To what extent can breaching privacy of suspected terrorists adequately strike a balance between privacy and counter terrorism?
Introduction
“Pray for London”, “Prier pour la France”-
Terrorism is something that has affected a large part of individuals at some
point in their lives. It is a catastrophic act aimed at causing harm and
inducing fears in individuals. Europe has frequently been the centre of
terrorist attacks for the past few years and it seems that this is likely to
continue. Terrorists are “increasingly resorting to the internet to disseminate
their views to a wider public, and they have come to the realisation that
establishing their presence in cyberspace is nearly just as critical to their
long-term success as any military triumph or act of sabotage”.[1]
Terrorist groups can maintain web pages to disseminate propaganda, recruit
followers and supporters.[2]
Therefore, through the internet they are able to easily reach through a vast
audience in a direct and uncensored way and place themselves on the
international stage however, there has always been the question of whether it
is justifiable to breach a suspected terrorists privacy because regardless of
their behaviour they should still be entitled to their human rights. In the
conventional media, if there are some dangerous message then they must
be filtered and censored. However, the internet does not allow for this and
thus, it allows for their messages and propaganda to be broadcasted worldwide.
Surveillance of suspected terrorists have previously been used extensively, but
there were some restrictions. There are new provisions that are now being put
into place which further decrease privacy. The Data Retention Investigatory
Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) being put into place, explains this. Consequently,
there are still many who are worried about their privacy as it allows access
and storage of any individuals data regardless of being on the watch list.
This dissertation a whether it is justifiable to breach a suspected terrorists’ privacy to protect state security. It will tackle the dilemma that in counteracting terrorism, the right to privacy is often challenged. The main objective of this dissertation is to show that privacy is an important human right which everyone ought to have in a democratic society and being denied this access means that the state is breaching its duty towards its citizens. However, it will also consider that the state has a duty to keep us safe and breaching this privacy is the only way to move forward. Therefore, it will also point towards how security is an important right that has also been challenged in the advancement of technology. Ultimately, it will conclude that it is justifiable to breach an individual or a group of individuals privacy to protect state security.
Methodology
This research process will use a variety of
sources. It will mainly use cases and reports from the government’s internal
investigation in order to better analyse the title. It will also use general
commentaries from different authors and what they believe is the best possible
way forward. It will use the newly formulated legislation to further analyse
the extent the government’s powers extend to. Secondary sources such as books
do not cover to a large degree on privacy and rather concentrates on other
aspects of human rights. Therefore, through my limited resources, I will
hopefully address the relevant issues.
Is privacy important?
Firstly, it is important to comprehend why privacy is an important human right. Article 8 of the ECHR states that no one should be subjected to interference with their privacy.[3] Also, the Special Rapporteur has defined privacy as a fundamental human right which provides individuals with “an area of autonomous development, interaction and liberty”.[4] Therefore, privacy is not only a fundamental human right, but also a human right that supports other rights as it forms the basis of any democratic society. Thus, privacy is necessary for creating spaces which allow individuals to grow and develop their ideas; if privacy was restricted, society would not have progressed the way it did or continues to. Yet, there are many violations that occur when sensitive data is collected about individuals without their permission.[5] There are some who argue that no activity, even when preventing a terrorist attack should override the right to respect one’s privacy and related human rights as they have to be protected and respected in all phases of counter- terrorism initiatives. Nevertheless, sometimes that breach is necessary, and the state has a duty to ensure that any restrictions on privacy should be proportionate, necessary and adequately regulated.[6] Therefore, the dilemma is whether the state has a right to breach this human right?
Furthermore, the surveillance technology being
used by the states are developing very rapidly and this facilitates in
countering terrorism and organised crimes. Nowadays, technology and the
internet exist for the millions and it allows for communications via the
internet and emails to be monitored, screened and analysed continuously. The
installation of “spyware” on someone’s computer is capable of secretly
monitoring the online activities and emails of the user. But, it raises
question about everyone’s right to privacy.[7] It
is often said that those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear.
