Results 1–20 of 104 for speaker:Lord Strasburger

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (3rd Day) (Continued) (19 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, this debate on who should appoint the judicial commissioners was discussed at length in the Joint Committee, and we heard lots of evidence on it. The conclusion was that the commissioners might be a little more independent if they were appointed by the Lord Chief Justice rather than by the Prime Minister. Certainly, the perception of their independence would be greatly enhanced if...

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (3rd Day) (Continued) (19 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: I just wonder whether all the expenditure that the Minister is listing does not apply just as much to the commissioners as to any commission.

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (3rd Day) (Continued) (19 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right: I feel the need to intervene on Amendment 176A. There seems to be a strong consensus among the bodies that considered the Bill in its draft stages and beforehand that there should be a commission rather than commissioners. The Joint Committee made this very clear in its recommendation 114: “It is unclear to us why the Home Office chose to create...

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (3rd Day) (19 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, while my noble friend searches for his notes, would it be appropriate for me to make my short speech on this matter? No? I was just trying to help.

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (3rd Day) (19 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, the Committee will get a feeling of déjà vu. I rise to speak to Amendment 159 and others, and start by acknowledging that equipment interference—hacking, in common parlance—with a person’s computer or phone can be justified by known or suspected threats or by an actual incidence of serious crime. However, I still have two concerns. Some types of hacking...

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (3rd Day) (19 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, I thank the House for an interesting and lively debate, which this subject absolutely deserves. I am somewhat disconcerted by an assertion made by the Minister and one or two other noble Lords. Just because the Bill has been heavily scrutinised—I fully recognise that, and if it is the most scrutinised Bill in the history of this House, so be it—it does not mean that we...

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (3rd Day) (19 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: I assure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord King, that the report by the Joint Committee was not unanimous. We had something like 10 divisions, and for some peculiar reason I found myself on the wrong end of most of them.

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (3rd Day) (19 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 156A and cite the simple facts about internet connection records. They do not currently exist, would be very difficult and costly to manufacture, have very limited usefulness and collecting and storing them, far from making us safer, would expose everyone in Britain who uses the internet to new and serious risks. In addition, they are highly intrusive...

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (3rd Day) (19 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 147A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Paddick. My noble friend also has Amendment 156A in this group and he will speak to that amendment; I may have something to add on it after he has spoken. Amendment 147A requires a judicial commissioner to authorise requests to obtain data from internet connection records. As it happens, this is a very hot...

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (3rd Day) (19 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, I shall speak briefly on the amendments on the request filter. Along with internet connection records, the request filter is another power that first appeared in the draft Communications Data Bill and which died along with that ill-fated Bill. The view of the pre-legislative Joint Committee on that Bill, on which I sat, was that, “the Request Filter introduces new risks, most...

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (2nd Day) (13 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: I fear that the Minister is taking himself down a long cul-de-sac here, because the implication of what he is saying is that no one may develop end-to-end encryption. One feature of end-to-end encryption is that the provider cannot break it; encryption is private between the users at both ends. He seems to be implying that providers can use only encryption which can be broken and therefore...

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (2nd Day) (13 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: I thank the Minister for giving way. I think this is the first time I have heard the Government admit that the phrase “removal of electronic protection” does in fact refer to encryption. I want to emphasise—and anybody in the cryptography industry will spell this out—that you cannot have it both ways. Either encryption is secure, or it is not; it cannot be insecure for...

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (2nd Day) (13 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments 92, 102 and 103 in my name. These amendments address aspects of two extremely strong powers granted to Ministers by the Bill which are tucked away at the back in Clauses 225 and 226. As we have heard, they are about national security notices and technical capability notices. Although they are not listed as powers under the Bill, they are, in fact, very...

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (2nd Day) (13 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, I have a question for the Government. Am I correct in believing that evidence derived from equipment interference is permitted to be used in court? If so, could not equipment interference lead to an equally large and costly process of evidence-gathering? Why is there a difference between the two sources of evidence?

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (2nd Day) (13 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply, but my question was: why is it in one case suitable to use the evidence in court, but in the other not?

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (2nd Day) (13 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 41, which seeks to remove the requirement for a judicial commissioner to apply judicial review principles when approving warrants. I do so with some trepidation as I am only the second noble Lord who is not a lawyer to venture into this very dangerous territory, but I will have a go. We heard a lot about this subject on the Joint Committee on the Bill...

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (1st Day) (Continued) (11 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: I think the Minister will have to concede that the notion of democratic accountability is wafer thin because a Minister cannot come to Parliament to explain or defend what is being asked about—any warrant. I would like the Minister to explain to us why the four other partners in the “Five Eyes” network—that is, Australia, Canada, the US and New Zealand—find no...

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (1st Day) (Continued) (11 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: The “Five Eyes” partnership of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, America and the UK has been in existence since the Second World War. The UK is the only one out of those five that feels the need for Secretaries of State or politicians in general to be involved in authorising warrants. I was wondering why the UK has to stand out alone in that way.

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (1st Day) (Continued) (11 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, I should mention that this subject was covered extensively in the Joint Committee on the Bill. It seems that the noble and learned Lord is suggesting that in order to be able to monitor a gang when we do not know if it is made up of three or four people, the language of the clause should be this open. Perhaps I may quote from some of the evidence that was given to the committee. The...

Investigatory Powers Bill - Committee (1st Day) (Continued) (11 Jul 2016)

Lord Strasburger: My Lords, I spent a lot of time sitting on the Joint Committee, and since then, searching in vain for a cogent reason why the Secretary of State needs to sign off warrants that have no national security or diplomatic import. Why should the Minister spend her valuable time examining and authorising warrants about everyday criminals? We are told that two-thirds or three-quarters—I do not...


1 2 3 4 5 6 > >>

Create an alert

Did you find what you were looking for?

Advanced search

Find this exact word or phrase

You can also do this from the main search box by putting exact words in quotes: like "cycling" or "hutton report"

By default, we show words related to your search term, like “cycle” and “cycles” in a search for cycling. Putting the word in quotes, like "cycling", will stop this.

Excluding these words

You can also do this from the main search box by putting a minus sign before words you don’t want: like hunting -fox

We also support a bunch of boolean search modifiers, like AND and NEAR, for precise searching.

Date range

to

You can give a start date, an end date, or both to restrict results to a particular date range. A missing end date implies the current date, and a missing start date implies the oldest date we have in the system. Dates can be entered in any format you wish, e.g. 3rd March 2007 or 17/10/1989

Person

Enter a name here to restrict results to contributions only by that person.

Section

Restrict results to a particular parliament or assembly that we cover (e.g. the Scottish Parliament), or a particular type of data within an institution, such as Commons Written Answers.

Column

If you know the actual Hansard column number of the information you are interested in (perhaps you’re looking up a paper reference), you can restrict results to that; you can also use column:123 in the main search box.