Advanced Search
Content Type: Long Read
Monday, January 30, 2023
We won our case against the UK’s Security Service (MI5) and the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD). The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) – the judicial body responsible for monitoring UK’s intelligence and security agencies – held that MI5 acted unlawfully by knowingly holding people’s personal data in systems that were in breach of core legal requirements. MI5 unlawfully retained huge amounts of personal data between 2014 and 2019. During that period, and as a result of these…
Content Type: Press release
Monday, January 30, 2023
In a landmark judgment, handed down today (Monday 30 January 2023), the Investigatory Powers Tribunal have found that there were “very serious failings” at the highest levels of MI5 to comply with privacy safeguards from as early as 2014, and that successive Home Secretaries did not to enquire into or resolve these long-standing rule-breaking despite obvious red flags.
Human rights organisations Liberty and Privacy International, who brought this significant legal case in January 2020, have…
Content Type: Long Read
Friday, July 23, 2021
Case: Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others
Last update: December 2022
Summary
The UK Security and Intelligence Agencies (SIAs) – including Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service – have been building massive comprehensive datasets of information on each and every individual. They have been collecting and combining information from multiple sources on unclear legal bases and with minimal…
Content Type: News & Analysis
Friday, July 23, 2021
What happened
On 22 July 2021, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) issued a declaration on our challenge to the UK bulk communications regime finding that section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (since repealed by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016) was incompatible with EU law human rights standards. The result of the judgment is that a decade’s worth of secret data capture has been held to be unlawful. The unlawfulness would have remained a secret but for PI’s work.
You can find…
Content Type: Video
Friday, October 9, 2020
Find out more on our website: https://privacyinternational.org/long-read/4206/qa-eus-top-court-rules-uk-french-and-belgian-mass-surveillance-regimes-must-respect
And make sure we can keep taking these fights to court: support.privacyinternational.org
You can listen and subscribe to the podcast where ever you normally find your podcasts:
Spotify
Apple podcasts
Google podcasts
Castbox
Overcast
Pocket Casts
Peertube
Youtube
Stitcher
And more...
Content Type: Long Read
Q&A: EU's top court rules that UK, French and Belgian mass surveillance regimes must respect privacy
Tuesday, October 6, 2020
Content Type: Press release
Tuesday, October 6, 2020
By treating everyone as a suspect, the bulk data collection or retention regimes engage European fundamental rights to privacy, data protection, freedom of expression, as guaranteed respectively by Articles 7, 8, and 11 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Caroline Wilson Palow, Legal Director of Privacy International, said:
"Today’s judgment reinforces the rule of law in the EU. In these turbulent times, it serves as a reminder that no government should be above the law. Democratic…
Content Type: News & Analysis
Monday, February 24, 2020
In mid-2019, MI5 admitted, during a case brought by Liberty, that personal data was being held in “ungoverned spaces”. Much about these ‘ungoverned spaces’, and how they would effectively be “governed” in the future, remained unclear. At the moment, they are understood to be a ‘technical environment’ where personal data of unknown numbers of individuals was being ‘handled’. The use of ‘technical environment’ suggests something more than simply a compilation of a few datasets or databases.
The…
Content Type: News & Analysis
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Today Advocate General (AG) Campos Sánchez-Bordona of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), issued his opinions (C-623/17, C-511/18 and C-512/18 and C-520/18) on how he believes the Court should rule on vital questions relating to the conditions under which security and intelligence agencies in the UK, France and Belgium could have access to communications data retained by telecommunications providers.
The AG addressed two major questions:
(1) When states seek to impose…
Content Type: Press release
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Today the Advocate General (AG) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Campos Sánchez-Bordona, issued his opinion on how he believes the Court should rule on vital questions relating to the conditions under which security and intelligence agencies in the UK, France and Belgium could have access to communications data retained by telecommunications providers.
The AG advises the following:
The UK’s collection of bulk communications data violates EU law.
The French and Belgium…
Content Type: Long Read
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
On 8 September 2017, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal decided to refer questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) concerning the collection of bulk communications data (‘BCD’) by the Security Intelligence Agencies from mobile network operators.
The BCD regime was initially secret. In an earlier judgment, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled that the regime was not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights prior to its public avowal, but (subject to the…
Content Type: Long Read
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Privacy International’s case on Bulk Personal Datasets and Bulk Communications Data comes to a head with a four-day hearing in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal which commenced on 26 July 2016.
The litigation has brought to light significant revelations about the use of section 94 of the 1984 Telecommunications Act to obtain bulk communications data.
Large amounts of disclosure have shed new light on this hitherto secret power and explained confusing aspects of the Government’s Response to…
Content Type: Press release
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
Tomorrow, Privacy International and Open Rights Group will argue that wholesale and indiscriminate retention of our personal data is not permissible. The case, brought by MPs Tom Watson and David Davis against the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA), and in which PI intervened, will be heard in the European Court of Justice (CJEU) on 12 April. It has the potential to send shockwaves through the Investigatory Powers Bill, the controversial bill currently in Parliament.
The…