Global InformationMass surveillance in the United Kingdom information
The use of electronic surveillance by the United Kingdom grew from the development of signal intelligence and pioneering code breaking during World War II.[1] In the post-war period, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was formed and participated in programmes such as the Five Eyes collaboration of English-speaking nations. This focused on intercepting electronic communications, with substantial increases in surveillance capabilities over time. A series of media reports in 2013 revealed bulk collection and surveillance capabilities, including collection and sharing collaborations between GCHQ and the United States' National Security Agency. These were commonly described by the media and civil liberties groups as mass surveillance.[2] Similar capabilities exist in other countries, including western European countries.[3][4]
Surveillance of electronic communications in the United Kingdom is controlled by laws made in the UK Parliament. In particular, access to the content of private messages (that is, interception of a communication such as an email or telephone call) must be authorised by a warrant signed by a Secretary of State.[5][6][7] Although the law provides for governance and safeguards over the use of electronic surveillance, these safeguards have been criticised as not far-reaching enough, nor protective enough of the public's privacy [8][9][10][11] Further oversight including a requirement for judges to review warrants authorised by a Secretary of State, as well as new surveillance powers, were introduced by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.[12][13]
The judicial body which oversees the intelligence services in the United Kingdom, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, ruled in December 2014 that the legislative framework in the United Kingdom does not permit mass surveillance and that while GCHQ collects and analyses data in bulk, its practices do not constitute mass surveillance.[14][15][16] Other independent reports, including one by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, also came to this view although they found past shortcomings in oversight and disclosure, and said the legal framework should be simplified to improve transparency.[17][18][19] However, notable civil liberties groups and broadsheet newspapers continue to express strong views to the contrary,[20] while UK and US intelligence agencies[21][22] and others[23] have criticised these viewpoints in turn.
Various government bodies maintain databases about citizens and residents of the United Kingdom. These include "bulk data sets" such as medical records. In January 2016 the Home Secretary stated she would neither restrict the data sets that might be accessed for such purposes, nor state whether or not communications protected from law enforcement access such as journalist's sources and legal privilege had been accessed covertly.[24] Although the use of video surveillance cameras in the United Kingdom is common, as it is in many countries, its prevalence may historically have been overstated.[25][26] Legal provisions exist that control and restrict the collection, storage, retention, and use of information in government databases, and require local governments or police forces operating video surveillance cameras to comply with a code of conduct: the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.
- ^ "How the British and Americans started listening in". BBC. 8 February 2016. Retrieved 24 February 2016.
- ^ "NSA leaks: US and Britain team up on mass surveillance". The Guardian. 22 June 2013. Retrieved 13 May 2015.
- ^ "France and the UK are on the edge of Kafkaesque surveillance". The Guardian. 28 July 2015. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
- ^ "GCHQ and European spy agencies worked together on mass surveillance". The Guardian. 1 November 2013. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
- ^ "The Law". GCHQ. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
- ^ "Statement on GCHQ's Alleged Interception of Communications under the US PRISM Programme" (PDF). Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. 17 July 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
- ^ "Privacy and Security Inquiry – Call for Evidence" (PDF). Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. 11 December 2013. Retrieved 17 December 2013.
- ^ "Public should be given more search warrant protections – Law Commission". The Law Commission. 4 June 2018. Retrieved 15 February 2022.
- ^ "Other safeguards and oversight". The Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Archived from the original on 6 February 2015. Retrieved 6 February 2015.
- ^ "Intelligence and Security Committee open evidence session". UK Parliament. 7 November 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2013.; "Spy chiefs public hearing: as it happened". The Telegraph. 7 November 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2013.
- ^ "Britain's spy chiefs will be questioned in public for the first time, under radical reforms of the way Parliament monitors the intelligence agencies". The Telegraph. 10 November 2012. Retrieved 18 December 2013.
- ^ "Details of UK website visits 'to be stored for year'". BBC. 4 November 2015. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
- ^ "Investigatory powers bill: the key points". The Guardian. 4 November 2015. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
- ^ "GCHQ does not breach human rights, judges rule". BBC. 5 December 2014. Retrieved 6 December 2014.
- ^ "IPT rejects assertions of mass surveillance". GCHQ. 5 December 2014. Archived from the original on 6 February 2015. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
- ^ "List of judgments". Investigatory Powers Tribunal. 5 December 2014. Archived from the original on 6 February 2015. Retrieved 7 February 2015.
1. A declaration that the regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and/or Upstream does not contravene Articles 8 or 10 ECHR. 2. A declaration that the regime in respect of interception under ss8(4), 15 and 16 of the Regulation of investigatory Powers Act 2000 does not contravene Articles 8 or 10 ECHR and does not give rise to unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14, read together with Articles 8 and/or 10 of the ECHR.
- ^ "UK surveillance 'lacks transparency', ISC report says". BBC. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
- ^ "Privacy and Security: A modern and transparent legal framework". Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
- ^ "Intelligence and security committee report: the key findings". The Guardian. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
- ^ "UK surveillance laws need total overhaul, says landmark report". The Guardian. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
- ^ "MI5 boss wants 'mature debate' on surveillance powers". BBC. 29 October 2015. Retrieved 10 November 2015.
- ^ "We need British spies to keep world safe, US says". The Times. 30 October 2015. Retrieved 11 November 2015.
- ^ "Civil liberty campaigners attacked for saying terror attack is "price worth paying" to prevent mass snooping". The Telegraph. 12 March 2015. Retrieved 14 November 2015; "GCHQ doesn't need any lectures from Liberty". The Times. 13 March 2015. Retrieved 14 March 2015.
- ^ Julia Gregory (13 January 2016). "UK not involved in mass surveillance, says Theresa May". ComputerWeekly. Retrieved 15 January 2016.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
C42008was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Guardian2011was invoked but never defined (see the help page).