This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/dec/21/eus-highest-court-delivers-blow-to-uk-snoopers-charter
The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| EU's highest court delivers blow to UK snooper's charter | EU's highest court delivers blow to UK snooper's charter |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| “General and indiscriminate retention” of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal, the EU’s highest court has ruled in a judgment that could trigger challenges against the UK’s new Investigatory Powers Act, the so-called snooper’s charter. | “General and indiscriminate retention” of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal, the EU’s highest court has ruled in a judgment that could trigger challenges against the UK’s new Investigatory Powers Act, the so-called snooper’s charter. |
| Only targeted interception of traffic and location data in order to combat serious crime is justified, according to a long-awaited decision by the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. | Only targeted interception of traffic and location data in order to combat serious crime is justified, according to a long-awaited decision by the European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. |
| The finding came in response to a legal challenge initially brought by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, when he was a backbench MP, and Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, over the legality of GCHQ’s bulk interception of call records and online messages. | |
| Davis and Watson, who were supported by Liberty, the Law Society, the Open Rights Group and Privacy International, had already won a high court victory on the issue, but the government appealed and the case was referred by judges to the ECJ. | Davis and Watson, who were supported by Liberty, the Law Society, the Open Rights Group and Privacy International, had already won a high court victory on the issue, but the government appealed and the case was referred by judges to the ECJ. |
| The aim of going to Luxembourg was to clarify EU law on surveillance. The two MPs had successfully argued that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (Dripa) 2014 was illegal. Dripa has since been replaced by the Investigatory Powers Act, which came into force this autumn. | The aim of going to Luxembourg was to clarify EU law on surveillance. The two MPs had successfully argued that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (Dripa) 2014 was illegal. Dripa has since been replaced by the Investigatory Powers Act, which came into force this autumn. |
| At issue was whether there are EU standards on data retention that need to be respected by member states in their domestic legislation. The result, though significant, could eventually prove academic once the UK has withdrawn from the EU and the ECJ no longer has judicial authority over the UK. | At issue was whether there are EU standards on data retention that need to be respected by member states in their domestic legislation. The result, though significant, could eventually prove academic once the UK has withdrawn from the EU and the ECJ no longer has judicial authority over the UK. |
| In a summary of the ruling, the court said: “With respect to retention, the retained data, taken as a whole, is liable to allow very precise conclusions to be drawn concerning the private lives of the persons whose data has been retained. | In a summary of the ruling, the court said: “With respect to retention, the retained data, taken as a whole, is liable to allow very precise conclusions to be drawn concerning the private lives of the persons whose data has been retained. |
| “The interference by national legislation that provides for the retention of traffic data and location data with that right must therefore be considered to be particularly serious. The fact that the data is retained without the users of electronic communications services being informed of the fact is likely to cause the persons concerned to feel that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance. Consequently, only the objective of fighting serious crime is capable of justifying such interference. | “The interference by national legislation that provides for the retention of traffic data and location data with that right must therefore be considered to be particularly serious. The fact that the data is retained without the users of electronic communications services being informed of the fact is likely to cause the persons concerned to feel that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance. Consequently, only the objective of fighting serious crime is capable of justifying such interference. |
| “Legislation prescribing a general and indiscriminate retention of data does not require there to be any relationship between the data which must be retained and a threat to public security and is not restricted to, inter alia, providing for retention of data pertaining to a particular time period and/or geographical area and/or a group of persons likely to be involved in a serious crime. | “Legislation prescribing a general and indiscriminate retention of data does not require there to be any relationship between the data which must be retained and a threat to public security and is not restricted to, inter alia, providing for retention of data pertaining to a particular time period and/or geographical area and/or a group of persons likely to be involved in a serious crime. |
| “Such national legislation therefore exceeds the limits of what is strictly necessary and cannot be considered to be justified within a democratic society, as required by the directive, read in the light of the charter.” | “Such national legislation therefore exceeds the limits of what is strictly necessary and cannot be considered to be justified within a democratic society, as required by the directive, read in the light of the charter.” |
| Before he became a minister under Theresa May, Davis travelled to Luxembourg this spring to hear the case at the ECJ. He argued that the British government was “treating the entire nation as suspects” by ignoring safeguards on retaining and accessing personal communications data. | Before he became a minister under Theresa May, Davis travelled to Luxembourg this spring to hear the case at the ECJ. He argued that the British government was “treating the entire nation as suspects” by ignoring safeguards on retaining and accessing personal communications data. |