However, many innocent individuals are highly concerned that the government is
going to be spying on every single one of their private phone calls and
accessing various personal data. However, it must be emphasised that the
government has a right to do this nevertheless, in the real sense, it is highly
unlikely that they would look through an innocent person’s data because realistically
it serves them no purpose. They may have the right, but that does not
necessarily mean that they would act on it inappropriately. For example, we all
have a right to freedom of expression but, that does not necessarily suggest
that one will walk around freely in public expressing what they truly believe
about a religion or the government for example. Also, it is impractical and
nearly impossible for them to look at every single individuals’ data.
Additionally, if they were to do this, state money would be wasted, thus, the
money would be better spent if they were to look at a potential terrorists’
data and protect state security; they would only breach this data if they have
reasons to do so. It should be for the state to justify why it seeks to
interfere with an individual’s privacy and not for individuals to justify why
they are concerned about attacks on their basic human rights.[8]
Are new technologies facilitating communication between terrorists?
In the past, new technologies that threatened
our privacy such as telephone tapping were assimilated over time into our
society and the legal system had time to adapt and interpret existing laws as
the culture had time to absorb the implications of the new technology for daily
life. However, today, new surveillance technologies are developing rapidly, and
the laws are not able to adjust to them. Legislation are being passed without
careful consideration. Therefore, laws must be developed to control and
restrain the use of new technologies to prevent them from invading our privacy.
Furthermore, the internet today is recognised
as a powerful political instrument. Furnell and Warren described the core
terrorist use of the net as propaganda[9]
but other theorists such as Thomas refers to it as cyber planning which is the
integrated plan stretching across geographical boundaries that may or may not
result in bloodshed.[10]
Terrorists groups come under increasing pressure from law enforcement and they
have been forced to evolve and become more decentralised and this works to
their advantage as they are less likely to be found and convicted. Therefore,
the internet has made it easier for like-minded individuals to connect with one
another at the comfort of their own home in any part of the world. This is
worrying as an attack can take place at the tip of their fingers. In addition,
the integration of computing with communication has substantially increased the
variety and complexity of the information that can be shared.[11]
Technology has become the prime and central form of communication by most of
the population. Individuals use it to communicate with loved ones; this simply
shows, if an individual is able to share and send information easily then
simply imagine how easily terrorists are now using it to communicate with each
other. Thus, the only way that seems to be plausible to tackle this is through
mass surveillance as the only form of communication for terrorists is via the internet
and this would help in preventing future attacks.
Moreover, the internet is a doubled edged
sword. Terrorists are not the only ones who are operating the internet.[12]
Nowadays, they act as a valuable instrumental power for anti- terrorist forces.
Therefore, the more online communications, the more data there is to trail them
back. Such as Zanini put it to hypothesise that “the greater the degree of
organisational networking in a terrorist group, the higher the likelihood that
IT was used to support the network’s decisions making”.[13] Thus,
many now believe that terrorists presence on the internet actually works
against them. Therefore, this further puts emphasis on how important it is to
infringe their privacy to stop future attacks.
Has surveillance ever been used successfully to stop terrorist attack?
If states are required to breach privacy to
protect its citizens, this can be justifiable if it is used in a constructive
and useful way. The Anderson Report, is an investigation by the government
about reviews on internal security and suggest how bulk acquisition data (BAD)
has been useful in combating terrorism. BAD, allows public authorities to have
access for specified purpose to large quantities of data. The data collected is
not available to the general public but these can only be accessed by only the
MI5, MI6 and GCHQ using highly secured connection and which are monitored to
ensure that there are no breaches from hackers. It is stated in the report that
since 2017 there have been one hundred and forty- two failed attacks in the
European Union and more than a half have been reported in the UK. These attacks
were only prevented due to infringement of privacy of potential terrorists with
secret services being able to monitor their private data. Therefore, this shows
how data infringement has been successful and is important. If such breaches to
privacy were not able to stop attacks, then this would not be justifiable.
Further, almost all of the cases cited claimed that without the use of BAD, the
prevention of many attacks would have been nearly impossible. In a particular
case reference, the MI5 claimed that if the plot had succeeded, it would have
been the biggest attack in the UK comparable to 9/11.[14]
In 2015, the MI5 used BAD to identify a previously unknown contact with a
senior Islamist extremist.[15]
Due to the frequent and significance of the contact, the MI5 was quickly able
to arrange more intrusive and targeted resources. MI5 stated that they were
aware that attacks in the UK was imminent by these groups. Due to BAD, they
were able to take immediate and constructive steps to manage the threat. They
have made it clear that without data infringement, these groups would not have
identified the treat and managed the risk. Consequently, it can be said that it
is difficult to imagine the atrocity if the intelligence services would not
have had access to these data.
