Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/332954814/Submission-IPB-Joint-Committee
Timestamp: 2019-01-20 04:54:10
Document Index: 7488338

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 6', '§135', 'arts 6', 'art 4', '§92', '§ 2', 'arts 6', 'art 2', 'art 5', 'arts 2', 'art 2', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 7', '§69', '§ 2510', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', '§ 2518', 'art 4', 'CJEU ', 'art 4', 'CJEU ', '§59', '§65', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'art 4', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'art 4', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', '§ 2518', '§ 2510', 'art 5', 'art 6', '§99', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art52']

Submission IPB Joint Committee | Privacy | Surveillance
Submission IPB Joint Committee
Submitted to the Honourable Members of the Joint
Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill
Submission to the Joint
Committee on the Draft
Submitted by Privacy International
PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL’S SUBMISSION TO THE JOINT COMMITTEE
ON THE DRAFT INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL IN RESPONSE TO THE
CALL FOR EVIDENCE ON THE DRAFT INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL
Submitted to the Honourable Members of the
1. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Investigatory
Powers Bill (IP Bill).
2. Privacy International was founded in 1990. It is a leading charity promoting the
right to privacy across the world. It is based in London and, within its range of
activities, focuses on tackling the unlawful use of surveillance. It is frequently
called upon to give expert evidence to Parliamentary and Governmental
committees around the world on privacy issues and has advised, and reported to,
among others, the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the United
3. The IP Bill aims to overhaul existing surveillance legislation and act as an
example of the “gold standard” for governments around the world.
Unfortunately, the current draft falls significantly short of this goal.
4. In doing so, the IP Bill, as currently drafted, violates the right to privacy (under
UK and international human rights law); undermines the security of digital
data; imposes burdensome and unreasonable requirements on companies; and
erodes the trust of individuals in communication technologies. It does all this
while, at the same time, failing to provide an accessible, foreseeable legal
framework that would make intelligence agencies and the police accountable for
their surveillance activities; or providing for an oversight framework which while in some ways improves upon the current regime - still does not have the
necessary powers to check and prevent abuse.
5. The following are some highlights of our concerns and recommendations, which
are more fully described throughout this submission:
6. Bulk warrants – Parts 6 and 7 of the draft IP Bill address a range of bulk
warrants: bulk interception warrants; bulk acquisition warrants; bulk
equipment interference warrants; and bulk personal dataset warrants. We have
expressed our concern that such warrants would codify a practice of mass,
untargeted surveillance.1 This practice subverts the traditional investigative
See Privacy International & Open Rights Group, Submission to the Joint Committee on Human
Rights on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill, 7 Dec. 2015, para. 9 [hereinafter “Joint Committee on
Human Rights Submission”], available at
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/human-rightscommittee/legislative-scrutiny-draft-investigatory-powers-bill/written/25654.pdf; see also Anderson
process, by which the Government has reason to suspect someone and applies
for a warrant to surveil that person.2 Bulk warrants, by contrast, permit the
intelligence agencies to surveil everyone. They are neither lawful, nor necessary
or proportionate. Nor have they proven to be effective. Privacy International
calls for their removal from the IP Bill.
7. Thematic warrants – While disguised as targeted surveillance, the IP Bill seeks
to introduce in law “thematic warrants” (both for interception and equipment
interference.) Thematic warrants delegate the choice as to whose privacy will be
interfered with to the police or intelligence agencies, increasing the risk of
arbitrary action and undermining the implementation of effective judicial
authorisation. Communications or equipment within the United Kingdom may
be intercepted or interfered with under a thematic warrant. These are bulk
powers being used against people within the UK. Privacy International calls for
their removal from the IP Bill.
8. Communications data and data retention – Even the Home Office admits that
these parts of the IP Bill contain new powers. In fact, they significantly expand
the capacity of a range of public authorities (not only the intelligence services
and the police) to obtain highly sensitive information about individuals without
judicial authorisation. Internet Connection Records (ICRs), while far from clear
in scope, have the potential to intrude significantly into people's private lives.
This is combined with a regime of blanket, untargeted data retention that, if
adopted, will lead to the collection and storage, for up to a year, of highly
revealing information pertaining to virtually all communications sent, received
or otherwise created by us all. Privacy International opposes blanket data
retention and suggests the introduction of targeted preservation orders instead.
9. Equipment interference – The IP Bill seeks to introduce “equipment
interference” powers, including in bulk. Hacking is an incredibly intrusive form
of surveillance, permitting both real-time surveillance as well as access to the
breadth of private information we increasingly store on our digital devices, from
text messages and emails to photos, videos, address books and calendars.
Moreover, hacking, as undertaken by any actor, including the state,
fundamentally impacts on the security of computers and the internet. For these
reasons, we question whether hacking can ever be a legitimate aspect of state
10. Privacy International submitted oral evidence to the Joint Committee on 9
December 2015. In this submission, Privacy International builds on the
information provided during that hearing and provides responses to all the
questions posed by the Joint Committee in its call for written evidence.3
Report, para. 2.31 (“Bulk collection of electronic messages, as the Snowden Documents brought
home, can be achieved with far less effort and so brings the potential (if not properly regulated) for
spying on a truly industrial scale.”).
Bruce Schneier, Data and Goliath (2015), page 179.
Privacy International also submitted written evidence on the IP Bill to the Science and Technology
Committee of the House of Commons (available at:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-andtechnology-committee/investigatory-powers-bill-technology-issues/written/25170.html ) and the
Joint Committee on Human Rights (available at:
Overarching/thematic questions
11. This question has two dimensions – efficacy and legality. Privacy International
submits that for certain of the parts of the IP Bill, particularly the bulk powers
and data retention, necessity has not been demonstrated on either dimension.
Has the case been made, both for the new powers and for the restated and
clarified existing powers?
12. We dispute the UK Government's characterisation of particular powers as
“existing” rather than “new”. The foreword to the draft IP Bill by the Home
Secretary states, for example, that “[t]he draft Bill only proposes to enhance
powers in one area – that of communications data retention”.4 The distinction
between “new” and “existing” powers is important because “new” powers are
often subjected to a higher level of scrutiny. By erroneously describing “new”
powers as “existing”, the Government seems to be seeking easier acceptance of
new and/or enhanced powers that should be subject to especially critical
analysis and robust debate.
13. One particularly glaring example of this mischaracterisation concerns the
“equipment interference” power. Privacy International’s current complaint
before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which asserts that GCHQ has
violated the Computer Misuse Act (CMA) 1990 and the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR) by hacking computers, is instructive on this point.5
Until we brought our claim, GCHQ had never publicly acknowledged engaging
in equipment interference.6 After we filed our complaint, the Home Office
published a draft Equipment Interference Code of Practice7 in an apparent
attempt to provide the legal specificity necessary to address our assertion any
hacking the intelligence services were conducting was not “in accordance with
law.” Yet the draft Code is not primary legislation.
14. The draft IP Bill places the power to hack on statutory footing for the first
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/human-rightscommittee/legislative-scrutiny-draft-investigatory-powers-bill/written/25654.pdf ).
Foreword, Investigatory Powers Bill.
The Snowden documents indicate that GCHQ had, at least internally, arrived at a similar
conclusion. A September 2010 document prepared by a GCHQ representative reports a “concern”
that a certain hacking technique “may be illegal” because
The Computer Misuse Act 1990 provides legislative protection against unauthorised access
to and modification of computer material. The act makes specific provisions for law
enforcement agencies to access computer material under powers of inspection, search or
seizure. However, the act makes no such provision for modification of computer material.
Privacy International et al. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Skeleton
Argument Served on behalf of the Claimants, para. 23, 7 Oct. 2015 [hereinafter “Skeleton
Argument”].
6 See Anderson Report, paras. 7.64-5, 14.13.
7 The draft Equipment Interference Code of Practice is available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/interception-of-communications-and-equipmentinterference-codes-of-practice
time.8 In such circumstances, we submit that this power cannot be
characterised as “existing”.
15. New Powers - Below, we detail how the operational case for the following new
powers has not been made: bulk warrants; communications data, with respect
to (a) ICRs and (b) data retention; and equipment interference.
16. Bulk Warrants - Efficacy: The primary operational justification for bulk
warrants is to improve knowledge of threats to national security through the
detection of patterns and links in communications data.9 The Government has
represented that it needs “to sift through 'haystack' sources – without looking at
the vast majority of material that has been collected – in order to identify and
combine the 'needles', which allow them to build an intelligence picture.”10
17. This operational argument is subject to critical fallacies that we encourage the
Committee to seriously consider. The success of data mining relies on a set of
particular factors, including “a well-defined profile”, “a reasonable number of
events per year”, and a low “cost of false alarms”.11 For this reason, credit card
fraud detection, for example, has become a relatively effective form of data
mining: fraudulent purchases are easy to identify, credit card transactions
number in the billions and the cost of a false alarm is a phone call to the
18. By contrast, terrorist plots are rare and each has unique facets, meaning “false
positives completely overwhelm the system.”12 And the cost of a false alarm is
high, leading to time and money wasted following false leads when our
intelligence agencies could be doing more productive work. We see this in the
See Anderson Report, para 12.8 (noting that “the use of [equipment interference], only recently
acknowledged by the Government through the publication of the Draft Equipment Interference
Code” was one of several “intrusive practices” that “do not find clear and explicit basis in
legislation”). The pre-existing legislation that the Home Office cites as authorizing hacking – the
Intelligence Service Act 1994 and the Police Act 1997 – both do not mention equipment interference.
Instead, they provide broad powers under which, as Anderson declares, it is not at all clear hacking
9 See the Home Office Factsheets on “Bulk Interception”, “Bulk Communications Data”, “Bulk
Equipment Interference”, and “Bulk Personal Databases”, all available at
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-investigatory-powers-bill-overarching-documents.
See also ISC Report, para. 90 (“GCHQ's bulk interception capability is used primarily to find
patterns in, or characteristics of, online communications which indicate involvement in threats to
national security.”).
10 See ISC Report, para. 51 (quoting written evidence submitted by the Government); see also
Anderson Report, para. 10.22(a).
12 Id. at page 137 (citing, inter alia, John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart, Terror, Security, and Money:
Balancing the Risks, Benefit, and Costs of Homeland Security, Oxford University Press (2011), chap.
2; G. Stuart Mendenhall & Mark Schmidhofer, “Screening Tests for Terrorism”, Regulation, Winter
2012-13, http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2013/1/v35n4-4.pdf; Fred H.
Cate, “Government data mining: The need for a legal framework”, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil
Liberties Law Review 43, Summer 2008,
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/crcl/vol43_2/435-490_Cate.pdf; Jeff Jonas & Jim Harper,
“Effective counterterrorism and the limited role of predictive data mining”, Cato Institute, 11 Dec.
2006, http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/effective-counterterrorism-limited-rolepredictive-data-mining); see also ISC Report, para. 56 (“Amongst the everyday internet usage of
billions of people . . . a very small proportion will relate to threats to the national security of the UK
and our allies.”).
7. Pouring more resources into these programs results in less security for us all.theguardian. but describes this effort as only “go[ing] a little way towards remedying th[e] defect” of lack of public transparency. “The Brothers Tsarnaev: Clues to the Motives of the Alleged Boston Bombers”. 7. even in redacted form. para.27. http://world. “Military intelligence redefined: Big Data in the battlefield”. 17 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks. Jan.pdf.shtml. Guardian. 2008.org/international-security/do-nsas-bulk-surveillance-programsstop-terrorists/. Data and Goliath. 14 PACE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. Chris Young.26. effective as a tool in the fight against terrorism and organised crime.18 21. Anderson Report. So end collection”. . ISC Report. 2013.forbes. https://www.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL31798. available at http://website-pace. is the prime concern. .time. at para.gpo. page 104. 18 RUSI Report. Time. 19 Apr. Simon Shuster. Mass surveillance is the wrong tool for ferreting out criminals and terrorists. Liberty and Security in a Changing World. Both the Anderson and ISC Reports cite case studies provided by GCHQ.20 Anderson himself 13 Peter Bergen.pdf.17 The RUSI report indicates that “lack of detailed intelligence available on a small number of highpriority targets . 20 Anderson Report. 2013. ISC Report.13 A recent Council of Europe report came to the same conclusion this year.16 We are awash with examples of how terrorist plots have been or could have been detected using time-honoured investigative techniques.19 These case studies cannot be published.American context: reviews of the NSA's mass surveillance programs have concluded that they were “not essential to preventing attacks” or had “no discernible impact”.com/2013/04/19/the-brothers-tsarnaevs-motives/. 2013.53. 3 Apr. 2014. As security expert Bruce Schneier puts it: When you're looking for the needle. finding that “mass surveillance is not . page 138 (citing Mike Masnick. 8 Oct. para. rather than broader intelligence available on a large number of low-priority targets.15 20. in comparison with traditional targeted surveillance.newamerica. Congressional Research Service.com/sites/techonomy/2012/03/12/military-intelligence-redefined-big-data-in-thebattlefield/). see also Yochai Benkler. para. Mass Surveillance (Jan. and lots of evidence that it does not. More specifically. Tech Dirt. there is no scientific rationale for believing that adding irrelevant data about innocent people makes it easier to find a terrorist attack. Seifert. 126. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Activities upon the United States.net/documents/19838/1085720/20150126-MassSurveillance-EN. para. “Do NSA's Bulk Surveillance Programs Stop Terrorists?”.com/articles/20131014/17303424880/latest-revelations-show-howcollecting-all-haystacks-to-find-data-makes-nsas-job-harder. which makes it difficult for the public to independently evaluate the efficacy argument. para. the last thing you want to do is pile lots more hay on it. 16 See Jeffrey W. Forbes. . 19 Anderson Report. Dec. but you're also adding much more noise.”14 19. New America Foundation.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT. 2015). http://www. 81.techdirt. http://www. 15 Schneier. https://www. “Data Mining and Homeland Security: An Overview”. 3. 5 . 81. 2013. 7. Anderson annexed six outline examples of these case studies to his report. https://www. “Latest Revelations Show How Collecting All the Haystacks to Find the Needle Makes the NSA's Job Harder”. which supposedly demonstrate the efficacy of bulk capabilities. 12 Mar. .pdf. https://fas. 15 Oct. “Fact: The NSA Gets Negligible Intel from Americans' metadata. para. The President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies. You might be adding slightly more signal.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/08/nsa-bulk-metadata-surveillance-intelligence.26. 2012.
at para. para. which describes ICRs in language that is similar to Anderson’s description of web logs.g. Explanatory Notes.8. Anderson concluded that “[u]nder this definition. 28 Id.21 The Government has thus far failed to provide more. or the prevention of disorder”. The precise definition of an ICR remains unclear but appears to include the “web logs” addressed by Anderson. paras. He noted it had not been demonstrated that “access to weblogs is essential for a wide range of investigations” and that even within the law enforcement community.google. para. 27 Id. . “a record of the fact that a smartphone had accessed a particular social media website at a particular time.”28 From a comparative perspective.27.53. Anderson noted that “web log” was also an uncertain term but quoted the Home Office's definition: “Weblogs are a record of the interaction that a user of the internet has with other computers connected to the internet.”27 25.60. 6 . that the compulsory retention of web logs would be potentially intrusive.notes that “[t]here are limits to what the public will (or should) take on trust” and that “the justification to a public audience of such a potentially intrusive power deserves and arguably needs more”.54.25 In his report. 10. 190. 22. 9.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473745/FactsheetInternet_Connection_Records. including by considering the actual value of information produced by mass surveillance and how much of this information could have been obtained by less intrusive means.21. that paragraph 190 is an accurate description of everything that could be captured under the IP Bill’s definition of ICRs. 24 Id. 9. 25 See Investigatory Powers Bill.”24 23. 26 Anderson Report.com or www.pdf. This record will contain times of contacts and the addresses of the other computers or services with which contact occurred.”26 24. however. para. but not a detailed record of all web pages that a user has accessed. www.bbc. as an example of an ICR. The equivalence between ICR and “web log” is important because Anderson expressed deep hesitation about introducing an obligation for CSPs to retain such data. 9. followed by national security and emergency prevention of death or injury. 7.”23 It provides. It is not clear. Internet Connection Records (ICRs) – Efficacy: The “great majority of communications data use is for the prevention or detection of crime. .gov. “it is widely accepted . “Factsheet: Internet Connection Records”.22 The Government represents that ICRs “are records of the internet services that have been accessed by a device” and the power to collect them is necessary “to attribute a particular action on the internet to an individual person. 9. at para. 22 Anderson Report. 23 Home Office. a web log would reveal that a user has visited e. but not the specific page. This will include websites visited up to the first '/' of its [url]. Anderson observed that no other European or Commonwealth 21 Anderson Report.co.uk. We therefore encourage the Committee to closely scrutinise arguments that these tactics are operationally necessary. https://www.
