Editing GCHQ (section)

===Abuses===

Despite the inherent secrecy around much of GCHQ's work, investigations carried out by the UK government after the Snowden disclosures have admitted various abuses by the security services.  A report by the [[Intelligence and Security Committee]] (ISC) in 2015 revealed that a small number of staff at UK intelligence agencies had been found to misuse their surveillance powers, in one case leading to the dismissal of a member of staff at GCHQ, although there were no laws in place at the time to make these abuses a criminal offence.<ref>{{cite news|title=Handful of UK spies accessed private information inappropriately, ISC says|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/handful-of-uk-spies-accessed-private-information-inappropriately-isc-says|access-date=31 December 2016|work=The Guardian|date=12 March 2015|archive-date=1 January 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170101003506/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/12/handful-of-uk-spies-accessed-private-information-inappropriately-isc-says|url-status=live}}</ref>

Later that year, a ruling by the [[Investigatory Powers Tribunal]] found that GCHQ acted unlawfully in conducting surveillance on two human rights organisations. The closed hearing found the government in breach of its internal surveillance policies in accessing and retaining the communications of the [[Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights]] and the [[Legal Resources Centre]] in South Africa. This was only the second time in the IPT's history that it had made a positive determination in favour of applicants after a closed session.<ref>{{cite web|title=UK: Unlawful spying on two organisations reinforces need for intelligence services to end mass surveillance|url=https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-unlawful-spying-two-organisations-reinforces-need-intelligence-services-end-mass|publisher=[[Amnesty International UK]]|access-date=31 December 2016|date=22 June 2015|archive-date=20 January 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170120172838/https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-unlawful-spying-two-organisations-reinforces-need-intelligence-services-end-mass|url-status=live}}</ref>

At another IPT case in 2015, GCHQ conceded that "from January 2010, the regime for the interception/obtaining, analysis, use, disclosure and destruction of legally privileged material has not been in accordance with the law for the purposes of Article 8(2) of the European convention on human rights and was accordingly unlawful".<ref>{{cite web|title=Case No. IPT/13/132-9/H IN THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS TRIBUNAL|url=http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Belhadj_order_26Feb15.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150426141903/http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Belhadj_order_26Feb15.pdf |archive-date=2015-04-26 |url-status=live|publisher=The [[Investigatory Powers Tribunal]]|access-date=31 December 2016|date=26 February 2015}}</ref> This admission was made in connection with a case brought against them by [[Abdelhakim Belhaj]], a Libyan opponent of the former Gaddafi regime, and his wife Fatima Bouchard. The couple accused British ministers and officials of participating in their unlawful abduction, kidnapping and removal to Libya in March 2004, while Gaddafi was still in power.<ref>{{cite news|title=Legal privilege and the conflicting interests of GCHQ and the IPT|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/mar/16/legal-privilege-conflicting-interests-gchq-ipt-investigatory-powers-tribunal|access-date=31 December 2016|work=The Guardian|date=16 March 2015|archive-date=1 January 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170101004744/https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/mar/16/legal-privilege-conflicting-interests-gchq-ipt-investigatory-powers-tribunal|url-status=live}}</ref>

On 25 May 2021, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that the GCHQ is guilty of violating data privacy rules through their bulk interception of communications, and does not provide sufficient protections for confidential journalistic material because it gathers communications in bulk.<ref>{{Cite web|date=25 May 2021|title=EU Human Rights Court Finds UK's Intelligence Agency GCHQ Guilty of Violating Privacy Laws {{!}} 25 May 2021|url=https://dailynewsbrief.com/2021/05/25/eu-human-rights-court-finds-uks-intelligence-agency-gchq-guilty-of-violating-privacy-laws/|access-date=25 May 2021|website=The Daily NewsBrief|language=en-US|archive-date=25 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210525222626/https://dailynewsbrief.com/2021/05/25/eu-human-rights-court-finds-uks-intelligence-agency-gchq-guilty-of-violating-privacy-laws/|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Surveillance of parliamentarians====
In 2015 there was a complaint by [[Green Party of England and Wales|Green Party]] MP [[Caroline Lucas]] that British intelligence services, including GCHQ, had been spying on MPs allegedly "in defiance of laws prohibiting it."<ref>{{cite news|title=British intelligence service spying on MPs in defiance of laws prohibiting it|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-intelligence-service-spying-on-mps-in-defiance-of-laws-prohibiting-it-10411996.html|access-date=31 December 2016|work=The Independent|date=23 July 2015|archive-date=1 January 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170101005409/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-intelligence-service-spying-on-mps-in-defiance-of-laws-prohibiting-it-10411996.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Then-[[Home Secretary]], [[Theresa May]], had told Parliament in 2014 that:
{{blockquote|Obviously, the [[Wilson Doctrine]] applies to parliamentarians. It does not absolutely exclude the use of these powers against parliamentarians, but it sets certain requirements for those powers to be used in relation to a parliamentarian. It is not the case that parliamentarians are excluded and nobody else in the country is, but there is a certain set of rules and protocols that have to be met if there is a requirement to use any of these powers against a parliamentarian.<ref>{{cite web|title=Daily Hansard – Debate, 15 July 2014 : Column 697|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140715/debtext/140715-0002.htm#14071547001384|publisher=[[Parliament of the United Kingdom]]|access-date=31 December 2016|date=15 July 2014|archive-date=25 October 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161025201820/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm140715/debtext/140715-0002.htm#14071547001384|url-status=live}}</ref>}}

The [[Investigatory Powers Tribunal]] investigated the complaint, and ruled that contrary to the allegation, there was no law that gave the communications of Parliament any special protection.<ref name=HuffPo>{{cite news|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/14/gchq-can-monitor-communic_n_8292390.html|title=GCHQ Can Monitor Communications Of MPs And Peers Rules Tribunal|newspaper=Huffington Post|author=Thomas Tamblyn|date=14 October 2015|access-date=24 January 2018|archive-date=25 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180125015857/http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/10/14/gchq-can-monitor-communic_n_8292390.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The Wilson Doctrine merely acts as a [[political convention]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Caroline_Lucas_JUDGMENT.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160317124014/http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Caroline_Lucas_JUDGMENT.pdf |archive-date=2016-03-17 |url-status=live|title=Approved Judgment|publisher=Investigatory Powers Tribunal|access-date=24 January 2018}}</ref>