UK mass surveillance ruled unlawful www.pi-media.co.uk
I February 2018
Judges at the Court of Appeal have ruled that the Government is breaking the law by collecting the nation’s internet activity and phone records and letting public bodies grant themselves access to these personal details with no suspicion of serious crime and no independent sign-off. The challenge came by MP Tom Watson, represented by Liberty, to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) – a previous law covering state surveillance. DRIPA expired at the end of 2016 – but the Government replicated and vastly expanded the same powers in the Investigatory Powers Act, which started to come into force in 2017. Liberty is challenging this latest law
UK NEWS
in a major separate case, to be heard in the High Court later this year. In anticipation of this ruling, the Government has already conceded that the Investigatory Powers Act will need to change. But its halfbaked plans do not even fully comply with past court rulings requiring mandatory safeguards – and they continue to allow public bodies to indiscriminately retain and access personal data, including records of internet use, location tracking using mobile phones and records of who we communicate with and when. Martha Spurrier, Liberty’s Director, said: “Yet again a UK court has ruled the Government’s extreme mass surveillance regime unlawful. This judgment tells ministers in crystal
I3
clear terms that they are breaching the public’s human rights. The latest incarnation of the Snoopers’ Charter, the Investigatory Powers Act, must be changed. “No politician is above the law. When will the Government stop bartering with judges and start drawing up a surveillance law that upholds our democratic freedoms?” Tom Watson MP said: “This legislation was flawed from the start. It was rushed through Parliament just before recess without proper parliamentary scrutiny. “The Government must now bring forward changes to the Investigatory Powers Act to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are innocent victims or witnesses to crime, are protected by a system of independent approval for access to communications data. I’m proud to have played my part in safeguarding citizen’s fundamental rights.” Court of Appeal judges ruled DRIPA breached British people’s rights because, among other things, it did not restrict access to this data, in the context of the investigation and prosecution of crime, to the purpose of fighting serious crime and let police and public bodies authorise their own access, instead of subjecting access requests to prior authorisation by a court or independent body. www.pi-media.co.uk