Tired Of Losing Legal Challenges To Its Surveillance, UK Government Secretly Changes Law So It Can Win
from the that's-cheating dept
Against all the odds, legal challenges to UK surveillance are succeeding, as Techdirt has reported. At the forefront of bringing cases against GCHQ is the rights group Privacy International. In May 2014 it asserted that GCHQ's activities were illegal under the UK's Computer Misuse Act (CMA), which criminalizes breaking into digital systems. A year later, and just hours before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal hearing of Privacy International's complaint against GCHQ, the UK government revealed the following:
only a few weeks after the claim was filed, the [UK] Government quietly introduced legislation on 6 June 2014 that would amend the CMA to provide a new exception for law enforcement and GCHQ to hack without criminal liability. The change not only affects Privacy International's claim, but also grants UK law enforcement new leeway to potentially conduct cyber attacks within the UK.
That is, the UK government was implicitly admitting that GCHQ's activities were, once again, illegal, but fixed that problem with the simple expedient of changing the law to make them legal. That on its own is questionable, although some might say that spies and the police need to have immunity when carrying out certain authorized acts. But the real issue here is another: the fact that this change was pushed through with none of the usual scrutiny or debate accorded to laws with important effects. As Privacy International explains, although the UK government published an explanatory note about the proposed amendment, it neglected to mention its true impact. Moreover:
It appears no regulators, commissioners responsible for overseeing the intelligence agencies, the Information Commissioner's Office, industry, NGOs or the public were notified or consulted about the proposed legislative changes. There was no published Privacy Impact Assessment. Only the Ministry of Justice, Crown Prosecution Service, Scotland Office, Northern Ireland Office, GCHQ, Police and National Crime Agency were consulted as stakeholders. There was no public debate.
This is essentially secret law-making, where the only people consulted are the ones who will benefit. That's troubling at the best of times, but especially so in the context of a government abusing its powers to avoid yet another embarrassing defeat in the courts.
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: gchq, legality, nsa, privacy, secret law, spying, surveillance, uk
Companies: privacy international
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It all balances for the people that can write big checks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which, in theory, should get the PM the Executive branch and the Commons. In theory, there's a senate/House of Lords out there also made up of appointees who're not necessarily beholden to the PM or the party. Canada's senate bills itself as the voice of sober, second thought. In reality it's all moribund.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
4th amendment
(/sarc set to 11)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 4th amendment
~2 Party system... i mean 2 patsy system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Inefficent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We Yanks don't have that problem...
Now whenever the Executive wants to do something illegal, they just get Dick Cheney to say the law means whatever the Executive wants it to mean!
Then when "we the people" catch wind of it and start pointing out it's illegal, they make "Freedom Act" to make it legal.
Er, wait... just that's just like over there in the UK... Derp.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have altered the deal.
Relying on just "1984" to meet the dystopian desires of the UK government would be shortsighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Does Not Equal Moral
Never forget that everything the National Socialists did in Germany was legal. Same goes for the USSR or any other tyranny in found human history.
The real question is:
Are these secret laws moral?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One thing that will not happen: Change
New party has the power and suddenly does not see reason to change laws in meaningful ways. Instead will use same tactics to insure place at the top.
Rinse and repeat.
I hate to be cynical, but I don't see this changing in any good way for many years to come with our current selection of politicians and power players. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't try though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One thing that will not happen: Change
We've got the Tories currently in power, who're trying to pass that snooping bill now that nobody (read: Liberal Democrats) can stop them, as well as making vague "extremism" illegal.
The other party the dumb sheeple of the UK vote for is Labour, who passed that nasty little RIPA act, as well as making possession of certain drawn pornography illegal.
The UK is really one of the most repressive first world countries on the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]