UK intelligence forced to reveal secret policy for mass surveillance of residents’ Facebook and Google use
16 June 2014
Britain’s top counter-terrorism official has been forced to reveal a secret Government policy justifying the mass surveillance of every Facebook, Twitter, Youtube and Google user in the UK.
This disturbing policy was made public due to a legal challenge brought by Privacy International, Liberty, Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union, Pakistani organisation Bytes for All, and five other national civil liberties organisations*.
The statement, from Charles Farr, the Director General of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, claims that the indiscriminate interception of UK residents’ Facebook and Google communications would be permitted under law because they are defined as ‘external communications’.
Farr’s statement, published today by the rights organisations, is the first time the Government has openly commented on how it thinks it can use the UK’s vague surveillance legal framework to indiscriminately intercept communications through its mass interception programme, TEMPORA.
The secret policy outlined by Farr defines almost all communications via Facebook and other social networking sites, as well as webmail services Hotmail and Yahoo and web searches via Google, to be ‘external communications’ because they use web-based ‘platforms’ based in the US.
The distinction between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ communications is crucial. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (‘RIPA’), which regulates the surveillance powers of public bodies, ‘internal’ communications may only be intercepted under a warrant which relates to a specific individual or address. These warrants should only be granted where there is some suspicion of unlawful activity. However, an individual’s ‘external communications’ may be intercepted indiscriminately, even where there are no grounds to suspect any wrongdoing.
By defining the use of ‘platforms’ such as Facebook, Twitter and Google as ‘external communications’, British residents are being deprived of the essential safeguards that would otherwise be applied to their communications - simply because they are using services that are based outside the UK.
Such an approach suggests that GCHQ believes it is entitled to indiscriminately intercept all communications in and out of the British Isles. The explanations given by Mr Farr suggest that:
- GCHQ is intercepting all communications - emails, text messages, as well as communications sent via “platforms” such as Facebook and Google – before determining whether they fall into the “internal” or “external” categories
- The Government considers almost all Facebook and other social media communications, and Google searches will always fall within the “external” category, even when such communications are between two people in the UK
- Classifying communications as “external” allows the Government to search through, read, listen to and look at each of them. The only restriction on what they do with communications that they classify as “external” is that they cannot search through such communications using keywords or terms that mention a specific British person or residence.
- Even though the Government is conducting mass surveillance - intercepting and scanning through all communications in order to work out whether they are internal or external - they consider that such interception “has less importance” than whether a person actually reads the communication, which is where the Government believes “the substantive interference with privacy arises”.
- The Government believes that, even when privacy violations happen, it is not an “active intrusion” because the analyst reading or listening to an individual’s communication will inevitably forget about it anyway.
The legal challenge is brought following revelations made by Edward Snowden about the UK’s global digital surveillance activities. Farr is the government’s star witness in the case, which will be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal between 14 and 18 July 2014.
The claimants will be publishing the witness statement of Charles Farr, in addition to other material pertinent to the case (see below), on their websites on Tuesday 17 June.
Eric King, Deputy Director of Privacy International said:
“Intelligence agencies cannot be considered accountable to Parliament and to the public they serve when their actions are obfuscated through secret interpretations of byzantine laws. Moreover, the suggestion that violations of the right to privacy are meaningless if the violator subsequently forgets about it not only offends the fundamental, inalienable nature of human rights, but patronises the British people, who will not accept such a meagre excuse for the loss of their civil liberties.”
James Welch, Legal Director of Liberty said:
“The security services consider that they’re entitled to read, listen and analyse all our communications on Facebook, google and other US-based platforms. If there was any remaining doubt that our snooping laws need a radical overhaul there can be no longer. The Agencies now operate in a legal and ethical vacuum; why the deafening silence from our elected representatives?”
Michael Boschenek, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International said:
“British citizens will be alarmed to see their government justifying industrial-scale intrusion into their communications. The public should demand an end to this wholesale violation of their right to privacy.”
NOTE TO EDITORS:
- Under s.8(1) Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (‘RIPA’), internal communications between British residents located within the UK, may only be monitored pursuant to a specific warrant. These specific warrants should only be granted where there is some reason to suspect the person in question of unlawful activity.
- ‘External communications’ may be monitored indiscriminately under a ‘general warrant’ pursuant to s.8(4) RIPA.
- Privacy International and Bytes for All are represented by Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, Dan Squires (Matrix Chambers) and Ben Jaffey (Blackstones Chambers)
- Amnesty International is represented by Kirsty Brimelow QC and Jude Bunting (Doughty Street Chambers)
- Liberty, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and the Legal Resources Centre (South Africa) are represented by Matthew Ryder QC (Matrix Chambers), Eric Metcalfe (Monckton Chambers) and Edward Craven (Matrix Chambers).
- Privacy International - Mike Rispoli, Communications Manager, email@example.com; +44 (0) 7557 793878
- Liberty – Contact the Press Office on +44 (0) 20 7378 3656 or +44 (0) 7973 831128
- Amnesty International – Max Tucker, Press Officer Global Campaigns, Thematic Issues and UN, firstname.lastname@example.org; +44 (0) 7983 563983
- Bhatt Murphy - Shamik Dutta +44 (0) 207 729 1115
Documents relating to the case with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT):
- Liberty Grounds of Claim 19th July 2013
- ACLU and others Grounds of Claim 13th November 2013
- The Intelligence Services open response the Liberty’s and Privacy International’s claims 15th November 2013
- Liberty’s note on legal issues 20th December 2013
- The Intelligence Services open response to the claims brought by the ACLU and others 7th February 2014
- Directions and legal issues 14th February 2014
- Witness statement of Charles Farr on behalf of the Intelligence Services 16th May 2014
- Skeleton argument of Liberty, the ACLU and others 12th June 2014
- Read Privacy International's documents relating to the case with the IPT
* Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Legal Resources Centre, South Africa