Disclaimer: This dissertation has been written by a student and is not an example of our professional work, which you can see examples of here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this dissertation are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UKDiss.com.

Counter Terrorism and Rights to Privacy

Info: 7117 words (28 pages) Dissertation
Published: 13th Dec 2019

Reference this

Tagged: Human RightsTerrorism

To what extent can breaching privacy of suspected terrorists adequately strike a balance between privacy and counter terrorism?


“Pray for London”, “Prier pour la France”- Terrorism is something that has affected a large part of individuals at some point in their lives. It is a catastrophic act aimed at causing harm and inducing fears in individuals. Europe has frequently been the centre of terrorist attacks for the past few years and it seems that this is likely to continue. Terrorists are “increasingly resorting to the internet to disseminate their views to a wider public, and they have come to the realisation that establishing their presence in cyberspace is nearly just as critical to their long-term success as any military triumph or act of sabotage”.[1] Terrorist groups can maintain web pages to disseminate propaganda, recruit followers and supporters.[2] Therefore, through the internet they are able to easily reach through a vast audience in a direct and uncensored way and place themselves on the international stage however, there has always been the question of whether it is justifiable to breach a suspected terrorists privacy because regardless of their behaviour they should still be entitled to their human rights. In the conventional media, if there are some dangerous message then they must be filtered and censored. However, the internet does not allow for this and thus, it allows for their messages and propaganda to be broadcasted worldwide. Surveillance of suspected terrorists have previously been used extensively, but there were some restrictions. There are new provisions that are now being put into place which further decrease privacy. The Data Retention Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) being put into place, explains this. Consequently, there are still many who are worried about their privacy as it allows access and storage of any individuals data regardless of being on the watch list.

This dissertation a whether it is justifiable to breach a suspected terrorists’ privacy to protect state security. It will tackle the dilemma that in counteracting terrorism, the right to privacy is often challenged. The main objective of this dissertation is to show that privacy is an important human right which everyone ought to have in a democratic society and being denied this access means that the state is breaching its duty towards its citizens. However, it will also consider that the state has a duty to keep us safe and breaching this privacy is the only way to move forward. Therefore, it will also point towards how security is an important right that has also been challenged in the advancement of technology. Ultimately, it will conclude that it is justifiable to breach an individual or a group of individuals privacy to protect state security.


This research process will use a variety of sources. It will mainly use cases and reports from the government’s internal investigation in order to better analyse the title. It will also use general commentaries from different authors and what they believe is the best possible way forward. It will use the newly formulated legislation to further analyse the extent the government’s powers extend to. Secondary sources such as books do not cover to a large degree on privacy and rather concentrates on other aspects of human rights. Therefore, through my limited resources, I will hopefully address the relevant issues.

Is privacy important?

Firstly, it is important to comprehend why privacy is an important human right. Article 8 of the ECHR states that no one should be subjected to interference with their privacy.[3] Also, the Special Rapporteur has defined privacy as a fundamental human right which provides individuals with “an area of autonomous development, interaction and liberty”.[4] Therefore, privacy is not only a fundamental human right, but also a human right that supports other rights as it forms the basis of any democratic society. Thus, privacy is necessary for creating spaces which allow individuals to grow and develop their ideas; if privacy was restricted, society would not have progressed the way it did or continues to. Yet, there are many violations that occur when sensitive data is collected about individuals without their permission.[5] There are some who argue that no activity, even when preventing a terrorist attack should override the right to respect one’s privacy and related human rights as they have to be protected and respected in all phases of counter- terrorism initiatives. Nevertheless, sometimes that breach is necessary, and the state has a duty to ensure that any restrictions on privacy should be proportionate, necessary and adequately regulated.[6] Therefore, the dilemma is whether the state has a right to breach this human right?

