BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
159. With regard to communications data, the report noted that greater
volumes were available on an individual relative to content, because every
piece of content was surrounded by multiple pieces of communications data.
Furthermore, aggregating data sets could create an extremely accurate
picture of an individual’s life since, given enough raw data, algorithms and
powerful computers could generate a substantial picture of the individual
and his or her patterns of behaviour without ever accessing content. In
addition, the use of increasingly sophisticated encryption methods had made
content increasingly difficult to access.
160. It further considered that the capability of the security and
intelligence services to collect and analyse intercepted material in bulk
should be maintained, but with the stronger safeguards recommended in the
Anderson Report. In particular, it agreed that warrants for bulk interception
should include much more detail and should be the subject of a judicial
authorisation process, save for when there was an urgent requirement.
161. In addition, it agreed with both the ISC and the Anderson Report
that there should be different types of warrant for the interception and
acquisition of communications and related data. It was proposed that
warrants for a purpose relating to the detection or prevention of serious and
organised crime should always be authorised by a Judicial Commissioner,
while warrants for purposes relating to national security should be
authorised by the Secretary of State subject to judicial review by a Judicial
Commissioner.
162. With regard to the IPT, the ISR recommended open public
hearings, except where it was satisfied private or closed hearings were
necessary in the interests of justice or other identifiable public interest.
Furthermore, the IPT should have the ability to test secret evidence put
before it, possibly through the appointment of Special Counsel. Finally, it
agreed with the ISC and Anderson Report that a domestic right of appeal
was important and should be considered in future legislation.
5. Report of the Bulk Powers Review
163. The bulk powers review was set up in May 2016 to evaluate the
operational case for the four bulk powers contained in what was then the
Investigatory Powers Bill (now the Investigatory Powers Act 2016: see
paragraphs 183-190 below). Those powers related to bulk interception and
the bulk acquisition of communications data, bulk equipment interference
and the acquisition of bulk personal datasets.
164. The review was again carried out by the Independent Reviewer of
Terrorism Legislation. To conduct the review he recruited three team
members, all of whom had the necessary security clearance to access very
highly classified material, including a person with the necessary technical
background to understand the systems and techniques used by GCHQ, and
the uses to which they could be put; an investigator with experience as a
52