5. 33 Home Office. Data Retention. the extent to which those purposes can in practice be achieved under existing powers (e.country appears to compel their CSPs to retain such data and that Canadian and American law enforcement represented “that there would be constitutional difficulties in such a proposal. 30 Id. 14. at para. the inspection of a seized device). legal advisers and CSPs” with robust consultations with “[o]utside technical experts. 28. . inter alia: 1.gov. 14. the precise definition of the purposes for which such records should be accessible.33 We accordingly encourage the Committee to press the Home Office on these points. particularly one which could be portrayed as potentially very intrusive on their customers' activities. Privacy International notes that while the Home Office has produced a standalone document purporting to lay out the operational case for ICRs.”30 26.32 27. that is not enough on its own to justify the introduction of a new obligation on CSPs. at para.Efficacy: The primary operational justification for compulsory data retention comes from law enforcement agencies. 9. 9. and the relative importance of those purposes. 14. 34 See Anderson Report. the steps that would be needed to ensure the security of the data in the hands of the CSPs. including.55. the cost and feasibility of implementing the proposals. The serious security risks posed by the data retention requirements in the draft IP 29 Id. NGOs and the public”. Anderson emphasised that any proposal progressing this issue would “need to be carefully thought through and road-tested with law enforcement. i. we simply submit that there are alternatives that may be just as effective but do not pose the same privacy intrusions or security risks as bulk retention. 7 . 4. the implications for privacy.45.”29 He concluded that while “retained records of user interaction with the internet (whether or not via web logs) would be useful . para. 3.34 Privacy International does not dispute that older data can be important to criminal investigations.33. it fails to address many of the questions outlined above. the precise records that would need to be retained for the above purposes.e. “Operational Case for the Retention of Internet Connection Records”. and how those records should be defined. at para.31 He suggested a detailed list of issues that should be addressed. 31 Id. by less intrusive measures than that proposed or by data preservation. 2.33. an instruction to CSPs to retain the web logs or equivalent of a given user who was already of interest to law enforcement. or 6. 32 Id. who insist they need this power to preserve evidence of historic criminality.pdf. at para.g.35.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473769/Internet_Con nection_Records_Evidence_Base. https://www. .
17. paras. The ISC Report is limited to describing the scope of current hacking operations. Anderson Report.39 For example. 29 n. Id. 90% of large businesses and 74% of small businesses had detected at least one breach in the previous twelve months. https://www.uk/government/publications/draft-investigatory-powers-bill-overarching-documents. Equipment Interference . https://www.wired. Finally. para. Anderson records an equally vague statement from law enforcement agencies regarding their need for this power.gov. See Andy Greenberg. The operational case for why the security and intelligence agencies require the power to hack is similarly weak. up from four in 2012. focusing on issues such as relative efficacy. “Rising use of encryption foiled cops a record 9 times in 2013. See ISC Report.. cost and intrusion on privacy. Innovation and Skills. Home Office. Id. the US government has reported that in 2013. the Government has failed to make any operational case for the power to hack.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/432412/bis-15-302information_security_breaches_survey_2015-full-report. “2015 Information Security Breaches Survey”.41 31. Department of Business. By compelling retention.pdf.40 As a point of comparison.” Wired.75. The Government's factsheet on “Targeted Equipment Interference” is limited to sweeping statements – e. 9.gov. Home Office. we remind the Committee that CSPs tend to keep customer data for their own business purposes so foregoing mandatory bulk retention will not mean that it will all disappear. para. See Anderson Report. Innovation and Skills. for example through increased use of CNE.35 Precisely because of the revealing nature of such data. The Home Office's answers should be concrete.38 29. 30.g. while the Government argues that hacking could assist in obtaining “a key piece of information encrypted in transmission”. 173-78. We urge the Committee to press the Home Office on alternatives such as Data Preservation Orders for specific individuals based on an investigation or proceeding.com/2014/07/rising-use-of-encryption-foiled-the-cops-a-record-9-times-in2013/.37 In a study commissioned by the Department of Business. we have witnessed the ramifications of several such attacks on businesses such as TalkTalk.”36 In the past year. paras. the Government “unnecessarily endangers the security of communications service providers who could be subject to increased attacks. at para.21. “helps law enforcement agencies to protect the most vulnerable members of society” – but makes no concrete arguments as to why such an intrusive surveillance technique is needed. 29. 26-30.Bill are particularly acute. The Government's factsheet points to the two 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Science & Tech Committee Submission. the database(s) where this retained data is stored are also likely to be targeted by cyber criminals and foreign intelligence services. at para. “Factsheet: Targeted Equipment Interference”. http://www. Vodafone and British Gas.Efficacy: With respect to law enforcement.”42 But there is no further elaboration on how necessary CNE is to the acquisition of operationally important data. encryption stymied the police just nine times. 2 July 2014. The only operational statement described by Anderson in terms of this capability is that the agencies “need to develop new methods of accessing data. “Factsheet: Targeted Equipment Interference”. 8 . it has provided no evidence as to the number of times encryption has actually impeded a criminal investigation. 10.
para. The Home Office's Factsheet on “Bulk Equipment Interference” is even less helpful. we describe how the case has not been made for one such expansion: the use of “thematic warrants” under targeted interception as reflected in the expansion of the subject matter of warrants in IP Bill clause 13. 32.42. “Factsheet: Targeted Equipment Interference”.46 36. in practice. 43. it is unclear the extent to which EI was critical to the “high priority investigations” in which it played a role and again. for example.45 We address the legal concerns surrounding thematic warrants in more detail in paragraphs 67 to 77 below. Privacy International submits that the efficacy and legality concerns outlined above remain relevant and are reason enough to seriously question the inclusion of such powers in the draft IP Bill. 46 Anderson Report. the draft IP Bill proposes expanding some of them. Below. para. para. MI5 has relied on EI in the overwhelming majority of high priority investigations over the past 12 months. 42. Given the very recent avowal of thematic warrants and the shaky interpretation of RIPA upon which they rest. Aside from reiterating the first statistic. the bulk equipment interference powers compound the security concerns presented by targeted hacking by giving “almost unfettered powers to the intelligence services to decide who and when to hack. the extent to which MI5 might rely on other techniques that expose the public to less of a security risk.62 (noting that there is “no very clear backing for [thematic warrants] on the face of RIPA s8(1)).44 MI5 has been. 34. para. 45 Id. These two assertions fail to demonstrate that the potential intelligence benefits of hacking outweigh the critical security risks posed by this practice. The ISC indicates that “the very significant majority of 8(1) warrants relate to one individual” while “in some limited circumstances an 8(1) warrant may be 43 Home Office. The ISC Report revealed for the first time that the Home Secretary has been interpreting “person” in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) section 8(1)(a) as “any organisation or any association or combination of persons”. we submit that thematic warrants should be considered an expansion of the targeted interception authorised under RIPA. As we explained in our prior submission to the Science & Technology Committee. 44 ISC Report. Efficacy: The operational case for such an expansion is not clear. elaborate on the quality of “information that derived from EI operations” and whether that information could have been obtained by any other means. During 2013 around 20% of GCHQ's intelligence reports contained information that derived from EI operations. obtaining “thematic warrants” in reliance on this definition.Even if the Government were to insist that the powers we characterise as “new” are “existing”. 6. Anderson Report. 2. Similarly.following facts as support for the power to hack:43 1. 18. 33. 35. We also submit that with respect to existing powers.” Science & Tech Committee Submission. The Government does not. 14. Existing Powers . at para. 9 . it provides no additional substantive arguments in support of the hacking power.
”48 This explanation suggests a thematic warrant is a matter of convenience – resulting in certain efficiency gains – rather than of operational necessity. Remove Clause 13(2). which permits the Government to apply for “thematic warrants” under the targeted interception power. 2. 43.16(a) (describing the ISC as viewing thematic warrants “warily”). Carefully assess whether the operational case for including equipment interference in the draft IP Bill outweighs the security concerns raised by government use of equipment interference. the law must include the nature of the offences which may give rise to an order to interfere with someone's privacy. at para. at ISC. Remove the obligation to retain communications data in the draft IP Bill.”47 MI5 explained to the ISC that it applies for a thematic warrant “where we need to use the same capability on multiple occasions against a defined group or network on the basis of a consistent necessity and proportionality case . . 45. para. Remove bulk powers from the draft IP Bill. page 24. different authorisation levels. 43 (quoting written evidence submitted by MI5). 9. 48 Id. para. in its conclusion. 3. . reservations about “the extent that this capability is used and the associated safeguards.thematic. This reading is borne out by law enforcement's representation to Anderson that thematic warrants would help to deal with the proliferation of documents required by the current warrant regime. para. a definition of the categories of people liable to have their communications (including communications data) monitored. D.”51 37. replacing it with the ability to issue targeted preservation orders based on individualized suspicion. Remove ICRs as a category of communications data that can be collected or ordered retained from the draft IP Bill. from the draft IP Bill. rather than [applying for] individual warrants against each member of the group. 10 . 50 ISC Report. In particular. in itself.49 It is worth underlining that the Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office represented to the ISC that. The fact that the IP Bill seeks to put on a statutory footing the surveillance powers exercised by the intelligence services and law enforcement does not. fulfil the requirements of legality under international human rights law. not much flexibility of timescale”). thematic warrants have been abused. Article 8 of the ECHR requires certain minimum safeguards in the legal framework regulating surveillance activities to protect against arbitrary interference with privacy and abuse. para. 5. in some instances. 39. Recommendations 1. 51 Id. Are the powers sought legal? Are the powers compatible with the Human Rights Act and the ECHR? 38.33 (quoting the law enforcement agencies' complaint of “so many pieces of paper on the same target: different routes. a limit on the 47 ISC Report. 4. 49 Anderson Report. 7. para. see also Anderson Report.50 The ISC itself expressed.
4 December 2015. 125(4) and 140(5)). The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR nonetheless held that the retention was a "disproportionate interference" with those individuals’ private lives (§135).52 40. As noted by the ISC in relation to the RIPA regime: “[T]he categories are expressed in very general terms. 54 Judgment in Case C-362/14. and the circumstances in which the data obtained must be erased or destroyed. In this respect. For instance. 53 See S and Marper v United Kingdom.parliament.53 41. [GC] No. [GC].55 We expand upon that submission here. Privacy International believes the bulk warrants in the draft IP Bill are unlawful (Parts 6 and 7 of the IP Bill). submitted 7 December 2015.) Similarly these warrants do not have to define the categories of persons who are liable to have their communications monitored. For example: ‘Material providing intelligence on terrorism (as 52 See Zakharov v Russian Federation.svc/evidencedocument/human-rightscommittee/legislative-scrutiny-draft-investigatory-powers-bill/written/25654.duration of such monitoring. the precautions to be taken when sharing the data with other parties.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence. thereby potentially being as broad as “countering terrorism” (see in particular Clauses 111(4). 47142/06. which this bill aims to reform. in S and Marper v United Kingdom.Bulk warrants do not require any suspicion whatsoever on the part of the authorities that a person has committed a criminal offence or is a threat to the interests of national security (or other relevant grounds. the procedure to be followed for examining. We have expressed certain of our concerns regarding legality in our joint submission with Open Rights Group to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. 55 See Privacy International and Open Rights Group’s Submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill. 44. Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner. Similar concerns apply to the proposed regime for retention of communications data (Part 4 of the IP Bill). Given this.”54 42. the IP Bill does not address the concerns raised by the current “bulk” warrant regime under RIPA. Bulk Warrants 43. 6 October 2015. 30562/04.pdf 11 . Furthermore. in October 2015. No. and the IP Bill expressly notes that these can be “general purposes”. That the data sought may be of value is not sufficient to make its collection or retention lawful. Instead bulk warrants need only state the operational purposes for which data is to be obtained. confirming earlier jurisprudence of the Court. the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that “legislation permitting the public authorities to have access on a generalised basis to the content of electronic communications must be regarded as compromising the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life. Targeting . the UK government submitted that the retention of DNA samples from people who had not been charged or convicted of a criminal offence was of “inestimable value” and produced “enormous” benefits in the fight against crime and terrorism (§92). using and storing the data obtained. Central to the reasoning was the absence of any assessment of suspicion by the authorities that was sufficient to justify the retention of each individual's DNA data. 4 December 2008. available at http://data.
“Bulk” warrants can be renewed an indefinite number of times (see Clauses 113.”58 47. report: Privacy and Security: A modern and transparent legal framework. including whether it is proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. there is no restriction on the possibility that a person’s communications may be routinely intercepted. 47142/06. sharing or retaining data as necessary for the ground for which the specific warrant was originally issued. whether there are factual indications for suspecting that person of planning. active sympathisers. sharing. Notably. such as. terrorist organisations. Safeguards . 12 March 2015 para 101. 58 Zakharov v Russian Federation. as recently reiterated by the European Court of Human Rights in Zakharov.” 57 Nor it will allow them to “ascertain whether the requested interception meets the requirement of 'necessity in a democratic society'. in particular. Similarly provisions regulating the destruction of material or data obtained through “bulk” warrants would allow the retention of such data indefinitely. but for any grounds under which the “bulk” warrants can be issued. 47142/06. as provided by Article 8 § 2 of the [ECHR]. these provisions do not limit copying. retaining and deleting material or data obtained through “bulk” warrants are too broad and vague to provide sufficient guidance and prevent abuse. and 146. [GC]. “Is the authorisation process appropriate?”. 161) and as there is no requirement to target a particular individual or premises. again and again. 4 December 2015. 50. by verifying. Renewal . attack planning. 56 Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. 57 Zakharov v Russian Federation. It leaves authorities an almost unlimited degree of discretion in determining which events are relevant to national security and does not require any assessment of the level of threat to justify secret surveillance. No. 59 See“general safeguards” under Clauses 117. nowhere in the IP Bill is there a definition of “national security” or “economic well-being” of the United Kingdom (grounds under which bulk warrants can be issued). 142.defined by the Terrorism Act 2000 (as amended)). [GC]. terrorists. for example whether it is possible to achieve the aims by less restrictive means. 131. including. 12 . paragraph 261. for example. nor any indication of the circumstances under which communications can be surveilled on the basis of such grounds. but not limited to. fundraising. for an indefinite period under successive “bulk” warrants. paragraph 260.59 49.’”56 45. the disclosure and copying of information obtained under a “bulk” warrant is broadly permitted so long as the information is or is likely to become necessary in the interests of national security or other relevant grounds. committing or having committed criminal acts or other acts that may give rise to secret surveillance measures. “the existence of a reasonable suspicion against the person concerned. 4 December 2015. As we discuss in our response to the question. Further. acts endangering national security. In particular it leaves the authorities (including the Judicial Commissioners) unable to verify. the broad scope of the “bulk” warrants means the authorisation process falls short of what is required under international human rights law.The procedure to be followed for examining. 127. In particular. There are no details on the safeguards required for the storage of data collected. 48. 46. No.
UN doc. namely receiving and sharing acquired data in ways that are unregulated and may have the effect of circumventing applicable safeguards (notably under the Five Eyes arrangements). the intercepted materials can be examined without limitation. the distinction between internal and external communications is arbitrary and rendered meaningless in the context of the technical architecture of modern digital communications. 52. which can be very general (Clause 119). distinguish between obligations owed to nationals and non-nationals and residents and non-residents. 62 See Clauses 118(2). 23 September 2014. providing external communications with lower or non-existent protection.60 Further. See report of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age. A/69/397. and report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. 51. UN doc. For materials not related to individuals in the UK.with relevant Clauses of the IP Bill simply stating that such storage is done in “a secure manner”. Transferring data overseas . only requiring the Secretary of State or another relevant authority to apply the already vague standards applicable to domestic sharing “to the extent (if any) as the Secretary of State consider appropriate”. 13 . 30 June 2014. A/HRC/27/37. A Question of Trust. in ways that are discriminatory and incompatible with Article 26 of the ICCPR. 61 David Anderson QC. resulting 60 The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights have noted how several legal regimes on interception of personal communications. Instead. any restrictions on the sharing of the collected data with foreign authorities are entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State. in so far as it is necessary for the purpose specified in the bulk warrant. The “safeguards” for examination of intercepted materials under “bulk” interception warrants confirm the discriminatory distinction already contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) between materials referable to an individual in the British Islands or not. this would leave a significant loophole in the new regime regulating the use and oversight of investigatory powers.62 As such. If confirmed. This distinction between external and internal communications is discriminatory on grounds of nationality and national origin. A similar provision applies for bulk equipment interference warrants (Clause 147). 146(9).The “safeguards” that apply to transferring data to parties overseas are even weaker than those applicable for “domestic” sharing and leave wide discretion. like the UK. there is no requirement of a targeted examination warrant. Privacy International is also concerned that the IP Bill fails to specify the circumstances in which such overseas transfer can be authorised. with messages such as e-mails routed through different countries even if both the sender and the intended recipient are resident in the UK. 54.61 53. limits and authorisations required for sharing data obtained through surveillance. 131(9). Except for the provisions regulating Mutual Assistance Warrants (that apply only to interception of communications) there is no mention in the IP Bill of the grounds. as noted by David Anderson in his report A Question of Trust. June 2015. In this respect the IP Bill fails to resolve one of the most controversial and concerning practices of UK intelligence agencies.
