European Court of Human Rights to Hear Challenge to UK Government Mass Surveillance Tuesday
NEW YORK — The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg will hear a on surveillance Tuesday as part of a challenge to the lawfulness of the U.K.’s surveillance laws and its intelligence agencies’ mass surveillance practices.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, Liberty, Privacy International, and 10 other human rights and journalism groups — as well as two individuals — based in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas.
The court enforces the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty ratified by 47 nations. Its judgments are legally binding and its rulings help shape the interpretation of human rights law throughout the world.
The case is the latest stage in a protracted effort from the organizations to challenge the British government’s wide-ranging surveillance powers following the revelations by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
In 2013, Snowden revealed how the U.K.’s intelligence agency GCHQ was secretly intercepting and processing millions of private communications of ordinary people on a daily basis and sharing data with the NSA, as well as other countries’ intelligence agencies.
The case is an appeal of a December 2014 decision by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the British court which has jurisdiction over GCHQ, MI5, and MI6. The tribunal ruled that these practices may in principle comply with the U.K.’s human rights obligations.
The parties point out that the U.K.’s surveillance laws and practices affect the privacy and other rights of millions of people around the world, in part because major internet cables run to and from British territory. They have also raised concerns about the risks to confidential sources who often speak out and the impact on the work of human rights groups.
As an illustration of these concerns, this case brings to the European Court of Human Rights’ attention a finding by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal that the communications of Amnesty International and the South Africa-based Legal Resources Centre .
The case is also expected to have wide-ranging implications for last year’s , which changed the U.K.’s legal framework governing surveillance matters, allowing for further blanket surveillance.
In addition to the indiscriminate interception of communications, the Investigatory Powers Act allows security agencies to hack computers and other electronic devices on a large scale, harvesting potentially huge amounts of personal data from individuals who are not suspected of any criminal behavior.
The following organizations that brought the case had these comments:
Ashley Gorski, ACLU staff attorney, said: “Not only does this suit have significant implications for the rights of non-Americans, but it matters for Americans as well. Should the court find the U.K.’s mass surveillance unlawful, it would send the powerful message that similar mass spying programs like the NSA’s are fundamentally incompatible with human rights. These bulk spying programs invade the privacy of countless people without suspicion of wrongdoing, and they undermine the foundations of a free society.”
Martha Spurrier, director of Liberty, said: “Our organizations exist to stand up for people and challenge abuse of power. We work with whistleblowers, victims, lawyers, journalists, and campaigners around the world, so confidentiality and protection of our sources is vital. The U.K. government’s vast, cross-border mass surveillance regime, which lets it access millions of people’s communications every day, has made those protections meaningless.
“Losing our privacy is the gateway to losing everything that keeps us free — the right to protest, to a fair trial, to practice our religion, to think and speak freely. No country that deploys industrial-scale state surveillance has ever remained a rights-respecting democracy. We now look to the court to uphold our rights where our government has failed to do so.”
Nick Williams, Amnesty International’s senior legal counsel, said: “This case is a watershed moment for people’s privacy and freedom of expression across the world. The case concerns the U.K., but its significance is global. By bringing together human rights defenders and journalists from four different continents, it serves to highlight the dangers mass surveillance poses to the vital work of countless organizations and to individuals who expose human rights abuses and defend those at risk.”
Scarlet Kim, Privacy International’s legal officer, said: “For years, the U.K. government has been intercepting the private communications and data of millions of people around the world. At the same time, it can access similarly enormous troves of information intercepted by the U.S. government. These practices are unlawful and violate the fundamental rights of individuals across the world, assailing privacy and chilling thought and speech. They are incompatible with open and democratic societies. We call on the European Court of Human Rights to reject them by finding bulk surveillance incompatible with the rights to privacy and freedom of expression enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.”
