Courts check state surveillance
- Reasoning
- The Court found breaches of Articles 8 and 10.
- Evidence
- Safeguards were inadequate.
- How it supports the argument
- Journalists' material was unprotected.
ApprovedConcludedCourt case
Title
Big Brother Watch v UK (2018): bulk interception
Date
13 September 2018
Relevant topic(s)
Democracy and participationRights
What happened?
After Edward Snowden revealed the scale of US and UK intelligence surveillance, 16 journalists and rights groups challenged the UK's surveillance regimes in Strasbourg.
The Court held that bulk interception was not unlawful in itself, but that the UK regime lacked enough safeguards and so breached the rights to privacy and free expression.
- Sixteen journalists and rights organisations challenged bulk interception under section 8(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, intelligence sharing, and the obtaining of communications data.
- The Court found the bulk interception regime breached Article 8 because of inadequate oversight and safeguards, and Article 10 because there was no protection for confidential journalistic material.
- It said bulk interception 'was not in itself unlawful', and that receiving intercepted material from foreign agencies did not breach Article 8.
Why is it politically significant?
The case shows rights groups using Strasbourg to check state surveillance, while the Court still left states wide room to collect data for security.
How to use
Which arguments does it support?
Which counterarguments exist?
Limits of the evidence
Mass surveillance survived
The Court held that bulk interception was not unlawful in itself.
Concepts and connections
Concepts it illustrates
Sources and verification
Event13 September 2018
Added to bank11 November 2026
Last checked11 November 2026
Next check due11 May 2027
- 1Opened
About this example
Is it still current?
Concluded
The development has ended or been reversed, but remains useful evidence.
Why it is in the bank
A recent case on surveillance and privacy.
- ✓Relevance to the specification
- ✓Strength and reliability of the evidence
- ✓Importance to a wider political debate
- ✓Usefulness in evaluative essays
- ✓Connections to other topics
- ✓Sufficiently current
- ✓Adds something new to the bank
Editorial status
Approved
Signed off for students.
Origin: AI draft (Claude) · Reviewer: Editor
Every fact on this page has been checked against original sources.