Another prominent case shows how far and fast
data can be used to track down an individual. In 2015, MI5 had learned that a
foreign national associated with ISIL had visited the UK frequently.[16]
Upon analysis of the individual’s data, the intelligence services were able to
track down a telephone that was used by the individual and learned that he was
planning an attack in the UK. MI5 were then able to refocus their
investigations and it was shown that his disruptions of activities was
extremist content.[17]
Similarly, to this case and many others, the MI5 highly believes that it would
have been unlikely that the same results could have been achieved and if there
were other ways to achieve the same result, it would have taken much longer and
by that time, another huge number of terrorists could have been born but, most
importantly, an attack on UK soils could have happened.
Should social media giants be responsible for tackling terrorism?
Many commentators state that authorities
should launch a software on social media platforms such as Facebook to stop
extremists content being shared. These sites have become the vehicle of choice
for spreading propaganda and the recruiting platforms for terrorism. However,
social media giants are not doing much to help the state, instead they are
keeping extremist information private and refusing to hand over crucial
information to the intelligence services simply to maintain a good public
profile. For example if users were to find out that their data is passed onto
secret services, it is beyond doubt that they would stop using those platforms
due to fear of the information being passed on. Such as what is happening to
Facebook at the moment with its privacy concerns, there are less and less users
as they are worried about their data being breached. Similarly, if other media
firms were to do the same, they would lose traffic to their sites and more
importantly to their money. The FBI has recently engaged in a public battle
with Apple over access to a terrorist’s smartphone. Apple resisted a court
order to hack the security features belonging to one of the terrorist attackers
in the USA which the state believed to contain important information about
other potential attacks. Consequently, such platforms should be convicted as
they are withholding information which is important to the security of a state,
retaining such information simply to maintain a good public image should not be
a sufficient reason to do so. Innocent people would want their data protected
however, the social media giants should allow some leeway when it comes to
protecting the state.
Is it possible to reach a balance between privacy and state security?
Etzioni argues that it is wrong to define
counter-terrorism surveillance tools as good or evil. He states that with all
technologies, the question is how it would be used. But if it installed at the
discretion of every police, then the right of innocent people could be
violated.[18]
Hence, Etzioni suggests that there needs to be guidelines and if they are not
established then such measure will take away a large part of our liberties and
a massive threat to privacy.[19]
Garnick states that she is concerned with the potential misuse of data by the
states and argues that if these tools are not used properly within our system
of checks and balances then they may work effectively and that we may be able
to enforce them.[20]
Primarily, if there is ever a balance, the law
authorising interference with privacy must specify in detail the precise
circumstance in which the interference is permitted and must not be implemented
in a discriminatory manner.[21]
This does not mean however, that the state can enjoy unlimited discretion to
interfere with privacy since any limitation on right must be necessary to
achieve legitimate purposes and be proportionate. Thus, in Klass v Germany,[22] the
ECHR stated it must be satisfied that any system of secret surveillance
conducted by the state must be accompanied by adequate and effective guarantees
against abuse.[23]
Also, the Human Rights committee has explained that states must take effective
measures to ensure that information concerning a person’s private life does not
reach the hands of persons who are not authorised by law to receive, process
and use it. Hence, in the context of the fight against terrorism, the
collection and the processing of personal data by any competent authority in
the field of State security may rightfully interfere with the respect for
private life only if such collection and processing is governed by appropriate
provisions of domestic law and is proportionate to the aim for which the
collection and the processing were foreseen.
Forgetti states that it is difficult to
balance the protection of privacy with the fight against terrorism and to
assess the impact taken by institutions in order to reach their purposes.[24]
In the UK, many of the laws that provide surveillance powers have come to be
questioned by the legislative bodies, through the media and the courts.
