‘The police must confront the “poison of decades-old misdeeds”, the Home Secretary Theresa May has told officers, raising hopes that she is close to ordering an inquiry into police misconduct during the 1980s miners’ strike.’
The Independent, 17th May 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A UK law enforcement agency asked a court to force alleged hacker Lauri Love to reveal passwords for computers they confiscated. The Court said no. The problem? That would bypass human rights safeguards UK Parliament built into investigatory powers laws.’
RightsInfo, 11th May 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘An alleged hacker fighting extradition to the US will not have to give the passwords for his encrypted computers to British law enforcement officers, following a landmark legal ruling.’
The Guardian, 10th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘MPs, councillors and civil servants suspected of corruption are to be targeted by a new law proposed by the home secretary.’
BBC News, 21st April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Claims an undercover officer set fire to a high street department store while infiltrating animal rights campaigners are being investigated by the police.’
The Independent, 20th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Following on from the first post focusing on the double-lock in the Investigatory Powers Bill (“the Bill”). This second entry looks at the “institutional and procedural” issues around the introduction of judicial scrutiny of surveillance warrants in the UK. Therefore, attention is on the office of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPCr) itself. I will assess the degree to which the IPCr is independent from the executive. Thereafter, consideration is given to the procedure by which the Judicial Commissioners (JCs) will conduct their ex ante oversight function. Concerns in both these areas were raised when a Draft version of the Bill was before a Joint Committee of Parliament (“the Committee”). After nearly four months of gathering both written and oral evidence, the Committee reported in February and the Bill got its second reading on March 15th this year.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 15th April 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The EU’s highest court will hear arguments on Tuesday concerning the validity of UK data retention laws.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The legality of Britain’s surveillance laws will come under the intense scrutiny of 15 European judges on Tuesday in a politically sensitive test case that could limit powers to gather online data.’
The Guardian, 11th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘When the Home Secretary commended the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in November 2015, she lauded the oversight mechanisms in the Bill as ‘world-leading.’ A seminal feature of this new regime is the creation of a single Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPCr) who is aided by a set of Judicial Commissioners (JCs) in exercising both ex ante and ex post facto oversight over the use of a range of surveillance measures. The IPCr will replace the existing fragmented (RIPA Part VI) framework of the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the Office of Surveillance Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner whom hitherto have (largely) conducted ex post facto oversight functions.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘EU judges in Luxembourg could limit key powers in UK surveillance laws just weeks before Britain votes on its EU membership.’
The Guardian, 27th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Police have been accused of concealing the involvement of two undercover officers in a long-running legal case from judges in the UK’s highest court.’
The Guardian, 21st March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Home Secretary Theresa May has defended controversial new surveillance powers as MPs debated them for the first time.’
BBC News, 15th March 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The second reading of the bill today is an opportunity for Labour to challenge the government on substance and process – and fight for a law fit for the 21st century.’
The Guardian, 15th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘While the Apple v FBI row makes world headlines, people in the UK are disregarding a bill that permits hacking and gagging.’
The Guardian, 14th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The Government introduced the Investigatory Powers Bill to Parliament today (Tuesday 1 March). The Bill sets out the powers available to the police, security and intelligence services to gather and access communications and communications data in the digital age, subject to strict safeguards and world-leading oversight arrangements.’
Home Office, 1st March 2016
Source: www.gov.uk/home-office
‘Despite claims that new surveillance laws will contain “protections for lawyers”, today’s Investigatory Powers Bill will allow authorities total access to confidential, legally privileged communications between individuals and their lawyers, even when someone is in a legal dispute with the Government or defending themselves against prosecution.’
The Bar Council, 2nd March 2016
Source: www.barcouncil.org.uk
‘The draft Investigatory Powers Bill, or Snoopers’ Charter, keeps a provision that weakening of security will only happen in cases where it is ‘practicable’, but that could still allow the Government to outlaw many of the most popular chat services as they currently exist.’
The Independent, 1st March 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘John Hayes on the powers we need to keep Britain safe in the digital age.’
Home Office, 25th February 2016
Source: www.gov.uk/home-office
‘Hacking of computers, networks and smartphones in the UK or abroad by GCHQ staff does not breach human rights, a security tribunal has ruled.’
The Guardian, 12th February 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘GCHQ is operating within the law when it hacks into computers and smart phones, a security tribunal has ruled.’
BBC News, 12th February 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024