52. 66 Id. 63 See in this respect David Anderson's report. such as the Data Protection Directive 1995/46 and the Directive on privacy and electronic communications 2002/58/EC. the draft IP Bill's data retention requirements are likely to be subject to legal challenge based on recent judgments. paras.html.66 We further point the Committee to Open Rights Group's submission to the Science and Technology Committee. Recommendations 1. at paras. we highlight that.committee/investigatory-powers-bill-technology-issues/written/25147.in significant risks of abuse. 14 .parliament. and numerous UN human rights experts have recognised that the interception. to obtain communications data without prior judicial authorisation. 65 Id. http://data. the legal environment: Digital Rights Ireland may not be conducive to the imposition of such an extensive obligation”). ECtHR.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence. at paras. 70 Id. 68 Anderson Report.64 We noted that the CJEU.56. . 34. 72 Id. 35.67 Finally. In our submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.70 We emphasised that the draft IP Bill's provisions go much further than the invalidated EU Directive in several respects. 29. 69 Joint Committee on Human Rights Submission. .72 In short.svc/evidencedocument/science-andtechnology. 40-41. 9. in particular recommendations 76 to 78.63 Data Retention 55. which struck down the 2006 Data Retention Directive. paras. including those on ICRs. with few exceptions. at para. 23-31. with respect to ICRs. 9. Anderson observed that their legality remains in serious question. para. at para.71 Finally.69 We also noted that the regime appears to run afoul of the CJEU's ruling in Digital Rights Ireland. we described how these provisions are in breach of Article 8 of the ECHR as they exceed what could reasonably be regarded as “necessary in a democratic society”. at para. we explained the extensive legal concerns raised by the communications data provisions in the draft IP Bill. collection and use of communications data interferes with the right to privacy. We also highlighted that the lack of judicial authorisation required for data retention notices seems to flout language in Digital Rights Ireland describing the necessary review prior to government access to retained data. 57. In our submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. 64 Joint Committee on Human Rights Submission. 71 Id. which explains why the operational case made by the Government falls short of demonstrating the necessity and proportionality of the communications data provisions.65 We also criticised provisions of the draft IP Bill that permit public authorities. Delete Parts 6 & 7 of the IP Bill related to “bulk warrants” and amend other Clauses accordingly.68 56. A question of trust. we highlighted that the draft IP Bill's communications data retention regime violates existing EU provisions protecting the right to privacy. 53-54.60 (“[I]t is widely accepted within the law enforcement community that . 67 Written evidence submitted by Open Rights Group (IPB0034).
63. As noted above. should take into account “whether the information which it is considered necessary to obtain under the warrant could reasonably be obtained by other means.74 62. 4 December 2015. if so how. Even those supposedly “targeted” warrants (such as “targeted interception warrants” in Part 2 and “equipment interference warrants” in Part 5 of the IP Bill) would permit the intelligence services or law enforcement to conduct surveillance without needing to specify in the warrant the person or equipment that is to be the subject of the surveillance. Ask the Home Office to clarify whether the IP Bill seeks to regulate intelligence sharing. 15 .2.6. a particular activity” (Clause 13). the requirements of some of the warrants are so vaguely formulated that they will make it next to impossible to assess the necessity and proportionality of the envisaged measure. [GC]. Questions 1. such “thematic” warrants could be broadly framed as targeting “a group of persons who share a common purpose or who carry on. the warrant regime proposes a weak necessity test. such that the techniques used is the least invasive option. the least invasive measure should be applied. it makes it almost 73 See Clauses 14. Remove the obligation to retain communications data in the draft IP Bill. and 137. 60. why not? Is the requirement that they be exercised only when necessary and proportionate fully addressed? 59. Secondly. No. a particular activity” (Clause 83). The IP Bill specifies that the relevant authority. when assessing the necessity and proportionality of a proposed measure that will interfere with the right to privacy.1/Add. This test falls short of requiring consideration of whether other less invasive techniques have been exhausted or would be futile. The fact that warrants and authorisations under the IP Bill can only be issued upon consideration that the measures are necessary and proportionate is not sufficient to ensure that such measures are indeed necessary to the pursuance of a legitimate aim. Firstly. 122. 60. This leaves almost unfettered discretion to the implementing authorities to decide who to put under surveillance and when. 74 See Zakharov v Russian Federation. As discussed in more detail below. or “equipment belonging to. 107. It is a well-established principle under international human rights law that when contemplating a limitation to someone's right. in paragraphs 67 to 77. Notably.5. paragraph 260. used by or in possession of persons who form a group that shares a common purpose or who carry on. or may carry on. 64. para.9 and report of the UN Special Rapporteur on counterterrorism and human rights in A/HRC/13/37. and if not. in CCPR/C/21/Rev. or may be carrying on.4. 58. replacing it with the ability to issue targeted preservation orders based on individualized suspicion.”73 61. 47142/06. the IP Bill allows the purposes of “bulk” warrants to be described in “general terms”.4. Human Rights Committee.
independent. where the conduct authorized or required by the warrant is for the purposes of the same investigation or operation” (Clauses 13(2)(b) and 83(c)&(e)). while the IP Bill advances the conversation by setting out a number of powers in more detail than has previously been provided. “more than one person or organization.impossible for the Judicial Commissioner to assess whether the measures are necessary. 68.gov.” These provisions are broader than they appear on their face. allow interception and equipment interference warrants to relate to. there is an attempt at defining a specific target of the interception. in contrast.uk/newsarchive/12march2015 (hereinafter “ISC Report”). in the absence of any requirement of reasonable suspicion. Describing Parts 2 and 5 as targeted is misleading. Both contain significant expansions of the subject matter of “targeted” warrants. 71. specificity is required. Again.76 Nonetheless. or may carry on.Part 2 and Part 5 purport to permit “targeted” interception and equipment interference. available at http://isc. As a general matter. or more than one set of premises. 70. The claimed predecessor to Part 5 is section 5 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (ISA). as “person” is defined as “any organisation and any association or combination of persons” (RIPA section 81(1)). respectively. This becomes apparent when we compare the new subject matter provisions (Clause 13 for interception and Clause 83 for equipment interference) with their immediate predecessors. among others: 1. people or equipment “who share a common purpose or who carry on. Are [the powers sought] sufficiently clear and accessible on the face of the draft Bill? 65. it falls short of being clear and accessible. targeted interception is permitted under section 8(1) against “one person as the interception subject” or “a single set of premises. 76 This definition came to prominence when it was revealed in the Intelligence & Security Committee’s report as the basis for issuing “thematic warrants.” which are described in paragraphs 42 to 45 of that report.g. however. Clauses 13 and 83.)?” 66. In RIPA. Yet there are several provisions to which technology is not central. 16 . 69. 75 We note these provisions by way of example only. Section 5 permits a warrant to issue against “any property so specified” (ISA section 5(2)). 2. in contrast to the “bulk” provisions of Part 6. but that nevertheless remain opaque. which we address in more detail below in response to the question “Are the technological definitions accurate and meaningful (e. Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. a particular activity” (Clauses 13(2)(a) and 83(b)). content vs communications data. especially with regard to premises. It is difficult to address the almost two hundred pages of the IP Bill in this submission. “Targeted” Interception and Equipment Interference . Privacy and Security: A modern and transparent legal framework (12 March 2015). ICRs etc.75 67. This is in part due to the collision of law and technology.
uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.gov. Leach (1765) 97 ER 1075. the police and intelligence agencies can choose their targets without additional sign off. at pages 18-19. stating: “It is not fit.pdf 17 . such warrants are the equivalent of the long prohibited general warrants. is that the submission and the warrant must be set out in a way which allows the Secretary of State to make the decision on necessity and proportionality” (emphasis in original). Instead. Under a thematic warrant. The magistrate ought to judge. at para. especially when they become too broad. 212. given that thematic warrants delegate the choice as to whose privacy will be interfered with to the police or intelligence agents. available at http://data. maintenance or development” of capabilities relating to interception or equipment interference (Clauses 13(2)(c) and 83 (g)).parliament. the “testing. and as such should not be allowed. para. at page 18. Lord Mansfield attacked the discretion that a general warrant devolved to those executing it.pdf. increasing the risk of arbitrary action and undermining the implementation of effective judicial authorisation. thematic warrants make this very difficult.81 75.80 As discussed above. that the receiving or judging of the information should be left to the discretion of the officer. Both the Interception of Communications Commissioner78 and the Intelligence Services Commissioner79 have expressed concerns about the use of such thematic warrants. In Money v. the Secretary of State and a Judicial Commissioner will not approve each individual target of the surveillance. See Privacy International and Open Rights Group’s Submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill. 80 Ibid. 79 The Rt Hon Sir Mark Waller. or may be used. “the critical thing . As the Intelligence Services Commissioner points out. Report of the Intelligence Services Commissioner for 2014 (25 June 2015). 78 ISC Report. or 4. A series of eighteenth century cases established the unconstitutionality of “general warrants”.3.” A resulting bedrock principle of the warrant system is the need to identify a specific individual or property. For instance. .77 73. 81 As Privacy International argued in our submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. available at https://www. Explanatory Notes. The draft IP Bill overturns that 77 Investigatory Powers Bill. for the purposes of a particular activity or activities of a particular description” (Clause 83(f)).uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/437995/50100_HC_22 5_Intel_Services_Commissioner_accessible. submitted 7 December 2015. a thematic warrant might authorise the hacking of “all mobile phones in Birmingham” (Clause 83(e)) or the interception of the communications of “anyone suspected of having travelled to Turkey” (Clause 13(2)(a)). 74. “equipment that is being. . para. 46. 45. Such concern is understandable.svc/evidencedocument/human-rightscommittee/legislative-scrutiny-draft-investigatory-powers-bill/written/25654. 72. These subject matter expansions are apparently intended to encompass “thematic” warrants. especially where the subject matter may be drawn as broadly as Clauses 13 and 83 would permit. which permitted the Government to search and seize or arrest on the basis of classes of individuals. Thematic warrants also cut against deeply entrenched principles of the common law.
No. allow security researchers or others who are not a threat to national security or suspected of a serious crime to be the subject of interception or equipment interference? 2. To be clear. expressed in a line of prior cases.” It reiterated the principle. Questions 1. that the interception authorisation “must clearly identify a specific person to be placed under surveillance or a single set of premises. 259-267. In Zakharov v Russia. Would clauses 13(2)(c) and 83 (g).”82 77. Clause 188: National Security Notices . Recommendations 1. While clause 188 is somewhat more narrowly drawn than section 94. Delete subsection 13(2) 2. 81. 83(e). irregularly or without due and proper consideration. 4 December 2015. Delete subsections 83(b). Thematic warrants also appear to violate the ECHR. 78. how will they be regulated to address the concerns raised by the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the Intelligence Services Commissioner? 80. 83(f).The extent of the powers contained with clause 188 on National Security Notices is far from clear. These are bulk powers being used against people within the UK. which permit warrants relating to the “testing. How broadly is “operation” defined? Might “preventing terrorism” be an operation? Might “stopping ISIS” be an operation? 3. 76. Some of those powers have purportedly now been made explicit in Part 6. 18 . Clause 13 1.principle. If thematic warrants are to be permitted. paras. communications or equipment within the United Kingdom may be intercepted or interfered with under a thematic warrant. Clause 83 1. Our understanding is that it replaces the powers previously enshrined in the overly broad section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. and 83(g) 79. Clause 188 presumably preserves the rest of them. 83(c). Chapter 2 on bulk acquisition. Subsection 83(a) – delete “organisation” and replace with “persons” 2. Subsection 13(1)(a) – delete “organisation” and replace with “persons” 2. the Grand Chamber discussed a number of factors it considers in determining whether “authorisation procedures are capable of ensuring that secret surveillance is not ordered haphazardly. [GC]. maintenance or development” of capabilities for interception or equipment interference. 47142/06. it still allows the Secretary of State to require a telecommunications operator to take “such specified steps” as she considers “necessary in the interests of national 82 Zakharov v Russian Federation.
clause 188(4) states that the “main purpose” of a national security notice cannot be to “do something for which a warrant or authorisation is required under” the IP Bill. then any reference to a “judicial review” standard should be removed from the judicial authorisation provisions of the draft IP Bill. 19 .A major topic of the oral evidence presented to the Committee has been the parameters of the “judicial review” standard. then the language of clause 188(4) should be amended to say as much. what would prevent a major expansion of surveillance powers under clause 188. Chapter 2) raises serious questions as to what new form of surveillance. Amend to read: “But a national security notice may not require the taking of any steps to do something for which a warrant or authorisation is required under this Act. Clause 188(4) 1. This substantial debate demonstrates its meaning is far from clear. 83 Explanatory Notes. that would again completely undermine effective judicial authorisation. Judicial review . 82. 83.security. 429. might be permitted under clause 188. Recommendations 1. if the intent is that the Judicial Commissioners shall have the power to fully and completely assess whether a warrant is necessary and proportionate.” The fact that this old language purportedly permitted the bulk acquisition of communications data from service providers (now in Part 6. among many other safeguards. para. in the interests of national security. . The Explanatory Notes clarify that “[i]n any circumstance where a notice would involve the acquisition of communications or data a warrant or authorization from the relevant part of this Act would always be required in parallel. . that we have not yet considered.” 85. Does that mean a national security notice could replace a warrant or authorisation if that’s the notice’s subsidiary purpose? If so. If the Explanatory Note is correct. For that reason. In any circumstance where a notice would involve the acquisition of communications or data a warrant or authorisation from the relevant part of this Act would always be required in parallel. in contrast. Given that the language of clause 188 (National Security Notices) remains similar to section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. Questions 1. akin to the use of section 94 to acquire bulk communications data? 86.”83 This is a stronger statement than the language in clause 188(4).” Section 94. allowed the Secretary of State to make “directions of a general character . Delete: “the main purpose of which is” 2. 84. Further.
Clause 155 1. for instance. Subsection 109(1): delete “review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to the following matters” and replace with “determine” 2. which may necessitate other edits to the clauses referenced here. Delete subsection 155(2) 88. Subsection 138(1): delete “review the Secretary of State’s conclusions on the following matters” and replace with “determine” 2. Delete subsection 138(2) 6. Delete subsection 109(2) 4. Subsection 155(1): delete “review the Secretary of State’s conclusions on the following matters” and replace with “determine” 2. 20 . 89. Subsection 90(1): delete “review the person’s conclusions as to the following matters” and replace with “determine” 2. Clause 90 1. Lack of an “examination” warrant for Bulk Personal Datasets (BPD) (Part 7) Another confusing inconsistency in the Bill is the lack of a “targeted examination warrant” for information obtained through the collection of bulk personal datasets (Part 7). Throughout this submission we make other criticisms of the judicial authorisation process and bulk powers. Delete subsection 90(2) 3. Subsection 123(1): delete “review the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to the following matters” and replace with “determine” 2. Subsection 19(1): delete “review the person’s conclusions as to the following matters” and replace with “determine” 2. Clause 109 1. Clause 19 1. An examination warrant is necessary when material intercepted via bulk interception (Clause 119) or obtained under bulk equipment interference (Clause 147) is to be searched using criteria that is “referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands. Delete subsection 123(2) 5.87. Delete subsection 19(2) 2. Clause 138 1. Clause 123 1. Recommendations84 1.” 84 These recommendations are intended to address only the judicial review standard.
they will not be re-assured by this Bill.88 If US service providers might be re-assured by a UK system that includes US-like judicial authorisation.independent. 88 David Anderson. much less their examination. but if such protections are to exist they should at least be consistently applied across the IP Bill. the judicial authorisation regime proposed in the draft IP Bill bears little resemblance to the US system. 11.internetjurisdiction. 21 .90. by their nature many CSPs have an international presence. 91. How those conflicts should be resolved is the subject of significant ongoing discussion. which will also contain content referable to individuals in the British Islands. Are concerns around accessing journalists’. The UK needs to think very carefully before setting this troubling precedent. legally privileged and MPs' communications sufficiently addressed? 95.gov.19. But BPDs. We also have serious concerns about the collection of bulk personal datasets in the first instance.net/.pdf. in his report.85 can be accessed without targeted examination warrants. 86 As we note elsewhere in this submission. for instance. First. can be extremely broad and are elsewhere in the Bill permitted to be “general purposes” (see. and Clauses 154(7) & 154(8)). 93. A Question of Trust: Report of the Investigatory Powers Review (June 2015).86 The only protection provided is that the original warrant authorizing the acquisition of the BPD must also specify the “operational purposes” for which the data can be examined (Clauses 153(4) & 153(5). however. 87 See. Second. Those operational purposes. While the CSPs are best positioned to answer this question. we believe providing protections only to those in the British Islands is discriminatory. Questions 1. the Internet & Jurisdiction Project. However. we note two important considerations. for example. available at https://terrorismlegislationreviewer. 94. at para. As such. to Russia and China. Why isn’t an examination warrant required when Bulk Personal Datasets are searched using criteria that is “referable to an individual known to be in the British Islands”? Is the legal framework such that CSPs (especially those based abroad) will be persuaded to comply? 92. the UK Government is sending a message to the world that any government is justified in reaching outside its borders to impose its will on services used by that government’s citizens. available at http://www. As we explain in more detail below. we also note that the IP Bill contains no protection for 85 The definition of “personal data” within the Data Protection Act 1998 includes information that will likely fall in the definition of “content” as provided in Clause 193(6) of the IP Bill. Clause 140(5)).uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/IPR-Report-Web-Accessible1.87 By including extraterritorial enforcement provisions in the draft IP Bill. In this response Privacy International focuses on protections for journalists and legal privilege. David Anderson noted that certain US service providers might be more likely to comply with requests from the UK if they were authorised by a judge. they potentially can be subject to conflicting legal obligations imposed by multiple states – from the US and the UK.