However, there are still no legislation that have accommodated a balanced
regime of the two rights. It has been stated that it is nearly impossible to
pursue the goal of security by depriving citizens of constitutionally
guaranteed rights. [25]
In addition, recently the appeal court judges
have ruled the governments mass surveillance regime unlawful. The human rights
campaign groups said the ruling meant that significant parts of the DRIPA are
unlawful and must be urgently changed.[26]
In addition, in Haralambie v Romania [27]with regards to personal data, the court held that violation of someone’s
privacy is a violation of Article 8. The collection of bulk communication data
(BCD) was ruled to be unlawful and not compliant with the ECHR in a judgment
ruled by the investigatory powers tribunal. It stated that it failed to provide
various safeguards which is required under the CJEU’s case law. In Watson,[28]
the court argued that in response both the BCD regime was outside the scope of
EU law given that it related to national security. Nonetheless, in Wiberg,[29]
the court held that any cases concerning suspected terrorists, national
security will prevail in the fight against terrorism. Also, the court
have ruled that DRIPA does not restrict accessing of confidential personal
phone and web browsing recorded to serious crimes and allowed police and other
public authorities access without any adequate oversight.[30]
However, the government have put forward the argument and states that the
purpose of the bill is to protect the public and bring offenders to justice and
this sentiment is echoed by the U.S. Government in requesting access to data
owned by Apple.
DRIPA extends the governments surveillance
powers by giving other member states the power to access our data. However,
there are still many that disagree with the CJEU ruling because DRIPA
interfered with the right to privacy and the right to a private family life.
But, the benefits outweigh the risks because if data is allowed to be accessed
by other member state then this means when a serious crime is committed, data
could be retained for a particular geographical location to support the
criminal investigation and this could help prevent any further attacks or even
stop attacks. The UK is the only country with such measures. There is always
the question of why does the UK have to introduce such extensive methods of
invading our privacy when there are other European countries who are able to
tackle terrorism without such methods. However, in the Anderson report, an
internal government investigation stated that in the aftermath of 9 / 11, there
were many intelligence services between UK police and the MI5. In a particular
case, the MI5 were monitoring a cell that was plotting to attack targets in
London.[31]
They were able to follow the suspects for two hundred miles until they lost
contact with that cell. The MI5 did not share details with the special branch
police and this was a fatal error which led to one of the most atrocious
attacks in the UK, the 7 / 7 bombings.[32]
Therefore, this case shows how important it is for other jurisdictions to have
access to data especially now when there are many young radicalised teenagers
that are travelling to and from Syria. They are dangerous and pose a risk to
the UK and neighbouring countries. At a time like this, it is more than crucial
for surveillance as all of the attacks that have occurred in and around Europe
has been done by ISIL.
However, the violation of privacy can have a
detrimental effect. Privacy as outlined above is neglected in the permanent
quest of states to increase surveillance measures in order to detect potential
terrorist threats. However, it must be noted that without countering terrorism
and without the state protecting its citizens, the state itself is breaching
its duty towards us. State mass surveillance is now needed more than ever, due
to increasing use of technology by terrorists. Therefore, the security council
have highlighted that there needs to be cooperation among member states to
prevent terrorist from exploiting technology, communications and resources.[33]
It has been stated that it is not possible to pursue the goal of security by
depriving citizens of constitutionally guaranteed rights.[34] States
are still far away from having adopted efficient legislations that also respond
to the needs of international corporations. Therefore, there is an urgent need
to adopt clear standards that would provide an effecting settings for
international, cooperation between different states and organisations.
The unfortunate dilemma with surveillance is
that as useful as it might be to tackle terrorism, it does have its
implications too. It has been pointed out that surveillance has led to many
cases of miscarriage of justice. In Khan v Chief Constable of West Midlands,[35] a
police officer had reasonable grounds to suspect that a person who printed one
hundred copies of a booklet entitled “forty-four ways to support jihad” was
guilty of an offence under the Terrorism Act 2006. Nonetheless, the police made
a wrongful arrest, Mr Khan was simply someone who was expressing his religion
and was in no way a threat to the British public. From this case as well as
many others, it can be seen how much detrimental effect it can have when
someone is wrongfully accused of causing harm to the public, it is an invasion
of their private and family life. Nobody is going to question the police’s
extent of involvement in a case when it has a positive outcome but, the
seriousness of the matter only comes to surface when an innocent is placed in
that situation. It is not an ideal situation, as this would cause huge
embarrassment within his own community and his surroundings. Therefore, this
could have serious impact on the individual. Thus, in
Popp’s view, if the government, does want access to data, then they must
also have ways to protect privacy of those who are not involved in terrorism.[36] This
suggests that surveillance may seem to work only up to a certain degree. It can
lead to actions against very large number of innocent people on a scale that is
unacceptable for a democratic society. [37] In
2008, the ECHR ruled in Liberty [38]
that British bulk interception of Irish telephone and fax communication
violated the right to privacy and article 8 of ECHR however, no breach was
found due to the fact that those breaches were necessary to carry out targeted
sources against terrorism.
