MI5 chief Andrew Parker spoke out yesterday against the leaking of intelligence secrets by Edward Snowden to The Guardian, claiming it seriously endangered national security and had given terrorist groups like al-Qa’ida “the gift they need to evade us and strike at will”. Nick Clegg was asked if he agreed on his LBC radio phone-in show, Call Clegg. Here’s what he said:
Nick Ferrari: Deputy Prime Minister, do you agree with the Prime Minister, who says that Andrew Parker, the Security Chief’s warning to the Guardian’s publication of those files handed the advantage to Britain’s enemies, it was a Guide Book to Terrorism, the Edward Snowdon story.
Nick Clegg: Look, I certainly agree that if what you end up doing is just basically publishing very technical information, that actually most Guardian readers, or most of us wouldn’t frankly understand, but the only people who will understand are the sort of technicians if you like amongst the terrorists, then what’s the public interest in that.
However, I think of course there is a totally legitimate debate to be had about, and my experience speaking to people in the intelligence agencies is they recognise this, is about the use of these new incredibly powerful technologies. We have legislation, and regulations, which were designed for an age which is quite different now, and both terrorists and States and security agencies, now conduct this battle, if you like, online in a way that was unimaginable just even a few years ago. And, what that means for privacy and proportionality, I think that’s a totally legitimate area for debate.
How you hold the secret parts of any State to account is an incredibly important issue, because secrecy is necessary, of course it is, you absolutely must defend the principle of secrecy from the intelligence agencies without which they can’t keep us safe.
But, you can only really make secrecy legitimate in the eyes of the public if there is proper form of accountability. Now, we’ve improved it, this Government have actually taken big steps, and I’ve been delighted that we’ve done this to strengthen for instance the rights of the Intelligence Security Committee, which is the committee which holds the agencies to account in Parliament.
But, you know, I saw a previous head of MI5 say recently to expect the public just to accept that some slightly opaque arrangement in Westminster is the way to hold everybody to account, in which the public doesn’t really have much of an insight, I think it’s right for us to ask if there’s anything more we can do to make sure that the public feel that accountability is working in this area properly.
NF: But, did the Guardian go too far with the level of detail it published?
NC: Oh, I’ve got no doubt that there were some parts of what was published which will have passed most readers of the Guardian completely by, because they were very technical, but would have been immense interest to people who want to do us harm, and to that…
NF: They shouldn’t have put it out there as Andrew Parker says?
NC: As I said, I think it’s a totally legitimate debate about the power of these technologies, about how you get the balance right, how do you make sure these technologies are used in a proportionate and accountable way. But, I don’t think just giving technical secrets, if I can put it that way, to people who want to do us harm serves any purpose.