The case brings together three separate challenges from the following groups and individuals: the ACLU, Amnesty International, Bytes for All, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the Legal Resources Centre, Liberty and Privacy International; Big Brother Watch, Open Rights Group, English Pen and Dr. Constanze Kurz; The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Alice Ross.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Human Rights
Failed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save LivesFailed War on Drugs Policies Won't Stop the Overdose Crisis, But Harm Reduction Can Save Lives
Research shows extensive benefits from syringe exchange and other harm reduction programs. But misguided efforts to ban common sense care continue. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Racial Justice
Human Rights
Why the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights IssueWhy the Fight for Racial Justice is a Human Rights Issue
On International Human Rights Day, the ACLU is advocating for a long-sought after reparatory justice to end the continued abuses against Black and brown communities. -
Press ReleaseOct 2024
Human Rights
Free Speech
Universities Should Protect Students’ Right to Protest, End Crackdown on Peaceful ProtestsUniversities Should Protect Students’ Right to Protest, End Crackdown on Peaceful Protests
WASHINGTON – College and university presidents across the U.S. need to respect and protect the right to protest in support of Palestinian rights the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch said today in an open letter. For months the organizations have raised concerns about the potential use of unlawful force when university administrators call in law enforcement officers to break up demonstrations on campus. This new letter comes after reports of heavy-handed and excessive force by some campus police and local law enforcement against peaceful protests and encampments across the country. The groups provide recommendations for colleges and universities to ensure they protect the right to protest on their campuses. The organizations also urge university administrations to refrain from taking any further measures to suppress student protests on campus, including stopping the use of so-called less lethal weapons and ensuring that coercive police power is used only as a last resort, among other recommendations. “Universities are responsible for protecting both physical safety and free expression on campus,” said Jamil Dakwar, director at the ACLU’s Human Rights Program. “It’s deeply concerning to see universities needlessly expose students to police violence for peacefully expressing their political opinions. We’re urging schools once again to exercise restraint, practice de-escalation, and protect free speech and dissent on campus.” Preliminary analysis by Amnesty International’s Digital Verification Corps has identified at least 174 photos, videos, or social media posts from 20 universities of potential excessive use of force by law enforcement under international law that merits further investigation. This includes 17 universities where chemical irritants such as pepper spray appear to have been used against student protesters, and 11 universities where officers appear to have responded to protests armed with kinetic impact projectiles such as rubber bullets. The results of this use of force by law enforcement agencies have been devastating, including media-verified reports of severe injuries such as bleeding puncture wounds, head injuries, broken teeth, and suspected broken bones, most notably at the University of California Los Angeles, Columbia University, and the City College of New York. The Digital Verification Corps also documented at least 10 other universities where photos or videos capture potential injuries to students. It found that half of the incidents involving injuries under investigation appear to be the result of chemical irritants. “The information we have gathered on excessive use of force against student protesters is extremely worrisome and we are still in the beginning of our investigation,” said Justin Mazzola, researcher with Amnesty International USA. “With the continuation of the Israeli military’s assault on Gaza and the risk of US complicity through the sending of weapons, campus protests in favor of stopping the violence and destruction will continue. Universities have a responsibility to protect academic freedom and the rights to freedom of expression, and to peacefully protest, and we will be watching to ensure they do.” The ACLU, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch are not alone in their concern. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and several UN experts, including the UN special rapporteur on the right to education, have criticized the violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators by law enforcement and disciplinary measures against students exercising their rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. All higher education institutions, even private colleges and universities, where the First Amendment is not applicable, have a responsibility to respect the right to freedom of peaceful assembly under international law. “Instead of resorting to police action that both shuts down free speech and heightens the risk of injuries, universities need to do more to protect student speech from violence and intimidation, and actively ensure that peaceful student expression continues without interference,” said Tanya Greene, director of the US program at Human Rights Watch. As the letter explains, the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Human Rights Watch are conducting research and analysis of how campus administrators are responding to student protests. They urge universities to fulfill their human rights responsibilities by facilitating protests and ensuring that all students' rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, regardless of viewpoint, is respected. A comprehensive joint report on this issue is slated to be released by the ACLU and Amnesty International USA in the coming months. The open letter is available here: /documents/letter-to-universities-student-protesters -
News & CommentaryOct 2024
Immigrants' Rights
Human Rights
Three Ways the Media Introduces Bias to the Immigration DebateThree Ways the Media Introduces Bias to the Immigration Debate
Ahead of the election, we examined how political ads and news media stories depict the immigration debate as more negative than it may be.