UK's GCHQ Intelligence Agency Violated Human Rights With Its Mass Surveillance Tactics, Top European Court Rules (theguardian.com)

GCHQ's methods in carrying out bulk interception of online communications violated privacy and failed to provide sufficient surveillance safeguards, the European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled in a test case judgment. From a report: But the Strasbourg court found that GCHQ's regime for sharing sensitive digital intelligence with foreign governments was not illegal. It is the first major challenge to the legality of UK intelligence agencies intercepting private communications in bulk, following Edward Snowden's whistleblowing revelations. The long-awaited ruling is one of the most comprehensive assessments by the ECHR of the legality of the interception operations operated by UK intelligence agencies. The case was brought by a coalition of 14 human rights groups, privacy organisations and journalists, including Amnesty International, Liberty, Privacy International and Big Brother Watch. In a statement, published on Amnesty's website, Lucy Claridge, Amnesty International's Strategic Litigation Director, said, today's ruling "represents a significant step forward in the protection of privacy and freedom of expression worldwide. It sends a strong message to the UK Government that its use of extensive surveillance powers is abusive and runs against the very principles that it claims to be defending." He added: This is particularly important because of the threat that Government surveillance poses to those who work in human rights and investigative journalism, people who often risk their own lives to speak out. Three years ago, this same case forced the UK Government to admit GCHQ had been spying on Amnesty -- a clear sign that our work and the people we work alongside had been put at risk. The judges considered three aspects of digital surveillance: bulk interception of communications, intelligence sharing and obtaining of communications data from communications service providers. By a majority of five to two votes, the Strasbourg judges found that GCHQ's bulk interception regime violated article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which guarantees privacy, because there were said to be insufficient safeguards, and rules governing the selection of "related communications data" were deemed to be inadequate, The Guardian newspaper reported.

Commenting on the ruling, Snowden, wrote, "For five long years, governments have denied that global mass surveillance violates of your rights. And for five long years, we have chased them through the doors of every court. Today, we won. Don't thank me: thank all of those who never stopped fighting."

Comments

Re:well after bxexit the this court ruleing will b

[close_wait]

The ECHR is not part of the EU infrastructure, and after Brexit the UK will still come under it, unless we separately decide to quit. Brexit removes the UK from the ECJ, which is a separate beastie.

Re:That's all nice and well

[hey!]

Well, after Brexit it won't even be a symbolic win. When Britain leaves the EU, it also leaves behind the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

The EU is unique in the world in that an extensive array of explicitly enumerated human rights are protected constitutionally. In the US, human rights are protected by a patchwork of case law and SCOTUS ninth amendment based rulings. Example: Roe v Wade interpolates a woman's reproductive rights into the Bill of Rights. To some people this is common sense, to others it makes no sense. So the fundamental rights you enjoy as an American are subject to shifting court interpretations, which are the result of long term political campaigns to gain control of the court. The rights an American citizen enjoys, say to privacy, are a moving target, and more to the point a moveable target.

The main political force behind the Brexit movement was to escape from the restrictions of EU law, but this also includes EU human rights law which restricts the power of citizens to oppress each other, either directly or through the government. So while Brexit, does technically remove restrictions, whether your life will be more free depends on how well-placed you are.