Press releases

Press releases

David Cameron calls to shut down porn sites without age-restricted controls

Open Rights Group has responded to David Cameron’s call to shut down porn sites that don’t have age-restricted controls.

Executive Director, Jim Killock said:

“While the government can shut down UK-based sites, these are few in number and represent a tiny proportion of the global porn industry. Cameron needs to clarify how he wishes to achieve his goals, given that most porn sites are hosted abroad. To block them, the government would have to introduce a national firewall, which would censor sites for everyone, and would likely be widely circumvented.

"While we understand the government’s concern about children accessing pornography, there are no simple tech solutions. We need to make sure that children are being educated by their parents and schools in how to navigate the web safely."

[Read more]

High Court rules that DRIPA is unlawful

Open Rights Group welcomes today's High Court Judgment that the key parts of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) are inconsistent with European Union law.

ORG intervened in the successful judicial review brought by David Davis MP and Tom Watson MP, who were represented by Liberty. ORG emphasised the important EU legislation regulating the retention of communications data and the clear legal requirements laid down by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) in the Digital Rights Ireland case that struck down the Data Retention Directive.

ORG’s Executive Director Jim Killock said:

“When the Government forced DRIPA through Parliament a year ago, they denied our parliamentarians and the British public a proper debate about how our personal data is being kept by telecoms companies and accessed by the state.

“As many of us pointed out at the time, this was inconsistent with the findings of the CJEU that blanket data retention intruded on our right to privacy. Now that the High Court has agreed that DRIPA does not comply with EU law, we hope that the Government will listen to these concerns.

“In autumn, the Government will present the Investigatory Powers Bill to parliament. This should not be, as rumoured, an attempt by the Home Secretary to re-introduce the Snoopers' Charter, but an opportunity to introduce an effective surveillance law that is compatible with human rights.”

While ORG welcomes Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Collins’s judgment, we disagree with their intrepretation of the CJEU ruling. They claim that this ruling did not seek to constrain the retention of communications data. ORG disagrees. We believe that the CJEU was clear that blanket data retention severely interferes with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data.

The government is expected to lay a new Bill before Parliament in autumn 2015. It is believed that this Bill may call for an increase in the kinds of data that ISPs will be expected to keep about their customers, including weblogs. ORG believes that this would also be incompatible with EU law.

DRIPA will remain in force until the end of March 2016.

For more information, email or call 020 7096 1079.

[Read more]

ORG response to the RUSI review

Open Rights Group has responded to the Report of the Independent Surveillance Review by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).  

ORG’s Executive Director Jim Killock said:

"We’re unsurprised that RUSI has condoned mass surveillance, which now seems to be termed ‘bulk collection’ to disguise the real and disturbing practices of blanket collection, trawling and analysing that create a regime of mass surveillance."

"However, we welcome RUSI's acknowledgement of the need to reform both surveillance laws and the current system for authorising warrants.  We hope that in the Investigatory Powers Bill, the Government will address these serious flaws, raised in both the RUSI and Anderson reviews, rather than extending police and state powers and limiting encryption, as rumoured.”


[Read more]

Open Rights Group files amicus brief in Hungarian data retention case

Open Rights Group, Privacy International and a group of internationally acknowledged experts have filed amicus curiae briefs with the Hungarian Constitutional Court. The case has been brought by the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (HCLU) against two major service providers, in an attempt to force the Hungarian Constitutional Court to repeal the Hungarian Electronic Communications Act.  

Legal Director of Open Rights Group Elizabeth Knight said: 

"A year ago, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that blanket data retention interferes with our fundamental rights to privacy and the protection of our personal data. ORG has already intervened in a case challenging data retention in the UK and hope to see other European countries repeal national legislation that forces companies to keep everyone's personal communications data."

The submissions focus on the importance of EU law and why the Hungarian law does not comply with it. In particular Open Rights Group and Privacy International emphasise: the carefully calibrated EU rules in the field of data retention and data protection; the importance of the retention of ‘communications data’ or ‘metadata’; the seriousness of data retention as an interference with human rights; and the need for effective remedies in national legal systems to address breaches of EU law.

The final ruling of the Hungarian Constitutional Court is expected in one month.

The amicus brief of ORG and PI can be read here.

The amicus brief of the group of international scholars can be read here.

