Liberty News

Swiss voters have approved a new surveillance law backing the government which claimed the security services needed enhanced powers in an increasingly volatile world.

The proposed law won 65.5% support in a referendum called to confirm a mass ssurveillance law already passed by the parliament n 2015.

Switzerland's police and intelligence agencies say they have had limited investigative tools compared to other developed countries as phone tapping and email surveillance were previously banned, regardless of the circumstances.

But the new law will change that. The government insisted it was not aiming to set up a vast data-gathering apparatus, similar to the one developed by the US National Security Agency that came into the public eye in part through former contractor Edward Snowden's revelations. But mass snoopers have not got a track record of publicising or even admitting their capabilities.

The government says that phone or electronic surveillance of a suspect will only be triggered with approval by a federal court, the defence ministry and the cabinet, according to the law. Bern has said these measures would be used only a dozen times a year, to monitor only the highest-priority suspects, especially those implicated in terrorism-related cases. But then again, all the other mass snooping countries have made similar claims, until someone blew the whistle.

The unelected but all powerful European Commission is proposing the creation of a database that will hold information on noted users of virtual currencies such as Bitcoin. Available data on the users' real-world identity, along with all associated wallet addresses will be maintained.

the draft proposal was officially put forward in February 2016 and later approved at the start of July 2016. The proposal is a reform of the Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD) which will extend existing measures to include the concept of virtual currencies. It is intended to limit the anonymity associated with Bitcoin.

Besides recognizing crypto-currencies as another form of money, the draft also includes a set of regulations that would provide FIUs (financial intelligence units) with the tools needed to keep track of digital currencies, in the same way they do with fiat currencies.

The database will be updated with available data on Bitcoin users from payment providers etc, but users will also be allowed to register on their own, as a sign of good faith. The current AMLD draft reads:

The report shall be accompanied, if necessary, by appropriate proposals, including, where appropriate, with respect to virtual currencies, empowerments to set-up and maintain a central database registering users' identities and wallet addresses accessible to FIUs, as well as self-declaration forms for the use of virtual currency users.

Digital currency exchanges and wallet providers operating in Europe will most likely have to abide by the reformed AMLD and force EU users to register with their real information so that FIUs could track down individuals behind suspicious operations.

It is expected that the proposals will reach the European Parliament for a final vote later in the year.

The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union has published his Opinion on data retention by EU member states. The subsequent judgment will have implications for the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) and the Investigatory Powers Bill (IP BIll).

In his Opinion, the Advocate General said that data retention may be compatible with EU law only if data is being retained to fight serious crime and if there are strict safeguards in place. The Opinion confirmed that he believes that EU law should apply when it comes to data retention and that member states should limit their interference with our fundamental rights to what is strictly necessary.

Executive Director of Open Rights Group, Jim Killock responded:

The Advocate General has stated that data retention should only be used in the fight against serious crime, yet in the UK there are more than half a million requests for communications data each year. These do not only come from police but also local councils and government departments. It is difficult to see how the Government can claim that these organisations are investigating serious crimes.

The Opinion calls for strict safeguards yet in the UK, there is currently no judicial authorisation in the UK - police, local authorities and government departments can get internal sign off to access data. If the IP Bill is passed, data will be able to be analysed without a warrant through an intrusive tool known as the request filter.

It may be too late to end data retention under DRIPA, which expires at the end of the year, but the Government has the opportunity to ensure that the IP Bill complies with EU law. In particular, they should end the extension of mass data retention proposed in the Bill, which would see the UK become one of the only democracies to record its citizens' web browsing history and provide a police search engine to scour it.

Tory Drad Davis and Labour's Tom Watson originally took their case to the British High Court claiming that DRIPA sections 1 and 2 were incompatible with the public's right to respect for private life and communications and for protection of personal data under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court found for Davis and Watson in July 2015 but the ruling was not upheld on appeal, so Davis and Co. took their case to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

Drad Davis has now been promoted into Theresa May's cabinet and has inevitably dropped his criticism of mass snooping. So he has now withdrawn from this legal case.