» ISP News » 

European Parliament Report Criticises UK for Mass Internet Surveillance

Thursday, January 9th, 2014 (8:52 am) - Score 687

The European Parliament’s civil liberties committee has today published a damning new report that heavily criticises the USA, United Kingdom and other EU member states for their activities towards fostering mass Internet surveillance, which MEPs said often appeared to involve “illegal actions” that should be prohibited.

The Draft Report follows last year’s revelations from former NSA employee, Edward Snowden, whom revealed that among other things the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had actively snooped on more than 200 of the world’s 10Gbps capable transatlantic fibre optic cables (here); this is believed to have been assisted by Vodafone and BT among others (here).

Since then many more revelations have been revealed and today’s report claims that this and similar measures have “contributed to a fundamental shift in the work and practices of intelligence agencies, away from the traditional concept of targeted surveillance as a necessary and proportional counter-terrorism measure, towards systems of mass surveillance.”

Report Statement

This process of increasing mass surveillance has not been subject to any prior public debate or democratic decision-making. Discussion is needed on the purpose and scale of surveillance and its place in a democratic society. Is the situation created by Edward Snowden’s revelations an indication of a general societal turn towards the acceptance of the death of privacy in return for security?

Do we face a breach of privacy and intimacy so great that it is possible not only for criminals but for IT companies and intelligence agencies to know every detail of the life of a citizen? Is it a fact to be accepted without further discussion? Or is the responsibility of the legislator to adapt the policy and legal tools at hand to limit the risks and prevent further damages in case less democratic forces would come to power?

The report notes that outside of some countries, such as Germany, there has been hardly any public debate and media attention varies. The UK and France are singled out as two examples, which the report speculates could be “linked to the alleged involvement of their national intelligence services in activities with the NSA“.

Similarly the British and French parliaments have both declined participation in the LIBE Committee Inquiry and unsurprisingly the Director of GCHQ, Sir Iain Lobban, chose not to attend any of the public hearings. In fairness you can’t expect Spy’s to want to talk about their activities and lest we not forget that this is the land of Ian Fleming’s James Bond.

Next the report outlines five reasons why the EU might wish not to act and five reasons why it should, which we’ve listed below because they provide some useful context.

5 Reasons NOT to Act

– The ‘Intelligence/national security argument’: no EU competence

Edward Snowden’s revelations relate to US and some Member States’ intelligence activities, but national security is a national competence, the EU has no competence in such matters (except on EU internal security) and therefore no action is possible at EU level.

– The ‘Terrorism argument’: danger of the whistleblower

Any follow up to these revelations, or their mere consideration, further weakens the security of the US as well as the EU as it does not condemn the publication of documents the content of which even if redacted as involved media players explain may give valuable information to terrorist groups.

– The ‘Treason argument: no legitimacy for the whistleblower

As mainly put forward by some in the US and in the United Kingdom, any debate launched or action envisaged further to E. Snowden’s revelations is intrinsically biased and irrelevant as they would be based on an initial act of treason.

– The ‘realism argument’: general strategic interests

Even if some mistakes and illegal activities were to be confirmed, they should be balanced against the need to maintain the special relationship between the US and Europe to preserve shared economic, business and foreign policy interests.

– The ‘Good government argument’: trust your government

US and EU Governments are democratically elected. In the field of security, and even when intelligence activities are conducted in order to fight against terrorism, they comply with democratic standards as a matter of principle. This ‘presumption of good and lawful governance’ rests not only on the goodwill of the holders of the executive powers in these states but also on the checks and balances mechanism enshrined in their constitutional systems.

5 Reasons to Act

– The ‘mass surveillance argument’: in which society do we want to live?

Since the very first disclosure in June 2013, consistent references have been made to George’s Orwell novel ‘1984’. Since 9/11 attacks, a focus on security and a shift towards targeted and specific surveillance has seriously damaged and undermined the concept of privacy. The history of both Europe and the US shows us the dangers of mass surveillance and the graduation towards societies without privacy.

– The ‘fundamental rights argument’:

Mass and indiscriminate surveillance threaten citizens’ fundamental rights including right to privacy, data protection, freedom of press, fair trial which are all enshrined in the EU Treaties, the Charter of fundamental rights and the ECHR. These rights cannot be circumvented nor be negotiated against any benefit expected in exchange unless duly provided for in legal instruments and in full compliance with the treaties.

