Tired Of Losing Legal Challenges To Its Surveillance, UK Government Secretly Changes Law So It Can Win

from the that's-cheating dept

Mon, May 18th 2015 11:36am — Glyn Moody

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

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ninja (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 11:31am

The UK system is different so I'm ignorant but here the Executive needs the Legislative support because it can't simply change it. How does it work in the UK? Can the change be challenged?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 11:43am
  
  Re:
  The prime minister and cabinet are part of the legislature in the UK, and control the majority party.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael, 18 May 2015 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    Checks and balances...
    
    It all balances for the people that can write big checks.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - tqk (profile), 19 May 2015 @ 7:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    The prime minister and cabinet are part of the legislature in the UK, and control the majority party.
    
    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 ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 12:18pm
  
  Re:
  Yes, but not by anyone outside parliament, because this was done with the lesser consensus and in secret, without any uninvested party being involved (namely, the public whose data these clowns are literally stealing.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mcinsand, 18 May 2015 @ 12:02pm

4th amendment
Thankfully, we have the Fourth Amendment in the US, so behavior like this can't happen.

(/sarc set to 11)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re: 4th amendment
  Thankfully we have a huge stupid electorate moaning and groaning about stupid things instead of the loss of their liberty.
  
  ~2 Party system... i mean 2 patsy system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 12:06pm

cant imagine where they got the idea from to do this, can you??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 12:18pm

Its like the little child lying to cover up a previous lie only to find he or she has to keep lying indefinitely. All the while the parent is just rolling his or her eyes because they know the child is lying and that the child isn't going to get away with it unless the parent lets it slide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MikeC (profile), 18 May 2015 @ 12:20pm

How Inefficent
In the US we don't need to change the law, we just have a lawyer at the DOJ interpret the law for us and then classify that interpretation, so no one knows it was done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hans, 18 May 2015 @ 12:47pm

We Yanks don't have that problem...
Luckily we solved that problem over here with our fancy Constitution thingy with its extra-bonus Bill of Rights.

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 ]
David, 18 May 2015 @ 12:48pm

I have altered the deal.
Pray I don't alter it further. -- James Cameron

Relying on just "1984" to meet the dystopian desires of the UK government would be shortsighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personanongrata, 18 May 2015 @ 1:55pm

Legal Does Not Equal Moral
Expediency and tyranny holding hands in perfect harmony as the pliably supine cretins operating within the UK government fold like cheap lawn furniture in the face of secret police state laws.

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 ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 2:03pm

It's official, the UK parliament is being run by Darth Sidious!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 3:10pm

One thing that will not happen: Change
One thing that will happen: Big scandal revealing blackmail and surveillance of political opposition of those in power. Opposition and public will be outraged finally and other party will come to power.
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 ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2015 @ 4:28pm
  
  Re: One thing that will not happen: Change
  The UK is a two party system, sadly.
  
  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 ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2015 @ 12:37am

Since France, the UK and the USA are all becoming police state tyrannies do you suppose countries like Russia and North Korea will become bastions of freedom and democracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2015 @ 5:03am
  
  Re:
  I guess it will just be "my tyranny is better than yours"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Another Anonymous Troll, 19 May 2015 @ 6:32am

Typical 6-year-old logic. If I can't win I'll make up new rules until I can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheogorath (profile), 25 May 2015 @ 2:50pm

This is why...
Most UK citizens call the prick in charge 'Scamoron'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]