Your editorial (Don't mess with the rule of law, 4 April) and Henry Porter's analysis (Secret courts, total surveillance. North Korea would be proud, 4 April) both point to the worrying attack which the government's proposed bill on surveillance makes on fundamental principles underlying political freedom in the UK.
There are two further issues which the debate about these proposals should consider. One is the fact that citizens in the UK are not protected by a constitution which guarantees these fundamental liberties: they can be done away with by an act of parliament as this government is intent on doing. The other consideration is that laws which threaten liberties by leaving citizens open to total surveillance, once established, can be used by a future government for whatever objectives it may have. And there is no guarantee that an authoritarian regime of whatever persuasion will not use such powers to bring about totalitarian rule, as draconian as in the example of North Korea cited by Henry Porter.
C Venn
Totnes, Devon
• Before ministers allow MI5 to track the entire population's internet usage, they might like to read J Edgar Hoover's biography, Enemies: A History of the FBI, by Tim Weiner (Report, 3 April). Hoover had enough embarrassing information on President Kennedy to make him unsackable. A detailed list of a minister's web-browsing habits, leaked at the right time, could be just what an intelligence service would need to forestall any danger of an inquiry into its interrogation methods, for example. Given the chance, the servants of the state might aim to become its masters, perhaps in the arrogant belief that they are better guardians of the nation than the elected government.
Anthony Matthew
Leicester
• It seems that Ken Clarke doesn't fully understand his own proposals (Clegg demands rethink on secret justice plans, 4 April). As the joint committee on human rights noted, there is not a shred of evidence to support the introduction of closed material procedures at inquests. Many high-profile and sensitive inquests, such as that into the deaths of passengers in the 7/7 bombings and the police shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, have been concluded properly within the existing system.
There is an anomaly in relation to inadmissibility of intercept evidence that was highlighted last week by the furore over the Mark Duggan inquest. This can be resolved by the government taking the opportunity to amend the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act as we suggested in our evidence. This same suggestion was made both by the Met in its response to the green paper consultation and also last week by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
It is abundantly clear that the government's proposals for greater secrecy in inquests are not necessary. It is unconscionable that a bereaved family may be prevented from understanding why their relative died and, where necessary, from holding the state to account.
Helen Shaw
Co-director, Inquest
• I read with interest the laudable checklist of the previous government's siege-state measures which Julian Huppert and his 14 Lib Dem parliamentary colleagues have helped to overturn (Letters, 4 April). While I agree with their assertion that "It continues to be essential that our civil liberties are safeguarded, and that the state is not given the powers to snoop on its citizens at will", I am bemused by the lack of any statement of intent in their letter.
On the back of their shameful voting patterns on the NHS reforms, finance bills and tuition fees, what the liberal-minded voter needs to hear is a commitment to vote the right way on the proposed legislation and a willingness to resist the strong-arm tactics of the government whips. Such commitment and willingness seems lacking.
Noel Nowosielski
National executive, The Liberal party
• The answer is obvious (plans to extend surveillance of emails and phone calls). Let's all start writing letters again!
Halina Tunikowska Macdonald
Weybridge, Surrey
• The cat is already out of the bag regarding spying and surveillance in our society. The government has the technology and capacity to intercept information from citizens' emails and computers, as well as messages from telephones and mobiles. The state uses the spy satellite and radome facilities at the US Menwith Hill base, near Harrogate, North Yorkshire, to transmit verbal and written communications to the British GCHQ in Cheltenham and its monitoring station at Morwenstow, near Bude, in Cornwall.
The authorities employ the Signals Intelligence system (sigint) to gather and analyse both encrypted and unencrypted material. This system includes specific software, which is targeted at both the military and civilians, called comint (Communications Intelligence). It intercepts, monitors and processes communications, and tracks where people are.
This satellite, spy and signal information is in the public domain – see the Yorkshire CND report 2012: Lifting the Lid on Menwith Hill. All this is happening now without parliamentary approval or accountability. The government has bypassed the democratic process. What is practised is illegal under international law. The European parliament in September 2001 resolved that the conduct of electronic surveillance by the US intelligence agencies breached the European convention on human rights, even when used, allegedly, for law enforcement purposes.
David Penney
Colne, Lancashire
• So the coalition government is planning to track electronic communications in its continuing battle against, for example, terrorists, paedophiles and others. While clearly not suggesting for a moment that any cabinet ministers can be placed in the first two categories, will they also track the private email system set up by Michael Gove, so that, at the very least, the results can be shared with his own civil servants and the rest of the population through any relevant freedom of information requests?
Godfrey Pryor
Little Malvern, Worcestershire
• Simon Bowers' blog post (27 March) takes a somewhat simplistic view of my book A Price to Pay. Bashing bankers is an easy narrative, the more so these days. But the purpose of the book, and the reason why all of the author's profits will be going to Liberty and Fair Trials International, is not to rewrite history in rosy hues, as Mr Bowers suggests, but to give greater awareness to the appalling state of our extradition arrangements with the US.
I have done my time and can live with other people's views on my criminality or otherwise. But for the many people still caught up in extradition to the US, and your paper has written much about the topic, the book is intended to resonate beyond the NatWest Three and Enron. Given the libertarian instincts of your readership, I would ask only that people read the book, with or without prejudice, and hopefully get angry enough to demand the action that is needed from our politicians to fix the mess we find ourselves in.
David Bermingham
Reading, Berkshire
• Big society or big brother?
Richard Barton
Kinsham, Herefordshire