Clause 61 1. While there is some mention of its development in the Codes of Practice. Second. or knowledge that information is likely to be used for the purposes of journalism work in practice? 2. judicial authorisation need only be sought if communications data is being obtained for the “purpose” of identifying or confirming a source (Clause 61(1)(a)).asp 22 .90 No intent is required in the Council of Europe definition of a source. http://www. in the context of bulk warrants. This should be removed.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/media/doc/cm/rec(2000)007&expmem_EN. 100. a source is narrowly defined in Clause 61(7) as “an individual who provides material intending the recipient to use it for the purposes of journalism or knowing that it is so likely to be used. 98. Clause 61(1) (a) excludes intelligence services. in addition to the lack of protections for journalists and sources in the bulk context.Clause 61 requires that a Judicial Commissioner authorise the acquisition of communications data for the purposes of identifying or confirming a source of journalistic information. may significantly undermine what protections there are in the IP Bill. How would a test as to whether a person had provided material with the intention for it to be used. where a journalistic source is to be identified.” In contrast. Privacy International has some concerns about this provision.49. no authorisation would be needed. such as journalists. paragraph 5. 99. First.coe. the standard is higher than the ordinary necessary and proportionate test. 97. Third. 96. Subsection 1(a) delete “(other than an intelligence service)”. lawyers and others. Finally. A question of Trust. This appears to be a rather broad loophole that. R (2000) 7 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Right of Journalists not to disclosure their sources of information.89 Clause 61 does not meet this stricter standard. 90 Recommendation No.MPs or members of sensitive professions. and so should not be included in the IP Bill. This suggests that if source is identified incidentally. No operational case has been made for this distinction. Questions 1. 102. Recommendation 1. it would be of much greater benefit for the clarity of the protections that these standards be placed into the bill proper and not into secondary legislation. R (2000) 7 from the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers defines a source as “any person who provides information to a journalist”. 101. as protections for journalists should apply to both law enforcement and the security services. Journalists . the Recommendation No. How would the incidental identification of a journalistic source be treated under the IP Bill? 89 See David Anderson report.
While we recognise it is a difficult task. 104.)? 108. etc. as ECHR case law makes clear that the interference with privacy occurs at the time of the interception regardless of whether the data is ever “read” by a person. Are the technological definitions accurate and meaningful (e. Interception (Clause 3) . Why is there no explicit recognition of legal professional privilege in the Bill? Are the powers sought workable and carefully defined? 107. We address ICRs separately in response to the specific questions asked in the “Data Retention” section. Recently. 105. the Government has advanced the argument that an interference with privacy only occurs when data is examined. telecommunications system. which will also assist in the determination of whether the powers are workable.g. Unfortunately.103. hacking. They protections should apply to both content and communications data. content vs communications data. We disagree with this position. Recommendation: 1. 106. The technological definitions in the IP Bill raise a number of concerns. Question 1. content. Legal Privilege . Make explicit recognition of legal professional privilege in the text of the IP Bill. 110. internet connection records etc. including those for: interception. communications data. or obtaining targeted data from providers. or “read”.g.We are concerned that the definition of interception does not accurately reflect the technical reality of how communications can and will be intercepted and processed. operator. no further explanation of those protections are included. While Schedule 6 of the IP Bill notes that Codes of Practice will be issued in respect of protections for communications data relating to a member of a profession which would regularly hold legally privileged or relevant confidential information. the current draft of the Bill contains a significant number of provisions that could benefit from more clarity and careful definition.The IP Bill fails. 109. carefully defining the powers in the IP Bill is essential to preventing arbitrary and unlawful surveillance. to expressly protect legal professional privilege. these protections should be laid down in primary legislation. as RIPA did. Amann v Switzerland [GC] ECHR 2000-II at §69 (“The Court reiterates that the storing by a public authority of information relating to an individual’s private life amounts to an interference 23 . related communications data. A judge must approve any request to interfere with the privilege. by a person as opposed to a machine. and all forms of surveillance including interception. In the interests of clarity. In answering this question we focus on the definitions we think are most problematic.91 91 See e.
and feed the results of the analysis into an automated profile. other times with fast messaging indicating agreement or disagreement). Yet since 2000 the definitions have remained relatively stable.” We question this reliance on making content available to a “person. In the IP Bill the definition of communications data relies on the definitions of “entity data” (data about a person or thing) and “events data” (data about activities). Surveillance can be undertaken entirely by systems. The IP Bill. which can both collect the data and analyse it without the participation of a person. For instance. 116. to a person who is not the sender or intended recipient of the communication. as failing to encompass situations in which a person. At no point in such a scenario would a “person” be involved.” 112. two BT numbers shared a connection for 13 minutes) is vastly different than each ‘event’ within a chat session (e. but not only because of its reliance on the definitions of entities and events. We would like to remind the Committee that during the RIPA parliamentary debates there were extensive and detailed discussions around metadata that led to changes. two subscribers at locations X and Y interacted 97 times over a 13 minute period — sometimes with longer gaps and larger messages. we can imagine a scenario in which a surveillance system could analyse the content of a communication in real-time. the ICR. 113. delete any collected content in real-time. and parliamentary committees have repeatedly noted concerns around the increased sensitivity of metadata. never reads the content of an intercepted communication. 114. data about a phone call over landline (e.g. The definitions of entity and events data are too vague and fail to take into account the distinctions that may arise in the types of data generated by modern technology. the only noted change in the definition in the IP Bill is the creation of a new form of metadata for capture. however. therefore. The definition of interception in the IP Bill should not be construed.g. Communications data is entity or events data that is or may be in possession by a telecommunications operator or available directly from a telecommunication system. Indeed. defines an interception as an act the effect of which is to “make some or all of the content of the communication available.”) 24 . 115. Communications Data (Clause 193(5)) – We have long had concerns about the definitions of communications data.111. We also do not understand how communications data may be within the meaning of Article 8. Nonetheless. even as communications metadata has dramatically grown in scope and volume. perhaps by design. Accordingly. at a relevant time. Yet the scenario should most certainly be classified as an interception. but does not include content. The subsequent use of the stored information has no bearing on that finding. the definition of communications data in clause 193(5) is also too vague.
in 193(6a). whether an entire communication or just some portion of the communication involves meaning. excludes from content “web browsing” information. For instance. as applied to all forms of modern and emerging methods of communications. We are concerned that this would give rise to a situation where there is interception of content in order to reveal communications data. attached to or logically associated with the communication. an intercepted email does not necessarily fall entirely within “content. it is unknown to us how 'related communications data' could be part of content in the first place. Is web browsing only meant to encompass internet connections created when “browsing” through a “browser”. but not be content. 119. in 193(6b). the meaning of a call to an abuse helpline or browsing the website of a support group is relatively clear. In particular. Related Communications Data (Clause 3(7)): The bill creates a new version of the definition of 'related communications data' in clause 12(6). but it is content when someone uses the BBC or Al Jazeera News apps for Android or iOS? 120. and that this should be limited to “for the purposes of a telecommunication system to deliver the communication”. The second exception. The Home Office needs to be clearer on how these definitions interact with the technical specifications of communications. We are confused as to why a “future proofed” legislation has such a highly specific reference to web browsing. 118. The meaning of a communication can sometimes be discerned just from the fact that an interaction took place. an email) but the “content” (email body) will include the communications data of the email (email headers). Content (Clause 193(6)): The definition of content hinges on the ‘meaning of the communication’. The first. and thereby ensures weak protections and safeguards for its access.” but rather only the portion that conveys the meaning. is it non-content when someone is browsing on BBC or Al Jazeera. The content definition also includes two exceptions.g. intercepting at an ISP on port 25 will give access to a communication (e. excludes from the definition of content any 'meaning' arising from the fact of the communication. This is data collected through interception that relates to the communication. we believe the reference in clause 193(5) to data that is “for the purposes of a telecommunication system” is too broad. This exception is an admission by the government that they view communications data as sometimes quite revelatory but they nonetheless insist that authorities must be able to access this ‘meaning’ with 25 . or is comprised in. For instance. whereas the rest of the email could be defined as communications data or related communications data. We believe greater clarity is required on the constitution of a communication. If content is defined based on the conveyance of meaning. 117. Further. and not through an App on a mobile or tablet device? That is. Even how our devices interact includes an indication of sensitive personal activity. The very ways in which we communicate today reveals the content of our interactions. For instance.“comprised in” a communication. it is not clear to us. or it is data that is separable from content that would not reveal the meaning of the communication. included as part of. Yet 6(b) explicitly excludes this from content.
there are on the data that might be obtained from public or private sources. 123. Questions 1. Facebook could be any of these because the definition of system is based on “facilitation” of the communication. many of the powers allow for the taking of “necessary" steps that are not explicitly authorised in the warrant. Does the draft Bill adequately explain the types of activity that could be undertaken under these powers? 122. are unclear. how equipment might be interfered with – the method that could be used to obtain the communications. 126. clause 12(5)(a)(i) permits conduct that is necessary to carry out what is expressly authorised in the warrant. This ambiguity might reflect the intention that the Bill be as technology neutral as possible. For instance. bulk personal datasets are so broadly defined that it is not clear what limits. Telecommunications System. 125. like interception. including the removal of electronic protection. But it gives too much discretion to the Secretary of State in deciding when a service provider fits in each definition. clause 188 appears to be a catchall provision that if not narrowed could permit activities that we cannot even imagine at this time. 121. As noted above. Equally. Similarly. Service etc (Clause 193): The definitions of telecommunications operators. What may telecommunications services and operators be asked to do in 26 . and telecommunications operator. An Internet Service Provider like Zen Internet or AAISP could be a telecommunication system (as they have wires and cables). the definitions at the heart of some of the powers. What types of bulk personal datasets may be collected from public and private sources? 3. Equipment interference is also not well delineated. but does not specify or in any way limit that conduct. private information and equipment data listed in clause 81 – is never described. This creates regulatory uncertainty. The Bill also places a number of open-ended obligations on other parties to assist. services and systems lack sufficient exclusivity. as noted in paragraphs 80 to 85 above. The ambiguity in the terms means that a given communications provider could fit into different definitions simultaneously. if any. which are more troubling than reassuring. little or no detail is given regarding the assistance that may be required or more importantly what activities are prohibited. Operator. facilitate or implement many of the powers (such as Clauses 29 and 31). especially under a power as seemingly broad as equipment interference. 124. Again. For example. What activities fall within the definitions of interception and equipment interference? What is prohibited? 2. Furthermore. telecommunication service (as they deliver services).fewer safeguards. Finally. Only clause 189 provides some examples. This leaves us guessing at what types of activities might be carried out. No.
in targeted and bulk manners. much less to likely technologies of tomorrow. it is crucial that legislation keeps pace with these advances. as technologies changed. and broad-scale interception capabilities. Technology changes rapidly. in the UK and abroad. The concern is that these demands placed today will shape and limit 27 . We believe that the IP Bill repeats this mistake. to provide and.order to assist in carrying out a warrant for any of the enumerated powers? Is the wording of the powers sustainable in the light of rapidly evolving technologies and user behaviours? 127. As technology continues to evolve into every facet of life and individuals adapt their behaviours to engage with these changes. All these technologies appeared shortly after RIPA and fuelled surveillance capabilities for at least the next ten years. That is. let alone new technologies. the Secretary of State did not want to seek new authorisation from Parliament to apply the powers to each new technology. generate data. benefits. We are often not equipped to understand how these powers will apply today. 130. Overall is the Bill future-proofed as it stands? 129. The vagueness of some of the wording runs the risk that surveillance powers will be used to conduct activities not currently envisioned. 128. and places obligations on telecommunication operators and others. This would allow for greater specificity in the language of the Bill. extensive location data collected by devices and networks. the Home Office argued at the time. and to enable interception and interference. it would be preferable to use more specific technology-oriented language and apply a review process to the legislation on a regular basis. This was. vaguely worded powers. to retain data. Parliamentary debates around RIPA did not anticipate popular webmail providers based in foreign jurisdictions. 133. Yet technology-neutral legislation that attempts to accommodate that change can also pose serious risks to privacy and security as technological development and innovation dramatically transform the scope of prior. This way Parliament can understand how it applies and assess the costs. It contains vague and illdefined terms. The IP Bill in its current form offers little concrete detail of how the provisions will be implemented (as described in the previous section). We would prefer surveillance legislation that errs on the side of being too specific. it is very difficult to assess how the IP Bill will apply to current technology. Rather than using ambiguous terminology. When the Joint Committee reviewed the draft Communications Data Bill. while also allowing amendments at reasonably regular intervals to accommodate changes in user behaviour and the technological climate. and implications. 132. the Committee found that the order-making powers given to the Secretary of State were too great. when necessary. 131. The non-technical language used to describe some of the powers threatens to creep into the realm of fantasy with its lack of technological underpinning. In this regard. essential to future-proofing the legislation.
A year and a half later. How will Parliamentarians be informed about the nature of changing telecommunications technologies and their impact on the law? 2. 137. 3. inter alia: 1. What assessments have been made to understand how these powers are used with respect to new and emerging technologies like the Internet of Things? Are the powers sought sufficiently supervised? 138. ranging from refrigerators to thermostats. They may even be co-opted to gather more information. the relevant public authorities and designated senior 28 . their communications intercepted and their data shared. on a regular basis. Before long. 134. cars to toasters.the kinds of services developed tomorrow. 135. Soon many more devices. or insufficient supervision. Six years later the Home Office was developing formal policy to support mass collection of communications data of over the top services. whether regulation or subsequent actions by the Secretary of State. it nonetheless leaves significant powers in the hands of the Secretary of State with no. and how these powers are being used. by regulations. choose to enforce a duty upon telecommunications operators through civil proceedings (clause 31(8)). While some progress is made in the IP Bill through the introduction of the Judicial Commissioner. 136. both in the UK and abroad. We may soon be surrounded by and wearing technologies that can be used by governments and others. Secretary of State may. within weeks of RIPA being given Royal Assent. Recommendation 1. This current draft Bill not the last piece of legislation for new powers that will be introduced by the Home Office in the foreseeable future. modify. mass collection and interception exercises were in place. 139. These devices can be interfered with. establish. We must therefore not debate the IP Bill as though it applies only to mobile phones and laptops. Parliament should debate the extent of powers it is granting to authorities. One possible direction of innovation is the Internet of Things. though in consultation with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPC) as to the principles of the basis of the arrangements. and transfer these functions to any other public authority (Clause 67). voluntary data retention was law. In our review of the various capabilities granted but not specifically established in the Bill. and not necessarily to us. will be recording and communicating information about us. 2. As a small reminder of history. the Home Office was actively pursuing new powers of data retention. maintain and operate a filter and related arrangements (Clause 51). Like the Draft Communications Data Bill. Questions 1. to place us under surveillance. much of the IP Bill requires secondary actions.
The draft Bill. by giving. 71). it in such manner as he or she considers appropriate (Clause 71(6)). In deciding whether to approve the issuance of a warrant. by notice. 143. inter alia. by contrast. and 5. by notice. 4. or publishing. One of the key concerns is the maintenance of technical capability provision (Clause 189). 46. 141. a telecommunications operator to take any further steps that the Secretary of State considers necessary in the interest of national security. preserves the power of the Secretary of State to issue warrants. 114. such consultation is only a weak check on the Secretary of State’s authority. 140. why couldn’t the powers be transferred from the Secretary of State to the Judicial Commissioners? Is the authorisation process appropriate? 144. or provide services or facilities to do so (Clause 188). Though the Secretary of State must consult with certain people. 143. require. 109. the provision of facilities or services of a specified description and the removal of electronic protection applied by a relevant operator. Question: 1. in consultation with the IPC and the public authority. it places significant limitations on the scrutiny they can exercise in reviewing the warrant (see in particular Clauses 19-21. Furthermore. 90. 145. Privacy International submits that the authorisation process articulated in the draft IP Bill is not appropriate.) For example. And in some instances. While it permits Judicial Commissioners to “approve” this decision. If the above powers mentioned in this section are to remain in the IP Bill (and we argue a number of them should not). 128. We are also concerned that the IPC can approve warrants that were rejected by Judicial Commissioners without any clear follow-up process of review. a telecommunications operator to retain relevant communications data (Clause 71(1)). 142. 138. we question the extent to which modifications and extensions can be made to warrants without adequate supervision or judicial authorisation (Clauses 96. require. names or descriptions can be added to targeted interception warrants without authorisation or other involvement of Judicial Commissioners (Clause 26). The Secretary of State can require. 123. including the Technical Advisory Board and persons likely to be subject to the obligations.officers and the authorities of those departments and agencies in Schedule 4 (Clause 55). No. that may in particular require the operator to carry out any conduct to facilitate anything done by an intelligence service or dealing with an emergency. Authorisation must entail fully independent judicial authorisation. 155). 162. where judges have unfettered discretion to determine if a warrant sought by the executive is necessary and proportionate. 97. it does not require any form of judicial approval at all (see Clauses 26. What powers will the Technical Advisory Board have to demand supervision over specific capabilities and how they are deployed? 2. a Judicial 29 .
