Following an adverse ruling by the ECJ in 2016 against previous UK legislation, the Home Office has just released proposed amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act (2016), which are supposed to make it compatible with the ruling. They are seeking public comments on these proposals in a Consultation due mid-January. https://www.theguardian.com/technol...hone-and-web-data-search-authorisation-powers https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/investigatory-powers-act-2016
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ruled-unlawful-appeal-ruling-snoopers-charter In a further adverse judgement on the previous Dripa 2014 Act (which the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 was based on), the UK Court of Appeal found that the Act was unlawful in that it did not restrict the accessing of confidential personal phone and web browsing records to investigations of serious crime, and allowed police and other public bodies to authorise their own access without adequate oversight. This means that additional changes will be needed on top of the ones proposed in the consultation in order to make it minimally compliant with cases that have found against the government already.
High Court Rules Part of Snoopers’ Charter Illegal https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/high-court-rules-part-of-snoopers/
UK.gov agrees to narrow 'serious crime' definition for slurping comms data July 11, 2018 https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/...s_crime_definition_for_sucking_up_comms_data/
@mood - incredibly disappointing response, but completely consistent with the Home Office MO of claiming compliance while offering minimal concession. The justification for the very low bar was in relation to some specific offences, so the obvious minimal and proportionate response was just to specify those offences. But the way they've done it means they can conduct mass surveillance for a very wide range of offences. Which all means of course is that they will be found non-compliant again in future, but they've gained years of unlawful operation and increased the costs of those opposing these unlawful laws. And maybe they hope that a UK Supreme Court will be less concerned with pesky Rights.
