Tuesday, February 11 2014 saw numerous organisations around the world protesting mass surveillance (see TheDayWeFightBack)

Mass surveillance violates our fundamental rights

In 2013, documents released by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed dozens of wide-ranging intelligence collection programs underway in countries around the globe. His documents showed that intelligence bodies capture personal information about nearly everyone on the planet.

The Necessary and Proportionate Principles

Over the past year, more than 360 organizations in over 70 countries have come together to support the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance. These thirteen Principles are the backbone of our efforts to end mass surveillance: a clear set of guidelines that establish the human rights obligations of governments that would seek to surveil us.

These Principles were developed through months of consultation with technology, privacy, and human rights experts from around the world. But today, these Principles are about to receive their most important endorsement: the people’s.

The Principles make clear:

States must recognize that mass surveillance threatens the human right to privacy, freedom of expression, and association, and they must place these Principles at the heart of their communications surveillance legal frameworks.

  1. States must commit to ensuring that advances in technology do not lead to disproportionate increases in the State’s capacity to interfere with the private lives of individuals.
  2. Transparency and rigorous adversarial oversight is needed to ensure changes in surveillance activities benefit from public debate and judicial scrutiny, this includes effective protections for whistleblowers.
  3. Just as modern surveillance transcends borders, so must privacy protections.

SUMMARY OF THE PRINCIPLES

LEGALITY

Limits on the right to privacy must be set out clearly and precisely in laws, and should be regularly reviewed to make sure privacy protections keep up with rapid technological changes.

LEGITIMATE AIM

Communications surveillance should only be permitted in pursuit of the most important state objectives.

NECESSITY

The State has the obligation to prove that its communications surveillance activities are necessary to achieving a legitimate objective.

ADEQUACY

A communications surveillance mechanism must be effective in achieving its legitimate objective.

PROPORTIONALITY

Communications surveillance should be regarded as a highly intrusive act that interferes with the rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and expression, threatening the foundations of a democratic society. Proportionate communications surveillance will typically require prior authorization from a competent judicial authority.

COMPETENT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

Determinations related to communications surveillance must be made by a competent judicial authority that is impartial and independent.

DUE PROCESS

Due process requires that any interference with human rights is governed by lawful procedures which are publicly available and applied consistently in a fair and public hearing.

USER NOTIFICATION

Individuals should be notified of a decision authorising surveillance of their communications and be

provided an opportunity to challenge such surveillance before it occurs, except in certain exceptional circumstances.

TRANSPARENCY

The government has an obligation to make enough information publicly available so that the general public can understand the scope and nature of its surveillance activities. The government should not generally prevent service providers from publishing details on the scope and nature of their own surveillance-related dealings with State.

PUBLIC OVERSIGHT

States should establish independent oversight mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability of communications surveillance. Oversight mechanisms should have the authority to access all potentially relevant information about State actions.

INTEGRITY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND SYSTEMS

Service providers or hardware or software vendors should not be compelled to build surveillance capabilities or backdoors into their systems or to collect or retain particular information purely for State surveillance purposes.

SAFEGUARDS FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION

On occasion, States may seek assistance from foreign service providers to conduct surveillance. This must be governed by clear and public agreements that ensure the most privacy-protective standard applicable is relied upon in each instance.

SAFEGUARDS AGAINST ILLEGITIMATE ACCESS

There should be civil and criminal penalties imposed on any party responsible for illegal electronic surveillance and those affected by surveillance must have access to legal mechanisms necessary for effective redress. Strong protection should also be afforded to whistleblowers who expose surveillance activities that threaten human rights.

These mass surveillance programs are in violation of our fundamental human rights. They violate our right to privacy and infringe on our rights to freedom of expression and association. They harm the freedom and openness of the global internet, and erode our democratic values.