‘Government-backed inspectors should be able to investigate companies and entire industries to prevent unscrupulous companies falsely labelling workers as self-employed, according to a leading legal body.’
The Guardian, 21st June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Theresa May and Keir Starmer disagree about whether human rights impede effective counterterrorism. Both bring experience at the coalface of this field, May as former Home Secretary, and Starmer as former DPP responsible for the prosecution of terrorist cases. Who is right? There is no point in pretending that human rights do not present legal constraints on counterterrorism powers. Nevertheless, the constraints that do exist are certainly not as restrictive as rights opponents would like us to believe. Moreover, it is crucial to distinguish between legal constraints, and the notion that these constraints constitute practical impediments on the effective prevention and punishment of terrorism. The debate is full of confusion between the two. This post will deal only with the first question of legal constraints, as the second is a matter of empirical proof. Before we can proceed with the normative project of changing human rights protections, a process that has far wider implications for human rights in general and our liberal democratic culture, any government has to provide persuasive evidence that human rights do in fact stand in the way of security. The present government, for as long as it lasts, would also need to dispose of the charge that a 13 % reduction in police numbers over the last six years is less significant in the fight against terror, than the human rights constraints that guide police action.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 15th June 2017
Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘EU judges may be asked to decide whether the intelligence services’ bulk collection of email data in order to prevent terrorist attacks is legal.’
The Guardian, 5th June 2017
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Journalists in the UK are less free to hold power to account than those working in South Africa, Chile or Lithuania, according to an index of press freedom around the world.’
The Guardian, 26th April 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Twitter has blocked the Government from accessing data on potential terrorist threats in a move that ministers fear will make the country less safe, industry sources have told The Telegraph.’
Daily Telegraph, 25th April 2017
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Debates about the regulation of encryption technologies and surveillance have been around for decades. It is in unfortunate circumstances that these debates have now been thrust back into the public eye. Following the horrifying Westminster attack which occurred on 22nd March 2017 Amber Rudd, the UK’s Home Secretary, has been very vocal in suggesting that in order for the police and security services to be able to effectively investigate and prevent future terrorist acts they must be given access to over-the-top messaging services that utilise end-to-end encryption, such as WhatsApp. (End-to-end encryption services can generally be described as those which allows for conversations to be read only by the sender and recipient of individual messages, meaning that such messages cannot be intercepted and read by a third party.) Her comments appeared to have been driven by the fact that Khalid Masood, the perpetrator of the attack, had used WhatsApp shortly before commencing his appalling actions. In particular, Rudd has claimed it is “unacceptable” that governmental agencies were unable to read messages protected by WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption, and in an interview given to the BBC on Sunday 26th March, intimated that she would consider pursuing the enactment of new legislation which would require the providers of encrypted messaging services to grant access to the UK intelligence agencies. This sentiment has since broadly been endorsed by the UK government.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 25th April 2017
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘Self-described “paedophile hunters” have welcomed a court ruling that will allow them to continue to pose as children online to catch sexual predators.’
The Guardian, 8th April 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The judge chairing a public inquiry into undercover policing has dismissed claims by campaigners that the Met Police have tried to sabotage it.’
BBC News, 5th April 2017
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The government already has the power to force technology firms to act as it wants over end-to-end encryption, but is avoiding using existing legislation as it would force it into a battle it would eventually lose, security experts have said.’
The Guardian, 29th March 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A new independent surveillance procedure to prevent police officers granting themselves permission to access personal emails and records of web-browsing history is being established by the government.’
The Guardian, 28th March 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Amber Rudd has called for the police and intelligence agencies to be given access to WhatsApp and other encrypted messaging services to thwart future terror attacks, prompting opposition politicians and civil liberties groups to say her demand was unrealistic and disproportionate.’
The Guardian, 26th March 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Investigatory powers tribunal finds there was no lawful basis for Cleveland police accessing records in leak inquiry.’
The Guardian, 31st January 2017
Source: www,guardian.co.uk
‘The UK is leading a Europe-wide “race to the bottom” with Orwellian counter-terrorism measures that seriously threaten human rights, according to a comparative survey of security laws by Amnesty International.’
The Guardian, 17th January 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Counter-terrorism money is being used to redact police evidence to an inquiry into undercover policing tactics, it has been revealed.’
The Independent, 12th January 2017
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Human rights campaign group Liberty has launched a crowdfunded legal challenge to the “sweeping state spying powers” in the newly enacted Investigatory Powers Act, which has been dubbed the snooper’s charter.’
The Guardian, 10th January 2017
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘“General and indiscriminate retention” of emails and electronic communications by governments is illegal, the EU’s highest court has ruled, in a judgment that could trigger challenges against the UK’s new Investigatory Powers Act – the so-called snooper’s charter.’
The Guardian, 21st December 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A woman who is suing police after discovering that she had a sexual relationship with an undercover officer has accused police of using a variety of delaying tactics to obstruct her legal action.’
The Guardian, 19th December 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Increasing online surveillance has serious implications for researchers and study participants. Academics need to be more careful than ever.’
The Guardian, 1st December 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2017