PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION
3. The first applicant, Privacy International, is an NGO registered in
London. The second applicant, GreenNet Limited, is an Internet service
provider registered in London. The third applicant, Chaos Computer Club
E.V., is an association of “hacktivists” registered in Germany. The fourth
and fifth applicants, Media Jumpstart Inc. and Riseup Networks Inc., are
companies registered in the United States providing Internet services and
communications services respectively. The sixth applicant, Korean
Progressive Network Jinbonet, is an Internet service provider registered in
South Korea.
4. The applicants believe that their equipment has been subject to
interference known as Computer Network Exploitation or Equipment
Interference, to say colloquially “hacked”, over an undefined period by the
United Kingdom Government Communications Headquarters (“GCHQ”)
and/or the Secret Intelligence Service (“SIS”). They consider that GCHQ
and/or SIS obtained authorisations to conduct that Equipment Interference
under section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (“ISA”). Section 7
allows the Secretary of State to authorise a person to undertake (and to
exempt them from liability for) an act outside the British Islands in relation
to which they would be liable if it were done in the United Kingdom
(see paragraph 25 below).
5. In part iv of his Annual report for 2015 the Intelligence Services
Commissioner described Equipment Interference thus:
“...
Equipment Interference (EI) is any interference, remotely or otherwise, with
computers, servers, routers, laptops, mobile phones and other devices in order to
obtain information from the equipment. Information obtained may include
communications content and communications data, and information about the
equipment to allow an intelligence service to examine or modify the equipment, or to
conduct surveillance.
...”
6. Privacy International considers the belief it has been subject to
Equipment Interference to be reasonable because it is an organisation which
campaigns against unlawful State surveillance. The other applicants
consider their belief reasonable because they have access to the
communications of many individuals, or because their employees have
access to source code or other software of interest to the United Kingdom
Government.
1. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal
7. The applicants complained to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal
(the “IPT”) that they had been subject to Equipment Interference and that
this was in breach of domestic law and in violation of Articles 8 and 10 of
the Convention. In those proceedings they complained about being subject
2