Privacy rights organization Privacy International, and five global internet and communications services providers have lodged a formal complaint against the UK government’s use of bulk hacking targeting foreigners at the European Court of Human Rights.
The five global providers are Chaos Computer Club (Germany), GreenNet (UK), Jinbonet (Korea), May First (US) and RiseUp (US).
Privacy International has previously this year filed a separate judicial review at the UK High Court. Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) has previously got the government to admit that they indulge in hacking, and now they want to know the extent of hacking.
"The IPT's decision permits the British government to hack untold numbers of computers devices or networks abroad without any proper legal framework, oversight or safeguards," said Scarlet Kim, legal officer at Privacy International.
"Hacking is extremely intrusive, allowing the hacker to, for example, switch on the webcam of a computer or the mic of a phone without the owner having any idea.
"Allowing the British government to hack therefore sanctions an extraordinary expansion of state surveillance capabilities, with alarming consequences for the privacy and security of many people around the world.
"The European Court of Human Rights has a strong track record of ensuring that intelligence agencies act in compliance with human rights law. We call on the Court to hold GCHQ accountable for its unlawful bulk hacking practices."
The European Court of Human Rights will hopefully settle this issue, and might inform the vague but broad regulatory environment what the UK government has in mind.
"The court case has shown that the secret services interpreted a vague law completely arbitrarily, evading the need for specific warrants and providing no protection for journalists, activists or the general public," added Cedric Knight, technical consultant at GreenNet.
"We are now even more convinced of the need for judicial pre-authorisation and for these sections of the Intelligence Services Act to be clarified. It is regrettable that the failure of the IPT to address the lack of technological or legal limitations on assumed powers has made this challenge necessary."