In 2015 Parliament passed the Investigatory Powers Bill which consolidated UK laws governing surveillance. The bill requires telecom companies to retain users' "Internet connection records" for up to 12 months and would allow authority for intelligence and security agencies, the police, and the armed forces to hack into computers, networks, and mobile phones.
61% Yes |
39% No |
32% Yes |
38% No |
16% Yes, but only by court order |
1% No, and enact legislation preventing government surveillance of citizen communications |
7% Yes, this is necessary to combat terrorism |
|
5% Yes, but only for those with criminal backgrounds |
See how support for each position on “Government Surveillance” has changed over time for 1.5m UK voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Government Surveillance” has changed over time for 1.5m UK voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from UK users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@9LK6Y631 day1D
Yes, nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Impose some accountability and relevance to ensure this isn't used inappropriately and there is a proven need.
@9CWCV4Y9mos9MO
No, only for suspected terrorists, violent criminals, crime gangs
@9CQBPP69mos9MO
Privacy is one of the fundamental rights of every person and the default should be that government has no right to see your personal communications. If however there is a serious crime being investigated or a potential threat then there should be an option for police or intelligence services to access people's comms. There should be stringent legal controls on when this is appropriate, it should only be possible after a court order (with on call judges for time sensitive cases), it should all be stored confidentially, only that info relevant to the current investigation (as determined by a pannel of judges) should be admissible, and as soon as safely possible the person in question should be told
@9CP2FCQ9mos9MO
Yes and no, privacy and boundaries should be kept however for certain circumstances or when and where necessary, for people with histories of criminal behaviour or terrorism then yes but with court orders and done properly and appropriately, affect to the circumstance at hand. Otherwise, no. So I have a neutral/between view.
@9CKR72410mos10MO
Yes, if the person in question is under the reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence that would require monitoring.
@9CHQQ7Q10mos10MO
Yes, but only for those with criminal backgrounds for a cirtain time after their last crime.
Explore other topics that are important to UK voters.
