Liberty’s victory has been hailed as a “landmark victory”

A civil rights campaign, Liberty, in the UK has just won a high court challenge and forced the security and intelligence to acquire “prior independent authorisation” prior to obtaining people’s communications data from telecom providers.

Liberty’s victory has been hailed as a “landmark victory” as two judges ruled two judges found that it was illegal for MI5, MI6, and GCHQ to access people's communications data from telecom carriers during criminal investigations without having received previous independent authorization.

After reviewing Liberty's case at a high court hearing in London, Justice Singh and Justice Holgate issued their decision on Friday. The campaign organization sued the Home Office and Foreign Office, which was the most recent phase of a larger effort to challenge the provisions of the 2016 Investigatory Powers Act.

Megan Goulding, the Liberty lawyer, said “This judgment is a major victory in the fight against mass surveillance. The court has agreed that it’s too easy for the security services to get their hands on our data. From now on, when investigating crime, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ will have to obtain independent authorisation before being able to access our communications data.”

A representative for Liberty stated that the Office for Communications Data Authorizations or a judge would likely be the source of independent authorization.

Ministers' attorneys challenged Liberty's claims, but the judges supported the suit, stating that their ruling would mean security forces are subject to the same rules as police.

The judges' decision detailed Liberty's argument that a provision of the Investigatory Powers Act did not adhere to the need for prior independent approval of access to communications data.

The judges said that “When the security and intelligence agencies act for an ordinary criminal purpose, we cannot see any logical or practical reason why they should not be subject to the same legal regime as the police,” adding that “The mere fact that in general, they operate in the field of national security cannot suffice for this purpose. It is the particular function in issue which is relevant.”

The judges concluded that the claimants have won the case specifically on this ground of challenge that when serving the same purpose as the police, there is no reason why they would be exempt from limitations enforced on the police.