Furthermore, those who are pro surveillance
consider that the new proposals are necessary to uphold other human rights
however, if the right to privacy is amended this would likely have several
knock on effects to wider international law such as the question of “is torture
admissible to prevent the right to life of others”[39] It
must be considered that all terrorist attacks are premeditated and therefore
due to this, it gives security services access to public messages, emails and
internet searches which means that terrorism plans can be detected and
prevented before the attack occur.
Conclusion
Wade notes that if an elastic band is
overstretched, then it will eventually snap back with a sharp sting to the hand
that forced it.[40]
However, breaching privacy of suspected terrorists is necessary to prevent
future attacks. It is the easiest and most efficient way to know about their
plans which can be prevented. BAD has been seen to be efficient with many
attacks being prevented in the UK. The state has a duty to protect its citizens
and breaching this privacy is the only way it can prevent further atrocities and
lost of innocent lives.
Bibliography
Books
Jarvis
L Terrorism Online (Routledge 2015)
Ramsay
G Jihadi culture on the world wide web (Bloomsbury
2015)
Weimann
G Terrorism in Cyberspace (Columbia
University Press 2015)
Weimann
G Terror on the Internet (United States
Institute of Peace Press 2006)
Articles
Freary D Privacy vs protection: should governments
have the power to access our personal data?<https://prestudentconversation.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/privacy-vs-protection-should-governments-have-the-power-to-access-our-personal-data/>
accessed 21st March 2018
Foggetti N, Cyber-terrorism and the right to privacy in
the third pillar perspectives <https://journals.muni.cz/mujlt/article/view/2547>
accessed 10th March 2018
Hammarberg T Human Rights in Europe, no grounds for complacency (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, 2011) < https://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/source/prems/HR-Europe-no-grounds-complacency_en.pdf#page=273> accessed 15th February 2018
Lachmayer
K The Challenge to Privacy from Ever
Increasing State Surveillance: A Comparative Perspective (UNSWLawJl 282014)
37(2) 54
Lal V, Terror and its Networks: Disappearing trails
in cyberspace<www.nautilus.org/archives/virtual-diasporas/paper/Lal.html> accessed 31st January 2018
Thomas T Al Qaeda and the Internet: The Danger of
Cyberplanning Parameters Spring.
<http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/thomas.htm>
accessed 10th March 2018
United Nations Human Rights, Safeguard privacy while countering terrorism. <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/CounterTerrorismAndPrivacy.aspx>( Office of the High Commissionner)2010
accessed 20th February 2018
Ztter K,
Snoopware: New Technologies, Laws threaten Privacy PC World, March 2002 <www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,78070,00.asp> accessed 21st March 2018
Government Reports
Anderson
D The Terrorism Acts in 2015, report on
the independent reviewer on the operation of terrorism Act <https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/TERRORISM-ACTS-REPORT-1-Dec-2016-1.pdf>
accessed 20th February 2018
Anderson
D, Report of the Bulk Powers Review,
Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation <https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Bulk-Powers-Review-final-report.pdf> accessed 21st March 2018
Human
rights and the fight against terrorism (The council of Europe Guidelines)
<https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pub_coe_Guidelines_terrorism_2005_ENG.pdf>
accessed 21st March 2018
Liberty’s summary of the
Investigatory Powers Bill for second reading in the House of Common (liberty
protecting civil liberties and Promoting Human Rights) <https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Liberty%27s%20summary%20of%20the%20Investigatory%20Powers%20Bill%20for%20Second%20Reading%20in%20the%20House%20of%20Commons.pdf>
accessed 18th March 2018
Scheinin
M Report of the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while
countering terrorism ((United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council,
2009) <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-37.pdf> accessed 20th February 2018
Reflective statement
I
knew I wanted to write my dissertation based along the lines of ‘terrorism’. We
often hear on the news when a terrorist attack happens that the government knew
about them but by that time it is too late as the damage has been done. The
question that arose in my mind was why the government did not act fast and arrest
them if it is apparent that they have bad intent. However, despite them being
‘bad people’ that does not mean that they should not be entitled to their basic
human rights. However, I wanted to find out how the state can actually
distinguish between a high risk and a low risk person. Therefore, it triggered
my interest on how far a state can breach a targeted persons’ privacy in order
to protect the state. The topic area was based on terrorism and human rights
however, this is very wide, and it had to be narrowed down. I did not want to
pick topics which have been researched about extensively such as freedom of
expression, the right to a fair trial and correct treatment. But, something
recent and something that is affecting us in the modern times. Therefore, I
manage to narrow it down to privacy and Human Rights.
