European Commissioner For Human Rights And Key EU Privacy Committee Strongly Condemn Mass Surveillance And Bulk Data Retention
from the neither-lawful-nor-ethically-acceptable dept
As we wrote recently, the UK's Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that GCHQ surveillance doesn't violate human rights. That's hardly surprising, given IPT's track record in approving pretty much everything that GCHQ does. But the global reach of the spying carried out by GCHQ and the NSA means that there are plenty of other bodies that are prepared to condemn what they have been doing. Here, for example, is an important report from the commissioner for human rights at the Council of Europe, entitled "The Rule of Law on the Internet in the Wider Digital World". It's an extremely thorough exploration of this complex area, touching on key issues that have often been discussed here on Techdirt: privatized law enforcement, suspicionless mass data retention, cross-border exchange of data by law enforcement agencies, and global surveillance by national security agencies. The Guardian summarizes the commissioner's views as follows:The "secret, massive and indiscriminate" surveillance conducted by intelligence services and disclosed by the former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden cannot be justified by the fight against terrorism, the most senior human rights official in Europe has warned.As the article notes, the commissioner has the power to intervene at the European Court of Human Rights; given the tenor of his report, Muižnieks may well choose to do that in the important case involving GCHQ's spying activities. The commissioner's report is also likely to bolster recent recommendations from the slightly obscure "Article 29 Working Party", an independent advisory body for the European Union on data protection and privacy. The recommendations have been issued in the form of a "joint statement", and, like Muižnieks, the Working Party has no hesitation in criticizing every aspect of the mass surveillance currently being conducted by the UK, US and the other Five Eyes nations, aided and abetted by Internet and telecoms companies. Here are some of its key points:
In a direct challenge to the United Kingdom and other states, Nils Muižnieks, the commissioner for human rights at the Council of Europe, calls for greater transparency and stronger democratic oversight of the way security agencies monitor the internet. He also said that so-called Five Eyes intelligence-sharing treaty between the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada should be published.
"Suspicionless mass retention of communications data is fundamentally contrary to the rule of law … and ineffective," the Latvian official argues in a 120-page report, The Rule of Law on the Internet in the Wider Digital World. "Member states should not resort to it or impose compulsory retention of data by third parties."
1. The protection of personal data is a fundamental right. Personal data (which includes metadata) may not be treated solely as an object of trade, an economic asset or a common good.As those points make clear, the group not only rejects mass surveillance, but also bulk data retention, the Safe Harbor agreement with the US, and the inclusion of chapters harmful to privacy in trade agreements such as TAFTA/TTIP and TISA. Like the commissioner for human rights at the Council of Europe, the Article 29 Working Party has no power to implement any of its recommendations directly, but its strongly-worded condemnation of just about every aspect of the widespread surveillance and data retention in place today adds to growing pressure for both to be drastically reduced.
...
6. Secret, massive and indiscriminate surveillance of individuals in Europe, whether by public or private players acting in an EU Member State or from elsewhere, is neither lawful with regard to the EU Treaties and legislations nor ethically acceptable.
...
8. Unrestricted bulk retention of personal data for security purposes is not acceptable in a democratic society. Retention, access and use of data by national competent authorities should be limited to what is strictly necessary and proportionate in a democratic society, and be subject to effective substantive and procedural safeguards.
...
10. None of the provisions of the European instruments designed to frame international data transfers between private parties provide a legal basis for the transfer of data to a third country authority for the purpose of massive and indiscriminate surveillance (whether Safe Harbor, binding corporate rules or standard contractual clauses).
...
13. The European level of protection of personal data should not be eroded, wholly or in part, by bilateral or international agreements, including agreements on trade in goods or services with third countries.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: human rights, mass surveillance, privacy, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Failure to communicate.
On the other hand we have Ireland and Georgia passing laws believing they can override existing laws they've agreed to.
Isn't this the part where these unthinking politicians get impeached, or at least sued into oblivion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mass surveillance helps the terrorists
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WMS?
Well, "secret" aside, "massive" and "indiscriminate" are two words used to describe weapons of mass destruction. So I guess the new term we should be using is "weapons of mass surveillance".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
this interesting, given how there are supposed 'Trade Agreements' in the pipeline, some very close to completion, all of which include ISDS and the ability for the entertainment industries and/or their lackeys to spy on individuals as they see fit and to demand the handing over of data on the required at the time IP addresses!! no wonder these kind of clauses are always included and why the USA entertainment industries are pushing all the harder every time another agreement rears it's ugly head from the initiators, the USTR!! fucking outrageous!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But we cannot have weed legalized because of EU stance on the subject.
Great logic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
All of your future are belong to us!
Every government wants to spy on their population and therefor none are truly willing to do anything but pay lip service to privacy rights while enacting more laws that enable further and deeper surveillance activity.
The apparent lack of usable intel simply means that the "intel" they are collecting is being used for things other than catching bad guys, or they'd be bragging from the roof tops about how effective the programs are.
It should be patently obvious by now that none of this has anything to do with terrorism and everything to do with controlling populations through blackmail and cointelpro.
As was pointed out above, the (*1)real terrorists are pleased as punch with all this public surveillance as it completely obliterates any ability to carry out effective and (*2)specific investigation of real terrorist activities - (*)if either actually exists.
Since no effort is actually being taken to prevent terrorist activity by the agencies charged with that work, I have to assume that all terrorism currently existent on earth is manufactured and orchestrated by the Five Eyes, specifically to create the kind of environment where such public spying seems feasible and necessary.
Until something truly awful occurs that can be directly linked to the CIA, NSA, FBI public spy programs, such as a nuke going off in the Bronx that they were all aware of but ignored, this "thing of theirs" is guaranteed to escalate and cause nothing but greater grief for everyone going forward.
More-over, even if all the public surveillance programs were completely shut down tomorrow, the spooks have collected enough dirt on everyone to date, that they can continue to extort cash and compliance globally, well into the future, unimpeded.
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: All of your future are belong to us!
There's no need for them to manufacture their own terrorists(the FBI just does it for cheap and easy budget justifications, and probably for simple entertainment), the various governments, especially the USG, have done more than enough to piss people off that there will never be a shortage of people who hate them.
No, if they're not focusing on those threats, it's because they believe something is even more dangerous to them, and given so much of the information they are scooping up is about the citizens of their home countries, well, not too hard to guess who they see as enemy #1.
[ link to this | view in thread ]