– The ‘EU internal security argument’:

National competence on intelligence and national security matters does not exclude a parallel EU competence. The EU has exercised the competences conferred upon it by the EU Treaties in matters of internal security by deciding on a number of legislative instruments and international agreements aimed at fighting serious crime and terrorism, on setting-up an internal security strategy and agencies working in this field. In addition, other services have been developed reflecting the need for increased cooperation at EU level on intelligence-related matters: INTCEN (placed within EEAS) and the Antiterrorism Coordinator (placed within the Council general secretariat), neither of them with a legal basis.

The ‘deficient oversight argument’

While intelligence services perform an indispensable function in protecting against internal and external threats, they have to operate within the rule of law and to do so must be subject to a stringent and thorough oversight mechanism. The democratic oversight of intelligence activities is conducted at national level but due to the international nature of security threats there is now a huge exchange of information between Member States and with third countries like the US; improvements in oversight mechanisms are needed both at national and at EU level if traditional oversight mechanisms are not to become ineffective and outdated.

– The ‘chilling effect on media’ and the protection of whistleblowers

The disclosures of Edward Snowden and the subsequent media reports have highlighted the pivotal role of the media in a democracy to ensure accountability of Governments. When supervisory mechanisms fail to prevent or rectify mass surveillance, the role of media and whistleblowers in unveiling eventual illegalities or misuses of power is extremely important. Reactions from the US and UK authorities to the media have shown the vulnerability of both the press and whistleblowers and the urgent need to do more to protect them.

In the end the committee said that surveillance is nothing new, but it also warned that there was enough evidence of an “unprecedented magnitude of the scope and capacities of intelligence agencies” that required the European Union to take some action.

Some of the proposed solutions include protecting the rule of law and the fundamental rights of EU citizens, with a particular focus on threats to the freedom of the press and professional confidentiality (including lawyer-client relations), as well as enhanced protection for whistle-blowers.

The MEP’s also want the UK to revise its Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 legislation so that various clauses, such as those which offer a legal loophole for such monitoring, could be removed or perhaps adjusted to prevent abuses.

On the other hand this is precisely the sort of work that spy agencies have been doing around the world for decades and many of their efforts have had a considerably more positive than negative impact upon the country’s security. Like it or not spies do exist and often operate in areas where their actions might easily be considered illegal, yet other countries do the same and we perhaps should not allow perfect moral correctness to blind ourselves to the realities of the world.

But there is a point where such tools can be focused so aggressively inwards that the risks to wider freedoms and civil liberties might begin to become dangerous. The price of freedom might be eternal vigilance, but what happens when the privacy of innocent citizens is removed for the sake of vigilance. It’s important to keep a balance and for such power to be well controlled and strictly focused, lest it ever be abused by a governing authority.

The committee now wants the EU to implement most of its proposals by 2015 but we wouldn’t be surprised if very little actually happens.

Share with Twitter
Share with Linkedin
Share with Facebook
Share with Reddit
Share with Pinterest
By Mark Jackson
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on Twitter, , Facebook and Linkedin.
Leave a Comment
7 Responses
  1. dragoneast says:

    I agree that nothing much is likely to happen. The problem is that any “cure” may have worse effects than the disease. Apart from the possible exception of Germany, I don’t see any evidence of a significant public concern. In both personal and public matters, I suspect that most people find it acceptable to trade their privacy for cheaper goods and services (including security). However we deplore it as short-sighted ignorance, the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” argument is always persuasive. I suspect that most people if someone close to them was harmed wouldn’t want privacy to stand in the way of bringing the culprits to justice, and I certainly wouldn’t want to tell them they’re wrong. Whether all this trading in privacy actually gives anyone value for money is a completely different question. But as you say it’s a world of smoke and mirrors. Meanwhile I can’t see any government conceding control of its internal security to the EC, nor anyone seriously wanting them to.

    1. Pete says:

      “the “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” argument is always persuasive.”

      No it isn’t, I for one am not persuaded.

      And I think you’ll find many other intelligent people resent that kind of ludicrous false dichotomy too.

      CW Debunking a myth: If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear

      Personal privacy, commercial confidentiality, personal security, national security, freedom of speech, freedom of association, and even democracy are intimately connected.

      But without fundamental respect for privacy, and enforcement of the law that protects privacy of our communications, you have none of the above.