One
of the first problems I encountered was that it was a fairly new topic and the
research content was very limited. Most of it is bypassed by authors as they
mainly concentrate on other human rights aspects. Due to this I decided to
change how I approached the question and apply a more theoretical approach to
the dissertation. I concentrated mainly on academic opinions on what they
believe on privacy as many of the information is highly confidential. This
could be due to the government not wanting the public to know to what extent
they had actually breached someone’s privacy in order to protect the state. The
research was still difficult due to the limited research therefore this meant
that I had to double the quantity of articles I read to find sufficient
information. I also relied on government’s terrorism report to get an insight
on cases that have not been reported to the media and how the government is
trying to tackle the privacy vs state security issue constantly. However, all
of the cases in the report is anonymous and they are very difficult to follow
up in another source.
Secondly,
I would type up a summary and relevant material of each and every article or
document I have read onto a different word page. By the end I had about 20 – 30
different word tabs open and this made me confused as I was unclear about the
direction I wanted my dissertation to take. I had the difficult task of having
to read all of them over again and identify sources the relevant sources and
not simply the ones that would make my dissertation sound clever. I then, typed
them up in one single document so that I would know where and when to find them
rather than struggling to find the relevant paragraph on paper. It was time
consuming and hassling to reread all of the articles however, this helped me
formulate my ideas and the direction I wanted my essay to go in. Thus, if I had
to do this again, right from the onset I would identify the relevant
information and organise the sources better so I would not struggle.
I
also struggled with time management. At the beginning, I thought I would have a
dedicated day of the week where I would do all of my dissertation research and
writing up. However, what I did not anticipate was tutorial work and coursework
that needed to get done and extra- curricular activities and general
preparation for lectures. Therefore, most of the time I found myself doing
little to no research for my essay. I was struggling as the deadlines were
growing upon me and very little work was done. Thus, I decided to create a
monthly calendar inserting all coursework’s and tutorial work that needed to
get done and find a space to do my dissertation. I had to stick to it and be
consistent otherwise I would again fall behind again. Due to this, I was able
to successfully write and research my essay more effectively without neglecting
my other duties and responsibilities. If I had to do this again, I would get
plan a monthly calendar right from the onset and ensure I stick to it.
Finally,
once I had gathered up all my research. I printed all of the documents up and I
again highlighted all of the relevant parts and wrote a detailed planned, made
counter argument links with the authors. Once this was done, it was simply a
question having to type it all up.
If
I had to redo this again, I would have liked to link it to freedom of
expression as this would have allowed me to be more analytical in terms of how
the state has wrongly convicted people of terrorism when they were simply
expressing their religion. Also, this is a new area of research and the
research is very limited. Many of the articles were written on American authors
and how privacy had been affected since 9 / 11 however, there were very few
solely concentrated on the UK. It was very difficult to find counter arguments
and compare them. Also, many of the sources involved how terrorists are using
the media as propaganda and how they actually go on to create the videos and
brainwash young people however, again none of them concentrated on the breach
of privacy to protect the state.
