Targeted intercept evidence of a named individual is the best kind of surveillance evidence. It can be reviewed by a senior policeman, a judge, or even a Minister. It would only be permitted on application, with good reason. But we don’t allow it. We are still told, as per the Times today, that it would breach human rights.
Mass surveillance evidence, storing everyone’s information without any kind of discriminating eye, is the worst kind of evidence. It generates vast amounts of data that nobody can realistically review, and it’s fantastically expensive. But we’re trying to build that capacity. What "human rights" apply only to those accused of crimes, but not to the population at large, remains to be explained.
We’ve got this debate completely the wrong way round.
