#alternate TechCrunch » Feed TechCrunch » Comments Feed TechCrunch » U.K. ‘Emergency’ Surveillance Law Ruled Unlawful By High Court Comments Feed Join Us At PragueCrunch IV: The Enpraguening Watch Site Chrono24 Raises €21 Million To Build An Horological Juggernaut alternate alternate TechCrunch WordPress.com Menu TechCrunch Search * Follow Us * Facebook * Instagram * Twitter * Youtube * Flipboard * LinkedIn * Google+ * RSS * More + Youtube + Flipboard + LinkedIn + Google+ + RSS Got a tip? Let us know. * News + Channels + Startups + Mobile + Gadgets + Enterprise + Social + Europe + Asia + Old Crunch Network + Unicorn Leaderboard + Gift Guides All Topics All Galleries Video Shows * Apps * Breaking News * Bullish * Crunch Report * CES 2016 * Gadgets * Interviews * Reviews * TC Cribs * TC Features All Shows All Videos Events * TechCrunch Events * Disrupt * Startup Battlefield * Crunchies * Meetups * International City Events * Hackathon * Include * NFL’s 1ST and Future * TC Davos 2016 * News About * CES All Events CrunchBase * Trending * Apple * Google * Samsung * News * Startups * Mobile * Gadgets * Enterprise * Social * Europe Search TechCrunch Search TechCrunch ____________________ (BUTTON) Search (BUTTON) Search 9th Annual CrunchiesFind Out Who Will Win The Crunchie For Best Mobile App - Citymapper, Messenger, Periscope, Robinhood or Wish Get Your Tickets Today Europe * At Davos, Kevin Spacey Predicts That Tech Firms Will Follow Netflix Into Media At Davos, Kevin Spacey Predicts That Tech Firms Will Follow Netflix Into Media * MariaDB Raises $9M More, Michael Howard Named New CEO, Monty Widenius CTO MariaDB Raises $9M More, Michael Howard Named New CEO, Monty Widenius CTO * Kickstarter Needs Better Ways To Sanity-Check Complex Hardware Projects, Says Zano Review Kickstarter Needs Better Ways To Sanity-Check Complex Hardware Projects, Says Zano Review * Browse more... surveillance * State Lawmakers Create Coalition To Overhaul Digital Privacy Laws State Lawmakers Create Coalition To Overhaul Digital Privacy Laws * EU-US Safe Harbor Data Flow Talks Still Sticking On Surveillance EU-US Safe Harbor Data Flow Talks Still Sticking On Surveillance * UK Surveillance Bill A Risk To Data Security And Privacy, Says ICO UK Surveillance Bill A Risk To Data Security And Privacy, Says ICO * Browse more... U.K. ‘Emergency’ Surveillance Law Ruled Unlawful By High Court Posted Jul 17, 2015 by Natasha Lomas (@riptari) * 0 SHARES * * * * * * * * * Next Story Join Us At PragueCrunch IV: The Enpraguening [gavel.jpg?w=738] In a high profile win for civil liberties in the U.K., surveillance legislation rushed through the national parliament in a matter of days last year has today been declared unlawful under European Human Rights law. Two MPs, Tom Watson (Labour) and David Davis (Conservative), along with civil rights campaign group Liberty, took the government to the High Court last month, challenging the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) on privacy and data protection grounds. Today the High Court agreed with their challenge. Court overturns #DRIPA. We won the case! — tom_watson (@tom_watson) July 17, 2015 The government can appeal the judgement — and does not have to instantly halt data retention practices taking place under DRIPA, with the court allowing those portions of the law it deems unlawful to remain in force until March 2016 “to allow time for the government to legislate properly”. But the ruling fires a clear warning shot across the bows of a government that is among the most hawkish in Europe on surveillance and interception — with the U.K. Prime Minister at times appearing to suggest encryption should be outlawed, and a Home Secretary who has consistently banged the drum to ramp up investigatory powers. DRIPA as a whole has a sunset clause of the end-of-2016. So the government is already working to replace it with permanent and potentially more expansive surveillance legislation (it has talked of plugging “capability gaps”) via the forthcoming Investigatory Powers Bill (IPB) — the latter due in draft form this fall. Today’s High Court ruling will feed into the debate as MPs seek consensus on where the line should be drawn to balance state surveillance capabilities with individual privacy rights. And indicates that the government’s current thinking is out of step with EU law. (NB: the government’s election manifesto included a pledge to replace the European Convention on Human Rights with a