For nearly two decades, British spies unlawfully maintained vast troves of people’s private data without adequate safeguards against misuse, a tribunal of senior judges has ruled.
Between 1998 and 2005, electronic surveillance agency Government Communications Headquarters and domestic spy agency MI5 began secretly harvesting “bulk personal datasets” containing millions of records about people’s phone calls, travel habits, internet activity, and financial transactions.
On Monday, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, a special court that handles complaints related to British spy agencies, found that access to the datasets had not been subject to sufficient supervision through a 17-year period between 1998 and November 2015. The tribunal said that due to “failings in the system of oversight” the surveillance regime had violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to privacy.
The case was brought in June 2015 by the London-based human rights group Privacy International, which challenged the legality of the surveillance after the British government publicly admitted using an obscure provision of the 1984 Telecommunications Act to harvest the data.
“Today’s judgment is a long overdue indictment of U.K. surveillance agencies riding roughshod over our democracy and secretly spying on a massive scale,” said Millie Graham Wood, legal officer at Privacy International. “It is unacceptable that it is only through litigation by a charity that we have learnt the extent of these powers and how they are used. The public and Parliament deserve an explanation as to why everyone’s data was collected for over a decade without oversight in place and confirmation that unlawfully obtained personal data will be destroyed.”
While the tribunal found that the mass collection of data lacked adequate oversight, it did not rule that the surveillance itself was illegal. The judgment found in favor of the government on that front, stating that the use of the Telecommunications Act to harvest the bulk datasets was lawful.
A spokesperson for the U.K. government said in a statement: “The powers available to the security and intelligence agencies play a vital role in protecting the U.K. and its citizens. We are therefore pleased the tribunal has confirmed the current lawfulness of the existing bulk communications data and bulk personal dataset regimes.”
According to documents that were released earlier this year, the bulk datasets can cover a wide variety of information, potentially revealing details such as people’s political opinions, religious beliefs, union affiliation, physical or mental health status, sexual preferences, biometric data, and spending habits. They may also contain data revealing legally privileged information and journalists’ confidential sources. And the spy agencies have acknowledged that “medical data may appear” in some of the data troves, too, though they claim they do not explicitly harvest people’s medical records.
It is often argued by government officials that mass collection of data is not on its face a violation of privacy, and that privacy is not breached until individual communications are looked at or analyzed by humans.
Notably, the tribunal’s ruling on Monday disagreed with that notion, stating that the privacy protections contained in the European Convention on Human Rights are “engaged by the transfer and storage of communications data even if it is not accessed.” This principle may turn out to be important in a separate case that remains ongoing in the European Court of Human Rights, which is expected to look more closely at the legality of the U.K.’s mass surveillance programs.
Top photo: GCHQ headquarters in Cheltenham, England.
“The tribunal said that due to “failings in the system of oversight” the surveillance regime had violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to privacy.”
No it didn’t.
It merely said “Whatever the failings in the system of oversight obtaining prior to avowal of these powers, the system now in operation does, in our judgment, operate effectively.”
We might arguably infer from the actual quotation above that there were “failings in the system of oversight” but there is no justification for your extrapolating this judgement to your statement.
Shoddy journalism and it does the cause of those who want to fight mass surveillance no favours.
Kudos to The Intercept for reporting both sides of this story, including the finding that GCHQ’s activities were not in themselves illegal, but that they lacked sufficient oversight.
Could you explain how something can be unlawful yet not illegal? It really isn’t clear to me.
In this case it means that nothing forbidden by law was done – so no laws were broken. However the ‘unlawful’ ruling means that not every principle of ECHR was met: specifically the ‘foreseeability’ test which is essentially about people knowing what certain powers are being used for.
Illegal vs unlawful works better on the US where the government can’t do anything unless permitted by law. So if the Federal Government, say, decided to abolish income tax then it would be unlawful without Congress passing suitable legislation, but no crime would have been committed. A lawyer could probably give a better example.
Maisie, see my example earlier in the thread with regards to my speeding example.
Same goes for privacy. Privacy is an overall Right. But it has to be defined. Courts rule. Legislatures write laws. In cases where something is deemed by the court to be unlawful, it seems that they are telling the legislature to write a law to define what the government can do with privacy.
Afterwhich, someone will bring another case before the court and challenge that law to see if it is upheld or invalidated.
I see this as more of a ‘status’ issue. Privacy rights to information have a status that is currently being defined by courts around the world given that we live in the digital-internet age.
Where little, no or undefined law exists…things are determined lawful or unlawful. It’s the job of legislatures to define scope of the law and courts to rule upon it.
I see this case as a judge who has stated that the government is outside the scope of lawful behavior and that laws need to be created so they can be ruled upon.
