Advanced Search
Content Type: Long Read
We won our case against the UK’s Security Service (MI5) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD). The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) – the judicial body responsible for monitoring UK’s intelligence and security agencies – held that MI5 acted unlawfully by knowingly holding people’s personal data in systems that were in breach of core legal requirements. MI5 unlawfully retained huge amounts of personal data between 2014 and 2019. During that period, and as a result of these…
Content Type: Long Read
Additionally, in January 2020 Privacy International and UK-based NGO Liberty filed a new claim against MI5 and the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (the “Ungoverned Spaces Case”, this time, the case sought to hold MI5 and the SSHD accountable for systemic, long-term failures in the way they handle and retain millions of people’s personal data. As part of this claim, PI requested that the IPT re-opens parts of the original BPD/BCD. This aspect of…
Content Type: Long Read
*Photo by Kristina Flour on Unsplash
The British government needs to provide assurances that MI5’s secret policy does not authorise people to commit serious human rights violations or cover up of such crimes
Privacy International, along Reprieve, the Committee on the Administration of Justice, and the Pat Finucane Centre, is challenging the secret policy of MI5 to authorise or enable its so called “agents” (not MI5 officials) to commit crimes here in the UK.
So far we have discovered…
Content Type: Legal Case Files
The complaints alleged that GCHQ had no clear authority under UK law to conduct hacking operations and that such activities violated the Computer Misuse Act 1990, which criminalises hacking. They further alleged that GCHQ hacking was in violation of Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which respectively protect the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression.
Content Type: Long Read
On 8 September 2017, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal decided to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) concerning the collection of bulk communications data (‘BCD’) by the Security Intelligence Agencies from mobile network operators.
The BCD regime was initially secret. In an earlier judgment, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that the regime was not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights prior to its public avowal, but (subject to…
Content Type: Legal Case Files
A skeleton argument is a document produced for the court. It is more usually produced as a means of presenting the skeleton or ‘bare bones’ of a case before a trial.
The skeleton arguments cross-reference documents in the bundles. There is a consolidated index here: [Consolidated Index]
References in the form [Bundle/Tab/Page] are to the following bundles:
Bundles used for the July 2016 hearing, namely ‘Core’ and bundles numbered consecutively 1 to 5
Supplemental bundle prepared for the…
Content Type: Long Read
On 17 October 2016, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal handed down judgment in a case brought by Privacy International against the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the three Security and Intelligence Agencies (MI5, MI6 and GCHQ).
The case concerned the Agencies’ acquisition and use of bulk personal datasets (‘BPD’) – datasets that contain personal data about individuals, the majority of whom are unlikely to be of intelligence interest, such as passport databases and finance-related…
Content Type: Long Read
Privacy International’s case on Bulk Personal Datasets and Bulk Communications Data comes to a head with a four-day hearing in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal which commenced on 26 July 2016.
The litigation has brought to light significant revelations about the use of section 94 of the 1984 Telecommunications Act to obtain bulk communications data.
Large amounts of disclosure have shed new light on this hitherto secret power and explained confusing aspects of the Government’s Response to…
Content Type: Legal Case Files
Section A: RFI 1 to RFI 11
Section B: 1. GCHQ compliance Guide extracts to 28. SIS Database
Content Type: Legal Case Files
All Intelligence Services: 1 to 2
GCHQ: 3 to 11
Security Service: 12 to 32
Secret Intelligence Service: 33 to 46
Content Type: Legal Case Files
Section A: RFI 33 to Direction from the PM to the Intelligence Services Commissioner
Section B: RFI 3 to Arrangements for the Acquisition of Bulk Communications Data - 4 November 2011
Section C: Table of Gists to Extracts from Confidential Annex to Intelligence Service Commissioner's Report - 2010
Please note that Section C labels for documents does not completely align so some parts of the document will be in the previous document and some might extend to the following document.
Content Type: Legal Case Files
Part 1: RFI 12 to RFI 32
Part 2: Historic 4 to Exhibit D
Part 3: RFI 1 to 2004 Correspondence Home Office / Swinton Thomas
Content Type: Legal Case Files
Privacy International in August 2014 filed a legal challenge in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Detailed grounds were filed on 10 September 2015 and re-amended on 8 January 2016 following disclosures regarding the use of section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 to include a challenge to the use of section 94 of the Telecommunications Act.
The Respondents provided an amended response on 19 February 2016 which provides detail on the use of section 94 and…
Content Type: Long Read
1984: A broad law, a broad power and a whole lot of secrecy
In the wake of litigation brought by Privacy International (‘PI’) and as the Government prepared to introduce the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill (‘IP Bill’) in November 2015, there was a cascade of ‘avowals’- admissions that the intelligence agencies carry out some highly intrusive surveillance operations under powers contained in outdated and confusing legislation.
It is disappointing that it has been almost six months since…
Content Type: Long Read
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (“IPT”) today held that GCHQ hacking of computers, mobile devices and networks is lawful, wherever it occurs around the world. We are disappointed that the IPT has not upheld our complaint and we will be challenging its findings.
Our complaint is the first UK legal challenge to state-sponsored hacking, an exceptionally intrusive form of surveillance. We contended that GCHQ hacking operations were incompatible with democratic principles and human rights…
Content Type: Long Read
Today, Privacy International lodged a legal challenge to GCHQ's extensive and intrusive hacking of personal computers and devices. Below, we answer a few questions about the law underlying our complaint, and why it matters.
Is hacking legal?
As a result of the Snowden revelations, we have learned that GCHQ, often in partnership with the NSA, has been using malicious software to intrude upon our computers and mobile devices.
This type of activity, often called "hacking," is a…