An  open  letter  to  all  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,      Dear  Parliamentarian,    Ensuring   the  Rule   of   Law   and   the   democratic   process   is   respected   as  UK  surveillance  law  is  revised    Actions  Taken  Under  the  Previous  Government    During  the  past  two  years,   the  United  Kingdom’s  surveillance   laws  and  policies  have  come  under  scrutiny  as  the  increasingly  expansive  and  intrusive  powers  of  the  state  have  been  revealed  and  questioned  in  the  media.  Such  introspection  is  healthy  for  any  democracy.  However,  despite  a  need  for  transparency  in  all  areas  of   lawmaking,   and   in   particular   in   areas   of   controversy,   the   previous  Government   repeatedly   resisted   calls   for   an   open   and   transparent   assessment  and  critique  of  UK  surveillance  powers.  Instead,  in  response  to  legal  challenges,  it  extended   the   powers   of   the   state   in   the   guise   of   draft   Codes   of   Practice   and  “clarifying  amendments.”  As  we  welcome  a  new  Government  we  expect  another  round  of  revisions  to  UK  surveillance  laws,  with  the  likelihood  that  the  Queen’s  Speech  will  signal  a  revival  of  the  Communications  Data  Bill.  At  this  time  we  call  on   the   new   Government,   and   the   members   of   the   House,   to   ensure   that   any  changes   in   the   law,   and   especially   any   expansions   of   power,   are   fully   and  transparently  vetted  by  Parliament,  and  open  to  consultation  from  the  public  and  all  relevant  stakeholders.    Last  year,  in  response  to  the  introduction  of  the  Data  Retention  and  Investigatory  Powers   Bill   (“DRIP”),   a   number   of   leading   academics   in   the   field   –   including  many  of   the  signatories  to  this   letter  –  called  for   full  and  proper  parliamentary  scrutiny   of   the   Bill   to   ensure   Parliamentarians   were   not   misled   as   to   what  powers   it   truly   contained.   Our   concern   emanated   from   the   Home   Secretary’s  attempt   to   characterise   the   Bill,   which   substantially   expanded   investigatory  powers,  as  merely  a  re-­‐affirmation  of  the  pre-­‐existing  data  retention  regime.1      Since  that  letter  was  written,  it  has  become  apparent  that  the  introduction  of  the  DRIP   Bill   was   not   the   only   time   an   expansion   of   surveillance   powers   was  presented  in  a  way  seemingly  designed  to  stifle  robust  democratic  consideration.  In  February  2015,   the  Home  Office  published  the  draft  Equipment   Interference  Code   of   Practice.2  The   draft   Code   was   the   first   time   the   intelligence   services  openly  sought  specific  authorisation  to  hack  computers  both  within  and  outside  the   UK.   Hacking   is   a   much   more   intrusive   form   of   surveillance   than   any  previously  authorised  by  Parliament.  It  also  threatens  the  security  of  all  internet  services   as   the   tools   intelligence   services   use   to   hack   can   create   or   maintain  security   vulnerabilities   that  may   be   used   by   criminals   to   commit   criminal   acts  and  other  governments  to   invade  our  privacy.  The  Government,   though,  sought  to  authorise   its  hacking,  not  through  primary   legislation  and  full  Parliamentary  consideration,  but  via  a  Code  of  Practice.      The  previous  Government  also  introduced  an  amendment  via  the  Serious  Crimes  Act   2015,   described   in   the   explanatory   notes   to   the   Bill   as   a   ‘clarifying  amendment’.3  The   amendment   effectively   exempts   the   police   and   intelligence  

services  from  criminal  liability  for  hacking.  This  has  had  an  immediate  impact  on  the   ongoing   litigation   of   several   organisations   who   are   suing   the   Government  based  in  part  on  the  law  amended,  the  Computer  Misuse  Act  1990.4      The  Way  Ahead    The  new  Conservative  Government  has  announced  its  intention  to  propose  new  surveillance   powers   through   a   resurrection   of   the   Communications   Data   Bill.  This   will   require   internet   and   mobile   phone   companies   to   keep   records   of  customers’  browsing  activity,  social  media  use,  emails,  voice  calls,  online  gaming  and   text   messages   for   a   year,   and   to   make   that   information   available   to   the  government  and  security  services.  We  also  anticipate  this  Parliament  will  see  a  review   of   the   Regulation   of   Investigatory   Powers   Act   2000,   which   currently  regulates   much   of   the   Government’s   surveillance   powers.   The   Independent  Reviewer   of   Terrorism   Legislation,   David   Anderson   QC,   has   conducted   an  independent   review   of   the   operation   and   regulation   of   investigatory   powers,  with   specific   reference   to   the   interception   of   communications   and  communications  data.  The  report  of  that  review  has  been  submitted  to  the  Prime  Minister,  but  has  yet   to  be  made  public:  when   it   is  made  public,  parliamentary  scrutiny   of   the   report   and   any   recommendations   made   following   it   will   be  essential.    As  the  law  requires  that  surveillance  powers  must  be  employed  proportionate  to  any  harm  to  privacy  caused  (as  required  by  Article  8  of  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights  and  Article  12  of   the  Universal  Declaration  of  Human  Rights)  we  believe  that  any  expansion  or  change  to  the  UK’s  surveillance  powers  should  be  proposed   in  primary   legislation   and   clearly   and  accurately  described   in   the  explanatory  notes  of   any  Bill.  The  Bill   and   its   consequences  must   then  be   fully  and   frankly   debated   in   Parliament.   When   reaching   an   assessment   of   the  proportionality,   of   any  measure   that   restricts   rights,   both   our   domestic   courts  and   the   European  Court   of  Human  Rights   place   great   stock   on   the   degree   and  quality  of  Parliamentary  involvement  prior  to  any  measure  being  adopted.  If  the  matter  ever  came  to  before  the  courts  one  issue  examined  would  be  the  nature  of  any  “exacting  review”  undertaken  by  MPs   into  the  necessity  of  extending  these  powers.  The  Government  should  not  be  permitted  to  surreptitiously  change  the  law  whenever   it  so  desires,  especially  where  such  changes  put  our  privacy  and  security  at  risk.    This   letter   has   been  prepared   and   signed  by  38   academic   researchers.  We   are  comprised   of   people   from   both   sides   of   this   issue   -­‐   those   who   believe   that  increased   powers   are   a   reasonable   response   to   an   emerging   threat,   and   those  who  think  them  an  unjustified  extension  of  state  interference.  Our  common  goal  is  to  see  the  Rule  of  Law  applied  and  Parliamentary  oversight  reasserted.  We  are  calling  on  all  members  of  the  House  of  Commons,  new  and  returning,  and  of  all  political  persuasions  to  support  us  in  this  by  ensuring  Parliamentary  scrutiny  is  applied  to  all  developments  in  UK  surveillance  laws  and  powers  as  proposed  by  the  current  Government.          Signatories    

