A government watchdog investigating the snooping techniques of spy agencies has ruled that GCHQ unlawfully monitored people’s telecommunications for over a decade.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal – which was established to investigate claims that personal data was being mishandled by public bodies – claimed that surveillance systems used by GCHQ enabled the agency to access vast quantities of personal information through snooping in on telecoms. These practices meant that agencies broke sections of the Telecommunications Act 1984.

The tribunal also added that “successive” foreign secretaries had failed to implement adequate oversight policies.

Privacy International brought the legal challenge, and Millie Graham Wood said the ruling was “proof positive” of the inadequacy of government oversight and suggested that telecommunications companies were complicit in unlawful practices.

She said: “It is proof positive of the inadequacy of the historic oversight system; the complicity of telecommunications companies who instead of checking if requests were lawful, just handed over customers’ personal data as long as their cooperation was kept secret”.

Blowing the Lid

In 2013, Edward Snowden opened the world up to the shady underbelly of government surveillance; showcasing widespread data monitoring by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK’s signals intelligence agency. The intricate surveillance infrastructure exposed by Snowden painted a terrifying picture for people around the globe, many of whom may not have realised the true extent of government snooping.

Five years on, security and intelligence agencies have come under intense scrutiny for their surveillance practices.

According to the tribunal, GCHQ surveillance strategies between 2001 and 2012 were unlawful. However, it added that there was little evidence to suggest that GCHQ had misused the system.

The tribunal is particularly critical of the manner in which GCHQ requested access to communications from telecommunications providers. Often, the tribunal noted, telecoms providers “would not be in any position to question the scope of the requirement” and that they would have “no knowledge of the limited bases upon which the direction had been made.”

In its ruling, the IPT stated: “In form, the general direction was a carte blanche. In practice, it was not treated as such and there is no evidence that GCHQ ever sought to obtain communications data which fell outside the scope of data which had been sought in the submission to the foreign secretary.”

Following the World Trade Centre attacks on September 11th, 2001, rules were introduced to allow security services to access increased amounts of public communications in an attempt to tackle terrorism. The Foreign Secretary was granted the power to direct GCHQ to obtain data from telecoms companies – often with little detailed indication or explanation of what they were asking for.

Additionally, this process had little no oversight and often left telecoms providers obliged to cooperate.

Process Improvements

Although the IPT ruled that surveillance techniques were unlawful, it highlighted notable improvements to systems used by GCHQ. A number of improvements had been made from “at least 2014” onward that ensured the foreign secretary approved any changes or additions to the information GCHQ demanded from telecoms providers.

The ruling also noted that from around 2010 onward – a period in which William Hague assumed the role of Foreign Secretary – an increased level of oversight was introduced. It said: “The Foreign Secretary had from 2010 imposed a requirement that any variation in the scope of data to be provided under a direction required his approval.”

A spokesperson said the government welcomed the ruling an insisted that British security and intelligence agencies continue to work within strict legal frameworks.

“We welcome today’s judgment that the security and intelligence agencies’ powers are proportionate and comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.

“The security and intelligence agencies are subject to a strict legal framework and robust independent oversight.

“We are proud of the work they do to keep the UK safe within these parameters.”