Dear Readers,
As many of you are aware, following vairous media outlets` coverage, today we have sent an open letter to all members of the House of Commons on the importance of respecting the democratic process as UK surveillance laws are being revised.
You can find a copy of the full letter below.
---------------------
An
open letter to all members of the House of Commons,
Dear
Parliamentarian,
Ensuring the Rule of Law and the democratic
process is respected as UK surveillance law is revised
Actions Taken Under the Previous Government
During
the past two years, the United Kingdom’s surveillance laws and policies have
come under scrutiny as the increasingly expansive and intrusive powers of the
state have been revealed and questioned in the media. Such introspection is
healthy for any democracy. However, despite a need for transparency in all
areas of lawmaking, and in particular in areas of controversy, the previous Government
repeatedly resisted calls for an open and transparent assessment and critique
of UK surveillance powers. Instead, in response to legal challenges, it extended
the powers of the state in the guise of draft Codes of Practice and “clarifying
amendments.” As we welcome a new Government we expect another round of
revisions to UK surveillance laws, with the likelihood that the Queen’s Speech
will signal a revival of the Communications Data Bill. At this time we call on
the new Government, and the members of the House, to ensure that any changes in
the law, and especially any expansions of power, are fully and transparently
vetted by Parliament, and open to consultation from the public and all relevant
stakeholders.
Last
year, in response to the introduction of the Data Retention and Investigatory
Powers Bill (“DRIP”), a number of leading academics in the field – including
many of the signatories to this letter – called for full and proper
parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill to ensure Parliamentarians were not misled
as to what powers it truly contained. Our concern emanated from the Home
Secretary’s attempt to characterise the Bill, which substantially expanded
investigatory powers, as merely a re-affirmation of the pre-existing data
retention regime.[1]
Since
that letter was written, it has become apparent that the introduction of the
DRIP Bill was not the only time an expansion of surveillance powers was
presented in a way seemingly designed to stifle robust democratic
consideration. In February 2015, the Home Office published the draft Equipment
Interference Code of Practice.[2]
The draft Code was the first time the intelligence services openly sought
specific authorisation to hack computers both within and outside the UK.
Hacking is a much more intrusive form of surveillance than any previously
authorised by Parliament. It also threatens the security of all internet
services as the tools intelligence services use to hack can create or maintain
security vulnerabilities that may be used by criminals to commit criminal acts
and other governments to invade our privacy. The Government, though, sought to
authorise its hacking, not through primary legislation and full Parliamentary
consideration, but via a Code of Practice.
The
previous Government also introduced an amendment via the Serious Crimes Act
2015, described in the explanatory notes to the Bill as a ‘clarifying
amendment’.[3]
The amendment effectively exempts the police and intelligence services from
criminal liability for hacking. This has had an immediate impact on the ongoing
litigation of several organisations who are suing the Government based in part
on the law amended, the Computer Misuse Act 1990.[4]
The Way Ahead
The
new Conservative Government has announced its intention to propose new
surveillance powers through a resurrection of the Communications Data Bill.
This will require internet and mobile phone companies to keep records of customers’
browsing activity, social media use, emails, voice calls, online gaming and
text messages for a year, and to make that information available to the
government and security services. We also anticipate this Parliament will see a
review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which currently
regulates much of the Government’s surveillance powers. The Independent
Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, has conducted an
independent review of the operation and regulation of investigatory powers,
with specific reference to the interception of communications and
communications data. The report of that review has been submitted to the Prime
Minister, but has yet to be made public: when it is made public, parliamentary
scrutiny of the report and any recommendations made following it will be
essential.
As the
law requires that surveillance powers must be employed proportionate to any harm
to privacy caused (as required by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human
Rights and Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) we believe
that any expansion or change to the UK’s surveillance powers should be proposed
in primary legislation and clearly and accurately described in the explanatory
notes of any Bill. The Bill and its consequences must then be fully and frankly
debated in Parliament. When reaching an assessment of the proportionality, of
any measure that restricts rights, both our domestic courts and the European
Court of Human Rights place great stock on the degree and quality of
Parliamentary involvement prior to any measure being adopted. If the matter
ever came to before the courts one issue examined would be the nature of any
“exacting review” undertaken by MPs into the necessity of extending these
powers. The Government should not be permitted to surreptitiously change the
law whenever it so desires, especially where such changes put our privacy and
security at risk.
