Wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten 20..
|Naam||Dr T Lange|
|Datum||1 september 2015|
Vraag1Wat vindt u van dit voorstel voor een nieuwe Wet op de inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten? U wordt verzocht aan te geven op welke onderdelen van het wetsvoorstel of de memorie van toelichting uw reactie betrekking heeft.
Sorry for the reaction in English; I'm more fluent in that than in Dutch.
Despite the best of our efforts most communication on the internet is not encrypted and dragnet surveillance siphons up all private contents. Even if encryption is on, metadata gives away a lot of personal information; in aggregation this data allows to paint complete pictures of people in their private lives. No entity should get access to this data; and for sure such data should never be made available to third parties.
So far there has been no case published where dragnet surveillance -- as opposed to targeted surveillance -- has prevented crimes or attacks or even solved such cases faster. It is a significant attack on people's freedom and right with no measurable benefit -- and in my opinion there no benefit can be strong enough to justify such a step.
The proposed bill would be drastic change from existing procedures. I support giving the oversight body more powers to give binding advice to AIVD/MIVD but they cannot be the contact point for citizens if citizens want to raise concerns or complaints about the activities of the services. It is important to have a separation of tasks and a propoer juridical oversight to ensure that the fundamental laws of the grondwet are not mistreated.
Exchange with foreign services
The Snowden documents have shown the widespread distribution of data between 'friendly' services including cases aiding industrial espionage. Bad enough to see Germany spy on the Netherlands on behalf of the US; this country should not engange in such activities and have a morally high standing when it comes to surveillance.