49.
In its simplest form, the dispute between the Respondent and the Claimant can
be summarised as follows. The Respondents submit:
a. The BCD regime is not within the scope of the Treaty and the
Directive and is only subject to the ECHR.
b. In any event the Watson Requirements cannot and should not
apply, because there is no analogy between the activities and the
legal basis for such activities under consideration in Watson and
the BCD regime, as summarised in paragraph 29 above.
The Claimant submits that the Watson Requirements apply, and should be
imposed either directly or by analogy, and, although Mr de la Mare accepts
that it may be that they derive from a ‘partial understanding’ by the Court in
Watson of the necessities of national security and the operation of the SIAs,
the Requirements, if reconsidered, should be reapplied in whole or in part.
50.
The Respondents refer to the evidence which we have summarised and
accepted in paragraphs 11 to 16 above, and they make a number of powerful
submissions:
a. The use of bulk acquisition and automated processing produces
less intrusion than other means of obtaining information.
b. The balance between privacy and the protection of public safety is
not and should not be equal. Privacy is important and abuse must
be avoided by proper safeguards, but protection of the public is
preeminent.
Page 45