This
letter has been prepared and signed by 38 academic researchers. We are
comprised of people from both sides of this issue - those who believe that
increased powers are a reasonable response to an emerging threat, and those who
think them an unjustified extension of state interference. Our common goal is
to see the Rule of Law applied and Parliamentary oversight reasserted. We are
calling on all members of the House of Commons, new and returning, and of all
political persuasions to support us in this by ensuring Parliamentary scrutiny
is applied to all developments in UK surveillance laws and powers as proposed
by the current Government.
Signatories
|
Andrew Murray (contact signatory)
|
Paul
Bernal (contact signatory)
|
|
Professor of Law
London School of Economics
|
Lecturer in Information Technology, Intellectual Property
and Media Law University of East Anglia
|
|
Anne Barron
Associate Professor of Law
London School of Economics
|
Subhajit Basu
Associate Professor of Law
University of Leeds
|
|
Sally Broughton Micova
Deputy Director LSE Media Policy Project, Department of
Media and Communications
London School of Economics
|
Abbe E.L. Brown
Senior Lecturer
School of Law
University of Aberdeen
|
|
Ian Brown
Professor of Information Security and Privacy
Oxford Internet Institute
|
Ray Corrigan
Senior Lecturer in Maths, Computing and Technology
Open University
|
|
Angela Daly
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Swinburne Institute for Social Research
Swinburne University of Technology
|
Richard Danbury
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Faculty of Law
University of Cambridge
|
|
Catherine Easton
Lecturer in Law
Lancaster University School of Law
|
Lilian Edwards
Professor of E-Governance
Strathclyde University
|
|
Andres Guadamuz
Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law
University of Sussex
|
Edina Harbinja
Lecturer in Law
University of Hertfordshire
|
|
Julia Hörnle
Professor in Internet Law
Queen Mary University of London
|
Argyro P Karanasiou
Senior Lecturer in Law
Centre for Intellectual Property, Policy & Management
(CIPPM)
Bournemouth University
|
|
Theodore Konstadinides
Senior Lecturer in Law
University of Surrey
|
Douwe Korff
Emeritus Professor of International Law
London Metropolitan University
Associate of the Oxford Martin School, University of
Oxford
|
|
Mark Leiser
Postgraduate Researcher
Strathclyde University
|
Orla Lynskey
Assistant Professor of Law
London School of Economics
|
|
David Mead
Professor of UK Human Rights Law
UEA Law School
University of East Anglia
|
Robin Mansell
Professor, Department of Media and Communication
London School of Economics
|
|
Chris Marsden
Professor of Law
University of Sussex
|
Steve Peers
Professor of Law
University of Essex
|
|
Gavin Phillipson
Professor, Law School
University of Durham
|
Julia Powles
Researcher
Faculty of Law
University of Cambridge
|
|
Andrew Puddephatt
Executive Director
Global Partners Digital
|
Judith Rauhofer
Lecturer in IT Law
University of Edinburgh
|
|
Chris Reed
Professor of Electronic Commerce Law
Queen Mary University of London
|
Felipe
Romero-Moreno
Lecturer in Law
University of Hertfordshire
|
|
Burkhard Schafer
Professor of Computational Legal Theory
University of Edinburgh
|
Joseph Savirimuthu
Senior Lecturer in Law
University of Liverpool
|
|
Andrew Scott
Associate Professor of Law
London School of Economics
|
Peter Sommer
Visiting Professor
Cyber Security Centre, De Montfort University
|
|
Gavin Sutter
Senior Lecturer in Media Law
Queen Mary University of London
|
Judith Townend
Director of the Centre for Law and Information Policy
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies
University of London
|
|
Asma
Vranaki
Post-Doctoral Researcher in Cloud Computing
Queen Mary University of London
|
Lorna Woods
Professor of Law
University of Essex
|
No comments:
Post a Comment