Thread by @silkiecarlo

Today's Grand Chamber judgment on UK mass interception definitively vindicates @Snowden's courageous whilstleblowing. The UK's surveillance was unlawful and breached millions of citizens' rights.

But in some ways this is just the end of the beginning of a longer journey...

Together, Snowden, journalists, lawyers, rights groups and supporters enabled this challenge + ensured much needed accountability. Safeguards will improve for millions of people.

But the Court missed an opportunity for a definitive judgment on the principle of mass interception.

Given @Snowden's demonstration of the change one person and one voice can bring, there is perhaps some poetic justice that - in my view - the most historic artefact from today is the dissenting opinion of one Judge Pinto de Albuquerque... Here's just a few extracts from him:

"The Government’s case boils down to a simple proposition which is 'trust us'. The majority [of the judges] were ready to accept this proposition, with the risk of erring on the side of over-collecting intelligence. I am not."

"(...) the above-mentioned self-imposed evidential and
adjudicatory limitation leads the Court to assume the inevitability of bulk interception and, even more so, that of a blanket, non-targeted, suspicionless interception regime (...)

With circular reasoning, the Government affirmed that bulk interception was incompatible with a reasonable suspicion requirement, because it was, by definition,
untargeted, and it was untargeted because it did not require reasonable suspicion"

"(...) indiscriminate mass communications surveillance has proven to be ineffective for the prevention of terrorism and therefore is not only dangerous for the protection of human rights but also a waste of resources."

"Thus if there is a consensus in Europe on non-targeted bulk interception, the consensus is that it should be prohibited, but this has been ignored by the
Court."

"In some corners of Europe, zealous secret services will be strongly tempted to take advantage of the Court’s very lax fashion of formulating legal standards and innocent people will pay the price sooner or later."

"Admitting non-targeted bulk interception involves a fundamental change in how we view crime prevention and investigation and intelligence gathering
in Europe, from targeting a suspect who can be identified to treating everyone as a potential suspect...

... whose data must be stored, analysed and
profiled (...) a society built upon such foundations is more akin to a police state than to a democratic society. This would be the opposite of what the
founding fathers wanted for Europe when they signed the Convention in 1950."

"(...) the inherently high risk of abuse of these powers is magnified by some security-obsessed governments with an unlimited appetite for data which now have
the technological means to control worldwide digital communication."

[the claim that the UK only intercepted overseas comms] "only served the political aim of legitimising
the system in the eyes of the British public with the illusion that persons within the [UK] would be spared the governmental 'Big Brother'. In fact, they were not."

"In the present judgment the Court has succumbed to the fait accompli of general bulk interception, dangerously accepting that if it is useful it should be
permissible. Usefulness is not the same thing as necessity and proportionality in a democratic society."

"The present judgment the Strasbourg Court has just opened the gates for an electronic “Big Brother” in Europe. If this is the new normal that my learned colleagues in the majority want for Europe, I cannot join them, and this I say with a disenchanted heart"

There is so much more I could say (I've deleted an essay, no one has time) but let me just say - today marks a monumental achievement. But defending human rights, particularly in the midst of the current technological revolution(!) is work that is never done...

This dissenting opinion is a great achievement too.

Legal challenges (esp ones that last 8yrs 🥴) always lag behind policy and *definitely* behind technology.

And there is a chronic political vacuum on mass surveillance and civil liberties more generally.

Remember, Labour abstained on the Investigatory Powers Act under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. When I say chronic vacuum, I mean it.

But political vacuums tend to be filled, often radically, by outside forces after time. I think this will happen on technology and rights issues.

And @BigBrotherWatch is proudly one of those outside forces.

If you're a Big Brother Watch supporter, thank you for helping make history in this legal challenge.

There is more history to be made... if you haven't already, join us now ✊

bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/join/now/