NSA and GCHQ spy programmes face legal challenge
Privacy campaigners file claim saying laws used to justify data trawling by
Prism and Tempora programmes are being abused
The Guardian, Monday 8 July 2013 07.00 EDT
The British and US spy programmes that allow intelligence agencies to
gather, store and share data on millions of people have been challenged in a
legal claim brought by privacy campaigners.
Papers filed on Monday call for an immediate suspension of Britain's use of
material from the Prism programme, which is run by America's National
They also demand a temporary injunction to the Tempora programme, which
allows Britain's spy centre GCHQ to harvest millions of emails, phone calls
and Skype conversations from the undersea cables that carry internet traffic
in and out of the country.
Lawyers acting for the UK charity Privacy International say the programme is
not necessary or proportionate. They say the laws being used to justify mass
data trawling are being abused by intelligence officials and ministers, and
need to be urgently reviewed.
Privacy International has submitted a claim to the Investigatory Powers
Tribunal (IPT), which is supposed to review all complaints about the conduct
of Britain's spy agencies. The organisation hopes for a public hearing and
early rulings because of the seriousness of the situation.
The group was prompted into legal action by the US whistleblower Edward
Snowden and the leak of top secret papers he gave to the Guardian. This led
to a series of stories about the extent of modern-day surveillance and the
disclosure of activities that have provoked a worldwide debate about the
behaviour of western intelligence agencies.
In a 22-page statement of grounds, Privacy International refers to the Prism
programme, which allows the NSA to intercept the communications of non-US
citizens living outside America from global internet companies such as
Google, Facebook and Yahoo.
The Guardian revealed that some of this information has been shared with
GCHQ. So far the government has refused to say under what legal authority
this has been done - if GCHQ had wanted to get this material for itself in
the UK, it would have to apply under the Regulatory of Investigatory Powers
act (Ripa) for a warrant from a minister.
Campaigners fear Britain is circumventing its own rules to make it easier to
get intelligence, and that the emails and calls of Britons are almost
certainly being swept up by the NSA.
"The contents of an individual's phone calls and emails and the websites
they visit can be information of a obviously private nature," the claim
"If UK authorities are to be permitted to access such information in
relation to those located in the UK in secret and without their knowledge or
consent, the European convention on human rights (ECHR) requires there to be
a legal regime in place which contains sufficient safeguards against abuse
of power and arbitrary use. There is no such regime."
In modern communications, emails and phone calls made in the UK pass
electronically through the US and can be intercepted by the NSA.
"Through their access to the US programme, UK authorities are able to obtain
private information about UK citizens without having to comply with any
requirements of Ripa," the claim argues.
The second ground focuses on Tempora, a system that stores for up to 30 days
vast quantities of data drawn from undersea internet cables.
The Guardian revealed this programme is part of an over-arching project at
GCHQ called "Mastering the Internet". The data is shared with NSA and by
last year 550 analysts from both countries were filtering through the
Privacy International argues this amounts to "blanket surveillance".
"Such surveillance cannot be justified as a proportionate response to a
legitimate aim. Bulk interception of communications and bulk inspection of
such data is disproportionate interference with the rights guaranteed by
article 8 of the ECHR, and it is not being undertaken pursuant to a legal
regime containing sufficient safeguards to render it in accordance with the
The claim says Ripa "does not provide sufficiently specific or clear
authorisation for such wide-ranging and universal interception of
communications, nor any sufficient or proper safeguards against misuse that
are known and available to the public".
Carly Nyst, the head of international advocacy at Privacy International,
said the group had wanted to bring the legal challenge through a normal
court so the arguments could be heard in public.
But the UK government had insisted the group go through the IPT, which has
only ever upheld 10 complaints against any of the agencies from more than
"We have been forced to take our concerns to a secret tribunal, the IPT,"
she said. "It shouldn't be a surprise. Why would the government want their
dirty laundry aired in public when it can be handled by a quasi-judicial
body that meets and deliberates in secret, the decisions of which are
neither public nor appealable to any higher authority?"
She added: "In one of the world's most respected and stable democracies,
there exists a system of 'oversight' that would be at home in any
authoritarian regime. A public debate about the covert activities of British
intelligence services is drastically needed and long overdue."
Eric King, head of research at Privacy International, added: "One of the
underlying tenets of law in a democratic society is the accessibility and
foreseeability of a law. If there is no way for citizens to know of the
existence, interpretation, or execution of a law, then the law is
effectively secret. And secret law is not law. It is a fundamental breach of
the social contract if the government can operate with unrestrained power in
such an arbitrary fashion."
The civil rights group Liberty has also made a complaint to the IPT. It
believes that its own electronic communications and those of its staff may
have been unlawfully intercepted by the security services and GCHQ.
(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this
message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to
these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed
within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with
"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS
PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.