We would like to express special thanks to the barristers Jessica Simor QC (Matrix Chambers), Alison Pickup (Doughty Street Chambers) and Ravi S. Mehta (Blackstone Chambers) who kindly prepared the ORG/PI”s submission pro bono, and to the signatories of the other amicus brief: Kristina Irion, (Central European University and Marie Curie fellow, University of Amsterdam), Franziska Boehm, University of Münster), Nico van Eijk (University of Amsterdam), Eleni Kosta (Tilburg University), Judith Rauhofer (University of Edinburgh), TJ McIntyre (Sutherland School of Law, University College Dublin and Chair, Digital Rights Ireland), Douwe Korff (London Metropolitan University), Ian Brown (University of Oxford), Marie-Pierre F. Granger (Central European University), Natali Helberger (University of Amsterdam), Egbert Dommering (University of Amsterdam (NL), Serge Gutwirth (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Paul de Hert (Vrije Universiteit Brussel).

For more information, email

[Read more]

Open Rights Group response to ISC Privacy and Security report

The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) today released the results of their inquiry into GCHQ's surveillance.

Open Rights Group has responded to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report into Security and Privacy.

Executive Director, Jim Killock said:

“The ISC's report should have apologised to the nation for their failure to inform Parliament about how far GCHQ’s powers have grown. This report fails to address any of the key questions apart from the need to reform our out-of-date surveillance laws. This just confirms that the ISC lacks the sufficient independence and expertise to hold the agencies to account."

A report published by Open Rights Group, has called for the reform of oversight mechanisms, including the Intelligence and Security Committee, so that they are truly independent, accountable to Parliament and have sufficient technical expertise to tackle the technical, legal and ethical issues around surveillance. We also call for reform of the laws that allow surveillance to be replaced by new comprehensive surveillance legislation that complies with human rights law and reflects the current technical landscape. 

These would mean:

  • Targeted surveillance not mass surveillance
  • Prior judicial authorisation for all surveillance decisions
  • Increasing the legal protection for communications data so that it is the same as for the content of communications
  • Ending statutory definitions that are out outdated in the digital age – such as the current distinctions between 'internal' and ‘external' communications.

ORG’s report is available here: 

[Read more]

Swinney fails to address privacy concerns over Scottish NHS database proposals

Deputy First Minister John Swinney today failed to address the concerns of privacy campaigners over Scottish government  proposals  to expand Scotland’s NHS Central Register. Leader of the Green party MSP Patrick Harvie had asked the Minister about concerns raised by the Open Rights Group (ORG) that the proposals could pave the way for a national ID register in Scotland.  

Executive Director of ORG, Jim Killock said:

’The Minister claims that they are not creating a new database but they are converting the NHS database into a national identity register. He did not explain why there is a need to create a unique identifier to be used across government databases. This is the crucial question that the Scottish Government must answer.'

About the proposals

The National Health Service Central Register (NHSCR) currently holds the names and addresses of around 30% of Scottish residents. Under the proposals, each resident would also be given a unique citizen reference number (UCRN). This number and the data would be made available to around 100 public organisations across Scotland. These range widely in their remit from health, housing, education and the police to Glasgow Airport and the Forestry Commission. The UCRN could be used to track individuals across different public services.

A unique identifier would allow the bulk processing of vast amounts of personal data across agencies, using the UCRN. This would enable data mining, profiling or other techniques that would require the whole population’s personal information to be examined more or less simultaneously.  The consultation is not clear about these activities.  It also doesn’t appear to take into account the many risks that such a database could pose - it could be open to misuse for identity theft or tracking people who for their own security don’t want to be traced - for example victims of domestic violence. 

ORG believes that these are significant changes that would pave the way for a national ID register and put responsibility for such an important database in the hands of National Records Scotland and the NHS. 

We believe that any proposals on this scale should be introduced as primary legislation not as statutory instruments, which would allow a proper public and parliamentary debate.

For more information:

FAQs about the proposals:

ORG’s full response to the consultation:

How people can contact their MSPs about the proposals:  

The NHS Central Register consultation is open to the public until February 25:

[Read more]

NHS database proposals could pave way to ID register in Scotland

Government proposals to expand the National Health Service Central Register (NHSCR) will pave the way for a national ID register in Scotland. The proposals have been made public in a little-known consultation that closes at the end of February. Digital rights campaigners, the Open Rights Group (ORG) believe that the consultation is flawed, misleading and could fundamentally change the relationship between citizen and state.

