This inquiry addresses police forces' use of RIPA powers to acquire communications data in the course of investigations. In two recent, high-profile cases, police have used RIPA powers to obtain material which might be regarded as journalistic material for the purposes of [the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984].

In 2013, there were 514,608 notices and authorisations for communications data, down from 570,135 in 2012. Of these, 87.7 % were submitted by law enforcement agencies and 11.1 % by the intelligence agencies.

RIPA is not fit for purpose, with law enforcement agencies failing to routinely record the professions of individuals who have had their communications data accessed under the RIPA. The recording of information under RIPA is totally insufficient, and the whole process appears secretive and disorganised with information being destroyed afterwards. Whereas we acknowledge the operational need for secrecy both during investigations and afterwards (so that investigative techniques more broadly are not disclosed), we are concerned that the level of secrecy surrounding the use of RIPA allows investigating authorities to engage in acts which would be unacceptable in a democracy, with inadequate oversight. We recommend that the Home Office use the current review of the RIPA Code to ensure that law enforcement agencies use their RIPA powers properly.

The UK spy agency GCHQ is facing a legal challenge in the European courts over claims that its mass online surveillance programmes have breached the privacy of tens of millions of people across the UK and Europe.

Three campaign groups -- Big Brother Watch, the Open Rights Group and English PEN -- together with the German internet activist Constanze Kurz, have filed papers at the European court of human rights alleging that the collection of vast amounts of data, including the content of emails and social media messages, by Britain's spy agencies is illegal.

The human rights group Amnesty International has announced it is taking legal action against the UK government over concerns its communications have been illegally accessed by UK intelligence services.

In the latest of a series of legal challenges sparked by the revelations based on documents released by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, Amnesty said it was "highly likely" its emails and phone calls have been intercepted.

It has issued a claim at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) arguing that the interception of its communications would be in breach of article 8 (right to privacy) and article 10 (right to freedom of expression) of the Human Rights Act.

A British citizen's UK court action will test the legal right of Microsoft to disclose private data on UK citizens to the US electronic spying organisation, the National Security Agency (NSA).

The case will shine a light on the legality of top secret US court orders which require US technology companies to disclose details of foreign users' private communications.

Kevin Cahill, a British journalist, has brought the case in the Lord Mayor's and City of London County Court. The case centres on Cahill's belief that Microsoft breached the security of his email account.

Cahill argues that, by obeying orders that are legally binding only in the United States, Microsoft has contravened British law -- the Data Protection Act in particular.