Report of the Independent Surveillance Review
43
processes. However, the ISC itself acknowledges the importance of providing the public
with information, particularly on standards and safeguards:
We recognise that much of the Agencies’ work must remain secret if they are to protect
us effectively. However, given that their work may infringe ECHR rights such as privacy, we
consider it essential that the public are given as much information as possible about how
they carry out their work, and the safeguards that are in place to protect the public from
unnecessary or inappropriate intrusion.52
2.49
It is true that the agencies are more open today than ever before. This has been a gradual
process since they were publicly acknowledged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As
part of an increasing range of outreach activities, eighty GCHQ employees currently
publicly identify themselves. From next year, more GCHQ information and guidance will
be published online as part of their public-facing security mission. Former editor-in-chief
of The Guardian newspaper, Alan Rusbridger, has noted that GCHQ in particular has
become more open to the press: ‘there has been a great deal of “opening up” and that
is to the agency’s credit’. 53 The publication of an article written by the current director
of GCHQ in November 2014 has been cited as an illustration of this.54
2.50
Nevertheless, there have been calls from those who believe that the agencies can
be yet more transparent about some aspects of their work. The Open Rights Group,
for example, has called for the government to publish ‘aggregate information on the
number of surveillance authorisation requests approved and rejected so that citizens
can understand the scale of surveillance requests made by the intelligence agencies
and by government agencies’.55 Information relating to the SIAs, including their
communications, is currently exempt from requests under the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) 2000.
2.51
Many NGOs, such as Open Rights Group, Liberty, Privacy International, Big Brother
Watch and Index on Censorship, have joined forces to run high-profile campaigns, such
as Don’t Spy on Us. They have also launched joint legal proceedings; in 2014, Privacy
International, Liberty and Amnesty International took a case to the IPT, requesting that
the court review the legality of, and policy regime relating to, the PRISM programme
and the lawfulness of interception by the security services. The IPT in February 2015
found in favour of GCHQ in terms of proportionality and necessity but, importantly,
found that the government had not adequately explained (to the extent required by the
Human Rights Act) the safeguards for domestic communications intercepted incidentally
during foreign-intelligence gathering. In response, the NGOs have launched an appeal
at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), challenging the UK government’s
surveillance of data.
52.
53.
54.
55.
ISC, Privacy and Security, p. 16.
Alan Rusbridger, speech given at RUSI, London, 19 January 2015.
Robert Hannigan, ‘The Web is a Terrorist’s Command-and-Control Network of Choice’.
Don’t Spy on Us, ‘Don’t Spy on Us: Reforming Surveillance in the UK’, p. 8.