Editing GCHQ (section)

===Oversight===
{{See also|Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom}}

The [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] nominates cross-party [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Members of Parliament]] to an [[Intelligence and Security Committee]]. The remit of the Committee includes oversight of intelligence and security activities and reports are made directly to Parliament.<ref name="ISC" /> Its functions were increased under the [[Justice and Security Act 2013]] to provide for further access and investigatory powers.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/18/body|title=Justice and Security Act 2013|publisher=Legislation.co.uk|access-date=8 December 2021|archive-date=8 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211208104659/https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/18/body|url-status=live}}</ref>

Judicial oversight of GCHQ's conduct is exercised by the [[Investigatory Powers Tribunal]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Functions – Key role|url=http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=1|publisher=The Investigatory Powers Tribunal|access-date=6 February 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150206141009/http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=1|archive-date=6 February 2015}}</ref> The UK also has an independent [[Intelligence Services Commissioner]] and Interception of Communications Commissioner, both of whom are former senior judges.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.intelligencecommissioners.com/|title=Intelligence Commissioners|access-date=14 December 2013|archive-date=7 January 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140107042445/http://www.intelligencecommissioners.com/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal ruled in December 2014 that GCHQ does not breach the [[European Convention on Human Rights]], and that its activities are compliant with Articles 8 (right to privacy) and 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.<ref name=refBBC20141205 /> However, the Tribunal stated in February 2015 that one particular aspect, the data-sharing arrangement that allowed UK Intelligence services to request data from the US surveillance programmes [[PRISM (surveillance program)|Prism]] and [[Upstream collection|Upstream]], had been in contravention of human rights law prior to this until two paragraphs of additional information, providing details about the procedures and safeguards, were disclosed to the public in December 2014.<ref>{{cite web|title=IPT Ruling on Interception|url=http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/news_and_features/Pages/IPT-Ruling-on-Interception-Feb-2014.aspx|publisher=GCHQ|access-date=6 February 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150206205536/http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/news_and_features/Pages/IPT-Ruling-on-Interception-Feb-2014.aspx|archive-date=6 February 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=GCHQ censured over sharing of internet surveillance data with US|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31164451|access-date=6 February 2015|publisher=BBC|date=6 February 2015|archive-date=7 February 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150207092353/http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31164451|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=UK-US surveillance regime was unlawful 'for seven years'|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/gchq-mass-internet-surveillance-unlawful-court-nsa|access-date=6 February 2015|work=The Guardian|date=6 February 2015|archive-date=6 February 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150206115924/http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/feb/06/gchq-mass-internet-surveillance-unlawful-court-nsa|url-status=live}}</ref>

Furthermore, the IPT ruled that the legislative framework in the United Kingdom does not permit [[mass surveillance]] and that while GCHQ collects and analyses data in bulk, it does not practice mass surveillance.<ref name=refBBC20141205 /><ref>{{cite web|title=IPT rejects assertions of mass surveillance|url=http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/news_and_features/Pages/IPT-rejects-assertions-of-mass-surveillance.aspx|publisher=GCHQ|access-date=7 February 2015|date=5 December 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150206232713/http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_media/news_and_features/Pages/IPT-rejects-assertions-of-mass-surveillance.aspx|archive-date=6 February 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=List of judgments|url=http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=8|publisher=Investigatory Powers Tribunal|access-date=7 February 2015|date=5 December 2014|quote=1. A declaration that the regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and/or Upstream does not contravene Articles 8 or 10 ECHR. 2. A declaration that the regime in respect of interception under ss8(4), 15 and 16 of the Regulation of investigatory Powers Act 2000 does not contravene Articles 8 or 10 ECHR and does not give rise to unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 14, read together with Articles 8 and/or 10 of the ECHR.|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150206211011/http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=8|archive-date=6 February 2015}}</ref> This complements independent reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner,<ref>{{cite web|title=Statement by the Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office (IOCCO) on the publication of the Interception of Communications Commissioner's Report 2014|url=http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/2015%20Press%20Release%20Final.pdf|access-date=14 March 2015|date=12 March 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402112439/http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/2015%20Press%20Release%20Final.pdf|archive-date=2 April 2015|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|title=Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner|url=http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/IOCCO%20Report%20March%202015%20(Web).pdf|access-date=14 March 2015|date=March 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150321204956/http://www.iocco-uk.info/docs/IOCCO%20Report%20March%202015%20(Web).pdf|archive-date=21 March 2015|url-status=dead}}</ref> and a special report made by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament; although several shortcomings and potential improvements to both oversight and the legislative framework were highlighted.<ref>{{cite web|title=Privacy and Security: A modern and transparent legal framework|url=http://isc.independent.gov.uk/news-archive/12march2015|publisher=Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament|access-date=14 March 2015|date=12 March 2015|archive-date=16 March 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150316093647/http://isc.independent.gov.uk/news-archive/12march2015|url-status=dead}}{{cite web|title=UK surveillance 'lacks transparency', ISC report says|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31845338|publisher=BBC|access-date=14 March 2015|date=12 March 2015|archive-date=8 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308034530/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31845338|url-status=live}}{{cite news|title=Intelligence and security committee report: the key findings|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/intelligence-security-committee-report-key-findings|access-date=14 March 2015|work=The Guardian|date=12 March 2015|archive-date=8 March 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308180804/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/intelligence-security-committee-report-key-findings|url-status=live}}</ref>