British Bill of Rights — although it has not announced any legislative timetable for doing so yet). One area where there is cross-party — and wider — consensus is the need for clarity in the oversight legislation which governs state surveillance, interception and data retention powers in the U.K. The existing Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act is roundly condemned as unfit for purpose. And legislating to provide for “appropriate oversight” is one of the government’s stated intentions with the forthcoming IPB. DRIPA, meanwhile, is anything but clear or appropriate. The legislation was criticized last year for being overly vague and draconian, as well as for going against the wider regional trajectory by effectively reversing the European Court of Justice ruling that had, months earlier, struck down EU data retention powers as disproportionate. Discussing DRIPA with TechCrunch last year former Pinsent Mason lawyer Danvers Baillieu noted how few limits it afforded on the scope of retention notices that the Home Secretary could issue. “Basically clause 1 says the Secretary of State may issue a retention notice and it may require just about anything — including ‘the retention notice may make different provision for different purposes’, that’s what it says in the bill. So a retention notice can pretty much tell you to do anything — other than hold anything longer than 12 months,” he said. The High Court evidently agrees with Baillieu’s assessment, ruling that section 1 is unlawful on the grounds that it fails to provide “clear and precise rules” to ensure data is only accessed for the purpose of preventing, detecting or conducting criminal prosecutions of serious offences. The court also ruled section 2 unlawful because it does not build in limits to accessing this data by requiring access be authorized by a court or independent body. The latter point is interesting because two government commissioned independent reviews of surveillance legislation, which have both published their findings this summer, have called for intercept warrants to be signed off by the judiciary, rather than being sanctioned by ministers — as is the case now. The government has so far said it has not yet made a decision on that point, although some of the noises coming out of Downing Street appear to suggest Cameron is not keen on the idea. Today’s High Court ruling piles more pressure on the government to bend to a growing number of calls that warrants be authorized by judges, not senior politicians. On the independent approval point, the High Court notes in its ruling: “The need for that approval to be by a judge or official wholly independent of the force or body making the application should not, provided the person responsible is properly trained or experienced, be particularly cumbersome.” Another criticism of DRIPA is the government’s unseemly haste in railroading the bill through parliament, bypassing the normal lengthy legislative scrutiny process by gaining the support of the opposition Labour party to ensure a majority, and by using a tactic of putting the law through as parliament was about to go on summer recess. All of which was widely condemned at the time as un-democractic. With the High Court slamming DRIPA as unlawful now the government will also be under pressure to avoid any such unseemly haste in future surveillance debates as it works to reshape legislation in this area. That said, DRIPA’s sunset clause already puts in place a fairly short window for detailed parliamentary scrutiny of such a technologically complex area (not to mention the moral and ethic complexities arising at the intersection of individual rights and state responsibilities). The High Court ruling now squeezes the government’s timetable further by sunsetting some of DRIPA’s powers several months earlier. Albeit, to spin all that another way… Government have nine months to bring back new legislation. MPs were given one day to discuss the legislation last year. — tom_watson (@tom_watson) July 17, 2015 The Home Secretary has previously said the government is committing to having a IBP by “early next year” to allow time for it to pass into law before the DRIPA sunset clause comes into effect at the end of 2016. “In order to meet that timetable and allow thorough parliamentary scrutiny we intend to bring forward a draft bill for consideration in the autumn, which will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, including