Saturday, September 09, 2017
Challenge to legality of UK surveillance powers to go to Europe
There was some good news yesterday as the Guardian reported that EU judges are to be asked to rule on the legality of Britain’s mass digital surveillance powers. They say that the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT) has ruled that the European court of justice (ECJ) should decide whether the UK’s bulk collection of communications data, tracking personal use of the web, email, texts and calls, is legal.
The paper concludes that the ruling is a victory for the campaign group Privacy International, which brought the case following last December’s ruling by the ECJ that the “general and indiscriminate retention” of communications data by governments was illegal.
However, the British tribunal, presided over by Sir Michael Burton, refused to expedite the case to the ECJ. This means it is likely to take several years to secure a final ruling, leaving the door open to claims from Brexiters that European judges will get to decide what anti-terror powers are held by the British security services:
The case is one of many legal challenges that followed the disclosures by Edward Snowden of the extent of the digital mass surveillance practised by Britain’s GCHQ and the US National Security Agency.
Lawyers for Privacy International told judges that the bulk collection of personal communications data was no less sensitive than the content of emails. They argued that British citizens were already subject to greater surveillance than any other citizens and that the constitutional right to personal privacy set limits on state surveillance powers.
James Eadie, QC, acknowledged that the issue may have to be referred to the grand chamber of the ECJ in Luxembourg for clarification.
This one could run and run, however it is a crucial case that may well define our right to privacy for years to come.
As Millie Graham Wood, Privacy International’s legal officer, says: “The welter of information from metadata in the age of 24-hour browsing, mailing, messages, instant messaging apps, where our online activities replace conventional social interactions, is huge. It reveals so much about us.
“One need only think that a visit to an IP address hosting a medical self-diagnosis website, followed by a call to an oncologist, followed by an appointment with your solicitor, then a hospice, may well reveal that the person in question has terminal cancer.
“We need strict safeguards against the state accessing highly sensitive information about us. The UK government and the investigatory powers tribunal have said that the vital and fundamental safeguards as set out in the Watson judgment, such as requiring a judge to approve access to highly sensitive information, should not apply to the information held by intelligence agencies. Privacy International fundamentally disagree.
“Even when bulk metadata is used for the purposes of national security, there should be strong safeguards to protect our sensitive personal data.
The paper concludes that the ruling is a victory for the campaign group Privacy International, which brought the case following last December’s ruling by the ECJ that the “general and indiscriminate retention” of communications data by governments was illegal.
However, the British tribunal, presided over by Sir Michael Burton, refused to expedite the case to the ECJ. This means it is likely to take several years to secure a final ruling, leaving the door open to claims from Brexiters that European judges will get to decide what anti-terror powers are held by the British security services:
The case is one of many legal challenges that followed the disclosures by Edward Snowden of the extent of the digital mass surveillance practised by Britain’s GCHQ and the US National Security Agency.
Lawyers for Privacy International told judges that the bulk collection of personal communications data was no less sensitive than the content of emails. They argued that British citizens were already subject to greater surveillance than any other citizens and that the constitutional right to personal privacy set limits on state surveillance powers.
James Eadie, QC, acknowledged that the issue may have to be referred to the grand chamber of the ECJ in Luxembourg for clarification.
This one could run and run, however it is a crucial case that may well define our right to privacy for years to come.
As Millie Graham Wood, Privacy International’s legal officer, says: “The welter of information from metadata in the age of 24-hour browsing, mailing, messages, instant messaging apps, where our online activities replace conventional social interactions, is huge. It reveals so much about us.
“One need only think that a visit to an IP address hosting a medical self-diagnosis website, followed by a call to an oncologist, followed by an appointment with your solicitor, then a hospice, may well reveal that the person in question has terminal cancer.
“We need strict safeguards against the state accessing highly sensitive information about us. The UK government and the investigatory powers tribunal have said that the vital and fundamental safeguards as set out in the Watson judgment, such as requiring a judge to approve access to highly sensitive information, should not apply to the information held by intelligence agencies. Privacy International fundamentally disagree.
“Even when bulk metadata is used for the purposes of national security, there should be strong safeguards to protect our sensitive personal data.