I must admit to being freaked out by the photo that isn’t identified but is GCHQ. I hadn’t known what CGHQ looked like but I do know what the new Apple HQ under construction in Cupertino looks like and they look way too much alike to not wonder why would Apple would want to copy GCHQ. Just an accident, I guess.
As Henry Kissinger said, ‘the illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer’. Imagine then, the freedom of action of a country like the UK, which doesn’t have a constitution. They don’t have to agonize over the distinction between illegal and unconstitutional, making the choices for government officials a whole lot easier.
Why would any true loyal Americans, be they Democrat or Republican, Male or Female, White,Black,Hispanic or other, vote for a Democrat or a Republican when both .parties have shown their willingness to subvert the Constitution, our Civil Liberties, and our National Sovereignty through the TPP (The Trans Pacific Partnership) and have been doing so for decades & the Governments own records have proven this to be true ! We are being sold out by the Democrats & Republicans ! It now has become a choice between Fascism or Liberty & Fascism is winning !
Both parties have been complicit in this criminal activity. Some will say they don’t want to waste their vote, but you are already wasting your vote on Democrats & Republicans because they are the ones who have already betrayed us ! This should be a joint effort on the part of all Americans, Democrats,Republicans & Independent voters ! Organize now before its to late ! Your liberty is at stake and that of your children & grandchildren !
We get the Government we deserve, and nothing will change until we stop electing Democrats & Republicans after all they are the ones subverting the Constitution, & they must be held to account both politically & legally ! Democrats & Republicans have lied to the American public for decades, so why should we believe them now.
No more lies, excuses, rationalizations,or justifications, the public needs to hold these officials to account to the fullest extent of the law under Title 18 sec. 241 & 242 (Google it), so any future traitors will know there will be consequences to such behavior.
Unaccountable power is absolute power, & is absolutely corrupt !
As Mr. Snowden said the Politicians are afraid of you ! Now is the time exercise you power, you may not get another chance !
REMEMBER: POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS AND DIAPERS SHOULD BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON.
Some words of true Patriots are as follows, as opposed to the words of false flag patriotism of bought & paid for professional politicians and bureaucrats of today.
“He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money. ”
Benjamin Franklin
“He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else.”
Benjamin Franklin
“Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those
entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”
Thomas Jefferson
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
Thomas Jefferson
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpation s, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security,”
Thomas Jefferson wrote this in the Declaration of Independence .
“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
James Madison
“Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power.”
James Madison
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
Patrick Henry
“We the People are the rightful masters of BOTH Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution”
Abraham Lincoln
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”
Abraham Lincoln
We should not forget the warning of President Eisenhower .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?…
The NSA is controlled & operated by the DOD & the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) Private Corporations.
“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.”
President John F. Kennedy
Waldorf-Astoria Hotel
April 27, 1961
As is said in the law, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. (“False in one thing, false in all things” is an instruction given to jurors: if they find that a witness lied about an important matter, they are entitled to ignore everything else that witness said.)
As a reminder Hermann Goering said at the Nuremberg Trials .
“The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
Benito Mussolini
Time to start removing the corporate Congress from office & defunding the NSA & the Police Surveillance state, to pre 9-11 levels & force them to comply with the law & impose jail time for non compliance under USC Title 18 Sec. 241 & 242 (Google it) Only after the members of our 3 branches of Government, both Republicans & Democrats who conspired in this criminal conspiracy & violated the Constitution are prosecuted, should Mr. Snowden be charged with a crime.
Prosecute those who broke the law first, in chronological order, then the Government can get around to Mr Snowden .
So VOTE just don’t vote for a Democrat or Republican, send them a message they can’t ignore and will understand
! ! ! They are the problem not the solution !
Disclaimer: Be advised it is possible, that this communication is being monitored by the National Security Agency or GCHQ. I neither condone or support any such policy, by any Government authority or third party that does not comply, as stipulated by the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Does Britain have any laws equivalent to FISA? I know there’s the Investigatory Powers bill, but do that have anything equivalent to American surveillance laws?
Do they have anything like THE FOURTH AMENDMENT?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Is all our data being routed though Britain so it can be treated as foreign and then sent to Bluffdale, Utah citing 12333?
It’s known that the Five Eyes spy on each other, for each other. This was known even prior to Snowden. (It’s rather ironic for the US to permit Britons to spy on our own people- though this goes back before Five Eyes to the WWII days of British Security Coordination. (Go look it up. One agent slept with a congresswoman and stole papers from the Vice-President. He later went on to fame as a writer of mysteries, childrens’s books and erotica.))
In answer to your first question, yes. The U.K. Human Rights Act, and Article 8 of the ECHR which has greater force than the US Constitution because it’s not just about the actions of government.
