wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

, ,

UK Court of Appeals deems mass digital surveillance unlawful

UK’s Court of Appeals has ruled that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) is “inconsistent with EU law”, as it did not restrict the police access of confidential personal phone and web browsing records to investigations of serious crime, and did not provide independent oversight on access by police and other public bodies, who could authorise their own access.

Section 1 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 was inconsistent with the EU law to the extent that, for the purposes of prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, it permitted access to retained data:-

  1. where the object pursued by that access was not restricted solely to fighting serious crime; or
  2. where access was not subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative authority.

The DRIPA was passed in 2014 with very little Parliamentary debate as an “emergency” legislation and lapsed in 2016. It paved the way for and was replaced with the Investigatory Powers Act in 2016 (nicknamed as “Snooper’s Charter”), which further broadened the surveillance aspects like targeted interception of communications, bulk collection of communications data, and bulk interception of communications and requiring records to be kept by Internet Service Providers tracking use of the internet from the UK – all of which were accessible by the police and security services without judicial oversight.

Earlier, in 2016, European Court of Justice (ECJ) had found the UK’s “general and indiscriminate retention” of communications data was illegal (full text).

The Court states that, with respect to retention, the retained data, taken as a whole, is liable to allow very precise conclusions to be drawn concerning the private lives of the persons whose data has been retained.

The interference by national legislation that provides for the retention of traffic data and location data with that right must therefore be considered to be particularly serious. The fact that the data is retained without the users of electronic communications services being informed of the fact is likely to cause the persons concerned to feel that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance. Consequently, only the objective of fighting serious crime is capable of justifying such interference.

The Court states that legislation prescribing a general and indiscriminate retention of data does not require there to be any relationship between the data which must be retained and a threat to public security and is not restricted to, inter alia, providing for retention of data pertaining to a particular time period and/or geographical area and/or a group of persons likely to be involved in a serious crime. Such national legislation therefore exceeds the limits of what is strictly necessary and cannot be considered to be justified within a democratic society, as required by the directive, read in the light of the Charter.

While the DRIPA has already lapsed, the ruling has significance, because the Investigatory Powers Act (2016) that succeeded it carried forward the provisions now ruled as unlawful.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

This ruling has extensive implications for mass digital surveillance legislation in the UK, as the government will now have to revise the existing laws on mass surveillance.

Nikhil adds: India, meanwhile, has no privacy law, and, as far as we know, no laws preventing mass surveillance. It also has no definition for the term “National Security”, which gives the government disproportionate power to surveille citizens.

Written By

Vidyut is a commentator on socio-political issues with a keen interest in behavioral sciences, digital rights and security and manages to engage her various proficiencies to bring an unusual perspective to issues related with the intersection of tech and people.

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



Looking at the definition of health data, it is difficult to verify whether health IDs are covered by the Bill.


The accession to the Convention brings many advantages, but it could complicate the Brazilian stance at the BRICS and UN levels.


In light of the state's emerging digital healthcare apparatus, how does Clause 12 alter the consent and purpose limitation model?


The collective implication of leaving out ‘proportionality’ from Clause 12 is to provide very wide discretionary powers to the state.


The latest draft is also problematic for companies or service providers that have nothing to with children's data.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