Advanced Search
Content Type: Long Read
This piece was orignally published in Slate in February 2017
In 2015, the FBI obtained a warrant to hack the devices of every visitor to a child pornography website. On the basis of this single warrant, the FBI ultimately hacked more than 8,700 computers, resulting in a wave of federal prosecutions. The vast majority of these devices—over 83 percent—were located outside the United States, in more than 100 different countries. Now, we are in the midst of the first cases…
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: 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…
Content Type: Long Read
This piece originally appeared here.
On both sides of the Atlantic, we are witnessing the dramatic expansion of government hacking powers. In the United States, a proposed amendment to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure would permit the government to obtain a warrant, in certain circumstances, to hack unspecified numbers of electronic devices anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, across the pond, the British Parliament is currently debating the Investigatory…
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: News & Analysis
The Investigatory Powers Bill introduced on Tuesday 1 March contains the same range of ‘bulk powers’ envisaged in the earlier draft: bulk interception warrants; bulk acquisition warrants; bulk equipment interference warrants; and bulk personal dataset warrants.
These powers, if adopted as currently envisaged in the Bill, would codify a practice of mass, untargeted surveillance by the UK intelligence services.
In the last couple of years, some of the mass surveillance powers used by…