Step 1: The dragnet
The bill
The government wants to grant the intelligence- and security services the power to intercept communication in bulk. The collected data can be filtered and examined in order to find information that might be of interest to the intelligence- and security services. The only way this can be done is by also tapping a great number of unsuspected citizens.
Only a few paragraphs of the 218 explanatory pages address, in rather general terms, the necessity of this power. The intelligence- and security services desire bulk interception of communication in order to have "enough intelligence means and capacities to acquire information at the right moment in the digital domain and to analyse and report on it timely". This is insufficient justification for endorsing such an invasive power.
Please formulate your response in your own words. You might consider:
It worries me that the necessity for a power as invasive as this is only summarily dealt with in the explanatory pages. Without convincing evidence demonstrating the necessity of a new dragnet interception power, such a power is simply superfluous.
The minister claims that this new power is indispensable. But surely a more adequate justification is necessary for a power that may violate the constitutional rights of citizens. The government should clarify at least 3 points. First: why is this power necessary? Second: where is the evidence for the minister's claim that the current powers are insufficient? Third: which problem is it that this new, invasive power is going to solve? If these questions cannot be answered adequately, the power apparently is unnecessary.
