always ongoing and the same data may be accessed on numerous
occasions without any genuine intrusion on the private life of any of
those whose data is kept there, save for those who may, as a result of
the automated processing of data, be of proper intelligence interest to
the SIAs;
c. Prior to actual access, whether targeted or resulting from an earlier
electronic trawl.
61.
We have been satisfied, in particular by reference to the Appendices to our
October Judgment that there are sufficient protections from abuse.
The
Respondents’ evidence from relevant witnesses, in particular the third witness
statement of the GCHQ witness dated 2 March 2017, is that it would critically
undermine the ability of the SIAs to tackle the threat to national security. The
Claimant, by reference to the evidence of Ms Graham Wood, a solicitor
employed by Privacy International, puts that in issue. We are persuaded by
the Respondents’ evidence; and Mengozzi AG’s Opinion gives no support to a
view that further pre-authorisation is required:
“268. Likewise, it should be observed that the agreement
envisaged does not provide that access to the PNR data is to be
subject to prior control by an independent authority, such as
the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, or by a court whose
decision might limit access to or use of the data and which
would deal with the matter following a reasoned request from
the CBSA.
269. However, the appropriate balance that must be struck
between the effective pursuit of the fight against terrorism and
serious transnational crime and respect for a high level of
protection of the personal data of the passengers concerned
does not necessarily require that a prior control of access to
the PNR data must be envisaged.
Page 51