    2. Mark Jackson says:

      I’d agree with that. The phrase “nothing to hide, nothing to fear” or similar interpretations completely overlook the fact that every human has something to hide. I think I best explained that in the opening paragraphs below. I’d guess we’d all be nudists and share our bank details or personal lives with everybody if we didn’t have things to hide :).


  2. Pete says:

    Coming five years after the complaints to the EC about the Phorm affair, its a bit disappointing… but better late than never.

    Recall the EC took no action against the UK Government over BT/Phorm, and their covert ‘stealth’ surveillance in the UK in 2006/7/8.

    In 2011 ISPReview reported that RIPA would be amended to remove the purported loopholes, and yet the unlawful surveillance continued.

    Today, with the benefit of hindsight, the revelations of Snowden, and the selective enforcement in the NoTW trials… it is easy to see the extent of corruption that pervades communications surveillance in the UK.

    Until RIPA is enforced, independently, by trustworthy regulators… it doesn’t matter what the law says. You can change it all you like and it will make no difference to the selective and corrupt enforcement process.

    Without dramatic reform… The only solution is to distrust the police/Government/telcos, and rely on strong encryption as much as possible.

    1. dragoneast says:

      “Without dramatic reform… The only solution is to distrust the police/Government/telcos, and rely on strong encryption as much as possible.”

      Exactly, that’s why I say the “cure” might be worse than the disease. At the moment it looks like we can escape the surveillance if we are so minded, the cost of a more regulated system is that those “loopholes” might be closed. I still think we should know what is being done in our name, though.

  3. timeless says:

    the big problem with surveillance is that having the ability will be open to abuse.. for example the next elections are coming up, a recent bill that just got defeated was the gagging law (tho it wouldnt surprise me if they pushed it through again via other means that removed democratic process like they have with other legislation). if that law was introduced surveillance could be used to find those talking about politics that went against those in office and those ppl could essentially be sent to prison to my knowledge what lve read is that vague that it could essentially do that.

    then you have corporate interests, and considering this governments track record of selling things out from under us, whats to say eventually they wont fill the tories coffers with donations from interests who bought pieces of this massive database, or even worse hackers find their way into it and sell our information.

    after all we only have “their” words for it that they dont log credit card information.. that being said it would be a pretty crappy system if it didnt spy on everything.. there would be no point if it couldnt grab everything.

Comments are closed.

Comments RSS Feed

Javascript must be enabled to post (most browsers do this automatically)

Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message. By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your comment content, display name, IP, email and / or website details in our database, for as long as the post remains live.

Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.

NOTE 1: Sometimes your comment might not appear immediately due to site cache (this is cleared every few hours) or it may be caught by automated moderation / anti-spam.

NOTE 2: Comments that break our rules, spam, troll or post via known fake IP/proxy servers may be blocked or removed.
Cheapest Superfast ISPs
  • Vodafone £19.50 (*22.50)
    Speed 38Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • NOW £20.00 (*32.00)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £20.00 (*25.00)
    Speed 50Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo Code: HYPERFALL21
  • Shell Energy £21.99 (*30.99)
    Speed 35Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Plusnet £22.00 (*38.20)
    Speed 36Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: £70 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
New Forum Topics
Cheapest Ultrafast ISPs
  • Gigaclear £24.00 (*49.00)
    Speed: 300Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Vodafone £24.00 (*27.00)
    Speed: 100Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Community Fibre £25.00 (*27.50)
    Speed: 200Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
  • Hyperoptic £25.00 (*35.00)
    Speed: 150Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: Promo Code: HYPERFALL21
  • Virgin Media £28.00 (*52.00)
    Speed: 108Mbps, Unlimited
    Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
The Top 20 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (3573)
  2. BT (3025)
  3. Politics (1944)
  4. Building Digital UK (1929)
  5. FTTC (1888)
  6. Openreach (1839)
  7. Business (1695)
  8. Mobile Broadband (1480)
  9. Statistics (1410)
  10. FTTH (1365)
  11. 4G (1278)
  12. Fibre Optic (1176)
  13. Virgin Media (1175)
  14. Wireless Internet (1163)
  15. Ofcom Regulation (1150)
  16. Vodafone (847)
  17. EE (837)
  18. 5G (772)
  19. TalkTalk (770)
  20. Sky Broadband (748)
Helpful ISP Guides and Tips

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms , Privacy and Cookie Policy , Links , Website Rules , Contact