Andrew  Murray  (contact  signatory)   Paul  Bernal  (contact  signatory)  Professor  of  Law  London  School  of  Economics  a.murray@lse.ac.uk    

Lecturer  in  Information  Technology,  Intellectual  Property  and  Media  Law  University  of  East  Anglia  Paul.Bernal@uea.ac.uk    

Anne  Barron    Associate  Professor  of  Law  London  School  of  Economics    

Subhajit  Basu  Associate  Professor  of  Law  University  of  Leeds    

Sally  Broughton  Micova  Deputy  Director  LSE  Media  Policy  Project,  Department  of  Media  and  Communications  London  School  of  Economics      

Abbe  E.L.  Brown  Senior  Lecturer  School  of  Law  University  of  Aberdeen    

Ian  Brown  Professor  of  Information  Security  and  Privacy  Oxford  Internet  Institute  

Ray  Corrigan  Senior  Lecturer  in  Maths,  Computing  and  Technology  Open  University    

Angela  Daly    Postdoctoral  Research  Fellow  Swinburne  Institute  for  Social  Research  Swinburne  University  of  Technology  

Richard  Danbury  Postdoctoral  Research  Fellow  Faculty  of  Law  University  of  Cambridge    

Catherine  Easton  Lecturer  in  Law  Lancaster  University  School  of  Law    

Lilian  Edwards    Professor  of  E-­‐Governance  Strathclyde  University  

Andres  Guadamuz  Senior  Lecturer  in  Intellectual  Property  Law  University  of  Sussex    

Edina  Harbinja  Lecturer  in  Law  University  of  Hertfordshire    

Julia  Hörnle  Professor  in  Internet  Law  Queen  Mary  University  of  London  

Argyro  P  Karanasiou  Senior  Lecturer  in  Law  Centre  for  Intellectual  Property,  Policy  &  Management  (CIPPM)  Bournemouth  University    

Theodore  Konstadinides  Senior  Lecturer  in  Law  University  of  Surrey    

Douwe  Korff  Emeritus  Professor  of  International  Law  London  Metropolitan  University  Associate  of  the  Oxford  Martin  School,  University  of  Oxford    

Mark  Leiser  Postgraduate  Researcher    Strathclyde  University  

Orla  Lynskey  Assistant  Professor  of  Law  London  School  of  Economics  

   

Daithi  Mac  Sithigh  Reader  in  Law  Newcastle  Law  School  

Robin  Mansell    Professor,  Department  of  Media  and  Communication    London  School  of  Economics    

Chris  Marsden    Professor  of  Law  University  of  Sussex    

David  Mead  Professor  of  UK  Human  Rights  Law    UEA  Law  School  University  of  East  Anglia    

Steve  Peers  Professor  of  Law  University  of  Essex    

Gavin  Phillipson  Professor,  Law  School  University  of  Durham    

Julia  Powles  Researcher  Faculty  of  Law  University  of  Cambridge    

Andrew  Puddephatt  Executive  Director    Global  Partners  Digital  

Judith  Rauhofer  Lecturer  in  IT  Law  University  of  Edinburgh    

Chris  Reed  Professor  of  Electronic  Commerce  Law  Queen  Mary  University  of  London      

Felipe  Romero-­‐Moreno  Lecturer  in  Law  University  of  Hertfordshire    

Burkhard  Schafer  Professor  of  Computational  Legal  Theory  University  of  Edinburgh    

Joseph  Savirimuthu    Senior  Lecturer  in  Law  University  of  Liverpool    

Andrew  Scott  Associate  Professor  of  Law  London  School  of  Economics    

Peter  Sommer    Visiting  Professor  Cyber  Security  Centre,  De  Montfort  University      

Gavin  Sutter  Senior  Lecturer  in  Media  Law  Queen  Mary  University  of  London      

Judith  Townend  Director  of  the  Centre  for  Law  and  Information  Policy    Institute  of  Advanced  Legal  Studies    University  of  London    

Asma  Vranaki  Post-­‐Doctoral  Researcher  in  Cloud  Computing  Queen  Mary  University  of  London  

Lorna  Woods  Professor  of  Law  University  of  Essex    

 

 

                                                                                                               1  http://bit.ly/1jNzlUz    2  http://bit.ly/1yiXUZD  3  http://bit.ly/1LfVFz3  4  http://bit.ly/1S4RCdJ