JUDGMENT Art 8 • Private life • Convention compliance of secret surveillance regime including bulk interception of communications and intelligence sharing • Need to develop case-law in light of important differences between targeted interception and bulk interception • Adapted test for examining bulk interception regimes through global assessment • Focus on "end-to-end safeguards" to take into account the increasing degree of intrusion with privacy rights as the bulk interception process moves through different stages • Fundamental deficiencies present in bulk interception regime, through absence of independent authorisation, failure to include categories of selectors in the application for a warrant, and failure to subject selectors linked to an individual to prior internal authorisation • Sufficient foreseeability and safeguards in regime for receipt of intelligence from foreign intelligence services • Regime for acquisition of communications data from communications service providers not "in accordance with law" Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Insufficient protection of confidential journalist material under electronic surveillance schemes STRASBOURG 25 May 2021 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
CITATION STYLE
Zalnieriute, M. (2022). Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom. American Journal of International Law, 116(3), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1017/ajil.2022.35
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.