How is this ever for our safety and protection when we the people they profess to protect all feel so deeply alarmed and hostile towards it?
It is the deepest shame in my nation’s history, one filled with violence and murder and intolerance and robbery on an international scale. When will we ever keep our fucking noses out of other people’s business?
And worse still, we are now the lapdogs empowering the US to abuse the entire world and circumvent their own citizenry’s strong privacy laws as they conduct their own imperialist agenda in which we only figure as some sort of henchman to be used and abused.
It is not a nightmare as none of us will ever wake from their endless grip. It is cold, harsh reality that many of you out there live in denial of and will continue to do so when Crazy Hillary takes the reins.
Dark, dark days that could yet get darker as our silly little nation rushes off to play war games in Korea and Central Asia and the Middle East at the same time as our politicians tell us to tighten our belts. What hateful cunts they all are; I curse them all with my most foul hexes.
Glad I didn’t have children, I would have had to teach them to hate and kill as that is the only future these people will bring. Fuck them all and hope they die.
genocide has also been unlawful for decades.
setting traps to rob Americans of their homes has been unlawful for centuries.
torture has been unlawful for decades.
illegal war and murder of Americans & others has been unlawful for centuries.
putting people into prison as a replacement for genocide is unlawful.
lying to people about WMD to perpetrate a fraud is unlawful.
depriving populations of life support is unlawful.
since when do professional politicians, powermongers, greedy persons and thieves give a shit?
truth is, if violating the law becomes too much a problem, they just write a new law. and if that becomes a problem, they just cancel protests and freedom of speech and press, BDS.
form vs substance
Get familiar with concept. It is used in prosecuting money laundering – but not in prosecuting elected persons or democratic candydates.
ie-
it is not illegal in form to carry a loaded weapon
it is not illegal in form to simply point a loaded weapon at someone
it is not illegal in form to walk into a bank
it is not illegal in form to accept money from a bank teller
it is not illegal in form to get into a car and drive away
it’s when you put that all together you have a substabtive problem.
Wallstreet know this more than anyone. It is not illegal to inflate the values of homes, or to cause loans to be made for them using someone else’s money, or to sell investments, or accept profits thereby. The same with stocks – not illegal to inflate the value of stocks using metering software, or to unload vast quanities of highly priced stocks to retirement funds, or to loan to hedgefunds vast amounts of someone else’s money.
It is not illegal for secret spy operations to do everything in form to oppress a society as long as they dont pull the trigger, yeah.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3uf5V0pDA
Pointing a loaded weapon at another person is usually considered assault. And that is illegal.
Ha! It’s truly a joke claiming “privacy is not breached until individual communications are looked at or analyzed by humans.” How many humans believe they can search the Internet or any massive database for specific information better and faster than optimized search engine software? Now imagine that software, algorithmically designed to run 24/7 against all new captured data as soon as it’s available – supposedly trying to identify and stop the “next threat.” Thousands of search variables were probably initially set as defaults thus providing human operators with plausible deniability “they” actually ever searched for anything, until they knew – something.
I’m sure to Big Brother it makes sense once a threat’s identified they’d want to be able to backtrack activities as much as possible – “for increased target confidence,” and thus arrive at an Orwellian notion to keep as much data as possible on everyone – forever. But I also suspect an target’s historical data is frequently used just to blackmail them – into being informants.
Because of Ed it’s become painfully obvious no one plays semantic games like Big Brother.
The equivalent logic on the more personal level is that the blackmailer hasn’t really done anything against you until he sends the prints to your wife.
How about that? Way before “9/11.”
And it sure didn’t stop the attacks! Makes you wonder why spending more will get more…
Unlawful and illegal mean the same thing, don’t they? So why is this ‘unlawful’ collection not illegal, and why are those responsible not being prosecuted? The Guardian article on this is the same – saying ‘unlawful’ and then saying nothing illegal has happened. Can some legal expert explain this? This is merely my curiosity asking, I don’t expect an answer that means the establishment is being punished at all, for it never is.
There is no meaningful semantic difference (or among lexicographers that I’m aware of) between “unlawful” and “illegal”. Both are adjectives and each are generally understood and listed as synonyms in a thesaurus.
If there is any stylistic difference in usage among attorneys, at least in America, I would say that “illegal” is more often used in the criminal context, and “unlawful” in the civil. But that is by no means a widely observed convention among lawyers or anyone else in America.
Thanks for your input. Can you make sense of the ruling? If there was illegality, why is there no penalty?