Furthermore, the surveillance technology being used by the states are developing very rapidly and this facilitates in countering terrorism and organised crimes. Nowadays, technology and the internet exist for the millions and it allows for communications via the internet and emails to be monitored, screened and analysed continuously. The installation of “spyware” on someone’s computer is capable of secretly monitoring the online activities and emails of the user. But, it raises question about everyone’s right to privacy.[7] It is often said that those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear. However, many innocent individuals are highly concerned that the government is going to be spying on every single one of their private phone calls and accessing various personal data. However, it must be emphasised that the government has a right to do this nevertheless, in the real sense, it is highly unlikely that they would look through an innocent person’s data because realistically it serves them no purpose. They may have the right, but that does not necessarily mean that they would act on it inappropriately. For example, we all have a right to freedom of expression but, that does not necessarily suggest that one will walk around freely in public expressing what they truly believe about a religion or the government for example. Also, it is impractical and nearly impossible for them to look at every single individuals’ data. Additionally, if they were to do this, state money would be wasted, thus, the money would be better spent if they were to look at a potential terrorists’ data and protect state security; they would only breach this data if they have reasons to do so. It should be for the state to justify why it seeks to interfere with an individual’s privacy and not for individuals to justify why they are concerned about attacks on their basic human rights.[8]

Are new technologies facilitating communication between terrorists?

In the past, new technologies that threatened our privacy such as telephone tapping were assimilated over time into our society and the legal system had time to adapt and interpret existing laws as the culture had time to absorb the implications of the new technology for daily life. However, today, new surveillance technologies are developing rapidly, and the laws are not able to adjust to them. Legislation are being passed without careful consideration. Therefore, laws must be developed to control and restrain the use of new technologies to prevent them from invading our privacy.

Furthermore, the internet today is recognised as a powerful political instrument. Furnell and Warren described the core terrorist use of the net as propaganda[9] but other theorists such as Thomas refers to it as cyber planning which is the integrated plan stretching across geographical boundaries that may or may not result in bloodshed.[10] Terrorists groups come under increasing pressure from law enforcement and they have been forced to evolve and become more decentralised and this works to their advantage as they are less likely to be found and convicted. Therefore, the internet has made it easier for like-minded individuals to connect with one another at the comfort of their own home in any part of the world. This is worrying as an attack can take place at the tip of their fingers. In addition, the integration of computing with communication has substantially increased the variety and complexity of the information that can be shared.[11] Technology has become the prime and central form of communication by most of the population. Individuals use it to communicate with loved ones; this simply shows, if an individual is able to share and send information easily then simply imagine how easily terrorists are now using it to communicate with each other. Thus, the only way that seems to be plausible to tackle this is through mass surveillance as the only form of communication for terrorists is via the internet and this would help in preventing future attacks.

Moreover, the internet is a doubled edged sword. Terrorists are not the only ones who are operating the internet.[12] Nowadays, they act as a valuable instrumental power for anti- terrorist forces. Therefore, the more online communications, the more data there is to trail them back. Such as Zanini put it to hypothesise that “the greater the degree of organisational networking in a terrorist group, the higher the likelihood that IT was used to support the network’s decisions making”.[13] Thus, many now believe that terrorists presence on the internet actually works against them. Therefore, this further puts emphasis on how important it is to infringe their privacy to stop future attacks.

Has surveillance ever been used successfully to stop terrorist attack?