| Davis, one of the most vociferous critics of the state’s powers to collect data on its citizens, withdrew from the case following his appointment to the cabinet as secretary of state for leaving the EU. | Davis, one of the most vociferous critics of the state’s powers to collect data on its citizens, withdrew from the case following his appointment to the cabinet as secretary of state for leaving the EU. |
| The Dripa case was heard by 15 ECJ judges at Luxembourg. It has been considered amid successive atrocities in Paris, Brussels and Nice that have reinforced political demands for the expansion of powers to intercept emails and phone calls to help catch Islamic State militants operating on the continent. | The Dripa case was heard by 15 ECJ judges at Luxembourg. It has been considered amid successive atrocities in Paris, Brussels and Nice that have reinforced political demands for the expansion of powers to intercept emails and phone calls to help catch Islamic State militants operating on the continent. |
| During the Luxembourg hearing, lawyers for the UK government maintained that intercepted communications had been at the heart of every terrorist case investigated by police and the security services in recent years. | During the Luxembourg hearing, lawyers for the UK government maintained that intercepted communications had been at the heart of every terrorist case investigated by police and the security services in recent years. |
| Watson said: “This ruling shows it’s counterproductive to rush new laws through parliament without proper scrutiny. | |
| “At a time when we face a real and ever-present terrorist threat, the security forces may require access to personal information none of us would normally hand over. That’s why it’s absolutely vital that proper safeguards are put in place to ensure this power is not abused, as it has been in the recent past. | |
| “Most of us can accept that our privacy may occasionally be compromised in the interests of keeping us safe, but no one would consent to giving the police or the government the power to arbitrarily seize our phone records or emails to use as they see fit. It’s for judges, not ministers, to oversee these powers. I’m pleased the court has upheld the earlier decision of the UK courts.” | |
| Martha Spurrier, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: “Today’s judgment upholds the rights of ordinary British people not to have their personal lives spied on without good reason or an independent warrant. The government must now make urgent changes to the Investigatory Powers Act to comply with this. | |
| “This is the first serious post-referendum test for our government’s commitment to protecting human rights and the rule of law. The UK may have voted to leave the EU – but we didn’t vote to abandon our rights and freedoms.” | |
| A Home Office spokesperson said: “We are disappointed with the judgment from the European court of justice and will be considering its potential implications. | A Home Office spokesperson said: “We are disappointed with the judgment from the European court of justice and will be considering its potential implications. |
| “It will now be for the court of appeal to determine the case. The government will be putting forward robust arguments to the court of appeal about the strength of our existing regime for communications data retention and access. | “It will now be for the court of appeal to determine the case. The government will be putting forward robust arguments to the court of appeal about the strength of our existing regime for communications data retention and access. |
| “Given the importance of communications data to preventing and detecting crime, we will ensure plans are in place so that the police and other public authorities can continue to acquire such data in a way that is consistent with EU law and our obligation to protect the public.” | “Given the importance of communications data to preventing and detecting crime, we will ensure plans are in place so that the police and other public authorities can continue to acquire such data in a way that is consistent with EU law and our obligation to protect the public.” |
| The shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, welcomed the ruling, saying: “The European court has very clearly and forcefully struck down key aspects of UK law. | |
| “Many of us warned that these powers were far too widely drawn. Effectively they allow for fishing expeditions where data is collected on a vast number of individuals, hundreds of thousands. They also allow for data gathering against anyone suspected of the most minor crimes, not just terrorism and organised crime, and there is insufficient judicial oversight. Targets were not informed. | |
| “This ruling may also have far-reaching implications for more recent legislation. This ruling should force a rethink at the highest levels of government as it has clearly got the balance between protecting citizens from major crime and protecting their right to privacy wrong.” | |
| The Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Brian Paddick said: “This ruling proves that this Conservative government has overstepped the mark. The legality of the Investigatory Powers Act – passed into law with Labour’s full support – has now been called into question. | |
| “Collecting and storing everyone’s internet web browsing histories and phone records so government agencies can look at them is an Orwellian nightmare that intrudes into our privacy and erodes our civil liberties. Liberal Democrats tried to stop the worst excesses and now the courts agree. | |
| “We need to keep people safe but mass surveillance as sanctioned by the Investigatory Powers Act is unacceptable in a democratic society, would be unconstitutional in many countries, and is likely to be ineffective and counterproductive. This dreadful piece of legislation will cost millions to implement and unless the government reconsider, they will inevitably face further embarrassment in the courts.” |