Advanced Search
Content Type: Advocacy
We responded to the Home Office consultation on codes of practices under the Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 (IPAA). Our response focused on (1) the draft codes relating to bulk personal datasets with low or no reasonable expection of privacy, (2) third-party bulk personal datasets and (3) the notices regime. You can download our full response with its 23 recommendations for reform at the bottom of this page.'Low Privacy' Bulk Personal DatasetsThe IPAA introduces a new concept of…
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: News & Analysis
What happened
On 22 July 2021, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) issued a declaration on our challenge to the UK bulk communications regime finding that section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (since repealed by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016) was incompatible with EU law human rights standards. The result of the judgment is that a decade’s worth of secret data capture has been held to be unlawful. The unlawfulness would have remained a secret but for PI’s work.
You…
Content Type: Long Read
The UK's domestic-facing intelligence agency, MI5, today admitted that it captured and read Privacy International's private data as part of its Bulk Communications Data (BCD) and Bulk Personal Datasets (BPD) programmes, which hoover up massive amounts of the public's data. In further startling legal disclosures, all three of the UK's primary intelligence agencies - GCHQ, MI5, and MI6 - also admitted that they unlawfully gathered data about Privacy International or its staff. You can read the…
Content Type: Press release
We found this image here
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) today held that, for a sustained period, successive Foreign Secretaries wrongly gave GCHQ unfettered discretion to collect vast quantities of personal customer information from telecommunications companies.
The judgment exposes:
· the error-ridden and inconsistent evidence provided by GCHQ throughout the case;
· the willingness of telecommunications companies to secretly hand over customer data on the basis of mere verbal…
Content Type: Press release
Hearing: Cross examination of senior GCHQ official about Intelligence Agencies’ use of massive databases of information about everyone in the UK
When: Monday 26 February 2018, 3.15pm
Where: Royal Courts of Justice, Court 28, Strand, London WC2A 2LL
Summary
This is the first time GCHQ have given open evidence in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (The Tribunal). It is also the first time they will be cross examined by Privacy International on serious misleading errors they provided in…
Content Type: Press release
The Case
Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs et al. (Bulk Personal Datasets & Bulk Communications Data challenge)
Date: 5-9 June 2017
Time: from 10:00 onwards
Location: Royal Courts of Justice, The Strand, London WC2A 2LL United Kingdom
Hearing overview
Next week’s hearing follows the Investigatory Powers Tribunal’s earlier judgment in October 2016, which ruled that three issues are to be determined:
…
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
This piece was written by Ashley Gorski, who is an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, and PI legal officer Scarlet Kim and originally appeared in The Guardian here.
In recent weeks, the Hollywood film about Edward Snowden and the movement to pardon the NSA whistleblower have renewed worldwide attention on the scope and substance of government surveillance programs. In the United States, however, the debate has often been a narrow one, focused on the…
Content Type: Press release
Key points
Bulk Communications Data (BCD) collection, commenced in March 1998, unlawful until November 2015
Bulk Personal Datasets regime (BPD), commenced c.2006, unlawful until March 2015
Everyone’s communications data collected unlawfully, in secret and without adequate safeguards until November 2015
We maintain that even post 2015, bulk surveillance powers are not lawful
As the Investigatory Powers Bill is set to become law within weeks, we argue that the authorisation and…
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
This week, Privacy International, together with nine other international human rights NGOs, filed submissions with the European Court of Human Rights. Our case challenges the UK government’s bulk interception of internet traffic transiting fiber optic cables landing in the UK and its access to information similarly intercepted in bulk by the US government, which were revealed by the Snowden disclosures. To accompany our filing, we have produced two infographics to illustrate the…
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: Press release
Today Sir Stanley Burnton, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, published a highly critical review of the use of Section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 for gathering vast amounts of our communications data in bulk. This obscure clause pre-dates the internet era, but has been used for nearly two decades for mass surveillance. Today is the first time that these powers have been criticised by an independent statutory body. IOCCO is critical of the Government's use of these…