If states are required to breach privacy to protect its citizens, this can be justifiable if it is used in a constructive and useful way. The Anderson Report, is an investigation by the government about reviews on internal security and suggest how bulk acquisition data (BAD) has been useful in combating terrorism. BAD, allows public authorities to have access for specified purpose to large quantities of data. The data collected is not available to the general public but these can only be accessed by only the MI5, MI6 and GCHQ using highly secured connection and which are monitored to ensure that there are no breaches from hackers. It is stated in the report that since 2017 there have been one hundred and forty- two failed attacks in the European Union and more than a half have been reported in the UK. These attacks were only prevented due to infringement of privacy of potential terrorists with secret services being able to monitor their private data. Therefore, this shows how data infringement has been successful and is important. If such breaches to privacy were not able to stop attacks, then this would not be justifiable. Further, almost all of the cases cited claimed that without the use of BAD, the prevention of many attacks would have been nearly impossible. In a particular case reference, the MI5 claimed that if the plot had succeeded, it would have been the biggest attack in the UK comparable to 9/11.[14] In 2015, the MI5 used BAD to identify a previously unknown contact with a senior Islamist extremist.[15] Due to the frequent and significance of the contact, the MI5 was quickly able to arrange more intrusive and targeted resources. MI5 stated that they were aware that attacks in the UK was imminent by these groups. Due to BAD, they were able to take immediate and constructive steps to manage the threat. They have made it clear that without data infringement, these groups would not have identified the treat and managed the risk. Consequently, it can be said that it is difficult to imagine the atrocity if the intelligence services would not have had access to these data.

Another prominent case shows how far and fast data can be used to track down an individual. In 2015, MI5 had learned that a foreign national associated with ISIL had visited the UK frequently.[16] Upon analysis of the individual’s data, the intelligence services were able to track down a telephone that was used by the individual and learned that he was planning an attack in the UK. MI5 were then able to refocus their investigations and it was shown that his disruptions of activities was extremist content.[17] Similarly, to this case and many others, the MI5 highly believes that it would have been unlikely that the same results could have been achieved and if there were other ways to achieve the same result, it would have taken much longer and by that time, another huge number of terrorists could have been born but, most importantly, an attack on UK soils could have happened.

Should social media giants be responsible for tackling terrorism?

Many commentators state that authorities should launch a software on social media platforms such as Facebook to stop extremists content being shared. These sites have become the vehicle of choice for spreading propaganda and the recruiting platforms for terrorism. However, social media giants are not doing much to help the state, instead they are keeping extremist information private and refusing to hand over crucial information to the intelligence services simply to maintain a good public profile. For example if users were to find out that their data is passed onto secret services, it is beyond doubt that they would stop using those platforms due to fear of the information being passed on. Such as what is happening to Facebook at the moment with its privacy concerns, there are less and less users as they are worried about their data being breached. Similarly, if other media firms were to do the same, they would lose traffic to their sites and more importantly to their money. The FBI has recently engaged in a public battle with Apple over access to a terrorist’s smartphone. Apple resisted a court order to hack the security features belonging to one of the terrorist attackers in the USA which the state believed to contain important information about other potential attacks. Consequently, such platforms should be convicted as they are withholding information which is important to the security of a state, retaining such information simply to maintain a good public image should not be a sufficient reason to do so. Innocent people would want their data protected however, the social media giants should allow some leeway when it comes to protecting the state.

Is it possible to reach a balance between privacy and state security?

Etzioni argues that it is wrong to define counter-terrorism surveillance tools as good or evil. He states that with all technologies, the question is how it would be used. But if it installed at the discretion of every police, then the right of innocent people could be violated.[18] Hence, Etzioni suggests that there needs to be guidelines and if they are not established then such measure will take away a large part of our liberties and a massive threat to privacy.[19] Garnick states that she is concerned with the potential misuse of data by the states and argues that if these tools are not used properly within our system of checks and balances then they may work effectively and that we may be able to enforce them.[20]

Primarily, if there is ever a balance, the law authorising interference with privacy must specify in detail the precise circumstance in which the interference is permitted and must not be implemented in a discriminatory manner.[21] This does not mean however, that the state can enjoy unlimited discretion to interfere with privacy since any limitation on right must be necessary to achieve legitimate purposes and be proportionate. Thus, in Klass v Germany,[22] the ECHR stated it must be satisfied that any system of secret surveillance conducted by the state must be accompanied by adequate and effective guarantees against abuse.[23] Also, the Human Rights committee has explained that states must take effective measures to ensure that information concerning a person’s private life does not reach the hands of persons who are not authorised by law to receive, process and use it. Hence, in the context of the fight against terrorism, the collection and the processing of personal data by any competent authority in the field of State security may rightfully interfere with the respect for private life only if such collection and processing is governed by appropriate provisions of domestic law and is proportionate to the aim for which the collection and the processing were foreseen.

