Here's an example of GCHQ being mentioned as exempt from a law. This is the sexual offences act; GCHQ are allowed to "make"[1] a photograph of child sexual abuse if it's needed for a function of GCHQ. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/46
Peoe said when RIP was a bill that it was too strong and did not offer enough protection.
The poor quality of oversight of GCHQ is surprising.
[1] make here is a technical term and includes "make a copy of a digital file".
> GCHQ operate to English law. They have specific exemptions and exclusions under and protections under all the relevant English law.
Well, I don't know about that. The fact that they're happily sending everything to the NSA can hardly be compatible with EU data protection law, and considering that their best friends, the US intelligence and law enforcement services, were caught red-handed doing illegal wiretaps right before the executive branch retroactively made it legal, well, it doesn't inspire much confidence. Now, if you start looking at, say, the activities of the British secret services during the Thatcher era, you come to realize that there may be a slight gap between the things they admit to do, and the stuff they actually do.
Have a look at RIPA, one important bit of law that regulates GCHQ: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents
Here's an example of GCHQ being mentioned as exempt from a law. This is the sexual offences act; GCHQ are allowed to "make"[1] a photograph of child sexual abuse if it's needed for a function of GCHQ. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/46
Peoe said when RIP was a bill that it was too strong and did not offer enough protection.
The poor quality of oversight of GCHQ is surprising.
[1] make here is a technical term and includes "make a copy of a digital file".