by a joint committee of both Houses,” she said last month. Responding to today’s High Court judgement, David Anderson, the QC who penned one of the two independent reviews of government surveillance legislation, notes it may affect the timing of the government’s plans for “wide-ranging reform in this area” should the government decide it needs “remedial legislation” before March 2016. Which suggests the IPB’s timetable could be set back if the government focuses on another stop-gap legislative patch. The prospect of the government rushing through more hasty surveillance legislation is not good. Nor is the prospect of truncated parliamentary scrutiny of new surveillance oversight law when the overwhelming requirement here is for “clear and precise” guidance. Problematically vague existing legislation has undoubtedly contributed to serious privacy and civil liberties breaches by state operators for years. We don’t need any more RIPAs. Anderson dubs today’s court ruling a “decision of great potential importance”, noting that it echoes decisions already made by national courts in the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Slovenia and Romania — falling in line with EU law. He writes: If not successfully appealed, the judgment will require change to existing practices for accessing communications data (which I had already recommended should be subject in some categories of case to a higher degree of independent authorisation: see A Question of Trust, Recommendations 65, 67-71). Indeed it may point to broader-reaching change than I had recommended, speaking of the need for approval in all cases by “a judge or official wholly independent of the force or body making the application” (Judgment, para 98). This throws into doubt the adequacy of the existing system for approval and authorisation by a designated person within the police force or public authority which seeks communications data. Some of the practical constraints in this area are illustrated at 9.24(a)(b) of A Question of Trust. The judgment may also be of relevance to the current debate over whether there should be judicial or ministerial authorisation of interception warrants (which were not the subject of the Davis/Watson case, but which relate to the content of communications and may thus be considered more intrusive than the communications data at stake in that case). Change in this respect was recommended both in A Question of Trust (Recommendation 22), and in this week’s RUSI report, A Democratic Licence to Operate. My reflections on this point in A Question of Trust, 5.79, were reproduced by the Divisional Court at para 72 of its judgment. He also adds that the ruling is “of no direct relevance” to the so-called Snooper’s Charter — another piece of surveillance legislation which the government tried and failed to pass last year, and which would have expanded the categories of data retained by ISPs — but he reiterates, in line with recommendations from his recent surveillance review report, that it “underline[s] the need for a legally sound and evidence-based case, if this idea is to be pursued in the future”. With the Snowden revelations of 2013 unmasking the huge scale and scope of state digital surveillance apparatus, creating an imperative for reform and clearer oversight, it’s to be hoped that a U.K. law as opaque and problematic as RIPA could no longer be passed — and that domestic politicians heed growing calls for “legally sound and evidence-based” investigatory powers that do not infringe human rights. Or, as Eduardo Ustaran, Partner at law firm Hogan Lovells writes, today’s High Court ruling is “a sign of the need for democratic diligence in the political decision-making process” — and signals the need for “an open and public debate that leads to a thorough legislative process without hyperbole and paranoia in order to deliver a legal framework that stands up to the courts’ scrutiny”. Featured Image: Evlakhov Valeriy/Shutterstock * 0 SHARES * 0 Share * 0 Tweet * 0 Share * 0 * 0 * 0 * * Advertisement Advertisement TechCrunch Newsletters [ ] TechCrunch Daily Our top headlines Delivered daily [ ] TC Week-in-Review Top stories of the week Delivered weekly [ ] CrunchBase Daily The latest startup funding announcements Delivered daily [ ] TC Europe The top European tech stories Delivered weekly [ ] TC Gadgets Top stories about gadgets Delivered weekly [ ] TC Mobile & Apps Top stories about apps Delivered weekly [ ] TC