summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
-rw-r--r--updates/2013/gchq.en.md115
1 files changed, 115 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/updates/2013/gchq.en.md b/updates/2013/gchq.en.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..dd6f1199
--- /dev/null
+++ b/updates/2013/gchq.en.md
@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
1title: GCHQ to face European Court over mass surveillance
2date: 2013-10-03 16:55:00
3updated: 2013-10-03 18:13:10
4author: hukl
5tags: update, pressemitteilung
6
7Three of Britain’s most prominent campaign groups have today announced the launch of a legal challenge against the actions of GCHQ, alleging it has illegally intruded on the privacy of millions of British and European citizens.
8
9<!-- TEASER_END -->
10
11Big Brother Watch, the Open Rights Group and English PEN, together with
12German internet activist Constanze Kurz, have filed papers at the
13European Court of Human Rights bringing an action against the UK
14Government.

 They allege that by collecting vast amounts of data
15leaving or entering the UK, including the content of emails and social
16media messages, the UK’s spy agency has acted illegally.
17
18When details recently emerged in the media about the Prism and Tempora
19programmes, codenames for previously secret online surveillance
20operations, it was revealed that GCHQ has the capacity to collect more
21than 21 petabytes of data a day – equivalent to sending all the
22information in all the books in the British Library 192 times every 24
23hours.
24
25The disclosures have raised serious parliamentary concerns both in
26Britain and at the EU level.
27
28Deighton Pierce Glynn solicitors represent the applicants, instructing
29Helen Mountfield QC of Matrix Chambers and Tom Hickman and Ravi Mehta of
30Blackstone Chambers.
31
32The legal action will be funded through donations at
33[www.privacynotprism.org.uk](http://www.privacynotprism.org.uk)
34
35**Nick Pickles**, director of Big Brother Watch, said: “The laws
36governing how internet data is accessed were written when barely anyone
37had broadband access and were intended to cover old fashioned copper
38telephone lines. Parliament did not envisage or intend those laws to
39permit scooping up details of every communication we send, including
40content, so it’s absolutely right that GCHQ is held accountable in the
41courts for its actions.”
42
43**Jim Killock**, executive director of Open Rights Group, said: “Mass
44surveillance systems create risks for everyone, and place extreme
45degrees of power in the hands of secret agencies. This is made worse by
46the lack of democratic accountability and judicial oversight. People
47living across the UK, Europe, the USA and beyond need the courts to
48protect their rights and start the process of reestablishing public
49trust.”
50
51**Jo Glanville**, Director of English PEN, said: “Privacy is now an
52essential condition for freedom of expression. Following the revelations
53about the extent to which GCHQ and the NSA have been harvesting our
54personal data, no citizen in the UK can be confident that their
55communications are private. If this legal challenge is successful then
56I’m hopeful that we will secure effective protection of our rights.”
57
58**Constanze Kurz**, spokeswoman of the CCC, said: “I want to know, as a
59European Citizen, whether the human rights convention protects me and
60others like me across Europe from mass surveillance. This is a
61cross-border issue, yet the British laws offer virtually no protection
62to persons outside the UK from surveillance by the UK and US
63Governments.”
64
65**Daniel Carey**, solicitor at Deighton Pierce Glynn, who are
66representing the applicants, said: “We are asking the court to declare
67that unrestrained surveillance of much of Europe’s internet
68communications by the UK Government, and the outdated regulatory system
69that has permitted this, breach our rights to privacy. This is not
70something the secret investigatory powers tribunal can do. Indeed, it is
71precisely the sort of case that we need the European Court of Human
72Rights for. We are asking for the case to be dealt with on a priority
73basis, so I am hopeful that it will be formally communicated to the UK
74Government within a period of weeks. After that, the timetable will be
75determined by the court.”
76
77The groups initially sought to bring their case in the UK domestic
78courts and wrote to the UK Government on 3 July 2013 stating that a
79judicial review challenge would be brought. However, the Government said
80an action in the English Courts was barred and that the groups should
81complain to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the secretive body that
82hears complaints about the intelligence agencies and from which there is
83no appeal to the courts. However, proceedings before the tribunal would
84not permit the public examination of these important issues, nor are
85they capable of providing the remedy the applicants seek: a new
86legislative framework respectful of British and European citizens’
87privacy rights.
88
89The European Court has previously held that the IPT does not provide an
90effective remedy and that it will hear complaints directly. The
91applicants have therefore pursued their legal challenge in the European
92Court of Human Rights. It is believed that this is the first complaint
93to be made to an international court relating to the disclosures of the
94Prism and Tempora programmes.
95
96**Notes**:

 Twitter hashtag: \#privacynotprism
97
98**Further information**:
99
100Nick Pickles, Big Brother Watch: +44 07505 448925 or 0207 3406030 /
101press(at)bigbrotherwatch.org.uk
102
103Jo Glanville, English PEN: +44 0771 302 0971
104
105Jim Killock, Open Rights Group: press(at)openrightsgroup.org / +44
10607894498127 / +44 020 7096 1079
107
108Daniel Carey of Deighton Pierce Glynn solicitors on +44 0117 317 8133 /
10907815 089526 / dcarey(at)dpglaw.co.uk
110
111Constanze Kurz, CCC: constanze(at)ccc.de
112
113**Links**:
114
115<https://www.privacynotprism.org.uk/news/2013/10/03/gchq-to-face-european-court-over-mass-surveillance/>