The decision was pretty long, and not an American court decision, and I only skimmed it. And without getting too far into the weeds on the framing of the legal issues, BPD vs. BCD etc. etc., “avowals” import, and the relevant legal frameworks and the analysis by the IPT and/or any power it may/may not have to sanction what it deems “unlawful”, I’d say this:
It may be that “failure of adequate oversight” isn’t necessarily sanctionable under relevant British and/or European law, even if contrary to stated principles built into the relevant laws, and saying it was “unlawful” then becomes more like synonymous with “contrary” to some aspirational standard if/when violated, but has no attendant concrete penalty.
Generally speaking that’s how elites get their legislation written so that even when they get caught “technically” “breaking the law”, or at least the spirit of it, they simply don’t build in any particular penalty (and there’s the loophole you can drive a truck through) for those who violate it if they work for government or someone sufficiently “elite” to be protected by same.
Or they build in an “intent” component before it can be sanctioned, which is difficult to establish as a legal matter sometimes when courts are willing to entertain and accept the wholly bogus “oopsie daisy we were just inept or made a mistake”, which of course someone like me who has worked for the government knows is 100% pure unadulterated bullshit because nobody in any relative position of power in US or UK government takes a piss without someone vetting and approving it.
Sorry I don’t have a better answer than that.
Now to most regular English speakers we find it difficult to conceive of “unlawful” actions not being “sanctioned/sanctionable”. But that’s not necessarily the way it works in the real world for those sorts of folks.
Well, thanks for trying to put it into regular language; the whole thing seems very similar to the US declaring that our invading of Iraq and torturing of inmates was illegal but not subject to prosecution, or similarly with the banks getting caught with wrongdoing, or BP found guilty of a massive oil spill. but only getting fines or whatever. Basically, as you indicate, the Western elite get away with it by being too big to jail.
Justice! What a cruel joke.
Unlawful = illegal, hmmmm. Got it. May I re-ask maisie’s question? Why was there no penalty to those who committed acts they were not suppose to do?
When I Google “illegal versus unlawful”, the result shows a definition stating the following.
Illegal is doing something expressly forbidden by statute. Unlawful is defined as doing something unauthorized by law.
Thanks for the input. According to this site (Grammar Girl)
This confirms rrheard’s point that legally it is semantics only – and I’m convinced its use in media and government propaganda is plainly meant (as a less harsh sounding word than “illegal”) to diminish the importance of the offense as much as possible, because the offender is the state.
I’m not sure if I agree with the statement regarding semantics.
Let me explain a different way with an example:
Illegal is driving faster than a posted speed limit. The posted speed limit is supported by a statute issued by a governing authority.
Unlawful is driving 100 mph on a stretch of road with no posted speed limit because one has not been established yet.
In the second example, there is no law or established statute for that section of road. But it’s clearly wrong and dangerous. So, if a cop gives you a ticket, and you go before a judge claiming you were allowed to travel that fast, the judge would disagree and say there is no law or statute that allows you to do that. That’s “unlawful” from my perspective. The fine or punishment would then be at the courts discretion.
I see the second case as a courts reasoning for saying the act was wrong and that the body that creates laws should in fact create a law or statute to address the uncoated section of road so others don’t drive 100mph.
That’s the difference from my perspective.
Uncoated=unposted.
Stupid auto-correct
One can only imagine how this goes down in the US. af
I saw a similar story in the Guardian too. I think this illustrates the failure of the Snowden project. Not for one second has the spying stopped or even found to be “illegal” by any court of consequence. The big tech companies never stopped cooperating with the government – and hardly anyone really cares.
Now that Snowden has made this tiny fragment public and there is no organized opposition to the spying it is more or less “regularized” now – having the opposite effect Snowden desired.
In any case, the established power structure has already subsumed the Snowden project into itself (which appears to have been Snowden’s desire) through this Neoliberal corporate – funded by a tax cheating oligarch, part of his multi-billion dollar dynasty – website. The Snowden archive is now in the possession of pure and perfict white men unaccountable to anyone and dismissive of any criticism and protected by Neoliberal corporate law and ruled by an authoritarian code of conduct.
So, it’s somehow Snowden’s fault that the lay of the surveillance land hasn’t changed, or his intent–about which you are self-righteously and massively wrong–has been rendered illegitimate by the information he supplied being published on The Intercept?
And, people do care. I wonder if you do.
The market place welcomes another news outlet owned by a ruthless oligarch tax cheat, the senior management of which is rich 1%er white men. White men who only tell THE TRUTH and we should all listen and be grateful. As they take their place in the Neoliberal corporate pantheon of great publications with identical characteristics such as the New York Times and the Washington Post or the Guardian. This is an establishment publication, part of the Neoliberal dominate paradigm it forms part of their power. Power reaching out and absorbing the “opposition” is hardly something new.