Startups Top stories about startups Delivered weekly [ ] TC Social Media Top stories about social Delivered weekly [ ] TC Asia The top Asian tech stories Delivered weekly [ ] Crunch Network The best from our contributors Delivered weekly View More Enter Address ____________________ (BUTTON) Subscribe Latest Crunch Report * Facebook Sports Stadium Wants to Be Your New Sports Hub | Crunch Report Facebook Sports Stadium Wants to Be Your New Sports Hub | Crunch Report Watch More Episodes * surveillance * Europe * Popular Posts Featured Stories * U.K. ‘Emergency’ Surveillance Law Ruled Unlawful By High Court Don Baer On Politician's Approach To Technology VIDEO | 12:03 | Breaking News * Werner Herzog On His Documentary Lo And Behold, Cockroach Movies And Moving To Mars Werner Herzog On His Documentary Lo And Behold, Cockroach Movies And Moving To Mars 1 hour ago | Matthew Panzarino * Get Ready For A Smaller iPhone 6s Mini Get Ready For A Smaller iPhone 6s Mini 4 hours ago | Romain Dillet * Netflix Makes Good On Promises To Crack Down On VPNs, But Blocks Are Short-Lived Netflix Makes Good On Promises To Crack Down On VPNs, But Blocks Are Short-Lived 5 hours ago | Sarah Perez * Forthcoming Samsung Galaxy S7 Benchmarks Leak Forthcoming Samsung Galaxy S7 Benchmarks Leak 11 hours ago | Natasha Lomas Latest From Europe * At Davos, Kevin Spacey Predicts That Tech Firms Will Follow Netflix Into Media At Davos, Kevin Spacey Predicts That Tech Firms Will Follow Netflix Into Media yesterday | Mike Butcher * MariaDB Raises $9M More, Michael Howard Named New CEO, Monty Widenius CTO MariaDB Raises $9M More, Michael Howard Named New CEO, Monty Widenius CTO yesterday | Ingrid Lunden * Kickstarter Needs Better Ways To Sanity-Check Complex Hardware Projects, Says Zano Review Kickstarter Needs Better Ways To Sanity-Check Complex Hardware Projects, Says Zano Review yesterday | Natasha Lomas * PieSync, The Belgium Startup That Syncs Contacts Across Cloud Apps, Raises $1.6M PieSync, The Belgium Startup That Syncs Contacts Across Cloud Apps, Raises $1.6M yesterday | Steve O'Hear Up Next Join Us At PragueCrunch IV: The Enpraguening Posted Jul 17, 2015 CrunchBoard Job Listings * Principal Analyst - Marketing Technology CarMax * Architect - Enterprise Information CarMax * Senior Software Developer - Web Development CarMax * Online Systems Platform Manager CarMax * Team Manager- CRM CarMax More from CrunchBoard Advertisement TechCrunch [crunch-network.jpg] * News * TCTV * Events * CrunchBase About * Staff * Contact Us * Advertise With Us * Send Us A Tip International * China * Europe * Japan Follow TechCrunch * Facebook * Twitter * Google+ * LinkedIn * Youtube * Pinterest * Tumblr * Instagram * StumbleUpon * Feed TechCrunch Apps * iOS * Android * Windows 8 Subscribe to TechCrunch Daily Latest headlines delivered to you daily [X] Subscribe to Subscribe to TechCrunch Daily Enter Email Address ____________________ (BUTTON) Subscribe © 2013-2016 AOL Inc. All rights reserved. Aol Tech Privacy Policy About Our Ads Anti Harassment Policy Terms of Service Powered by WordPress.com VIP Fonts by [b?c1=2&c2=6036210&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cv=1.3&cj=1] * TechCrunch (BUTTON) * News + Startups + Mobile + Gadgets + Enterprise + Social + Europe + Asia + Old Crunch Network + Unicorn Leaderboard + Gift Guides + All Galleries Videos * Apps * Breaking News * Bullish * Crunch Report * CES 2016 * All Shows * All Videos Events * Disrupt * Startup Battlefield * Crunchies * Meetups * International City Events * Hackathon * Include * NFL’s 1ST and Future * TC Davos 2016 * All Events CrunchBase ____________________ (BUTTON) (BUTTON) Most Popular Get Ready For A Smaller iPhone 6s Mini 4 hours ago by Romain Dillet Forthcoming Samsung Galaxy S7 Benchmarks Leak 11 hours ago by Natasha Lomas A Day After Launch, “Exploding Kittens” Tops The App Store 1 hour ago by Sarah Perez Why Cloud Computing Will Shake Up Security 2 hours ago by Tom Gillis Netflix Makes Good On Promises To Crack Down On VPNs, But Blocks Are Short-Lived 5 hours ago by Sarah Perez Apple Has A New Apple TV Ad, And It’s All About Apps 1 hour ago by Romain Dillet SpaceX Tested Its Capsule That Will Send Humans To Space 1 hour ago by Emily Calandrelli FiveStars Gets $50M To Help Small Retailers Run Loyalty Programs Like Their Bigger Rivals 8 hours ago by Ingrid Lunden Google Reportedly Paid Apple $1B In 2014 To Remain Default Search Engine On iOS 17 hours ago by Jon Russell