[1] Vinay Lal, “Terror
and its Networks: Disappearing trails in cyberspace”
<www.nautilus.org/archives/virtual-diasporas/paper/Lal.html> accessed 31st
January 2018
[2] Gabriel Weinnman Terror on the internet (2006, 1st
edn, US Institute of Peace Press) 98
[3] Human Rights Act
2010, Article 8
[4] Martin Scheinin, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering
terrorism <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-37.pdf> accessed 20th
February 2018 (United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, 2009) 5
[5] United Nations
Human Rights, Safeguard privacy while
countering terrorism.
<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/CounterTerrorismAndPrivacy.aspx>( Office of the High Commissioner)2010 accessed 20th February 2018
[6] Ibid
[7] Thomas Hammarberg Human Rights in Europe, no grounds for
complacency (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, 2011)
< https://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/source/prems/HR-Europe-no-grounds-complacency_en.pdf#page=273> accessed 15th
February 2018
[8] Ibid
[9] Steve Furnell
& Matthew Warren. Computer Hacking
and Cyber Terrorism: The Real Threats in the New Millennium (Computers and
Security 18(1) 2000) 54
[10] Timothy Thomas Al Qaeda and the Internet: The Danger of
Cyberplanning Parameters Spring. <http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/thomas.htm>
accessed 10th March 2018
[11] Ibid (n 1) 54
[12] Richards Rogers Operating Issue Networks on the Web
(Science as Culture 2002) 191
[13] Michele Zanini Middle Eastern
Terrorism and Netwar (Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 1999) 22(3)
[14] David Anderson Report of the Bulk Powers (independent
Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation 2017) 171
[15] Ibid Case A9/4
[16]Anderson, Ibid (n 14) Case A9/8
[17] Anderson, Ibid (n 14) 173
[18] Amitai Etzioni,
“seeking middle ground of privacy vs security” <https://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1015/p11s02-coop.html>
accessed 12th March 2018
[19] Ibid
[20] Kim Ztter,
“Snoopware: New Technologies, Laws threaten Privacy,” PC World, March 2002 <www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,78070,00.asp> accessed 21st
March 2018
[21] Aumeeruddy Cziffra and others v Mauritius
(2000) AHRLR
[22] Klass v Germany [1978] ECHR 4
[23] Ibid
[24] Lachmayer, Konrad The Challenge to Privacy from Ever
Increasing State Surveillance: A Comparative Perspective (UNSWLawJl 282014)
37(2) 54
[25] Nadina Foggetti
2009, Cyber-terrorism and the right to
privacy in the third pillar perspectives <https://journals.muni.cz/mujlt/article/view/2547>
accessed 10th March 2018
[26]
Human rights and the fight against terrorism (The Council of Europe Guidelines
2015) <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pub_coe_Guidelines_terrorism_2005_ENG.pdf>
accessed 21st March 2018
[27]
Haralambie v Romania [2009]
[28]
Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign Commonwealth Affairs
& Ors [2017]
[29]
Wilberg v Hyatt
[30]
Liberty’s summary of the Investigatory Powers Bill for second reading in the
House of Common (liberty protecting civil liberties and Promoting Human Rights)
<https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Liberty%27s%20summary%20of%20the%20Investigatory%20Powers%20Bill%20for%20Second%20Reading%20in%20the%20House%20of%20Commons.pdf>
accessed 18th March 2018
[31]
Anderson Ibid (n 14) 17
[32]
Anderson Ibid (n 14) 18
[33] Security council
resolution s/RES/1963, preamble
<http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2018-02/counter-terrorism_15.php>
accessed 21st March 2018
[34] Forgetti Ibid (n 18) 55
[35]Khan
v Chief Constable of West Midlands EWCA Civ 53, [2000]
[36] Popp R Countering
terrorism through information and privacy protection technologies, (IEEE
computer society, security and privacy 2006) 19
[37] Hammaberg, T.
2008, protecting the right to privacy in the fight against terrorism.
<www.wcd.coe.int/view.coe.int/view doc.jsp?id=1469161> accessed 15th
March 2018
[38]
Liberty and others v The United Kingdom ( 2008)
[39] David Freary Privacy vs Protection: should governments
have the power to access our personal data?
<https://prestudentconversation.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/privacy-vs-protection-should-governments-have-the-power-to-access-our-personal-data/>
accessed 21st March 2018
[40] Lindsey Wade, Terrorism and the internet (Knowledge,
Technology and Policy 16 (1):104-127 2003)85
