Rushed UK surveillance laws face legal challenge by rogue MPs
- Summary:
- Shortly after a showdown in the US, the UK's own rebel MPs are taking the government to court over its emergency surveillance laws.
Two MPs from opposing parties and a civil liberties group will later present their arguments to the High Court that the UK's Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA), which was fast-tracked through Parliament in just three days last Summer, conflicts with the Human Rights Act.
DRIPA allows Britain's spy agencies access to people's phone and internet data by ensuring that communications companies retain all information for 12 months. Critics claim that the legal framework is too lax and allows the government to access private data without too much resistance or requirement to show why they need the data.
Former Conservative minister David Davis and Labour's Tom Watson believe that the legislation is rushed and incompatible with human rights – in particular with regard to the right to respect for private and family life. Civil rights group Liberty will be representing Davis and Watson in court.
The Act itself was fast-tracked through Parliament and onto the statute books in July last year after the three main party leaders at the time and Home Secretary Theresa May argued that without the new law the country would be seriously vulnerable to terrorist activity.
Typically it takes weeks or months to pass new legislation.
Whilst the government maintains that the legislation is essential to securing the country and any block would put lives at risk, Liberty wants reform on how communication data is collected and requested by officials. Emma Norton, Legal Officer for Liberty, said:
The executive dominance of Parliament in rushing through this legislation – using a wholly fabricated “emergency” – made a mockery of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, and showed a staggering disregard for the entire population’s right to privacy.It is thanks to the Human Rights Act that we are able to challenge the Government’s actions – the same Government which now seeks to axe that very piece of legislation and, by doing so, curb the British people’s ability to do so in future.
Liberty does not dispute the role of communications data in solving and preventing crime, but does not believe that justifies the costly and lengthy mass retention of records of those who are not involved in such investigations. Liberty is calling for prior judicial authorisation and a requirement that data is only retained as part of investigations into serious crime and to prevent death and injury.
Across the pond
Coincidentally the USA this week faced a similar challenge to the extension of its surveillance legislation – the US Patriot Act. Following a stand from Republican rebel Senator Rand Paul, an extension of the Act was blocked and the NSA was forced to begin switching of its servers and databases that were collecting communications data.
Following days of dispute in the Republican party and a telling off from the White House, the Senate eventually passed an alternative piece of legislation that tempers the NSA's abilities for the indiscriminate collection of data and calls for more transparency – the USA Freedom Act.
Rand Paul heavily criticised the NSA and objected to the argument that it was simply monitoring the movements of communications data and not looking at the content itself. He said:
Our founders objected to the British soldiers writing warrants
They objected to them coming in their house and gathering their papers.
Do you think our framers [of the constitution] would have been happy if the British government
said, 'OK, we're just breaking your door down, we're just getting your papers, but we're not going to look at them?'
Here in the UK, Liberty argues that whilst the US is debating and pushing for reform of surveillance powers with more transparency, which has been prompted by whistleblower Edward Snowden and his revalations, the UK is going in the opposite direction and is pushing for increased powers that are rushed and ill thought through.
My take
Privacy is important and is a basic human right. Whilst monitoring communications data is likely to be essential for security purposes, I'm not of the view that the legislation should be rushed through Parliament without proper debate.
As I've said before, Edward Snowden highlighted that we aren't entirely comfortable with how our activity is being monitored and as a result a public debate about what is appropriate is needed.
We will keep you posted with the outcome of the High Court hearing.