Andrew Parker, head of MI5, used his 8 January speech after the Paris attacks to reinforce the agencies’ case for wide-ranging surveillance capabilities (Report, 10 January). This argument is driven by factors both technological – “we can collect everything so we shall” – and political: ministers and agencies fear they might miss somebody as they search for those who might threaten security.
But there is no evidence that mass surveillance will do any good. Parker’s speech gave examples where successful interception of communications led to convictions but both referred to forensic analysis of communications of people after their arrest; neither referred to bulk collection enabling prevention. Lee Rigby’s killers and the Kouachi brothers in France were known to the security agencies, and therefore their communications could be intercepted on the basis of targeting and warrants. But they were not high enough up the list of agency priorities for more intrusive surveillance and their crimes were not prevented. To use these as evidence to support an argument for yet more surveillance powers is nonsensical; the agencies are already overwhelmed with information and must make difficult judgments. The task is to improve their capacity to process and evaluate what they have in relation to known suspects.
Peter Gill
Honorary senior research fellow, University of Liverpool
• Over the past few days we have learnt that freedom has a price, which sometimes has to be paid in blood; and if the politicians manoeuvre us into a position where we are no longer paying the price, they may have manoeuvred us into a position where we are no longer free.
Barrie Dale
Wantage, Oxfordshire
• If the security services are given more powers to deal with terrorism, there is justifiable concern that these would be used to suppress legitimate dissent. In the past, special branch collaborated with employers’ organisations to compile a blacklist of trade-union activists; when the IRA was active, the security services used police spies to gain intelligence about its activities, and even used agents provocateurs to incite actions to discredit the organisation. Similar tactics were then used by police to infiltrate peaceful environmental protest groups; there is evidence that police spies encouraged activists to undertake illegal activities; one such spy is even suspected of planting an incendiary device. Recently this paper revealed evidence of the police trying to recruit informers on campuses to report on student activists, so there appears to be a continued abuse of power. Will a letter to the Guardian criticising the security services result in being placed on a police database?
Derrick Joad
Leeds
• Charlie Hebdo knew they were in danger; after all, they accepted police protection. But their actions have had tragic, and at least partly foreseeable, consequences, not only for themselves but for their protectors, all their families, and society at large. Ironically we may all now be subject to further limitations on our personal freedom and privacy as governments take the predictable opportunity to increase “security”.
Sarah Ashe
Modbury, Devon
• Congratulations to Simon Jenkins (8 January) for the wise advice not to overreact to the outrages in France. And right on cue, up pops Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, demanding “the assistance of companies which hold relevant data”.
No, Mr Nosey Parker, we are not going to let you have everyone’s data to sift through. Targeted surveillance is one thing. But bulk collection and retention of data is intolerable in a society that upholds the principles of liberty and freedom of speech, for which those poor French journalists paid with their lives.
Ron Mitchell
Coventry
• Over the past decade the fight against home-grown terror has been led by the security services, which (for fear of disclosing techniques and sources) have chosen to adopt an unsustainably labour-intensive approach of ongoing monitoring and surveillance, rather than direct confrontation and criminal prosecution of those identified in the commissioning of extremist terror.
A fundamental shift in approach is needed, whereby we have early police intervention, as soon as extremist behaviour becomes apparent, to the full extent allowed by the law, rather than just waiting for terrorism to happen.
Mark Campbell-Roddis
Dunblane, Perthshire
• I wonder if Edward Snowden is having second thoughts? After the recent multiple tragedies in France and the strong chance that they could happen in the UK and elsewhere, it must be obvious that trawling of electronic mail is necessary to try to prevent future jihadist plans.
Dr RV Dubberley
Bredwardine, Herefordshire
