Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: Bowdon on April 27, 2018, 01:59:34 PM
-
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/04/high-court-rules-uk-isp-internet-snooping-law-is-unlawful.html (https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/04/high-court-rules-uk-isp-internet-snooping-law-is-unlawful.html)
The High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) has today ruled that the controversial 2016 Investigatory Powers Act, which would force broadband ISPs to log the internet activity of all their customers for up to 12 months, is unlawful and must be amended.
The IPAct contains a variety of measures, although one of the most hotly debated is a change that forces broadband ISPs and mobile operators to store comparatively detailed Internet Connection Records (e.g. details of all the websites / servers you’ve visited) about all their customers. This can then be supplied to a valid authority without a warrant and occurs irrespective of whether or not you’re even suspected of a crime.
Needless to say, not everybody was happy with so much data being easily supplied, upon request, to dozens of public bodies (i.e. from local police to financial regulators). Similarly a 2016 ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had already warned that EU law does not allow “general and indiscriminate retention of traffic data and location data,” except for “targeted” use against “serious crime”.
High Court of Justice Conclusion
For the reasons we have given this claim for judicial review succeeds in part, because Part 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is incompatible with fundamental rights in EU law in that in the area of criminal justice:
(1) access to retained data is not limited to the purpose of combating “serious crime”; and
(2) access to retained data is not subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative body.
We have concluded that the legislation must be amended within a reasonable time and that a reasonable time would be 1 November 2018, which is just over 6 months from the date of this judgment. We have also concluded that the appropriate remedy is a declaration to reflect our judgment.
Finally we would like to express our gratitude to all counsel and those instructing them for their assistance in this important case.