Friday, December 05, 2014 Britain’s legal regime governing mass surveillance of the internet by intelligence agencies does not violate human rights, a tribunal has ruled. But the investigatory powers tribunal said (IPT) it had identified one area where it had concerns about whether there were adequate legal safeguards. The tribunal will decide whether the human rights groups who brought the case have had their communications intercepted unlawfully in the past. The judgment said: “We have left open for further argument the question as to whether prior hereto there has been such a breach.” The case against the GCHQ monitoring agency at the IPT was prompted by revelations from the US whistleblower Edward Snowden, and was brought by Privacy International, Liberty, Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union and a number of other overseas human rights groups. The organisations claimed that their private communications may have been monitored under GCHQ’s electronic surveillance programme Tempora, whose existence was revealed by Snowden. They also argued that information obtained through the Prism and Upstream programmes of the US National Security Agency (NSA) may have been shared with British intelligence services, sidestepping protections provided by the UK legal system. During the hearing, Matthew Ryder QC, for Liberty, alleged that the intelligence services were constructing “vast databases” out of accumulated interceptions of emails. Ben Jaffey, for Privacy International, claimed that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) had stopped providing the significant safeguards it once guaranteed against interception of communications without an individual warrant. “A statute which in 2000 afforded quite strong protection no longer affords such protection,” Jaffey said. The law had stayed the same, he added, but had lost its force because more and more internet traffic involved being routed through foreign websites and internet servers. The tribunal judgment concluded: “Save in one possible (and to date hypothetical) respect, we have ruled that the current regime, both in relation to Prism and Upstream [intercept programs] ... when conducted in accordance with the requirements which we have considered, is lawful and human rights compliant ... “Technology in the surveillance field appears to be advancing at breakneck speed. This has given rise to submissions that the UK legislation has failed to keep abreast of the consequences of these advances and is ill-fitted to do so; and that in any event parliament has failed to provide safeguards adequate to meet the developments. “All this inevitably creates considerable tension between the competing interests and the Snowden revelations in particular have led to the impression voiced in some quarters that the law permits the intelligence services carte blanche to do what they will. We are satisfied that this is not the case.” The legal challenge was the first of dozens of GCHQ-related claims to be examined in detail by the IPT, which hears complaints against British intelligence agencies and government bodies that carry out surveillance under Ripa. Some of the most sensitive evidence about interceptions was heard in private sessions from which the rights groups were excluded. In defence documents that were released, the government’s most senior security official, Charles Farr, explained how searches on Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, as well as emails to or from non-British citizens abroad, could be monitored legally by the security services without obtaining an individual warrant because they were deemed to be “external communications”. Farr said he could “neither confirm or deny” the existence of Tempora, although he did acknowledge that Prism exists “because it has been expressly avowed by the executive branch of the US government”. Much of the tribunal’s deliberations therefore proceeded on the basis of agreed hypothetical facts, such as the assumption that Tempora exists. Most IPT hearings are conducted behind closed doors. Since the tribunal was established 14 years ago, no complaint against the intelligence services has ever been upheld. There is no right of appeal against the court’s decisions, although the European court of human rights in Strasbourg has signalled that it will consider appeals from the IPT on the presumption that claimants have exhausted all domestic avenues.
Posted on: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:26:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015