during an unusual one-day session designed to rush an online surveillance bill through Parliament.

A series of government and opposition legislators spoke in the House of Commons to condemn the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, which requires phone and Internet companies to store call and search records for a year.

Home Secretary Theresa May said the data is "vital in the fight against crime and the fight against terrorists."

Story continues below advertisement

But Labour lawmaker Jeremy Corbyn called the bill "a massive piece of intrusion into people's lives," and Conservative David Davis said the legislation was intrusive and ill-conceived.

"While this may be law by the end of the week, it may be junk by the end of the year," Davis said.

Despite the criticism, most lawmakers did not attend the debate. The bill is backed by the three main party leaders and is almost certain to become law.

Data retention has been in legal limbo since the European Court of Justice ruled in April that a European Union directive requiring companies to store communications data for up to two years was too broad and a threat to privacy rights.

Prime Minister David Cameron announced the emergency legislation last week, saying without it telecommunications providers would start deleting the information, creating a problem for law enforcement agencies and intelligence services.

The government says the new law does not expand existing surveillance powers. But critics say it seeks to legalize activities that the European court has ruled unlawful.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter