8 ms·

UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful ‘for seven years’

296 points by owlmusic 12y ago

higherpurpose 12y ago
Such rules will need to be accompanied by consequences for those doing it. A ruling without enforcement isn't worth much. That said, this is a great, and perhaps quite surprising ruling, considering it's a secret Court.
- peteretep 12y ago
  It doesn't strike me as particularly surprising. Judges have secrets they don't want spooks reading, too.
zirkonit 12y ago
“was unlawful”, “is unlawful” and “will be unlawful”. It will not stop just because of the court decision. The rule of law is for mere mortals, and not the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies, unfortunately.
- peteretep 12y ago
  The UK has a pretty good track record of nobody being above the law.
  - arethuza 12y ago
    Lets see what happens to Tony Blair after the Chilcot inquiry report is published: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/07/tony-blair-war-crimes-prosecuted-eel-like-boris-johnson http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/07/tony-bl...
    - peteretep 12y ago
      As per the article, I don't see the ICC bringing it (who obviously aren't under the thumb of the UK), and if they don't, I really don't see the CPS coming to the conclusion that there's a reasonable chance of conviction, or that it would be in the public interest. Depends what the report says I guess.
    - peteretep 12y ago
      Can we also just take a moment to consider the monumental stupidity in accusing Blair of "war crimes" for "crimes against peace" by invoking the Nuremberg principles?? If it's "crime against peace", then it is - under the Nuremberg principles - not a war crime.
      - arethuza 12y ago
        Personally, I don't see what is stupid about charging him with an appropriate crime here in the UK (if there is one - IANAL) if he lied to parliament to start our involvement in a war.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
    Oh, really? http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/15/saudiarabia.armstrade http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/15/saudiarabia.armstr...
  - mike_hearn 12y ago
    This ruling is issued by a kangaroo court that isn't like a normal court, and the "law" in this case says that GCHQ can do pretty much whatever it likes. So I'm afraid this stuff moved outside the realm of law and democracy a long time ago.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      > and the "law" in this case says that GCHQ can do pretty much whatever it likes. No it doesn't! Oversight might have failed but there are laws and GCHQ are expected to obey those laws.
      - LunaSea 12y ago
        Oh well if it's just the oversight of on of the most powerful agencies that failed for a measly seven years then everything is fine. Watch as nothing changes.
junto 12y ago
Whilst I applaud the ruling, I doubt it will make much of difference. The British government simply uses extensions to the "temporary" Terrorism Act 2000 and its modifications in 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2008 and/or RIPA. I'm getting a bit tired of politicians standing up in the House of Common's, stating we need a "temporary" act to reduce liberty and privacy under the guise of terrorism, only to extend the rulings indefinitely. It's bullshit. Also, with regards to RIPA, the section related to "Use of communication data" requires only "senior member of that authority", whilst wire taps and reading post requires authorisation from "Warrant from Home Secretary or Cabinet Secretary for Justice". The first one should also move under this authority and blanket surveillance should be banned. Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time. P.S. Interestingly, Germany is one of the few large European nations with troops in "Muslim lands", that has to date not had a major terrorist incident. They have a large Muslim population, which although largely very moderate and westernised, do have a minority of people who are preaching extremism. Also, many of the terrorist cells (including 9/11) have originated, or passed through Germany.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time. I appreciate that you prefixed this, but are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were? That really dilutes the value of the other points you make – which I do agree with.
  - KwanEsq 12y ago
    Whilst I am not endorsing the view, I would like to point out that Operation Northwoods–style false‐flag attacks are not a necessary reading of the grandparent's post. It would also be satisfied by the government/security services being aware of a planned attack by actual criminals, and simply letting it happen rather than preventing it as would otherwise be done.
jackgavigan 12y ago
So, one of the key things about this ruling is that it declares "that prior to the disclosures made and referred to in the Tribunal’s Judgment of 5 December 2014, the regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK, which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and/or (on the Claimants’ case) Upstream, contravened Articles 8 or 10 ECHR".[1] ECHR refers to the European Convention on Human Rights[2]. Article 8 covers privacy. Article 10 covers freedom of expression. The Human Rights Act 1998 declares that "It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right"[3] (and GCHQ is classified as a public authority) but I'm not aware of any legislation that would classify such actions as a crime. Therefore, while monetary damages may be awarded[4], it seems unlikely that anyone could be held personally accountable (in the sense of being charged with a crime). Ironically, the Home Office just announced a public consultation on the draft codes of practice for interception of communications and "equipment interference" (which covers hacking).[4] 1: http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Liberty_Ors_Judgment_6Feb15.pdf http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Liberty_Ors_Judgment_6Feb15.pdf 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Ri... 3: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/6 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/6 4: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/8 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/8 5: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/interception-of-communications-and-equipment-interference-draft-codes-of-practice https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/interception-of-...
- peteretep 12y ago
  I may be alone here, but while I don't always agree with the laws of the country, I want the government, army, police, and civil service to be acting inside those laws.
  - harkyns_castle 12y ago
    I think we've gone far beyond what anyone wants. I'm starting to be a bit surprised by the good news though, I'll take what I can get. * Until such time as we can fix this mess.
ommunist 12y ago
So, like @higherpurpose pointed out - ruling without enforcement is nothing in this case. I seriously doubt GCHQ will transform their Cornwall facility into a tourist attraction like Bletchley Park, after NSA recently invested in it such fancy amounts of monies.
fauigerzigerk 12y ago
It is important to fight surveillance in the courts, but as they keep making ever more draconian and broad surveillance laws it will eventually become pointless. At the end of the day, this is a political question. I'm not quite sure what we're dealing with here politically. I wonder whether this extent of surveillance is simply the will of the poeple or whether democracy has been subverted by a power hungry security aparatus.
justcommenting 12y ago
I hope other governments will take notice of this ruling in considering political asylum for the person who blew the whistle to expose these human rights violations on a massive scale.
Allower 12y ago
Terrible and completely misleading headline. The court ruled that the SHARING of surveillance data with NSA was unlawful until this past December. Its another meaningless verdict that effectively supports the gross invasion of individual privacy while claiming to oppose it.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
So roughly speaking, the US could spy on the UK but when they shared the data with the UK it was illegal for the UK authorities to "solicit, receive, store and transmit" that data. However they previously had said that the new process of sharing data was now legal. In order to comply with the law GCHQ and the NSA have ... Made public the fact they are sharing information and how much. Yeah, please take that one to a higher court and decide not on narrow technicalities but should we be doing this at all? I am rather proud of Liberty (who I used to work for (IT and campaigns it's fun!) - it took a long time to get here.
GordonS 12y ago
And will it stop? ... not a chance Will anyone be held accountable and brought to justice? ... not a chance
ed_blackburn 12y ago
One presumes that the court doesn't deems there's been a serious criminal action here. More the status quo isn't legal. I'd like to know if this means the current actions will stop. When? If the government will fight it. Or legislate around it? There needs to be an official response from someone will real authority. It's been judged as illegal...so what next?
ch215 12y ago
The way this same story has been spun by the BBC worries me. You'd think the news line has to be, as the Guardian and others are reporting, GCHQ mass Internet surveillance was 'unlawful'. The Beeb did go with 'unlawful' in their original headline but the story has since been watered down with sheer wordiness. 'Unlawlful' now appears in the tenth paragraph, below an analysis panel, and is only then included in a quotation from a campaign group. Nowhere in the article does the BBC succinctly say a tribunal held that GCHQ breached human rights law. It simply says the agency is now complaint (without saying that it was not for seven years). To me at least, it seems the BBC is becoming less of a public-service broadcaster and more of a state one. -- GCHQ censured over sharing of internet surveillance data with US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31164451 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31164451
- pjc50 12y ago
  Even worse, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30345801 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30345801 "GCHQ does not breach human rights, judges rule". This is ridiculous and insulting.
- appleflaxen 12y ago
  That's a great point. About the only thing you can do is call them on it in social media; tell them you are paying attention: @BBC why won't you use the word "illegal" or "unlawful" in the headline? This is far bigger than censure.
  - arca_vorago 12y ago
    I borrowed this and tweeted it. Attributed to you.
  - ch215 12y ago
    I'm going to _try_ to stop reading BBC News instead. It won't be easy because I've been using it for years. I like the site's navigation and readability but the content is often lacking given their resources. They did something similar with the Prince Andrew story, reporting his "emphatic" denials before mentioning the allegations. Clearly, he is innocent until proven guilty. However, the Beeb regularly seems eager to jump to the defense of the powerful rather than scrutinise. I'm veering way off-topic now but this morning they had a big, brash, bullshit "breaking news" banner for a piece about a tennis player's wedding date. That may be of interest to the public but it's not in the public interest. Too often the BBC conflates the two as meaning the same thing.
rcthompson 12y ago
"... for seven years." Also probably all the other years.

296 points by owlmusic 12y ago

Such rules will need to be accompanied by consequences for those doing it. A ruling without enforcement isn't worth much. That said, this is a great, and perhaps quite surprising ruling, considering it's a secret Court.

peteretep 12y ago
It doesn't strike me as particularly surprising. Judges have secrets they don't want spooks reading, too.

zirkonit 12y ago

“was unlawful”, “is unlawful” and “will be unlawful”. It will not stop just because of the court decision. The rule of law is for mere mortals, and not the alphabet soup of intelligence agencies, unfortunately.

peteretep 12y ago
The UK has a pretty good track record of nobody being above the law.
- arethuza 12y ago
  Lets see what happens to Tony Blair after the Chilcot inquiry report is published: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/07/tony-blair-war-crimes-prosecuted-eel-like-boris-johnson http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/07/tony-bl...
  - peteretep 12y ago
    As per the article, I don't see the ICC bringing it (who obviously aren't under the thumb of the UK), and if they don't, I really don't see the CPS coming to the conclusion that there's a reasonable chance of conviction, or that it would be in the public interest. Depends what the report says I guess.
  - peteretep 12y ago
    Can we also just take a moment to consider the monumental stupidity in accusing Blair of "war crimes" for "crimes against peace" by invoking the Nuremberg principles?? If it's "crime against peace", then it is - under the Nuremberg principles - not a war crime.
    - arethuza 12y ago
      Personally, I don't see what is stupid about charging him with an appropriate crime here in the UK (if there is one - IANAL) if he lied to parliament to start our involvement in a war.
- SideburnsOfDoom 12y ago
  Oh, really? http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/15/saudiarabia.armstrade http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/15/saudiarabia.armstr...
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  This ruling is issued by a kangaroo court that isn't like a normal court, and the "law" in this case says that GCHQ can do pretty much whatever it likes. So I'm afraid this stuff moved outside the realm of law and democracy a long time ago.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    > and the "law" in this case says that GCHQ can do pretty much whatever it likes. No it doesn't! Oversight might have failed but there are laws and GCHQ are expected to obey those laws.
    - LunaSea 12y ago
      Oh well if it's just the oversight of on of the most powerful agencies that failed for a measly seven years then everything is fine. Watch as nothing changes.

junto 12y ago

Whilst I applaud the ruling, I doubt it will make much of difference. The British government simply uses extensions to the "temporary" Terrorism Act 2000 and its modifications in 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2008 and/or RIPA. I'm getting a bit tired of politicians standing up in the House of Common's, stating we need a "temporary" act to reduce liberty and privacy under the guise of terrorism, only to extend the rulings indefinitely. It's bullshit. Also, with regards to RIPA, the section related to "Use of communication data" requires only "senior member of that authority", whilst wire taps and reading post requires authorisation from "Warrant from Home Secretary or Cabinet Secretary for Justice". The first one should also move under this authority and blanket surveillance should be banned. Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time. P.S. Interestingly, Germany is one of the few large European nations with troops in "Muslim lands", that has to date not had a major terrorist incident. They have a large Muslim population, which although largely very moderate and westernised, do have a minority of people who are preaching extremism. Also, many of the terrorist cells (including 9/11) have originated, or passed through Germany.

matthewmacleod 12y ago
Conspiracy theorist me says we should expect another "act of terrorism" on the UK mainland. This government needs to bolster its control, as they did in Australia, France and Canada. After every attack, the direct effect is that politicians start looking for ways to spin that into invasions of privacy and liberty. Every god damn time. I appreciate that you prefixed this, but are you really implying that the recent attacks in France were planned by the government? Or that the 7/7 bombings in London were? That really dilutes the value of the other points you make – which I do agree with.
- KwanEsq 12y ago
  Whilst I am not endorsing the view, I would like to point out that Operation Northwoods–style false‐flag attacks are not a necessary reading of the grandparent's post. It would also be satisfied by the government/security services being aware of a planned attack by actual criminals, and simply letting it happen rather than preventing it as would otherwise be done.

jackgavigan 12y ago

So, one of the key things about this ruling is that it declares "that prior to the disclosures made and referred to in the Tribunal’s Judgment of 5 December 2014, the regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK, which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and/or (on the Claimants’ case) Upstream, contravened Articles 8 or 10 ECHR".[1] ECHR refers to the European Convention on Human Rights[2]. Article 8 covers privacy. Article 10 covers freedom of expression. The Human Rights Act 1998 declares that "It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right"[3] (and GCHQ is classified as a public authority) but I'm not aware of any legislation that would classify such actions as a crime. Therefore, while monetary damages may be awarded[4], it seems unlikely that anyone could be held personally accountable (in the sense of being charged with a crime). Ironically, the Home Office just announced a public consultation on the draft codes of practice for interception of communications and "equipment interference" (which covers hacking).[4] 1: http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Liberty_Ors_Judgment_6Feb15.pdf http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Liberty_Ors_Judgment_6Feb15.pdf 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Ri... 3: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/6 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/6 4: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/8 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/8 5: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/interception-of-communications-and-equipment-interference-draft-codes-of-practice https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/interception-of-...

