summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/updates/2017
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'updates/2017')
-rw-r--r--updates/2017/egmr-hearing.en.md95
1 files changed, 95 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/updates/2017/egmr-hearing.en.md b/updates/2017/egmr-hearing.en.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..436e0f35
--- /dev/null
+++ b/updates/2017/egmr-hearing.en.md
@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
1title: NGOs Challenge UK Government Surveillance at the European Court of Human Rights
2date: 2017-11-06 00:43:00
3updated: 2017-11-06 07:07:16
4author: remission
5tags: update, pressemitteilung
6
7On Tuesday 7 November, three joined cases brought by civil liberties and human rights organisations challenging UK Government surveillance will be heard in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
8
9<!-- TEASER_END -->
10
11*Big Brother Watch and Others v UK* will be heard alongside *10 Human
12Rights Organisations and Others v UK* and the *Bureau of Investigative
13Journalism and Alice Ross v UK*, four years after the initial
14application to the ECtHR. \[1\]
15
16Big Brother Watch, English PEN, Open Rights Group and Constanze Kurz
17made their application to the Court in 2013 following Edward Snowden’s
18revelations that UK intelligence agencies were running a mass
19surveillance and bulk communications interception programme, TEMPORA, as
20well as receiving data from similar US programmes, PRISM and UPSTREAM,
21interfering with citizens’ right to privacy. \[2\]
22
23The case questions the legality of the indiscriminate surveillance of UK
24citizens and the bulk collection of their personal information and
25communications by UK intelligence agencies under the Regulation of
26Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). The UK surveillance regime under RIPA
27was untargeted, meaning that EU citizens’ personal communications and
28information was collected at random without any element of suspicion or
29evidence of wrongdoing, and this regime was effective indefinitely.
30
31The surveillance regime is being challenged on the grounds that there
32was no sufficient legal basis, no accountability, and no adequate
33oversight of these programmes, and as a result infringed citizens’
34Article 8 right to a private life.
35
36In 2014, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism made an application to
37the ECtHR, followed by ten Human Rights Organisations and others in 2015
38after they received a judgment from the UK Investigatory Powers
39Tribunal. All three cases were joined together, and the
40Court exceptionally decided that there would be a hearing.
41
42The result of these three cases has the potential to impact the current
43UK surveillance regime under the Investigatory Powers Act. This legal
44framework has already been strongly criticized by the Court of Justice
45of the European Union in *Watson*. A judgment in this case will finally
46push the UK Government to constrain these wide-ranging surveillance
47powers, implement greater judicial control and introduce greater
48protection such as notifying citizens that they have been put under
49surveillance.
50
51Daniel Carey of Deighton Pierce Glynn, solicitor for Big Brother Watch,
52Open Rights Group, English PEN and Constanze Kurz, said: “Historically,
53it has required a ruling from this Court before improvements in domestic
54law in this area are made. Edward Snowden broke that cycle by setting in
55motion last year’s Investigatory Power Act, but my clients are asking
56the Court to limit bulk interception powers in a much more meaningful
57way and to require significant improvements in how such  intrusive
58powers are controlled and reported.”
59
60Griff Ferris, Researcher at Big Brother Watch, said: “This case raises
61long-standing issues relating to the UK Government’s unwarranted
62intrusion into people’s private lives, giving the intelligence agencies
63free reign to indiscriminately intercept and monitor people’s private
64communications without evidence or suspicion. UK citizens who are not
65suspected of any wrongdoing should be able to live their lives in both
66the physical and the digital world safely and  securely without such
67Government intrusion. If the Court finds that the UK Government
68infringed UK citizens’ right to privacy, this should put further
69pressure on the Government to implement measures to ensure that its
70current surveillance regime doesn’t make the same mistakes.”
71
72Antonia Byatt, Interim Director of English PEN, said: “More than four
73years since Edward Snowden’s revelations and nearly one year since the
74Investigatory Powers Act was passed, this is a landmark hearing that
75seeks to safeguard our privacy and our right to freedom of expression.
76The UK now has the most repressive surveillance legislation of any
77western democracy, this is a vital opportunity to challenge the
78unprecedented erosion of our private lives and liberty to communicate.”
79
80Jim Killock, Executive Director of Open Rights Group, said: “Mass
81surveillance must end. Our democratic values are threatened by the fact
82of pervasive, constant state surveillance. This case gives the court the
83opportunity to rein it back, and to show the British Government that
84there are clear limits. Hoovering everything up and failing to explain
85what you are doing is not acceptable.”
86
87**Links:**
88
89\[1\] The ECtHR hearing [on 7 November
902017](http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=hearings/calendar&c=#n1353927184398_pointer)
91
92\[2\] [privacynotprism.org.uk/](https://www.privacynotprism.org.uk/)
93
94\[3\] [British government to answer fast-track spy
95challenge](http://www.ccc.de/en/updates/2014/gchq-egmr)