Forgetti states that it is difficult to balance the protection of privacy with the fight against terrorism and to assess the impact taken by institutions in order to reach their purposes.[24] In the UK, many of the laws that provide surveillance powers have come to be questioned by the legislative bodies, through the media and the courts. However, there are still no legislation that have accommodated a balanced regime of the two rights. It has been stated that it is nearly impossible to pursue the goal of security by depriving citizens of constitutionally guaranteed rights. [25]

In addition, recently the appeal court judges have ruled the governments mass surveillance regime unlawful. The human rights campaign groups said the ruling meant that significant parts of the DRIPA are unlawful and must be urgently changed.[26] In addition, in Haralambie v Romania [27]with regards to personal data, the court held that violation of someone’s privacy is a violation of Article 8. The collection of bulk communication data (BCD) was ruled to be unlawful and not compliant with the ECHR in a judgment ruled by the investigatory powers tribunal. It stated that it failed to provide various safeguards which is required under the CJEU’s case law. In Watson,[28] the court argued that in response both the BCD regime was outside the scope of EU law given that it related to national security. Nonetheless, in Wiberg,[29] the court held that any cases concerning suspected terrorists, national security will prevail in the fight against terrorism. Also, the court have ruled that DRIPA does not restrict accessing of confidential personal phone and web browsing recorded to serious crimes and allowed police and other public authorities access without any adequate oversight.[30] However, the government have put forward the argument and states that the purpose of the bill is to protect the public and bring offenders to justice and this sentiment is echoed by the U.S. Government in requesting access to data owned by Apple.

DRIPA extends the governments surveillance powers by giving other member states the power to access our data. However, there are still many that disagree with the CJEU ruling because DRIPA interfered with the right to privacy and the right to a private family life. But, the benefits outweigh the risks because if data is allowed to be accessed by other member state then this means when a serious crime is committed, data could be retained for a particular geographical location to support the criminal investigation and this could help prevent any further attacks or even stop attacks. The UK is the only country with such measures. There is always the question of why does the UK have to introduce such extensive methods of invading our privacy when there are other European countries who are able to tackle terrorism without such methods. However, in the Anderson report, an internal government investigation stated that in the aftermath of 9 / 11, there were many intelligence services between UK police and the MI5. In a particular case, the MI5 were monitoring a cell that was plotting to attack targets in London.[31] They were able to follow the suspects for two hundred miles until they lost contact with that cell. The MI5 did not share details with the special branch police and this was a fatal error which led to one of the most atrocious attacks in the UK, the 7 / 7 bombings.[32] Therefore, this case shows how important it is for other jurisdictions to have access to data especially now when there are many young radicalised teenagers that are travelling to and from Syria. They are dangerous and pose a risk to the UK and neighbouring countries. At a time like this, it is more than crucial for surveillance as all of the attacks that have occurred in and around Europe has been done by ISIL.

However, the violation of privacy can have a detrimental effect. Privacy as outlined above is neglected in the permanent quest of states to increase surveillance measures in order to detect potential terrorist threats. However, it must be noted that without countering terrorism and without the state protecting its citizens, the state itself is breaching its duty towards us. State mass surveillance is now needed more than ever, due to increasing use of technology by terrorists. Therefore, the security council have highlighted that there needs to be cooperation among member states to prevent terrorist from exploiting technology, communications and resources.[33] It has been stated that it is not possible to pursue the goal of security by depriving citizens of constitutionally guaranteed rights.[34] States are still far away from having adopted efficient legislations that also respond to the needs of international corporations. Therefore, there is an urgent need to adopt clear standards that would provide an effecting settings for international, cooperation between different states and organisations.