Open Rights Group Executive Director, Jim Killock said:

“Government proposals that jeopardise our right to privacy need proper consideration. The SNP rejected a national ID register when the UK government tried to introduce ID cards. These proposals could pave the way for a similar scheme in Scotland and are being introduced without a proper debate by the public or MSPs. ”

Most Scottish citizens already have a unique identity number in the NHS system. This plan is to share this unique identifier with up to 120 other Scottish public bodies - including Glasgow Airport, the Royal Botanical Gardens and the Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd. Scottish residents could then be tracked across all their interactions with public bodies, including your benefits, bus pass travel or library usage.

ORG believes that this is building an ID card system in Scotland and that any such changes should be introduced as primary legislation, which would allow a proper public and parliamentary debate.

ORG has published its response to the consultation here:

ORG is also urging its supporters in Scotland to contact their MSPs about the proposals:

[Read more]

ORG's response to IPT ruling that UK intelligence sharing was unlawful

Today the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) found that the secret intelligence sharing between the UK and the US were unlawful prior to December 2014 because the policies governing these arrangements were secret. These policies were made public last December during a case brought by Privacy International, Bytes for All, Liberty, and Amnesty International.

Open Rights Group strongly welcomes the highly significant ruling, which is the first time the IPT has found the UK’s intelligence services to be in breach of human rights law. 

However, the finding relates to historic practices only. The IPT has already said it believes intelligence sharing is currently lawful, since the disclosure of the secret policies during the IPT proceedings. In the same December judgment, the IPT also found that GCHQ’s TEMPORA programme of mass surveillance is in accordance with the law.

 Elizabeth Knight, Legal Director at Open Rights Group commented,

“This ruling is a very welcome first step. It shows that secret polices are not an acceptable basis for highly intrusive intelligence sharing practices. However, the IPT has not gone far enough. These flimsy policies are not enough to comply with the requirements of human rights law, even now they are public. And GCHQ’s own TEMPORA programme of mass interception is clearly both unlawful and disproportionate. We hope the European Court of Human Rights will go further than the IPT and find that mass surveillance breaches our human right to privacy.”

Open Rights Group has an application pending at the European Court of Human Rights, which challenges both intelligence sharing and GCHQ’s TEMPORA programme based on non-specific, blanket warrants. The case, brought along with Big Brother Watch, English PEN and Constanze Kurz, has been on hold awaiting the outcome of the IPT case. The case will soon proceed now the IPT has given its ruling.

[Read more]

ORG responds to Cameron's call for legal powers to break encryption

Open Rights Group has called on the Prime Minister to provide more details about his plans to give the security services the legal powers to break encrypted communications.

Executive Director Jim Killock said:

'Cameron’s plans appear dangerous, ill-thought out and scary. Having the power to undermine encryption will have consequences for everyone’s personal security. It could affect not only our personal communications but also the security of sensitive information such as bank records, making us all more vulnerable to criminal attacks.’

[Read more]

Press release: Permission granted for judicial review of DRIPA

A judicial review of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) has been granted permission by Mr Justice Lewis in the High Court today. Open Rights Group (ORG) and Privacy International (PI) intervened in the case, which was brought by Tom Watson MP and David Davis MP, represented by Liberty. ORG and PI have now been given permission to make further submissions in advance of the next hearing. 

Legal Director Elizabeth Knight said:

“After the Court of Justice of the EU declared the Data Retention Directive invalid, the UK government had the opportunity to design new legislation that would protect human rights. It chose instead to circumvent the decision of the CJEU by introducing the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA), which is almost identical to the Data Retention Directive. 

Through our submission, we hope to help demonstrate that DRIPA breaches our fundamental human right to privacy and does not comply with human rights and EU law."

ORG's submission addresses the EU data protection regime in place before the Data Retention Directive (in particular the Data Protection Directive, the E-privacy Directive and the E-Commerce Directive) and why we consider DRIPA does not comply with the requirements of the regime in light of the clear guidance from the CJEU. 

Dan Carey of Deighton Pierce Glynn solicitors, Jessica Simor QC (Matrix), Ravi Mehta of counsel (Blackstone) and Hugh Tomlinson QC (Matrix) are acting for ORG. 

About the judicial review: On 22 July Tom Watson MP and David Davis MP announced that they were pursuing judicial review proceedings, on the grounds of on Article 8 ECHR and Articles 7 and 8 European Charter of Fundamental Rights. They are represented by Liberty. Permission was granted by the High Court (Administrative Court) today, which means that the case will proceed to a substantive hearing.

[Read more]