Report of the Independent Surveillance Review
69
US–UK MLAT is particularly relevant to the counter-terrorist policies of both countries.
There is widespread agreement, however, that the process is normally too slow and
cumbersome to meet the current levels of demand for speedy legal co-operation
between partner countries. Even assuming a case in which there is complete agreement
between officials in Britain and the US about the necessity to co-operate quickly to obtain
national data, each country’s need to follow its own due legal process could impose long
delays – over a matter of months – to cases that may require speed measured in days or
even hours. To date, there seems little likelihood that the mutual legal assistance treaty
process will be substantially streamlined, since the legal requirements and traditions
of partner countries are usually long-established and necessarily important to the
country concerned.
Internet and Communications Service Providers
3.92
Like any major company operating internationally, the business models of internet
companies and CSPs require them to be compliant in legal jurisdictions wherever they
want to exploit a market. Major companies and CSPs increasingly move their servers
– and services – into different states as they navigate to best commercial advantage
around the jurisdictional complexity of their world.
3.93
In the matter of legal interception and co-operation with law-enforcement agencies,
companies argue that they must contend with inconsistent jurisdictions in different
countries, and also are caught between conflicting demands between governments
wanting access to their data on the one hand and recent customer resistance to such
access, which the Snowden disclosures have intensified, on the other.
3.94
Internet companies argued to the ISR Panel that they are nevertheless very conscious
of their corporate social responsibilities, especially in matters of terrorism and serious
crime. They point out that they respond very quickly to urgent requests from lawenforcement agencies where there is threat to life or an imminent terrorist attack might
be at stake. They also point out that they often exercise careful judgement and restrict
material on their sites which may not be illegal, but is simply contrary to company policy.
On the other hand, they make a strong case that they are not qualified to be intelligence
agencies, or make subtle judgement over what data and material might be regarded as
connected to terrorism, espionage or organised crime. They obey the law in countries in
which they operate but should not be assumed to be natural partners of any government
in national security.55
Security and Intelligence Agencies across the World
3.95
Intelligence agencies, even those within the Western world, are not a homogeneous
group with entirely similar interests. Differences of approach to interception also reflect
their own national circumstances, and their interest in particular methods to intercept
55. Evidence taken by the ISR.