CIVIL rights campaigners are to launch a crowdfunded legal challenge against “the most extreme surveillance regime of any democracy in history”, it has been announced.
More than 200,000 people have signed a petition against the “Snooper’s Charter”, which became law in November.
The Investigatory Powers Act allows the state to monitor the web history, email, text and phone records of private citizens and store the data for up to one year.
The Government says the powers will allow authorities to combat terrorism and extremism and protect public safety.
However, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said the “general and indiscriminate retention of data”
allowed by the legislation “exceeds the limits of what is strictly necessary and cannot be considered to be justified within a democratic society”.
Now campaign group Liberty aims to challenge the “state spying powers” in court. The charity is seeking a High Court judicial review of the core bulk powers in the act and is asking supporters to fund the action via the CrowdJustice platform.
Director Martha Spurrier said: “Last year, this Government exploited fear and distraction to quietly create the most extreme surveillance regime of any democracy in history.
“Hundreds of thousands of people have since called for this act’s repeal because they see it for what it is – an unprecedented, unjustified assault on our freedom.
“We hope anybody with an interest in defending our democracy, privacy, press freedom, fair trials, protest rights, free speech and the safety and cybersecurity of everyone in the UK will support this crowdfunded challenge and make 2017 the year we reclaim our rights.”
First unveiled a year ago, the Investigatory Powers Act aims to bring surveillance tactics used by police and spy agencies in the digital age under one legal umbrella.
In a parliamentary debate last March, Theresa May – who introduced the legislation during her time as Home Secretary – called it “truly world-leading”, arguing it would provide “unparalleled transparency on our most intrusive investigatory powers, robust safeguards and an unprecedented oversight regime” as well as aiding the fight against crime.
The SNP and the LibDems opposed the legistlation, but Labour voted with the Government to give police and other agencies the power to hack computers, phones and tablets for blanket surveillance which also covers those not suspected of criminality.
Liberty, whose former director Shami Chakrabarti is now a Labour peer and a senior ally of Jeremy Corbyn, said this had happened “in an atmosphere of shambolic political opposition” and widespread public opposition. The organisation will now seek to challenge the lawfulness of provisions allowing the bulk hacking of devices and the mass interception and acquis- ition of digital communications.
The collection and linkage of personal datasets enclosing details of a person’s religion, ethnicity, sexuality, health issues and political leanings created by public and private sector bodies will also be challenged.
In its ruling just weeks ago, the ECJ found against these measures, stating that: “Legislation prescribing a general and indiscriminate retention of data ... exceeds the limits of what is strictly necessary and cannot be considered to be justified within a democratic society”. That challenge was brought by Brexit Secretary David Davis, who acted while still on the back benches, and deputy Labour leader Tom Watson.
The Home Office said it was “disappointed” with the judgment.
Responding to the Liberty move, Security Minister Ben Wallace said: “The Investigatory Powers Act protects both our privacy and our security. Far from being passed quietly, the act underwent unprecedented parliamentary scrutiny before becoming law. It was also the result of three independent reports, all of which concluded a new law was needed. The act was passed with cross-party support and is the will of parliament.
“The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, found that the ability to collect data in bulk is a crucial tool used by the security and intelligence agencies to generate intelligence about threats that cannot be acquired by more targeted means. We will vigorously defend these vital powers that help to keep our families, communities and country safe.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here