The hushed up new law was passed through an amendment to the Computer Misuse Act and snuck in as secondary legislation, Privacy International — a London-based charity revealed: "We investigate the secret world of government surveillance and expose the companies enabling it."
"It appears no regulators, commissioners responsible for overseeing the intelligence agencies, the Information Commissioner's Office, industry, NGO's or the public were notified or consulted about the proposed legislative changes… There was no public debate."
Privacy Intentional say that they were notified just hours before a hearing at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal of their claim against GCHQ's illegal hacking operations. The legal filings sent to the charity notified them that the Computer Misuse Act was rewritten on 3 March 2015, which exempted the intelligence services from provisions making hacking illegal.
However, last May, Privacy International and seven communications providers filed a complaint with the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal, asserting that GCHQ's hacking activities were unlawful under the Computer Misuse Act.
A few weeks following the filing of the complaint, the British government introduced new legislation through the Serious Crime Bill allowing intelligence officers and police to legally hack. The bill was passed into law on March 3 2015 — and became effective on May 3 this year.
The government caught "changing" laws without due process or debate. Where is Democracy?:-/ https://t.co/8d5uFYiZ5R
— Simon Zerafa (@SimonZerafa) May 15, 2015
According to Privacy International's legal experts, the amended Computer Misuse Act "grants UK law enforcement new leeway to potentially conduct cyber-attacks within the UK."
Eric King, Deputy Director of Privacy International, said: "The underhand and undemocratic manner in which the Government is seeking to make lawful GCHQ's hacking operations is disgraceful.
"Hacking is one of the most intrusive surveillance capabilities available to any intelligence agency, and its use and safeguards surrounding it should be the subject of proper debate. Instead, the government is continuing to neither confirm nor deny the existence of a capability it is clear they have, while changing the law under the radar, without proper parliamentary debate."
