UK Labour Member of Parliament Tom Watson writes, “I thought you might be interested to read the latest developments on the drones and data collection front. I’ve asked privacy expert Jemima Stratford QC for her legal opinion on aspects of the Snowden revelations. Contrary to reassurance from the Foreign Secretary and Chair of the ISC she finds [PDF]:
1. interception of ‘internal’ contents data of British citizens in the UK is unlawful under RIPA [ed: the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; the UK’s controversial spying bill]
2. the RIPA framework is outdated and not fit for purpose, leaving British citizens exposed to unlawful interference
3. transfer of data to NSA, which shares data with CIA, leaves GCHQ officials exposed to charges of aiding murder in the UK where the government knows that data is available for use to direct drone strikes against non-combatants
Further, she argues:
4. the government should agree and publish a new memorandum of understanding with the US specifying how data from UK can be stored and used by foreign agents.
Watson doesn’t do the report justice, really — Stratford’s opinion includes that UK participation in US drone strikes opens up individual UK intelligence operatives to being charged as accessories to murder. Watson sent copies of the report to all the members of the all-party parliamentary drone group, which of which he is chair. He’s also sending it to the parliamentary intelligence and security committee for their own hearings on surveillance.
The Guardian has a great summary of the memo here, but really, you should read it yourself [PDF] — it’s a very quick and easy read. Stratford is a leading public law barrister, and she argues beautifully.
The advice warns that Britain’s principal surveillance law is too vague and is almost certainly being interpreted to allow the agency to conduct surveillance that flouts privacy safeguards set out in the European convention on human rights (ECHR).
The inadequacies, it says, have created a situation where GCHQ staff are potentially able to rely “on the gaps in the current statutory framework to commit serious crime with impunity”.
At its most extreme, the advice raises issues about the possible vulnerability of staff at GCHQ if it could be proved that intelligence used for US drone strikes against “non-combatants” had been passed on or supplied by the British before being used in a missile attack.
“An individual involved in passing that information is likely to be an accessory to murder. It is well arguable, on a variety of different bases, that the government is obliged to take reasonable steps to investigate that possibility,” the advice says.
The opinion suggests the UK should consider publishing a memorandum of understanding with any country with which it intends to share intelligence.
This would clarify what the intelligence can be used for under British law, and how the data will be stored and destroyed.
Huge swath of GCHQ mass surveillance is illegal, says top lawyer
(Thanks, Tom!)