activity, often taking place in the home. It is important in a democratic
society that there is free access to ideas, including those that may be
controversial. The interception and retention of an official record of what
people choose to read will have a chilling effect – when will reading a
controversial website excite official suspicion or trigger a red flag on an
automated computer system?
46.
A law requiring every individual to report to the UK Intelligence Services
a list of books, newspapers and magazines read to enable those records to
be automatically analysed and checked for suspicious reading material
could not be reconciled with Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. The same
outcome, as a result of rapid technological change, can now be achieved
under the s8(4) Regime. Everyone’s reading activities can be automatically
intercepted, stored and made available for analysis, regardless of
individual suspicion.
47.
The wide scope of bulk interception is illustrated by the facts of these
cases. The IPT in its Third Judgment notified one of the Applicants (the
South African Legal Resources Centre – South Africa’s largest human
rights and public interest legal organisation) that its communications had
been “intercepted and selected for examination”.21 It also notified another
Applicant, (Amnesty International – one of the world’s largest human
rights organisations) that its communications had been “intercepted and
accessed” pursuant to s8(4).22 The dragnet of bulk intercept includes
routine and automated storage and analysis of the communications of
human rights advocates. These interferences occurred notwithstanding
the fact that both Applicants are well-known and respected nongovernmental organisations.
Liberty et al. v GCHQ et al [2015] UKIPTrib 13_77-H 2, 22 June 2015, para 14 (“Third IPT
Judgment”). This judgment was included as Annex 28 of the Government’s Reply.
22 Third IPT Judgment, para 15. The Judgment does not define “access” and it is unclear whether
“access” is analogous to “selection for examination” or accords with another step in the bulk
interception process.
21
24