Privacy International seeks to expose Five Eyes surveillance standards

Human rights group seeks details on spying agreement’s legal limitations

Human rights organisation Privacy International has filed a lawsuit in a bid to reveal the legal standing behind the decades-old Five Eyes agreement.

Privacy International has brought the court case before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, attempting to compel disclosure of records relating to the 1946 surveillance agreement between the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. 

Five Eyes refers to a global surveillance arrangement between these countries that began during World War II, when the military branches of each country respectively developed signals intelligence relationships with their counterparts. Those relationships were formalised in the United Kingdom-United States Communication Intelligence Agreement, signed in 1946.

The campaign group said that the most recent publicly available version of the Five Eyes surveillance agreement dates from 1955, and it wants the governments involved to detail the current version of the agreement, bearing in mind today's proliferation of data available on mobile phones, computers and other devices.

This availability of data has enormously increased opportunities for foreign governments to capture even purely domestic communications, the privacy group argued.

Privacy International's legal officer, Scarlet Kim, said: "Key documents, including the current agreement, remain secret, despite being critical to proper scrutiny of US surveillance activities. The public has a right to know what rules govern the exchange of information which may include purely domestic communications and data through this private pact."

Hannah Bloch-Wehba, Stanton First Amendment Fellow at Yale Law School's Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic (MFIA), which is representing Privacy International, said that without knowing the procedures and rules that govern intelligence sharing among the Five Eyes, it is impossible for the public to know if this secretive surveillance abides by constitutional restrictions. 

"Disclosure of the laws, rules, and regulations that constrain government surveillance is fundamental to basic democratic oversight.  The government's failure to make available even the most basic information about the rules currently in place corrodes public confidence in the rule of law and undermines our democracy," she said.

Only the agreement's legal standards and limitations are subject to the group's lawsuit, not the agreement's operational details.

Picture: Bigstock

Featured Resources

The complete guide to changing your phone system provider

Optimise your phone system for better business results

Download now

Simplify cluster security at scale

Centralised secrets management across hybrid, multi-cloud environments

Download now

The endpoint as a key element of your security infrastructure

Threats to endpoints in a world of remote working

Download now

2021 state of IT asset management report

The role of IT asset management for maximising technology investments

Download now

Recommended

What is DevSecOps and why is it important?
Security

What is DevSecOps and why is it important?

30 Oct 2020
Weekly threat roundup: NHS COVID-19 app, Nvidia, and Oracle
Security

Weekly threat roundup: NHS COVID-19 app, Nvidia, and Oracle

30 Oct 2020
Ryuk behind a third of all ransomware attacks in 2020
Security

Ryuk behind a third of all ransomware attacks in 2020

29 Oct 2020
REvil hacking group says it has made more than $100m in a year
Security

REvil hacking group says it has made more than $100m in a year

29 Oct 2020

Most Popular

Do smart devices make us less intelligent?
artificial intelligence (AI)

Do smart devices make us less intelligent?

19 Oct 2020
Best MDM solutions 2020
mobile device management (MDM)

Best MDM solutions 2020

21 Oct 2020
What is Neuralink?
Technology

What is Neuralink?

24 Oct 2020