In our prior submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. as long as the right procedures have been followed. paras. 21-22 (discussing Gillan and Quinton v United Kingdom and S and Marper v. is not required for the Government to acquire communications data. all of which interfere with the right to privacy. The sheer breadth of a bulk warrant inherently frustrates substantive review of its necessity and proportionality. even in the weak form expressed in the draft IP Bill. bulk warrants need not “specify or target the communications. . United Kingdom). We also have serious concerns about whether any authorisation process – judicial or not – is workable in the bulk context. The precise contours of this standard are subject to some debate and we recognise that multiple interpretations have been presented to the Committee. 93 94 95 96 Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.92 If the intent is for Judicial Commissioners to have unrestricted authority to assess whether a warrant is necessary and proportionate.uk/you-and-thejudiciary/judicial-review/. . It may be useful to look at the American context where judicial authorisation is the norm.96 The judge may only approve a wiretap order if he or she “determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant” that. as we propose above in paragraph 87.gov. 20. the absence of any assessment of suspicion – is intrinsically disproportionate and runs afoul of explicit guidance from the ECtHR. “Judicial review”.93 147. This lack of specificity – i. we noted that the lack of judicial authorisation for such powers might fall short of requirements under international human rights law. It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were “right”. Id. Id. at para. Under the US Wiretap Act. data or equipment of a particular person. rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached. which is also articulated by Liberty. As we also submitted to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. §§ 2510-2522.”94 They need only “state the operational purposes for which data need to be obtained. then any reference to a “judicial review” standard should be stripped from the judicial authorisation provisions of the draft IP Bill. 18 U. 146. https://www.C. premises or even an organisation. at paras.e.judiciary. and the IP Bill expressly notes that these can be 'general purposes'” (see Clauses 111(4). Joint Committee on Human Rights Submission. 140(5)). Judicial authorisation. inter alia: (a) there is probable clause for belief that an individual is 92 The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has also adopted this interpretation on their website: [J]udicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made. 125(4). 30 .95 148. . . The fix is simple – just delete sub-section (2) from each of the clauses describing “Approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners” and slightly reword sub-section (1). 51-56. issue data retention notices or modify interception warrants. is that this standard constrains review to procedural propriety and prohibits examination of the merits.Commissioner is to apply the “judicial review” standard. approving the interception of wire or oral communications”. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the “correct” decision.S. an order . Our understanding. the Attorney General “may authorize an application to a Federal judge for .
The RUSI Report recommended a modified regime whereby warrants “sought for a purpose relating to the detection or prevention of serious and organised crime .committing. In the words of the US Supreme Court in the landmark “Keith” case: “Inherent in the concept of a warrant is its issuance by a “neutral and detached magistrate. 98 United States v. 407 U. . Australia. has committed. (b) there is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception. and to prosecute.”98 150.” . to investigate. at Recommendation 22 (“Specific interception warrants.97 149.org.100 It would also fly in the face of Anderson's explicit recommendation that “the warrant-issuing powers currently vested in the Secretary of State . the notion of independent judicial authorisation of warrants is sacrosanct and for good reason.liberty-human-rights. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (“the Keith case”). the Court continued that this risk is particularly acute in the national security context “because of the inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept. 297. . 14.” RUSI Report. para. the passage of the draft IP Bill with the current authorisation process would continue to make the UK an outlier among other democratic countries and the only state in the Five Eyes Alliance (which also includes the US. The [Constitution] does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral and disinterested magistrates. the necessarily broad and continuing nature of intelligence gathering. The US is hardly unique in this respect. “Safe and Sound”. Importantly. But those charged with this investigative and prosecutorial duty should not be the sole judges of when to utilize constitutionally sensitive means in pursing their tasks. . be exercised only by Judicial Commissioners”.S. we believe the authorisation process currently proposed in the draft IP Bill is 97 Id. .95(b). (c) normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous. 101 Anderson Report. Canada and New Zealand) that does not vest the power to approve surveillance activities in the judiciary. . Recommendation 10.”). at 320. . . https://www. In the Keith case. 100 Liberty. The historical judgment . is that unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech. bulk interception warrants and bulk communications data warrants should be issued and renewed only on the authority of a Judicial Commissioner. 99 Id. . be authorised by the secretary of state subject to judicial review by a judicial commissioner. In fact.”99 151. . . 316-17 (1972). These requirements are enshrined in Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure with respect to “Search and Seizure” more generally. Their duty and responsibility are to enforce the laws. combined warrants. at § 2518. the Supreme Court unanimously held that the government was obligated to obtain a warrant before conducting electronic surveillance even for the purposes of domestic threats to national security.uk/campaigning/safe-and-sound. In the US. should always be be authorised by a judicial commissioner” whereas warrants “sought for purposes relating to national security . or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in the Act. 31 .101 For all of these reasons. and the temptation to utilize such surveillances to oversee political dissent. see also id.
Recommendation: 1.inappropriate. C. 157. 14. 153. Clause 167(1) states that the Prime Minister will appoint the IP Commissioner. Clauses 180 and 181 add to RIPA's provisions on the role of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). 156. 152. The IPT has operated as a secret court and “sits outside the regular structures of British justice”102. (5 November 2015) Interception. Recommendations 11-16. The establishment of a new IP Commissioner. remove the “judicial review” standard in the approval clauses as described in paragraph 87 above. RUSI Report. We understand that the current proposal is to appoint one IP Commissioner and only seven Judicial Commissioners. the Chief Surveillance Commissioner. both the Anderson and RUSI reviews called for an overhaul of the IPT. In order to provide an appropriate level of oversight. C. Ensuring an appropriate level of resourcing for the IP Commission will be crucial in enabling the public and Parliament to ensure surveillance powers are properly used. 2. paras. Notably. Question 1. “Are the new arrangements for the Investigatory Powers Tribunal including the possibility of appeal adequate or are further changes necessary?” 155. Vest the power to issue warrants in Judicial Commissioners or. Below. which will give both the public and Parliament greater confidence that this vital role is independent. although clause 180 does encouragingly allow an appeal to be made to a UK court. N. The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) should appoint the IP Commissioner and the related Judicial Commissioner.com/2015/11/05/interception-authorisation-and-redress-in-the-draftinvestigatory-powers-bill/ [Accessed 15 December 2015] 103 See Anderson Report. UK Human Rights Blog [Online]. available at http://ukhumanrightsblog. 102 Murphy. & Simonsen. which would replace the Interception of Communications Commissioner. 32 . In the context of bulk powers. we propose some specific reforms of the IPT and this new right of appeal in response to the question. Ensure prior judicial authorisation for the acquisition of communications data and the modification of warrants. This is inappropriate as it means that the IP Commissioner's role will not be properly independent from the Executive. and the Intelligence Services Commissioner.103 The draft Bill does not address the flaws of the IPT. there needs to be a much more substantial body of Judicial Commissioners. Authorisation and Redress in the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill.103-08. how can necessity and proportionality be judged in the authorization process? Will the oversight bodies be able adequately to scrutinise their operation? 154. in the alternative. is a welcome step.
an advanced understanding of technology is required to comprehend analytical capabilities. namely authorisation. 163. as we suggest in paragraph 295. The oversight bodies mentioned in the IP Bill do not always have that expertise. 161. Soften strict non-disclosure clauses by permitting a public interest defence for unauthorised disclosure and permitting service providers. The draft Bill has very little to say about redress. 160. What is considered “serious” needs further explanation. For instance. with limited exception. What ability will Parliament and the public have to check and raise concerns about the use of these powers? 162. Remove the “serious error” requirement and “public interest” test from Clause 171 and delete clause 171(4). to notify individuals. they will not be able to seek redress. and 190). in some cases. Clause 171(2) sets a very high bar. Current oversight also relies too heavily on self-reporting by the relevant 104 Joint Committee on Human Rights Submission. While we welcome the three roles that need to be carried out.Subsection 167(1) – delete “Prime Minister” and replace with “Judicial Appointments Commission”. 159. by prohibiting notification of surveillance measures. oversight of the use of surveillance must be separate from authorisation of surveillance. In our prior submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. 2. and the security implications of hacking activities. 77. If individuals are unaware that a public authority has obtained their data. Privacy International is concerned that surveillance oversight bodies often operate at a disadvantage. 148. there will be an irresolvable conflict of interest if the same body both authorises and then also somehow independently reviews those authorisations to ensure they were lawful and carried out properly. 133.104 We noted that these gagging clauses. might be violative of the ECHR. Add language to provide further detail about how the IPT will be transparent and accountable. 102. in that both the IP Commissioner and IPT must agree that it is a “serious” error and that it is in the public interest for that person to be informed of the error. inspection. 66.158. 3. and informing the public and Parliament about “the need for and use of investigatory powers”. While Clause 171(1) does state that the new IP Commissioner “must inform a person of any relevant error”. In order to engender public trust. and what the public interest test will be is not clearly defined. criminalise unauthorised disclosure (see Clauses 43-44. 33 . 4. Clause 167 . We suggest deleting both requirements and allowing the IP Commissioner to reveal any error in the interest of transparency and public accountability. we discussed how the draft IP Bill contains a range of provisions that prohibit and. modern interception capacities. paras. 61-68. Recommendations: 1.
or ii) prejudicial to national security. We believe that the public needs more information on how investigatory powers and capabilities have been developed and used. and the Prime Minister must publish the report and lay a copy before Parliament (Clause 174(6)). and any steps taken. Why are transparency reports limited to only the numbers of warrants received? 5. Within the IP Bill. 167. prevention or detection of serious crime. How will the Secretary of State and Parliament ensure that the oversight bodies have sufficient independent technological understanding? 2.investigatory agencies. the presumption should be in favour of transparency. In particular with regards to clause 102 within equipment interference. in the opinion of the Prime Minister. there are no authorised disclosures. and this prevents companies from openly discussing how (bulk and targeted) equipment interference warrants may interfere with their service delivery. This further stems the public's ability to understand how the powers are used and will adversely affect global cybersecurity. Why does the IPC report to the Prime Minister and not directly to Parliament? 34 . 66 and 102 as there seems to be little opportunity for any disclosure beyond the mere number of warrants received (see paragraph 160). In order to reduce reliance on whistleblowers. the use of bulk personal data sets. the implications of the imposition of the warrant. the publication would be contrary to the i) public interest. Parliamentary oversight committees and former senior government officials have been surprised by the use of some powers. It thus seems highly unlikely that the public interest will weigh in favour of redaction unless there is also a threat to national security or the prevention and detection of serious crime. How will the oversight bodies regularly be made aware of the investigatory capabilities that are being developed and deployed? 3. 164. e. Questions: 1. and many of these powers were only admitted as a side-effect of an investigation and not necessarily through simple reporting. We are concerned that the Prime Minister can exclude from publication any part of a report if.g. Recommendation: 1. or the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. The language of clause 174(6) could therefore be tightened to allow for more transparency. While we recognise there will be some legitimate reasons to withhold certain operational information. Why is there no ability of operators and services to notify customers of the receipt of a warrant or other notice if such notification would not interfere with necessary secrecy? 4. the IPC will report on a yearly basis to the Prime Minister. 166. 165. we suggest softening the offence of making an unauthorised disclosure in clauses 43.
” (Clause 169(4)(a)). a clear case to be made for their use. we would like to reinforce that any powers that are claimed should be made clear and foreseeable in statute. data retention 4. bulk warrants 2. thematic warrants Are there any additional investigatory powers that security and intelligence services or law enforcement agencies should have which are not included in the draft Bill? 170. acquisition of ICRs as part of communications data 3. “Has the case been made. “Are the power compatible with the Human Rights Act and ECHR?” (paragraphs 38-58) 3. both for the new powers and for the restated and clarified existing powers?” (paragraphs 13-37) 2. If a new power is sought which is not reasonably foreseeable within the existing law. 172. “Is the requirement that they be exercised only when necessary and proportionate fully addressed?” (paragraphs 59-64) 169. Significant new powers must not be brought about through the reinterpretation of the IP Bill or within Codes of Practice. and further explanation of how the new power is necessary and proportionate. We respectfully refer the Committee to our responses to the questions: 1. In those responses. This will allow a legislative debate about the power. the IP Commissioner is not permitted to review “the exercise of any function of a relevant Minister to make or modify subordinate legislation. While we do not comment on whether the security and intelligence services or law enforcement need any powers that are not already in the IP Bill. we articulated why the Government has failed to demonstrate the operational and legal (under the “necessary and proportionate” test) necessity for either the security and intelligence services or law enforcement to have access to the following investigatory powers: 1. Questions: 35 . equipment interference 5.Specific questions General To what extent is it necessary for (a) the security and intelligence services and (b) law enforcement to have access to investigatory powers such as those contained in the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill? 168. 171. who will to ensure it does not result in a significant change to the primary legislation? The answer is currently missing from the draft IP Bill. it must be authorised through a change to the primary legislation. as is required by the rule of law and so that any interference with privacy will be “in accordance with law”. If the IP Commissioner is not reviewing such power. Unfortunately.
As discussed in paragraph 160 the draft IP Bill contains a range of provisions that prohibit and. unnecessary and – in the long run – intolerable”? Are the new offences proposed in the draft Bill necessary? Are the suggested punishments appropriate? 173. 133. Clause 2 sets out the offence of unlawful interception and clause 6 sets out the penalties. 66. paras. passed and communicated to the public? 2. both for the new powers and for the restated and 105 Joint Committee on Human Rights Submission. but as this is a serious offence. 148. some of them without statutory safeguards. The current prohibitions are both potentially violative of the ECHR and run counter to the purported aim of the draft Bill to create greater transparency.000”. Interception Are there sufficient operational justifications for undertaking (a) targeted and (b) bulk interception? 178. in some cases. 77. “Has the case been made. 36 . high-level information should be published about the types of warrants and notices that are being served on telecommunications providers. Privacy International believes it is inappropriate to ban and make criminal all forms of disclosure. What is the process for any new power or re-interpretation of existing powers to be debated. While it might not be appropriate for all operational details to be published.105 176. 102. criminalise unauthorised disclosure (see Clauses 43-44. confuse the picture further. 174. has been patched up so many times as to make it incomprehensible to all but a tiny band of initiates. Recommendations 1. with limited exception. Soften strict non-disclosure clauses by permitting a public interest defence for unauthorised disclosure and permitting CSPs. How does the IP Bill stop another situation like the one described by Anderson in his review of RIPA and his opening lines of A Question of Trust: “RIPA. There are some circumstances under which telecommunications operators and services should be able to notify their customers that their personal information has been shared with the state. 177. A multitude of alternative powers. Clause 8 sets out the offence of unlawfully obtaining communications data. obscure since its inception. we do believe that there should be serious commensurate penalties. In particular. to notify individuals. This state of affairs is undemocratic. 61-68. While we agree it is correct that this is an offence. Privacy International does not have a view of the appropriate monetary penalty. and 190). again we do not have a view on what the appropriate punishment should be. subsection 6(b) identifies a penalty that “must not exceed £50. 175. We respectfully refer the Committee to our response to the question: 1.1.
e.uk/media-centre/news-and-press-releases/2015/november/bar-councilcomments-on-draft-investigatory-powers-bill/ (“As all lawyers know. The urgent warrant authorisation process is also problematic for three additional reasons. in general terms. “Bar Council comments on Draft Investigatory Powers Bill”.”). In that response. the draft IP Bill provides that a Judicial Commissioner has five “working” days to review the issuance of the warrant. In that response. Second. In terms of whether the proposed authorisation processes for interception activities are appropriate. 37 . we articulated why the Government has failed to make a compelling operational case for undertaking bulk interception.clarified existing powers?” (paragraphs 13-37) 179. (ii) conspiratorial activities threatening the national security interest. 91(2). including interception activities. we respectfully refer the Committee to our response to the question: 1. 183. § 2518(7)(a). is not appropriate. 107 Id. we explain why the authorisation process articulated in the draft IP Bill for all proposed powers. which regulates the interception of wire and electronic communications. Are the proposed authorisation processes for such interception activities appropriate? Is the proposed process for authorising urgent warrants workable? 180. we also submit that the proposed process for authorising urgent warrants is. By way of comparison.. 108 See. the term “urgent” is not defined anywhere in the draft IP Bill and could therefore be interpreted to encompass a wide array of circumstances. or (iii) conspiratorial activities characteristic of organized crime. 2015. First. the US Wiretap Act requires that where an urgent warrant is issued.107 In contrast. “Is the authorisation process appropriate?” (paragraphs 144-153) 181.e. 182. There is no reason why such provision could not be made available in cases where investigatory powers are being sought.g. http://www. without prior judicial authorisation – to the following “emergency situations”: (i) immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person. For similar reasons.org. As another point of comparison. 5 Nov. at § 2518(7)(b). The Bar Council. Others have argued that five days is too long of a timeframe. the urgent warrant authorisation process requires the Secretary of State to inform a Judicial Commissioner that such a warrant has been issued but does not indicate the timeframe in which this notification is to occur (Clauses 20(2).C.108 We note here that five “working” days can potentially elongate 106 18 U. the US Wiretap Act.106 We urge the Committee to consider defining “urgent” to a similar set of limited and specific circumstances. “an application for an order approving the interception” must be made to a judge “within forty-eight hours after the interception has occurred”. there is a duty judge available through the Royal Courts of Justice 24 hours a day. not workable.barcouncil. strictly limits “urgent” interception – i.S. We also detailed how the Government has similarly failed to make a compelling operational case for expanding targeted interception to include the use of “thematic warrants”. 156(2)).