peteretep 12y ago
I may be alone here, but while I don't always agree with the laws of the country, I want the government, army, police, and civil service to be acting inside those laws.
- harkyns_castle 12y ago
  I think we've gone far beyond what anyone wants. I'm starting to be a bit surprised by the good news though, I'll take what I can get. * Until such time as we can fix this mess.

ommunist 12y ago

So, like @higherpurpose pointed out - ruling without enforcement is nothing in this case. I seriously doubt GCHQ will transform their Cornwall facility into a tourist attraction like Bletchley Park, after NSA recently invested in it such fancy amounts of monies.

fauigerzigerk 12y ago

It is important to fight surveillance in the courts, but as they keep making ever more draconian and broad surveillance laws it will eventually become pointless. At the end of the day, this is a political question. I'm not quite sure what we're dealing with here politically. I wonder whether this extent of surveillance is simply the will of the poeple or whether democracy has been subverted by a power hungry security aparatus.

justcommenting 12y ago

I hope other governments will take notice of this ruling in considering political asylum for the person who blew the whistle to expose these human rights violations on a massive scale.

Allower 12y ago

Terrible and completely misleading headline. The court ruled that the SHARING of surveillance data with NSA was unlawful until this past December. Its another meaningless verdict that effectively supports the gross invasion of individual privacy while claiming to oppose it.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

So roughly speaking, the US could spy on the UK but when they shared the data with the UK it was illegal for the UK authorities to "solicit, receive, store and transmit" that data. However they previously had said that the new process of sharing data was now legal. In order to comply with the law GCHQ and the NSA have ... Made public the fact they are sharing information and how much. Yeah, please take that one to a higher court and decide not on narrow technicalities but should we be doing this at all? I am rather proud of Liberty (who I used to work for (IT and campaigns it's fun!) - it took a long time to get here.

GordonS 12y ago

And will it stop? ... not a chance Will anyone be held accountable and brought to justice? ... not a chance

ed_blackburn 12y ago

One presumes that the court doesn't deems there's been a serious criminal action here. More the status quo isn't legal. I'd like to know if this means the current actions will stop. When? If the government will fight it. Or legislate around it? There needs to be an official response from someone will real authority. It's been judged as illegal...so what next?

ch215 12y ago

The way this same story has been spun by the BBC worries me. You'd think the news line has to be, as the Guardian and others are reporting, GCHQ mass Internet surveillance was 'unlawful'. The Beeb did go with 'unlawful' in their original headline but the story has since been watered down with sheer wordiness. 'Unlawlful' now appears in the tenth paragraph, below an analysis panel, and is only then included in a quotation from a campaign group. Nowhere in the article does the BBC succinctly say a tribunal held that GCHQ breached human rights law. It simply says the agency is now complaint (without saying that it was not for seven years). To me at least, it seems the BBC is becoming less of a public-service broadcaster and more of a state one. -- GCHQ censured over sharing of internet surveillance data with US http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31164451 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31164451

pjc50 12y ago
Even worse, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30345801 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30345801 "GCHQ does not breach human rights, judges rule". This is ridiculous and insulting.
appleflaxen 12y ago
That's a great point. About the only thing you can do is call them on it in social media; tell them you are paying attention: @BBC why won't you use the word "illegal" or "unlawful" in the headline? This is far bigger than censure.
- arca_vorago 12y ago
  I borrowed this and tweeted it. Attributed to you.
- ch215 12y ago
  I'm going to _try_ to stop reading BBC News instead. It won't be easy because I've been using it for years. I like the site's navigation and readability but the content is often lacking given their resources. They did something similar with the Prince Andrew story, reporting his "emphatic" denials before mentioning the allegations. Clearly, he is innocent until proven guilty. However, the Beeb regularly seems eager to jump to the defense of the powerful rather than scrutinise. I'm veering way off-topic now but this morning they had a big, brash, bullshit "breaking news" banner for a piece about a tennis player's wedding date. That may be of interest to the public but it's not in the public interest. Too often the BBC conflates the two as meaning the same thing.

rcthompson 12y ago

"... for seven years." Also probably all the other years.