1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
|
title: British government to answer fast-track spy challenge
date: 2014-01-23 22:45:00
updated: 2014-01-24 00:31:15
author: stefan
tags: update, pressemitteilung
Campaigners have welcomed the decision of the European Court of Human Rights to move quickly in determining whether the recently revealed internet surveillance programmes operated by GCHQ are in breach of the law.
<!-- TEASER_END -->
Big Brother Watch, the Open Rights Group and English PEN, along with
German internet activist Constanze Kurz, brought the action after
revelations about the collection of huge amounts of internet data by the
British spy base.\
\
The court has completed its preliminary examination of the case and has
communicated it to the British government, asking it to justify how
GCHQ's practices and the current system of oversight comply with the
right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention. The court
has also given the case a rare 'priority' designation. The government
now has until 2 May to respond, after which the case will move into the
final stages before judgment.\
\
The groups claim that by collecting data on millions of people not under
any suspicion, GCHQ has infringed on the privacy rights of not only
British but also European citizens.\
\
Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, said: 'We now know that
GCHQ operate a central database of communications despite Parliament
being told such a database would not be built. This legal challenge is
an essential part of getting to the bottom of why the public and
Parliament have not been properly informed about the scale of
surveillance and why our privacy has been subverted on an industrial
scale.'\
\
Jo Glanville, director of English PEN, said: 'The government has so far
failed to address the revelations about GCHQ's activities with any sense
of urgency. We're delighted that the European Court of Human Rights has
made the action a priority. This only ever happens in a minority of
cases and is a measure of the significant international concern about
the UK's unchecked surveillance.'
Jim Killock, Executive Director of the Open Rights Group, said: ‘The
digital age comes with the potential for government to try to monitor
everything and everyone almost constantly. We've learnt that our laws
have been abused to fulfil this ambition.‘
Daniel Carey, Solicitor at Deighton Pierce Glynn solicitors, who
represent the applicants, said: 'The European Court of Human Rights has
acted remarkably quickly in communicating the case to the Government and
designating it as a priority. It has also acted decisively by requiring
the Government to explain how the UK's surveillance practices and
oversight mechanisms comply with the right to privacy. This gives real
hope to the public that the European Court of Human Rights will require
reform if the Government continues to insist that nothing is wrong.'\
\
Constanze Kurz, computer scientist and Internet activist, said: 'The
European Court of Human Rights expects fast answers from the British
government. It is vital now that human rights and the respect of the
privacy of millions of people will also be prioritized not only by the
British government and parliament but also at EU level.'
**Links**:\
\
You can support the legal action and donate to the campaign at:
<https://www.privacynotprism.org.uk/>\
\
For further information please contact:
- Nick Pickles, Big Brother Watch: 07505 448925 or 0207 3406030 /
press(at)bigbrotherwatch.org.uk
- Jim Killock, Open Rights Group: 07894498127
- Jo Glanville, English PEN, 0771 302 0971
- Daniel Carey of Deighton Pierce Glynn solicitors on 0117 317 8133 /
07815 089526 / dcarey(at)dpglaw.co.uk
- Chaos Computer Club: presse(at)ccc.de
**Further Information**:\
\
Big Brother Watch, Open Rights Group and English PEN, together with
German internet ‘hacktivist’ and academic Constanze Kurz launched a
legal challenge to the UK’s internet surveillance activities before the
European Court of Human Rights on 4 September 2013. They argue that such
unchecked surveillance is a breach of theirs, and our, Right to Privacy
under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any
interference with that right must be proportionate and in accordance
with adequate and published legal standards. The law and practice in the
UK fails to meet either requirement.\
\
The Applicants initially sought to bring their case in the UK domestic
courts and wrote to the UK Government on 3 July 2013 stating that a
judicial review challenge would be brought. However the government told
the Applicants that they would have to make a complaint to the
Investigatory Powers Tribunal (a tribunal that hears complaints against
the intelligence services in secret). The European Court of Human Rights
has held in the case of Kennedy v UK that it does not require applicants
to complain to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal before making an
application to Strasbourg, due to concerns about its effectiveness and
its power to grant the remedy that they seek. The Applicants have
therefore issued proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights,
which will determine whether UK law breaches international law. It is
believed to be the first international law challenge based on the
Snowden disclosures.\
\
UK internet surveillance is predominantly regulated by the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). This is supposed to ensure that
internet surveillance is the exception, not the rule. But it has failed.
Because many of our internet activities can be deemed "external" to the
UK, the government is able to certify that they are tapped, stored and
analysed by GCHQ (under section 8(4) RIPA). External communications are
those where a sender or recipient is outside the UK, as will very often
be the case. These ‘global’ warrants issued for the TEMPORA programme
appear to be granted on a continual ‘rolling’ basis. Furthermore, the
information extracted appears to be freely available to intelligence
partners such as the NSA. It is equivalent to having all the letters
passing through the UK intercepted, stored, analyzed, copied and capable
of being read by a potentially unlimited number of intelligence agencies
around the world, where this is regarded as being in the 'interests of
national security'.\
\
At the time RIPA was enacted it was not even clear to legislators
whether or not internet communications would be capable of being
intercepted in a useful way. Certainly there was no public awareness of
the enormous implications of the powers granted by RIPA to the
intelligence services.\
\
Similarly, GCHQ’s use of US PRISM data to spy on our internet activities
has also gone unchecked. Regulators in this country were entirely
unaware of it until the public disclosures. The most important of those
regulators, the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee,
quickly looked into the matter and issued a clean bill of health within
weeks of the revelations.\
\
But further examination shows that investigation to have been extremely
narrow in its scope and the two page report hardly scratches the
surface. This entire area is entirely unregulated by any law or
published regulations.\
\
The Applicants are asking the Court to declare that the UK’s internet
surveillance practices are disproportionate and that the legislation
intended to protect the public’s rights to privacy in this context is
not fit for purpose. The practice of issuing surveillance warrants has
failed and/or been circumvented and those responsible for oversight have
failed. The Applicants ask the Court to order the UK to adopt internet
surveillance practices that recognise our rights to privacy. This means
new laws that require surveillance to be proportionate; to be overseen
by judicial authorities acting in public; that permit notification of
persons affected by surveillance (even if after the fact); that are
overseen by adequately resourced and empowered regulators. In short, a
legal regime that recognises the Principles on the Application of Human
Rights to Communications Surveillance (see:
[https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org](https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text)).\
\
|
