The Highest Court of the European Union has ruled that the general and indiscriminate retention of electronic communications by the governments is not legal. This is an alusion to the Investigatory Powers Act, also called Snooper's Charter, recently passed by United Kingdom.
The purpose of this bill is retain information of website users
The Investigatory Powers Act wants Internet Service Providers to retain information of all websites visited by the citizens for 12 months.
It has been attacked by the European Court of Justice
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the collection of data invades the private lives of citizens, the data is retained and the users are not informed of this. Fighting serious crime is the only reason of justifying this type of interference. The ECJ considers this bill is illegal because this way citizens of UK will be under constant surveillance.
Unclear if the ruling of the EU can overturn the surveillance laws
The Home Office of United Kingdom has said it will appeal against the rule of the European Court of Justice. The ECJ will lose judicial authority over United Kingdom once that this country leaves the European Union.
Martha Spurrier on the ruling
Martha Spurrier, director of the human rights group Liberty, declared that the ruling upholds the rights of ordinary British people not to have their personal lives spied on without good reason or an independent warrant. UK must make changes to the Investigatory Powers Act to comply with this, United Kingdom may have voted to leave the European Union but not to abandon their rights and freedoms.
Apple Company on the Law
Apple has opposed the Investigatory Powers Bill of United Kingdom. At first, this bill required companies to build anti-encryption backdoors into their software, but then, an amendment to the wording meant that companies do not need to do so when this is requested by a government agency, unless taking an action like this "is technically feasible and not unduly expensive". The accurate definition of these terms will be in the hands of a British judge on a case-by-case basis.
