Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014
|
| |
| Long title | An Act to make provision, in consequence of a declaration of invalidity made by the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to Directive 2006/24/EC, about the retention of certain communications data; to amend the grounds for issuing interception warrants, or granting or giving certain authorisations or notices, under Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; to make provision about the extra-territorial application of that Part and about the meaning of “telecommunications service” for the purposes of that Act; to make provision about additional reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner; to make provision about a review of the operation and regulation of investigatory powers; and for connected purposes. |
|---|---|
| Citation | 2014 c. 27 |
| Introduced by | Theresa May 14 July 2014 |
| Territorial extent | United Kingdom |
| Dates | |
| Royal Assent | 17 July 2014[1] |
| Commencement | 17 July 2014[2] |
Status: Current legislation | |
| History of passage through Parliament | |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
| Text of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database | |
.svg.png)
The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (also known as DRIP or DRIPA) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received Royal Assent on 17 July 2014, after being introduced on 14 July 2014.[1][3] The purpose of the legislation is to allow security services to continue to have access to phone and internet records of individuals following a previous repeal of these rights by the Court of Justice of the European Union.[4] The act was criticised by some Members of Parliament for the speed at which the act was passed through parliament,[4] by some groups (such as the Open Rights Group and Liberty) as being an infringement of privacy[5] and by legal scholars who say it does not strike an appropriate balance among security, privacy and freedom of enterprise.[6]
Following legal action, in July 2015, the High Court issued an order that sections 1 and 2 of the Act were unlawful, and to be disapplied, suspended until 31 March 2016, thereby giving the government a deadline to come up with alternative legislation which is compatible with EU law.[7][8]
As of 4 November 2015 an investigatory powers parliamentary bill was being drafted providing new surveillance powers, requiring records to be kept by Internet Service Providers tracking use of the internet from the UK, accessible by the police and security services without judicial oversight.[9]
Overview
The main provisions of the act were:
- To allow the security services through the Secretary of State to retain the powers to require a public telecommunications operator to retain communications data in line with the purposes of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.[10]
- The creation of a new privacy and civil liberties board to act as an independent watchdog overseeing the security services' use of these powers.[11]
- To enforce the annual publication of a report of the amount of data intercepted under the regulations[11]
- To restrict the length of time such data can be held to 12 months[11]
- To ensure that the relevance of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is reviewed biennially[11]
- To reduce the number of public bodies that can access the data collected under the legislation[11]
- To limit the data which can be accessed under the regulations to only data that is relevant[11]
- To provide for fresh legislation to supersede this legislation in 2016[11]
- To ensure that such data can no longer be gathered solely for the interest of the UK economic wellbeing[11]
- To appoint a diplomat to negotiate data transfers of such information with the United States.[11]
Legal challenge and High Court ruling
On 1 August 2014, the Data Retention Regulations 2014 came into force, completing the framework introduced by the DRIP. They provide that a communications service provider can be required to retain data only when target of a notice of the Secretary of State. In December 2014, in R (on the application of David Davis MP and Tom Watson MP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr Justice Lewis (High Court) granted the Claimants permission to proceed to a substantive hearing, thus agreeing that the DRIP can be challenged by judicial review. As a reaction, the Government proposed using the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (CTSB) to extend their remit to cover data generated as a result of internet communications.[6]
On 4 June 2015 a legal challenge against the law was brought to the High Court by two MPs, Labour's Tom Watson and the Conservative David Davis. They claimed that the act was rushed through parliament and was incompatible with the Human Rights Act and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights.[12]
On 17 July 2015 the High Court upheld the challenge, finding sections 1 and 2 of the Act to be unlawful.[13][14] The court issued an order that sections 1 and 2 be disapplied, suspended until 31 March 2016, thereby giving the government a deadline to come up with alternative legislation which is compatible with EU law.[7]
In October 2015, the Court of Appeal began hearing the Home Secretary's appeal against the ruling.[15]
See also
References
- 1 2 "Bill stages — Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014". Parliament of the United Kingdom. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
- ↑ "Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 - Commencement". The Stationery Office. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
- ↑ "Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 - Legislation PDF" (PDF). The Stationery Office. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
- 1 2 "Commons passes emergency data laws despite criticism". BBC. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
- ↑ "Emergency phone and internet data laws to be passed". BBC. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
- 1 2 Guido Noto La Diega, Striking a Balance among Security, Privacy and Competition. The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIP), in "Diritto Mercato Tecnologia", 21.1.2015; http://www.dimt.it/2015/01/21/striking-a-balance-among-security-privacy-and-competition-the-data-retention-and-investigatory-powers-act-2014-drip/
- 1 2 "David Davis and others -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department". judiciary.gov.uk. 17 July 2015.
- ↑ "MPs win surveillance powers legal challenge". BBC. 17 July 2015. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
- ↑ The Guardian newspaper: Theresa May unveils surveillance measures in wake of Snowden claims, 4 November 2015
- ↑ Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 - Section 1
- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "Surveillance law wins cross-party support but critics claim stitch-up". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
- ↑ "Emergency surveillance law faces legal challenge from 2 MPs". BBC News. 4 June 2015.
- ↑ Alexander J Martin (17 July 2015). "High Court smacks down 'emergency' UK spy bill as UNLAWFUL". The Register.
- ↑ Carly Nyst (17 July 2015). "Finally, the high court puts a brake on snooping on ordinary Britons". The Guardian.
- ↑ "Court of Appeal hears government surveillance law case". BBC. 22 October 2015. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||