[IRPCoalition] Fwd: ECHR judgment on UK mass surveillance

[Marianne Franklin]

Dear all on the IRPC list

Please see below information from Privacy International on the recent
ECtHR decision regarding mass online surveillance.

best wishes

MF



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[bestbits] ECHR judgment on UK mass surveillance
Date: 	Sun, 16 Sep 2018 22:33:28 +0100
From: 	APdeC <alex at privacyinternational.org>
Reply-To: 	APdeC <alex at privacyinternational.org>
To: 	bestbits at lists.bestbits.net



Hey all,

I wanted to pass on the message below from my colleague Tomaso on a
judgement from the European Court of Human Rights for our case
challenging the UK's mass interception powers and intelligence sharing
arrangements.

The judgement is not what we wanted but it still has many positive
elements to celebrate after five long years of litigation even if there
is still more work to be done...
If you have any questions, feel free to get with Tomaso directly
(tomasof at privacyinternational.org <mailto:tomasof at privacyinternational.org>)

Thanks for spreading the word!

Best,

Alex

————————

Dear all,

On 13 September 2018, the European Court of Human Rights released its
judgement in our case against the UK's mass interception powers and
intelligence
sharing arrangements in the UK (link to the Court’s press release
here: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=003-6187848-8026299)

The case challenged the UK bulk interception of communication that
happens to traverse the UK and to store the content of these
communications as well as any related communications data; and the UK
capacity to obtain similar bulk access to communications and data
intercepted by the intelligence services of other states, such as the US.

The top lines of the judgement are:

  * The UK’s historical bulk interception regime violated the right
    to privacy protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on
    Human Rights (ECHR) and to free expression, protected by Article 10.
  * The interception of communications data is as serious a breach
    of privacy as the interception of content, meaning the UK regime for
    bulk interception of communications data was unlawful.
  * The UK’s regime for authorising bulk interception was incapable
    of keeping the “interference” to what is “necessary in a
    democratic society”.

Here’s our analysis
<https://privacyinternational.org/feature/2267/uk-mass-interception-law-violates-human-rights-fight-against-mass-surveillance> of
the decision. And here’s our press release
<https://privacyinternational.org/press-release/2265/press-release-campaigners-win-vital-battle-against-uk-mass-surveillance-european> with
Amnesty International and Liberty.

All the best,

Tomaso


*Ms. Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion
*
Lead - Global Programme
Privacy International
62 Britton Street
London, EC1M 5UY
United Kingdom

E: alex at privacyinternational.org <mailto:alex at privacyinternational.org> 
W: www.privacyinternational.org <http://www.privacyinternational.org> 
T: +44 (0) 203 422 4321 
Skype: alexpdec.pi


Privacy International is a registered charity (No. 1147471).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/private/irp/attachments/20180917/b735d7d6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 874 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/private/irp/attachments/20180917/b735d7d6/attachment.sig>