Provide a timeframe within which the Secretary of State must inform a Judicial Officer that an urgent warrant has been issued in Clauses 20(2). Provide a shorter timeframe than five “working” days within which a Judicial Commissioner must review the issuance of an urgent warrant. 3. and retention of information involves costs other those associated with mere storage. we note that the urgent warrant authorisation process provides that where a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve a warrant. As an example. The lack of a specific timeframe for notifying a Judicial Commissioner combined with the long timeframe for review creates the risk that unlawful urgent warrants may. The various data breaches over the years. such systems are an extremely 109 While making these recommendations. 38 . 92(3) and 157(3). Indeed. “Researcher discloses zero-day vulnerability in FireEye. on Monday.that timeframe even further. Large organisations often face problems in securing retained information. he may simply “impose conditions as to the use or retention” of the material. 187. Are the proposed safeguards sufficient for the secure retention of material obtained from interception? 186.” CSO Online (6 Sept. collection. he may but is not directed to order that the material obtained under the warrant be destroyed (Clauses 21(3). 110 See Steve Ragan. 91 and 156. we maintain the criticisms of the underlying powers that we make elsewhere in this submission which in some cases might dictate the complete removal of certain referenced clauses. 92(3)(c) and 157(3)(b). Recommendations:109 1.110 Given their access to data. We question why it should ever be permissible for the Government to use or retain material that was unlawfully acquired and therefore urge the Committee to consider requiring destruction of the material in such circumstances. a warrant issued on Thursday. in practice. taking into account weekends and bank holidays. 4 April 2016. 91(2) and 157(2). March 24 2016 would not have to be approved until over one week later. 92(3). Intercepted data is highly sensitive. Define the term “urgent” as used in Clauses 20. 2. 157(3)). Change the word “may” to “must” in Clauses 21(3). In a modern society where physical storage devices have dramatically dropped in price. Delete Clauses 21(3)(b). particularly valuable information that is to be accessed by many users. 184. 4. including the recent breaches of government agencies and telecommunications companies should give us pause (see paragraph 234 for more details). 185. operate for inappropriately long periods of time before they are struck down. Finally. Even systems designed to detect intrusions and prevent them can themselves be corrupted. we are too slowly realising that the limitation on generation.
or sends it back to OIA for further iterations with the requesting country. When it comes to communications data. Clause 69 specifically notes that acquisition of communications data power has an extraterritorial application. 2. the Bill should specify the minimum technical requirements for securing retained data. Justin. this process only applies to requests for content data. Include detailed provisions describing how retained data will be secured. the request goes to the company.com/article/2980937/vulnerabilities/researcher-discloses-zeroday-vulnerability-in-fireeye. How well does the current process under Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) work for the acquisition of communications data? 190. “Re-Engineering the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty Process. Clause 39 provides for a separate authorisation for the interception of communications in accordance with overseas requests. Looking at the regime between the UK and the US and taking the example of the UK as the requesting party.attractive target for malicious third parties. The IP Bill contains no details regarding how information in storage is to be made “secure. The IP Bill currently contains a proposed mutual assistance warrant (Clause 12) through which the UK will provide assistance in intercepting communications where required by an MLAT. by noting that an authorisation to obtain communications data may relate to persons or telecommunications providers outside the UK. The judge reviews the request and grants it. particularly in light of the fact 2015). 194.csoonline.html 111 Swire. 14 May 2015. If granted. the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) process to obtain content data currently functions as follows: the UK sends a request for communications content data stored by a US company to the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of International Affairs (OIA). the IP Bill provides no specific procedure for the acquisition of such data under an MLAT. Notably. Peter.111 191. and Hemmings.” At the very least. Recommendations 1. available at: http://www. 193. 188.” NYU Law and PLSC Conferences. companies have discretion about how to respond to foreign requests for communications data. which sends a response to OIA. Privacy International is unclear as to how these two clauses interact (Clause 12 and Clause 39) and encourages members of the Committee to seek clarification from the Home Office on this point. OIA works with the UK to ensure the request satisfies US legal standards and then works with a US Attorney to send the request to the District Court. This provision is of significant concern. and describe how any breaches will be addressed and revealed to oversight bodies and the public. 189. 39 . Include a mechanism by which oversight bodies and the public will be informed of breaches. which checks the response and in turn sends the response to the UK. Instead. 192.
We address the problems raised by extraterritorial powers more generally in paragraphs 93 to 94. How do the mutual legal assistance warrants described in Clause 12 and Clause 39 interact in connection with an overseas request for interception assistance? Does Clause 39 permit a telecommunications service to respond to an MLAT request even if a warrant is not issued under Clause 12? What will be the effect of the extra-territorial application of the provisions on communications data in the draft Bill? 196. 197. and in response to the following question. at para. A Question of Trust: Report of the Investigatory Powers Review (June 2015). The obligation.communications data authorisations may be issued without judicial approval. whether to comply or to have “regard” should be completely removed from the Bill. Unlike in Clause 69. only a “duty to have regard to the requirement or restriction” regarding data retention. as discussed above in paragraphs 93 to 94. For example.pdf 114 Goel. The recent case of WhatsApp being shut down across Brazil. foreign companies are more likely to comply with requests if they are authorised by a judge.stme 113 David Anderson. As discussed in paragraph 94. 11. V. based on the requirements and restrictions on data acquisition in operators’ own countries. This puts an ambiguous responsibility on foreign companies. there is no obligation to “comply”. Clause 69 makes foreign telecommunications operators subject to the UK’s power to acquire communications data. because they were unable to comply with an order to place wiretap requests on some customer accounts. BBC News [Online] http://news.gov.114 112 Criticism and regret in China over Google. as the customers will not know whether their service provider is complying with retention requests or not. Should UK companies ever be required to hand over their customers' data based on a warrant approved by the Chinese government? 200.19. 195. and Sreeharsha. available at https://terrorismlegislationreviewer. 199. 198. Clause 79(2) asks foreign telecommunications providers to retain communications data. While clause 69(4) provides potential exemptions. V. highlights the problem of placing unreasonable obligations on a company to provide customers' personal data to a foreign government. Google withdrew their operations from China112 based on the Chinese government placing similar obligations on technology companies.independent. Brazil Restores WhatsApp Service After Brief Blockade Over Wiretap 40 . Placing extraterritorial obligations on companies can have other negative consequences. placing such obligations on service providers in the first place sets a bad precedent for the rest of the world.co. It will also reduce customer trust in these companies.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/IPR-Report-Web-Accessible1.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8583006. Question: 1.113 It would set a very worrying international precedent if foreign companies were to hand over their customers' data based on the request of a UK politician.bbc.
nytimes. 204. Clause 55(2a) enables the Secretary of State to add to or remove public authorities from this list. content vs communications data. It is inappropriate that such a long list of public authorities has access to individuals' communications data and for such broad purposes.201. Recommendations 1. Furthermore. 208. access to it must be subject to judicial authorisation. but it also further reinforces the need for judicial authorization. Our concerns about the number of people who can access communications data are compounded by Clause 46(7). New York Times [Online].)?” Does the draft Bill allow the appropriate organisations. we have difficulty understanding and parsing these definitions. Clause 60(1) of the draft Bill sets out the requirement for a designated senior officer to consult a 'single point of contact' (SPOC) before granting an authorisation to obtain communications data. which sets out an overly broad range of purposes for which communications data may be obtained. Delete clauses 69 and 79 Communications Data Are the definitions of content and communications data (including the distinction between ‘entities’ and ‘events’) sufficiently clear and practical for the purposes of accessing such data? 202. however. This is a problem in its own right. But the SPOC should not have overall responsibility for approving requests for communications data. “Are the technological definitions accurate and meaningful (e. Please see our response to the question.com/2015/12/18/world/americas/brazil-whatsappfacebook. However. Clause 46(7b) in particular.g. The SPOC should have greater involvement in approving requests. ICRs etc. As currently drafted. and people within those organisations. The SPOC does not have any authority over the requests. “Is the authorisation process for accessing communications data appropriate?” 205. 206. which is about preventing or detecting crime or disorder. As we state above. Given how revealing communications data is about an individual. which we discuss in more detail below in response to the question. the public will not be provided with any clarity or assurance of which public authorities will be able to collect their communication data. Available from http://www. The circumstances under which changes will be made needs to be set out.html?ref=americas&_r=0 41 . 207. access to communications data? 203. This is often cited as important safeguard on communications data requests. is too broad Request. which falls short of even being a rubber stamp. Instead there is only a requirement to “consult” the SPOC. as should the mechanisms for consulting and notifying the public of any changes. Schedule 4 of the draft Bill lists the public authorities that will be able to access communications data.
Require judicial authorisation for obtaining communications data. A/69/397. A/HRC/27/37. The collection and use of communications data interferes with the right to privacy. Is the authorisation process for accessing communications data appropriate? 212. 214. In that response. The limited safeguard of requiring the authorisation not be granted by an officer involved in the investigation or operation is undermined by the broad set of circumstances under which such requirement can be overridden (Clause 47). 211. both for the new powers and for the restated and clarified existing powers?” (see paragraphs 12-37). 42 .116 As such authorisation for the collection and use of such data needs to fulfill the minimum standards of independence and impartiality. 23 September 2014. Significantly limit the purposes for which communications data can be obtained. Recommendations: 1. The provision should be amended to 'serious crime'. Clause 61. we articulated why the Government has failed to make a compelling operational case for any of its bulk powers. and if the authorisation is required in relation to obtaining communications data for the purpose of identifying or confirming a source of journalistic information. Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others. 2. “Has the case been made. recommended the UK begin “ensuring that access to communication data is [.) Ordering the disclosure of communications data only requires authorisation by a designated senior officer of the public authority undertaking the collection. Are there sufficient operational justifications for accessing communications data in bulk? 210. We respectfully refer the Committee to our response to the question: 1. when considering the UK periodic report under the ICCPR in July 2015. including for accessing communications data in bulk. There is no prior judicial authorisation (with the only exceptions for local authorities under Clause 59. A/HRC/23/40. and give the SPOC a more substantial role in the authorization process. UN doc.. Judgment in Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12. The UN Human Rights Committee. Right to Privacy in the Digital Age. 213. and report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. it is not disputed that communications data allow “very precise conclusions to be drawn concerning the private lives of the persons whose data has been retained.] dependent upon prior judicial 115 See report of the UN Special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the freedom of opinion and expression. 30 June 2014. UN doc. 209. report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.and enables intrusive 'fishing expeditions'. 17 April 2014.. No. Judgment of 8 April 2014.115 In fact. UN doc. 116 See Court of Justice of the European Union.
120 220. of any apparatus to which a communication is transmitted for the purpose of obtaining access to. the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. for up to a year. such as the EU Charter on Fundamental Freedom.117 215. Judicial Commissioners should authorize the obtaining of communications data. a computer file or computer program”. Recommendation: 1.gov. of highly revealing information pertaining to virtually all communications data sent.118 there is a new retention requirement relating to the “pattern” of communications. July 2015. 217. but also go well 117 118 119 120 Human Rights Committee. untargeted retention of communications data provided for in the IP Bill is in breach of existing EU provisions protecting the right to privacy. but for any of the ten grounds under which communication data can be requested (Clause 46. Part 4. but also anything they may be able to generate or obtain. 218. collection. including ICRs.uk/uksi/2014/2042/schedule/made See Clause 71(9) Clause 71.119 Communications service providers may be required to retain not only data they save in their normal course of business. with no judicial authorisation. it will not only be limited to the detection or prevention of serious crimes.7). The blanket.8). The retained data will potentially include. received or otherwise created by everyone. As such. such as the Data Protection Directive 1995/46 and the Directive on privacy and electronic communications 2002/58/EC. See: http://www. Draft Investigatory Powers Bill 43 . Under Clause 71 the Secretary of State can require any description of telecommunication operators to retain all or any description of communications data (and entity data) for up to 12 months.authorization”. The proposed retention regime also goes further than the types of data that can be retained under the current Data Retention Regulations 2014. the IP Bill’s proposed data retention regime will lead to the generation. 219. concluding observations on the UK. and one related to “the internet protocol address. or running. or other identifier. The mandatory data retention regime under the IP Bill will go much further than what was prescribed under the invalidated EU Data Retention Directive (2006/24/EC): for one. It is also a violation of applicable international human rights law. and storage. Retention of communications data is authorised by the Secretary of State only. Data Retention Do the proposed authorisation regime and safeguards for bulk data retention meet the requirements set out in the CJEU Digital Rights Ireland and the Court of Appeal Davis judgments? 216. He or she may also impose requirements in relation to generating or processing the retained data (Clause 71.legislation. Part 4 regulates the retention of communications data.
violates the right to privacy. 8 April 2014. The CJEU noted that the Directive was flawed for not requiring any relationship between the data whose retention was provided for and a threat to public security (see §59). consider introducing “data preservation orders”.) 223. Following the Digital Rights Ireland judgment. C-293/12. and how relating to every communication that a person has online. Privacy International believes that the Digital Rights Ireland requirements are mandatory and that existing EU law rules out data retention regimes of the kind proposed in the IP Bill. there is growing consensus that the blanket retention of communications data. it is notable that a significant number of European countries have moved away from blanket data retention regimes because of its incompatibility with EU law and the right to privacy. The Grand Chamber concluded that the Directive amounted to a "wide-ranging and particularly serious interference" with the rights to privacy and data protection "without such an interference being precisely circumscribed by provisions to ensure that it is actually limited to what is strictly necessary" (§65. without suspicion. as well as putting the security of personal data at risk of attack by criminals and others. the courts of Austria. Recommendation: 1. in the case of Romania and Bulgaria. 221.121 222. the constitutional or administrative courts of Bulgaria. In Digital Rights Ireland v Minister for Communications and others. 224. the Czech Republic. 44 . Slovenia. Poland. 122 Even before the CJEU issued its judgment in Digital Rights Ireland. In this context. Privacy International notes that on 20 November 2015 the Court of Appeal's judgment in the case of David Davis and others (to which Privacy International is an intervener) referred to the CJEU the question as to whether the requirements included in the Digital Rights Ireland's judgment are mandatory requirements with which the national legislation of EU member states must comply.beyond. Belgium.122 226. Delete Part 4 of the IP Bill and amend other parts accordingly. and Slovakia have struck down national laws that had implemented or replicated the Data Retention Directive (or. when. Cyprus. Irrespective of the decision of the CJEU on this matter. 225. subsequent amendments to the original implementing laws). the Netherlands. The same concerns apply to the proposed data retention regime under the IP Bill. Instead of pursuing the regime of blanket retention of personal data. under which the retention of specific individuals' communications data is requested by the authorities and 121 Digital Rights Ireland v Minister for Communications and others. Germany and Romania declared part or all of the relevant national legislation implementing the Data Retention Directive to be unlawful. Romania. Bulgaria. the who. the Grand Chamber of the CJEU concluded that the 2006 Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 15 March 2006). which required communications service providers to retain customer data for up to two years for the purpose of preventing and detecting serious crime. where. what. breached the rights to privacy and data protection under Articles 7 and 8 respectively of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The IP Bill definition of ICR is not technically crafted (see Clause 47(6)). making it impossible to assess exactly what an ICR would contain and who exactly would be required to retain them. ICRs offer no additional capability beyond that which is already available to an authority in regards of connecting an Internet Protocol (IP) address with a subscriber.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/473769/Internet_Con nection_Records_Evidence_Base. Further. 228.gov. 230. If data retention is to remain in the IP Bill. 229. This works reasonably well for fixed line communications. Privacy International notes that this document provides a very conservative view of the capabilities of that the IP Bill could potentially authorise as the vague nature of the language in the Bill could be interpreted to give considerably more information than this document suggests. (5) and (6) 2. They have done this by subpoenaing the provider of an IP address. Is accessing Internet Connection Records essential for the purposes of IP resolution and identifying of persons of interest? Are there alternative mechanisms? Are the proposed safeguards on accessing Internet Connection Records data appropriate? 227.pdf 45 . Some more details can be glimpsed in the accompanying document "Operational Case for the Retention of Internet Connection Records". the amount of data likely to be generated by capturing every port and IP combination of every connection. 232. Intellectual property rights holders have been connecting IP addresses to subscriber IDs for some time in cases where they wish to enforce their rights. 231. 123 Available at: https://www.authorised by judges. The main change the IP Bill would implement is that this and other data would need to be retained by telecommunication operators for up to 12 months (under Part 4). do not allow a retention order that would require telecommunications services to generate and retain ICRs. It is nonetheless probably possible for the provider to know which SIM was registered to which cell (or tower(s)). and serving a court order on the provider compelling them to release information in relation to their subscriber. which can be determined by who the address was allocated to. and quite possibly to determine the location of the user of that SIM through the use of triangulation. Recommendation: 1. However in relation to a mobile phone communications it may be more complicated as there is no need to register a universal subscriber identity module (SIM) – the equivalent of a hard-ware embedded IP address for mobile phones – to an individual.123 In this document a number of scenarios and case studies are explored and the justifications for ICRs are put forward. Clause 47: Delete subsections 47(4). by every user in the United Kingdom and retaining that data for 12 months is likely to be a heavy burden upon telecommunication operators.
