Privacy International Files Complaint Against GCHQ's Use Of 'Bulk Personal Datasets'
from the chipping-away dept
Last month, we noted that the UK rights group Privacy International has been at the forefront of the fight against the UK’s disproportionate surveillance activities, to such an extent that the UK government has changed the law just to avoid one of its legal challenges. Those have covered many different aspects of GCHQ’s activities. In July 2014, Privacy International filed a complaint with the UK’s spy watchdog, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), over GCHQ’s surveillance tools. In September 2014, it tackled GCHQ’s involvement in the “Five Eyes” system. And now it has come at things from yet another angle:
Privacy International today filed a legal complaint demanding an end to the bulk collection of phone records and harvesting of other databases, from millions of people who have no ties to terrorism, nor are suspected of any crime.
The complaint, filed in the UK’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal, is the first UK legal challenge to attack the UK Government Communications Headquarters’ (GCHQ) use of “bulk personal datasets” equivalent of the US s.215 bulk phone records metadata program. The s.215 program run by the NSA, which has dominated the US surveillance reform debate since Edward Snowden revealed it, was curtailed just days ago with the passing of the USA Freedom Act.
The latest challenge flows from the publication in March of the IPT report, “Privacy and Security: A modern and transparent legal framework.” Even with its frequent redactions, the report provided important new information on which Privacy International is basing its complaint:
The ISC does not reveal which datasets have been collected by GCHQ, but they are described as being “highly intrusive”, containing “millions” of records, which are then “linked together.” In a startling admission, the datasets were separately described as pertaining “to a wide range of individuals, the majority of whom are unlikely to be of intelligence interest.”
There is no proper legal regime in place, with no restrictions on which datasets can be collected, how long they can be stored, or accessed. The acquisition and subsequent use of datasets is not authorised by a judge, or even a Minister.
It gets even worse:
There are no legal penalties for misuse of this information, and abuse of the data has already happened with the ISC finding that agencies ?had disciplined ? or in some cases dismissed ? staff for inappropriately accessing personal information held in these datasets.? It is not sufficient that misuse is dealt with by individual disciplinary measures. We need much stronger safeguards to prevent misuse occurring in the first place.
Bringing multiple cases before tribunals and courts is one way to achieve that. At the very least, it makes people more aware of what is going on, and increasingly it is leading to small but symbolically important victories too.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Filed Under: bulk collection, gchq, nsa, surveillance, usa freedom act
Companies: privacy international
Comments on “Privacy International Files Complaint Against GCHQ's Use Of 'Bulk Personal Datasets'”
So long as an organization has the datasets, misuse is possible. The only way to mitigate misuse is to limit the data collected to that required to solve crimes and monitor terrorists.
Re: Re:
The only way to mitigate misuse is to limit the data collected to that required to solve crimes and monitor terrorists.
To paraphrase the saying: “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”, it should be now said: “When all you have is absolute power in collecting bulk personal datasets, you can prove everyone is a criminal and/or terrorist” (or at least you can make them appear to look that way, thusly justifying collecting all the data in the first place on those nasty criminals/terrorists).
Re: Re:
“The only way to mitigate misuse is to limit the data collected to that required to solve crimes and monitor terrorists.”
Your use of the word “required” is highly questionable here. I think “desired” is better. With that correction, then I agree. That’s why restraining the massive data collection is an excellent thing: to reduce the potential for misuse.
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps I should have said collect data only on people where a judge agrees that there is reasonable suspicion that they are involved in criminal or terrorist activity.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahh, yes. That’s an entirely different thing.
Good luck with that.
At least you in the US have a written constitution to fall back on, even if the last few administrations have treated it more as a bunch of nice to haves rather than the basis of your laws.
In the UK, we have an “Unwritten constitution” which means whatever the current lot infesting Westminster say it means.
False pride comes before the fall, they will regret their arrogance.
the problem here is that the UK government will ignore any ruling it doesn’t like, just as it has done with the data retention even after being ruled unlawful by the EUCJ. Cameron and especially Theresa May, think they are laws unto themselves and can do what they want, with what they want, when they want, regardless of the ‘official law’!
This is pretty funny: “…IPT report, “Privacy and Security: A modern and TRANSPARENT legal framework.” Even with its frequent REDACTIONS…”
GCHQ
My role at MOD took me to GCHQ.
I was sacked for reporting fraud within the MOD.
Please contact me if you require any assistance regarding the illegal collection of data by the Government Listening Station based near Cheltenham.
Thank you.
Kindest Regards
Squadron Leader SC Bunce RAF (Retired)