1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4.
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

5.
1
http://bit.ly/1jNzlUz
2
http://bit.ly/1yiXUZD
3
http://bit.ly/1LfVFz3
4
http://bit.ly/1S4RCdJ