“[o]ne of the big issues is the practical aspects for ISPs – how are they going to store it.5 Million People.uk/news/technology-31656613 [Accessed 26 November. 2015) British Gas denies responsibility for 2. Hirschfeld Davis. 2015]. The Guardian [Online] Available from: http://www.R.html [Accessed 26 November. BBC Technology [Online] Available from: http://www.bbc. as communications service providers could be subject to increased attacks to access that data. Communications service providers bear the brunt of public criticism in the face of data breaches. 2015) Vodafone customers' bank details 'accessed in hack'. and requested of those outside the UK. how is it going to provide access when required. Requiring communications service providers to retain all of our revealing and personal data for 12 months treats us all as suspects. As David Emm. but its broad provisions are far from a guarantee that future attacks such as these would be prevented. undermining the trust we place in government to only exercise its power to intrude upon on personal lives in the most limited and necessary of circumstances. Alex (29 October.theguardian. Clause 193(10) defines “telecommunications operator” as a person who either offers or provides a telecommunications service to persons in the UK. (31 October.com/feature/What-theInvestigatory-Powers-Bill-means-for-the-telecommunications-industry [Accessed 15 December 2015] 46 .com/technology/2015/oct/29/british-gas-deniesresponsibility-user-accounts-posted-online-pastebin [Accessed 26 November. Hern. The New York Times [Online] Available from: http://www. TalkTalk. and how secure will both of those things be?”. This year alone has seen the successful infiltration and hacking of several large databases. Clause 74 of the IP Bill imposes some general obligations to protect the security of such retained data. The IP Bill requires communications service providers to weaken their system security while simultaneously increasing the data they retain.Are the requirements placed on service providers necessary and feasible? 233. The Guardian [Online] Available from: http://www. as well as the detrimental Office of Personnel Management (OPM) breach in the United States. Recent examples include. or 124 (27 February. Julie (9 July. Vodafone. Clauses 71 and 79 empower the Secretary of State to require communications service providers to retain communications data (and entity data) for up to 12 months. but are not limited to. further undermining trust in the security of their services. principal security researcher at Kaspersky Lab points out. Computer Weekly [Online]. This requirement is mandatory for providers located in the UK.com/2015/07/10/us/office-of-personnelmanagement-hackers-got-data-of-millions. Compelled retention unnecessarily endangers the security of our data. What the Investigatory Powers Bill means for the telecommunications industry.nytimes.com/business/2015/oct/31/vodafone-customersbank-details-accessed-in-hack-company-says [Accessed 26 November. This provides for a perfect storm that will make individuals' personal data far more susceptible to cyberattacks.computerweekly.co. 236. 2015]. The new regime expands the scope of who could be served with a retention notice. P.theguardian. company says. Available from http://www.124 235. Due to the revealing nature of such data. 2015) Customer Data Stolen in TalkTalk Hack Attack.125 237. 234. 2015) Hacking of Government Computers Exposed 21. British Gas.200 user accounts posted online. even where they are being compelled to retain the data. the database(s) where this retained data is stored are also likely to be targeted by cyber criminals and foreign intelligence agencies. 2015] 125 Allison. 2015].
126 Gellman. The IP bill includes not just public telecommunications providers but also private networks. but you can get back in when you want to. consider introducing “data preservation orders”. and Nakashima.operations in 2011. Delete Part 4 of the IP Bill and amend other parts accordingly. Individuals will consequently face a reduction in their privacy and security. The security concerns raised by retention would be felt not only within the technology sector. and start-up industries. U.”126 243. The Washington Post (30 August 2013). and include the banking. growth. hardware. Instead of pursuing the regime of blanket retention of personal data. under which the retention of specific individuals' communications data is requested by the authorities and authorised by judges. such positive growth is curtailed. documents show. We do not repeat those submissions here. B. Equipment Interference Should the security and intelligence services have access to powers to undertake (a) targeted and (b) bulk equipment interference? 241. 239. It incentivises the state to maintain security vulnerabilities that allow any attacker – whether GCHQ. This will mean a very wide range of companies. This power is called “Equipment Interference”. and as have security experts. The internet offers a democratic space in which personal exploration.html 47 . Many of these businesses contribute greatly to the British economy.washingtonpost. 238. as well as the computer software.controls or provides a telecommunication system reaching the UK. the draft IP Bill includes statutory provisions describing the power of law enforcement and the intelligence services to hack into our computers. but also within related businesses that rely on secure communications and customer trust. Hacking. and legal sector. 242. E. Hacking can undermine the security of all our communications. Privacy International has written extensively on the security concerns raised by hacking.com/world/national-security/us-spy-agencies-mounted-231-offensivecyber-operations-in-2011-documents-show/2013/08/30/d090a6ae-119e-11e3-b4cbfd7ce041d814_story. another country's intelligence agency or a cyber criminal – potential access to our devices. financial. Recommendation: 1. gaming. and is detailed in Part 5 and. whether we are emailing our loved ones or banking online. fundamentally impacts on the security of computers and the internet. including the state. and development is possible. which could undermine trust in the entire communications system.. as undertaken by any actor. spy agencies mounted 231 offensive cyber. change. For the first time in the UK. Chapter 3.S. available at: https://www. anti-virus. as a “bulk” power. in Part 6. One US intelligence official analogised using hacking to a situation in which “[y]ou pry open the window somewhere and leave it so when you come back the owner doesn’t know it’s unlocked. and without trust in the systems that enable such exploration. from a large multinational telecommunication provider to a small tech startup would be subject to a notice. 240.
these security concerns must be addressed.svc/evidencedocument/scienceand-technology-committee/investigatory-powers-bill-technology-issues/written/25170. it might include compelling telecommunications services to send false security updates to a user in order to install malware that the police or intelligence services could then use to control the user's computer. 22-23.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence. and video recording of the user and those around them enables intelligence agencies and the police to conduct real-time surveillance. Hacking is also an incredibly intrusive form of surveillance. which are crucial to protecting our devices from unauthorised intrusions from criminals.privacyinternational.129 Unlike intercept capabilities. As we explained to the Science & Technology Committee. IPT 14/85/CH and 14/120-126/CH) (30 September 2015). in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (Case nos. intentionally or unintentionally. communications service providers could be compelled to take any steps. paras. please see the Expert Report of Peter Michael Sommer. from location records.but include some of them for your reference. covert photography. available at: http://data.org/sites/default/files/PI_PMS_Report_final. It will therefore be very hard to maintain trust if Clauses 99 to 102 remain in the IP Bill.html . Privacy International Submission in Response to Science & Technology Call for Evidence on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill (27 November 2015) [hereinafter “PI & ORG Science & Technology Committee Submission”]. 245. The logging of keystrokes.128 The general public is likely never to be made aware of what kind of “hacking” assistance has been required of telecommunications providers due to the very strict non-disclosure provision in the IP Bill (Clause 102). to draft messages and emails.html 128 PI & ORG Science & Technology Committee Submission. in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (Case nos.parliament. unless “not reasonably practicable”. 129 For an overview of the types of information that can be obtained via hacking. Clause 99 requires any person (which could include CSPs) to “provide assistance in giving effect to the [equipment interference] warrant.pdf .svc/evidencedocument/scienceand-technology-committee/investigatory-powers-bill-technology-issues/written/25170. IPT 14/85/CH and 14/120-126/CH) (30 September 2015) [hereinafter Sommer Report]. submitted in Privacy International and Greennet Limited et al. Anything we store on our computers and mobile phones. available at: https://www. 244. the possibility that security updates might be co-opted would undermine trust in those updates.” Clause 101 explicitly applies this duty to “relevant telecommunications providers. Expert Report of Professor Ross Anderson.pdf 48 . hacking capabilities can be deployed in any number of configurations to do any number of different things. As currently drafted the IP Bill compounds these security concerns by forcing telecommunications services to become complicit in government hacking.privacyinternational. to saved documents and notes. 246. there are few limits on what can be done.” Under these two clauses. submitted in Privacy International and Greennet Limited et al. and more.org/sites/default/files/PI%20and%20ORG%20Submission%20%20Draft%20Equipment%20Interference%20Code%2020%20Mar%202015_0.127 If hacking is to be used by the state. While we do not know what this assistance will look like in practice. available at: https://www. available at http://data. to assist the police and the intelligence services to hack our computers and other devices. When an agent takes control of a computer by hacking it. is also fair game. As 127 Please see: Privacy International and Open Rights Group’s Submission in Response to the Consultation on the Draft Equipment Interference Code of Practice (20 March 2015). tracking of locations.parliament.
In particular. This raises the risk. Because of its intrusiveness. drawing a distinction between overseas hacking and internal hacking makes little sense. Given how intrusive hacking is. as discussed above in paragraphs 67 to 79. in the context of a criminal prosecution. and a very strong case has been made as to the necessity of obtaining the information sought from the target.“smart” technology develops. much of our data is stored overseas in servers operated by telecommunications services such as Google and Facebook. 248. the level of suspicion that attaches to the person or people who might be using the computer. 49 . and how our interconnected world makes it just as easy to hack a computer in Belgium as in Birmingham. the draft IP Bill fails to provide these. please see Sommer Report at paras. the “targeted” equipment interference powers in Part 5 are not in fact targeted but can be deployed in bulk using thematic warrants. it raises serious evidentiary concerns. whether carried out under a thematic warrant or under the explicit “bulk” power in Part 6. 4 December 2015. at paras. 130 Zakharov v Russia 47143/06. they have the unfettered ability to alter or delete any information on that device.130 249. Finally. Without knowing which computer is to be hacked into – as well as what information might be contained on that computer. 131 For a more extensive discussion of these evidentiary concerns. destroys the ability of the authorising authority to assess the necessity and proportionality of the hacking being undertaken. 251. our children’s dolls and our cars. 259-267. Without such safeguards. the efficacy of the use of hacking in investigating and prosecuting crimes is very questionable. Bulk equipment interference. Thoroughly assess the security concerns raised by equipment interference to determine if they can be resolved. hacking should only be deployed under the strictest authorisation regime. because hacking involves an active interference with a computer. Recommendations: 1. who else might be using it. 247. private information and equipment data. This limitation should provide little comfort for those residing in the UK. of defence accusations of evidence tampering. For instance. Evidence obtained via equipment interference is admissible in court. Once an agent or officer takes control of a computer by hacking it. Unfortunately.131 The IP Bill currently does not contain any provisions to address this evidentiary concern. hacking will increasingly provide access to our refrigerators and thermostats. Equipment interference should only be authorised where a specific target has been identified. “Bulk” hacking under Part 6. however. the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recently declared that an authorisation for surveillance must identify “a specific person” or “a single set of premises” in order to facilitate the necessity and proportionality analysis. – how can a Judicial Commissioner properly assess if such intrusion is proportionate? Indeed. 250. with stringent safeguards and vigorous oversight. Chapter 3 is permitted only where the main purpose of the warrant is to obtain “overseas-related” communications. 108-111. etc. Chapter 3.
therefore. 256. e. to the fore. our response to the question “Is the authorisation process appropriate?”). independent judicial authorisation (see. Those principles are outlined in our submission on the draft Equipment Interference Code of Practice. Granting law enforcement access to equipment interference powers has the potential to compound security concerns as it will likely increase both the number of devices that will be hacked and the number of officers who will be doing the hacking. discussed in response to the previous question. Chapter 3. These include: 132 1. 2. Hacking for law enforcement purposes also brings the evidentiary problems. 254. Implement changes recommended above (paragraph 78) to clause 83.. the specification of an individual target. Delete Part 6. Are the authorisation processes for such equipment interference activities appropriate? 255. How can proportionality be assessed when a thematic warrant or a bulk warrant is being authorised? Should law enforcement also have access to such powers? 253. 3. The Sixth Principle sets forth many of the elements we believe should be included in a warrant to ensure effective and human rights compliant authorisation of equipment interference. Include provisions to address the evidentiary concerns raised by equipment interference.132 257. 252. 50 . Additionally. a statement of the nature of the suspicion that the target is connected to a serious crime or a specific threat to national security.g. Delete clauses 99 to 102. As we contend throughout this submission. Questions: 1. careful consideration should be given to whether hacking is an appropriate police power in light of the security threat.2. For the same reasons stated above. PI and ORG Consultation Response: Draft EI Code. at pages 9-15. What sort of “assistance” in interfering with equipment might be required under clauses 99 and 101? 2. Allowing law enforcement to hack makes the need to address these evidentiary concerns even more pressing. Privacy International has established ten principles we believe must be met if equipment interference is to be a permitted power. 4. 5. intrusive powers such as equipment interference must be subject to robust.
6. Are the safeguards for such activities sufficient? 261. including an explanation of why the information sought has not yet been obtained. Authorisation is one of the most important safeguards for equipment interference. 260. and necessarily would not be able to specify the extent of the proposed intrusion given the target is unknown. potentially by amending clause 93.3. Finally. and 7. including with overseas authorities. None of these elements are included in equipment interference warrants currently proposed in the IP Bill. a time limit of one month. a declaration with supporting evidence that there is a high probability evidence of the serious crime or specific threat to national security will be obtained by the operation authorised. 5. a declaration with supporting evidence that all less intrusive methods of obtaining the information sought have been exhausted or would be futile. We add to that concern two problems we see with the safeguards proposed in clauses 103 (equipment interference) and 146-147 (bulk equipment interference). 259. the Secretary of State need only “take into account” whether the information sought “could reasonably be achieved by other means” (Clause 84(6)). Recommendations 1. Given how technically complex equipment interference can be. that sharing should be very closely circumscribed in law. Ensure Judicial Commissioners have technically competent assistance in order to fully vet warrants. 4. Indeed. If there is to be the power of equipment interference. require equipment interference warrants to contain the elements listed above. equipment interference warrants last for 6 months (Clauses 94 and 141). 51 . thematic warrants and bulk warrants completely lack any elements of individualized suspicion. although the warrant may be renewed on a monthly basis with sufficient cause. 2. 262. Nor is there a requirement that hacking be a method of last resort. a declaration with supporting evidence that the security of the device targeted or communications systems more generally will not be negatively impacted by the proposed intrusion. 258. First. the authorisation regime needs significant improvement. The draft IP Bill fails to provide such protections. if information obtained through equipment interference is to be shared outside the agencies or organization that originally obtained the information. the Judicial Commissioners should have technically competent assistance so they can fully understand and consider the nature of the intrusion being proposed. As we argue above. a precise and explicit description of the method and extent of the proposed intrusion and the measures taken to minimise access to irrelevant and immaterial information.
C. 265. Yet clauses 103(3)-(4) and (8) appear broad enough to allow it. • Japan: The Act on the Interception of Communications provides that the target of intercepted communications must be notified within 30 days of the completion of surveillance subject to extension. This lack of future controls means that if information is to be shared.com/docs/Liberty_Ors_Judgment_6Feb15. § 2518(8)(d) of the Wiretap Act (18 U. the IP Bill fails to regulate how the UK authorities should treat information obtained by other countries via equipment interference that is then shared with the UK. . the [surveillance] order”. Instead.pdf 134 Consider the following examples: • Canada: Section 196. it must only be in the most limited of circumstances where there is a strong and demonstrable justification for the sharing. how the IP Bill addresses overseas sharing needs significant improvement.” 264. Clause 146(8) also illustrates the problems with such sharing by removing the safeguards contained in clauses 146(3) (minimizing copying and disclosure of data) and 146(6) (destruction of data) when the data is handed over to overseas authorities. clause 103 does not even mention possible overseas sharing. §§ 2510-2522) requires notification to targets of surveillance and “such other parties . notification is a common safeguard in warrantry systems around the world. 23. available at: http://www.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code requires notification to the target of the interception “within 90 days after the day on which it occurred” subject to extension. Current Practices in Electronic Surveillance (2009). and the UK has confidence that the overseas authority that will be receiving the information will not use it for improper purposes (clause 146(9) is not sufficient in this regard). 52 . Recommendations 1. • US: At the federal level. . . the termination of . Explicitly address sharing of information obtained via equipment 133 See Liberty & Others v the Secretary of State (2015) UKIPTrib 13_77-H. Also of note. 266.ipt-uk. these protections are removed because once the data is shared the UK authorities will no longer have effective control over it. 267.pdf. In contrast. as the judge may determine in his discretion that is in the interest of justice” within “a reasonable time but not later than ninety days after .134 The presumption is that the target of surveillance will be notified when there is no risk of jeopardising an ongoing investigation. clause 146(8) references sharing material acquired via bulk equipment interception with “authorities of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom. although that 12-month period may be extended in six-month intervals by judicial authorisation. at page 17. at para.unodc. the life. The UK should also negotiate the right to continuing oversight of how the information is used. . This is a significant oversight.S.133 As discussed above in paragraphs 53 to 54. Notification that an application for such an order was sought but denied is also required to the same parties within the same time frame. Presumably. physical integrity and personal liberty of another. This should ordinarily happen within 12 months of the conclusion of the investigation. See UNODC. as such a lack of publicly accessible policies on sharing was found to be unlawful in the context of interception. • Germany: Section 101 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure articulates a duty to inform targets of surveillance and others who might have been affected “as soon as it can be effected without endangering the purpose of the investigation. Second.org/documents/organized-crime/Law-Enforcement/Electronic_surveillance. or significant assets”. The draft IP Bill lacks any such presumption of notification. .263. available at https://www. .
are of not of interest to the intelligence service in the exercise of its functions (Clause 150. Why doesn’t the IP Bill address the sharing with UK agencies of data obtained via equipment interference by overseas authorities? 3. Include provisions requiring notification of subjects of surveillance when there is no risk of jeopardising an ongoing investigation. 271. who. thus providing sufficient guarantees against the risk of abuse and arbitrariness. Chapter 3) but not for regular equipment interference (Part 5)? 2. Bulk Personal Datasets can be obtained in two ways. usage. Furthermore. 270.) These datasets can be obtained from other public sector bodies or from the private sector. duration. as we discuss in paragraphs 88-90. A class BPD warrant authorises an intelligence service to obtain.135 Clause 153 fails to provide detailed rules governing the scope of class BPD warrants. 268.interference with overseas authorities (and from overseas authorities to the UK) and strengthen the safeguards that attach to sharing. This answer to the particular aspects of the Bulk Personal Dataset regime should be read in conjunction with Privacy International concerns and objections to the bulk warrants mentioned above. as the IP Bill notes. No further guidance is provided as to the kind of terms that would suffice to sufficiently describe a class of Bulk Personal Datasets. Why is sharing with overseas authorities explicitly addressed in the context of bulk equipment interference (Part 6. 2. once the datasets have been 135 See S and Marper v United Kingdom (2009) 48 EHRR 50. 272. access of third parties. Why doesn’t the IP Bill include notification provisions? Bulk Personal Data Is the use of bulk personal datasets by the security and intelligence services appropriate? 269. Questions 1. as well as minimum safeguards concerning. inter alia. retention and use of Bulk Personal Datasets involves obtaining a set of information that includes personal data relating to a number of individuals.” 53 . The acquisition. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights is clear that the minimum safeguards that should be set out in law in order to avoid abuses of power include a definition of the categories of people liable to have their data recorded and retained. detailed rules governing the scope and application of measures. A class warrant must include a description of the Bulk Personal Datasets to which it relates and an explanation of the operational purpose for which the applicant wishes to examine the data collected. at §99: “[The Court] reiterates that it is as essential…secret surveillance and covert intelligence-gathering to have clear. through a specific BPD warrant (Clause 154) and a class BPD warrant (Clause 153). storage. retain or examine bulk personal datasets that fall within a class described in the warrant. procedures for preserving the integrity and confidentiality of data and procedures for its destruction.
that a single Commission will be responsible for conducting both authorisation and oversight and consider this to be a critical flaw in its current form. While we take issue with the judicial review standard to be applied by the Judicial Commissioners in the draft IP Bill. Delete Part 7 Are the safeguards sufficient for the retention and access of potentially highly sensitive data? 275. We are bolstered in our suggestion by the fact that the Home Office has yet to make a strong operational case for the BPD power. 12. Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office and Office of Surveillance Commissioners. which the Judicial Commissioners should not be tasked to undertake. both reports also recommended the creation of a single oversight mechanism that would merge the functions of the Intelligence Services Commissioner. 273. Clause 154 relating to a specific BPD warrant is not any better. Privacy International commends the IP Bill's attempt to simplify what was formerly a “confusing array of mechanisms. 136 Anderson Report.79. 4. By contrast. we reiterate the concerns we expressed above in paragraphs 186-188 with regard to security problems created by the retention of large amounts of sensitive personal information. oversight demands a fundamentally different set of skills. there are no limitations on what that dataset might contain or where it might be obtained. This is a failing of the section and inconsistent with the protections placed on the other bulk powers. Authorisation is a distinctly legal function.136 Both the Anderson and RUSI Reports documented the concerns raised from many quarters regarding the opacity and unnecessary complexity of a proliferating number of oversight mechanisms and regulators.137 As a result. 276. 54 .138 A main advantage of the draft IP Bill is the acceptance of this recommendation through the creation of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. 138 Anders Report. there are few safeguards on who can access BPDs after they have been collected. In addition. Like the other bulk powers. as while a specific dataset must be specified in the warrant. Recommendations: 1. Recommendation 82. as pointed out in paragraph 90 above. If the power to obtain Bulk Personal Datasets remains in the IP Bill.obtained there are not sufficient limitations on how they may be examined. Recommendations 17-19. paras.. We are concerned. RUSI Report. para. however. we believe these problems mean that Part 7 should be removed from the Bill. 274.42-43. 137 Id. 278. with little clarity as to the demarcation between them”. RUSI Report. we emphasise here that their role is to make a judicial determination on the legality of a warrant application. Oversight What are the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed creation of a single Judicial Commission to oversee the use of investigatory powers? 277.
which noted the following criticism of the current Commissioners: “[T]hey are judges. Above we provide criticism of this proposed authorisation system in response to the question “Is the authorization process appropriate?” 284. . 5. Would the proposed Judicial Commission have sufficient powers. [T]he commissioners need to be 'inquisitive troublemakers'. Fusing the authorisation and oversight functions into a single Commission also raises serious conflict of interest concerns. In particular. is not required for a range of powers 139 140 141 142 RUSI Report.60.141 We note that one of Anderson's own models for the new oversight mechanism proposes that a “Chief Judicial Commissioner” be responsible for authorisation while a separate “Chief Commissioner (non-judge)” be responsible for oversight.142 282. . Privacy International is also concerned that judicial authorisation. The draft IP Bill essentially proposes that the Commission both participate in authorising warrants and undertake reviews of that very authorisation process. Annex 18. 90. We believe that this structure cannot provide the independence that is so critical to a functioning oversight system.279. with a level of investigatory expertise that is prized by the agencies themselves. public engagement”. the commissioners require greater assistance from teams of people with appropriate skills and expertise. RUSI emphasised that “[t]he judicial commissioners in charge of the authorisation of warrants should not be part of a new [oversight mechanism]”. . paras. Separate the authorisation and oversight functions that are currently combined in a single Judicial Commission. Powers . not investigators. Recommendation: 1. This distinction is documented nicely in the RUSI Report. 123. There is a need for individuals . . generally less experienced in identifying problems of process or the application of new technology. 155). Given the depth of investigations . perhaps in the form of legal and technical 'juniors'.”139 280. 4. . . Anderson Report. 55 . intelligence oversight. . . who can . legal advice. resources and independence to perform its role satisfactorily? 283.140 It further explained that the oversight mechanism should cover “four main areas of responsibility: inspection and audit. 281. We bring to the Committee's attention that neither the ISC nor RUSI recommended the merging of the authorisation and oversight functions in the manner proposed by the draft IP Bill. 109. They are . question and challenge people and practices within the relevant organisations. para.80-83. 59. RUSI Report. . even in the weak form expressed in the draft IP Bill. . 138. RUSI Report.Privacy International submits that the Investigatory Powers Commission does not have adequate judicial authorisation powers in the draft IP Bill. . Recommendation 18. The draft Bill preserves the power of the Secretary of State to issue warrants while permitting Judicial Commissioners to “review” this decision (see in particular Clauses 19-21.
be given to allowing the ISC a voice in the appointment or confirmation of the Chief Commissioner. 145 See Big Brother Watch. available at https://www.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/Draft-Investigatory-Powers-Bill-Consultation-Big-Brother-WatchResponse.345 interception and property warrants and renewals” in 2014). 286. we highlight the critical importance of technical expertise.97. In our prior submission to the Joint Human Rights Committee. should be appointed. Dec. sitting under the Chief Commissioner. paras. 144 See Anderson Report. . 14. Clause 176(2) articulates that the Secretary of State is to provide the Judicial Commissioners with the staff and “accommodation. para.66. In terms of authorisation. 146 Anderson Report. which as we explain above must remain separate from each other.that interfere with the right to privacy. we note the criticism levied at the sheer number of warrants she and her predecessors have been asked to authorise under the current system. ISC and RUSI reports all emphasised the need to ensure that the surveillance oversight mechanisms – whatever form they should take – are well-resourced. issuing data retention notices and modifying interception warrants.bigbrotherwatch.147 This concern is exacerbated by the three-year terms of office 143 Id. he at least suggested that “[c]onsideration . . ISC Report. the appointment of Judicial Commissioners by the Prime Minister. 211. 14. 285. 147 While Anderson observed that “[t]he Chief Commissioner should be appointed by the Prime Minister”.143 We also articulated that the lack of judicial authorisation for such powers may fall short of requirements under international human rights law. subverts the very independence that their participation is meant to bring to the authorisation process (Clause 167(1)). Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill – Written Evidence. 7.The Anderson. Recommendation 105. in particular technical expertise. 5. risking political bias on the part of the Commissioners. 56 . Anderson Report. We would also urge the Committee to consider adding more precise language to this clause laying out the types of resources. Permitting the executive to appoint the Commissioners inappropriately blurs the line between the branches. to be provided to the Commission.pdf. Anderson.94-97.33 (noting that the Home Secretary personally authorised “2. We question the appropriateness of granting the Secretary of State the power to determine the resources of the Investigatory Powers Commission as it may undermine its independence. Independence .146 For both authorisation and oversight. rather than through the Judicial Appointment Commission. Resources . and to enhance the public profile of such work. we outlined these powers. pages 3-4. equipment and other facilities” she “considers necessary for the carrying out of the Commissioners' functions”. at paras. para.Privacy International submits that the proposed IP Commission is not sufficiently independent to perform its role satisfactorily.” He did not indicate how Judicial Commissioners.144 We reiterate that position with respect to both authorisation and oversight. 51-56.145 With respect to oversight.org. 287. we highlight the need to ensure that there is an adequate number of Judicial Commissioners. para. 2015. para. which include obtaining communications data. “to inspect the whole range of surveillance techniques”. we urge the Committee to consider the resources necessary “to compare practice across the whole range of different public authorities”. RUSI Report. “to attract excellent specialists”. While we do not think that the Secretary of State must play a role in authorising warrants. First.
This right is particularly troubling given the executive influence in appointing the Judicial Commissioners. Ensure prior judicial authorisation for the acquisition of communications data and the modification of interception warrants. 123(4). 288. Vest the power to issue warrants in Judicial Commissioners or. Recommendations: 1. Ensure Judicial Commissioners are independently appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission and serve fixed-length terms. if remedied. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal is an important yet imperfect component of the oversight regime. the draft IP Bill further undermines the independence of Judicial Commissioners by permitting the Secretary of State to appeal refusals to approve a warrant or authorisation to the IP Commissioner (Clauses 19(5). The IPT and its procedure are handicapped in several ways that. Further. especially technical expertise. 4. 109(4). the Secretary of State’s ability to appeal a decision of a Judicial Commissioner should be circumscribed so as not to merely give him or her a “second bite at the apple. 289. 2. in the alternative. 138(4). Consider adding more specific language to Clause 176(2) to require particular resources. be provided to the IP Commission.for Commissioners proposed by the draft IP Bill (Clause 168(2)). Second. 155(3)). not the Prime Minister. remove the “judicial review” standard in the approval clauses. The brevity and renewable nature of these terms renders the Commissioner role inherently insecure.” Are the new arrangements for the Investigatory Powers Tribunal including the possibility of appeal adequate or are further changes necessary? 291. we recommend the IP Bill be amended to: 57 . could improve the openness and fairness of the process through which claims against the intelligence services are adjudicated. The right to appeal is not constrained in any way and simply gives the Secretary of State a second bite at the apple if displeased with the decision of a Judicial Commissioner. 292. To facilitate this openness. we think the Judicial Appointment Commission should appoint Judicial Commissioners. 3. The IPT should operate under a presumption of openness unless a compelling case is made that allowing specific information to be made public would harm national security. including the IP Commissioner. 5. As we state in the preceding section. Are the appointment and accountability arrangements for Judicial Commissioners appropriate? 290. Consider granting the power to determine resources for the Judicial Commission to an authority other than the Secretary of State. increasing the risk that their decisions will be biased towards the executive. discussed above.
148 295. Include a presumption of openness. or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. See CPR 52. available at: https://www. Any request for a closed hearing or to submit closed evidence must be justified to the IPT on national security grounds. Careful consideration should be given to whether such limitations are appropriate. 293. Not every issue can be appealed – only those which are deemed to “raise an important point of principle or practice” or where there is “another compelling reason for granting leave” (Clause 180(4)).gov. The IPT should have the power to compel the production of evidence if there are not sufficient reasons to keep it secret. 294. In the context of other tribunals.justice. For instance. 3. the IPT must appointment a Special Advocate to represent the interests of any excluded party in the closed sessions. While the ability to appeal an IPT decision is a welcome change. 6. The opposing parties should be made aware of the existence of any request for a closed hearing or to submit closed evidence. and 3. Require the IPT to determine if a request for a closed hearing or to submit closed evidence is justified on national security grounds. while also giving the IPT the related power to compel the production of evidence if there are not sufficient reasons to keep it secret. the right to appeal proposed in the Bill is a limited one. There should be an especially strong presumption in favour of the production of internal policies and legal interpretations given how important they are to a full consideration of the lawfulness of the intelligence services’ activities. 5. an appeal may only be taken with leave of the IPT or the court that will hear the appeal (Clause 180(3)). appeals are permitted where they would have a real prospect of success. 2.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part52 58 . Appeals from the IPT should be allowed where they would have a real prospect of success. The IPT should operate under a presumption of openness. The IPT must appoint a Special Advocate who can represent the interests of any excluded party during closed sessions.3(6). Require any party requesting a closed hearing or to submit closed evidence to provide the national security reasons for the request to the IPT (opposing parties should also be made aware of the existence of the request). 4. Where portions of a proceeding cannot be held in open because of the harm to national security. Recommendations 148 1. The IPT must them determine if the request if justified. 2. or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.1.
Documents Similar To Submission IPB Joint Committee
Raul Preventing Digital Trade War in the Cloud
US Federal Trade Commission: pw960604
api-285710667
Report of the House Resolution 167 Task Force--Recommendations on Improving Local Policing, September 1999.pdf
141993393-Scalar-Weapons.doc
38975594-NYPD-Auxiliary-Patrol-Guide.pdf
167786705-High-Power-Electromagnetic-Weapons-A-Brief-Tutorial.pdf
5 MARCH 09 PRODUCTION-FINAL_REDACTED.EX.pdf
324691640-Civil-Society-Letter-Demands-that-Congress-Investigate-the-FBI-and-DHS.pdf
37634326-Munzert-Criminal-Misuse-of-Microwave-Weapons.pdf
327500095-White-House-AI-Report-2016.pdf
115637516-Responsibilities-of-Local-Law-Enforcement-Agencies-under-Secure-Communities.docx
37634326-Munzert-Criminal-Misuse-of-Microwave-Weapons (1).pdf
135911335-DoD-3025-21-Defense-Support-of-Civilian-Law-Enforcement-Agencies (1).pdf
95591875-Whistleblower-Evolutions.pdf
30888422-Acoustic-Trauma-Bioeffects-of-Sound.pdf