The unfortunate dilemma with surveillance is that as useful as it might be to tackle terrorism, it does have its implications too. It has been pointed out that surveillance has led to many cases of miscarriage of justice. In Khan v Chief Constable of West Midlands,[35] a police officer had reasonable grounds to suspect that a person who printed one hundred copies of a booklet entitled “forty-four ways to support jihad” was guilty of an offence under the Terrorism Act 2006. Nonetheless, the police made a wrongful arrest, Mr Khan was simply someone who was expressing his religion and was in no way a threat to the British public. From this case as well as many others, it can be seen how much detrimental effect it can have when someone is wrongfully accused of causing harm to the public, it is an invasion of their private and family life. Nobody is going to question the police’s extent of involvement in a case when it has a positive outcome but, the seriousness of the matter only comes to surface when an innocent is placed in that situation. It is not an ideal situation, as this would cause huge embarrassment within his own community and his surroundings. Therefore, this could have serious impact on the individual. Thus, in Popp’s view, if the government, does want access to data, then they must also have ways to protect privacy of those who are not involved in terrorism.[36] This suggests that surveillance may seem to work only up to a certain degree. It can lead to actions against very large number of innocent people on a scale that is unacceptable for a democratic society. [37] In 2008, the ECHR ruled in Liberty [38] that British bulk interception of Irish telephone and fax communication violated the right to privacy and article 8 of ECHR however, no breach was found due to the fact that those breaches were necessary to carry out targeted sources against terrorism.

Furthermore, those who are pro surveillance consider that the new proposals are necessary to uphold other human rights however, if the right to privacy is amended this would likely have several knock on effects to wider international law such as the question of “is torture admissible to prevent the right to life of others”[39] It must be considered that all terrorist attacks are premeditated and therefore due to this, it gives security services access to public messages, emails and internet searches which means that terrorism plans can be detected and prevented before the attack occur.


Wade notes that if an elastic band is overstretched, then it will eventually snap back with a sharp sting to the hand that forced it.[40] However, breaching privacy of suspected terrorists is necessary to prevent future attacks. It is the easiest and most efficient way to know about their plans which can be prevented. BAD has been seen to be efficient with many attacks being prevented in the UK. The state has a duty to protect its citizens and breaching this privacy is the only way it can prevent further atrocities and lost of innocent lives.



Jarvis L Terrorism Online (Routledge 2015)

Ramsay G Jihadi culture on the world wide web (Bloomsbury 2015)

Weimann G Terrorism in Cyberspace (Columbia University Press 2015)

Weimann G Terror on the Internet (United States Institute of Peace Press 2006)


Freary D Privacy vs protection: should governments have the power to access our personal data?<https://prestudentconversation.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/privacy-vs-protection-should-governments-have-the-power-to-access-our-personal-data/> accessed 21st March 2018

Foggetti N, Cyber-terrorism and the right to privacy in the third pillar perspectives <https://journals.muni.cz/mujlt/article/view/2547>  accessed 10th March 2018

Hammarberg T Human Rights in Europe, no grounds for complacency (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, 2011) < https://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/source/prems/HR-Europe-no-grounds-complacency_en.pdf#page=273> accessed 15th February 2018

Lachmayer K The Challenge to Privacy from Ever Increasing State Surveillance: A Comparative Perspective (UNSWLawJl 282014) 37(2) 54

Lal V, Terror and its Networks: Disappearing trails in cyberspace<www.nautilus.org/archives/virtual-diasporas/paper/Lal.html> accessed 31st January 2018

Thomas T Al Qaeda and the Internet: The Danger of Cyberplanning Parameters Spring. <http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/thomas.htm> accessed 10th March 2018

United Nations Human Rights, Safeguard privacy while countering terrorism. <http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/CounterTerrorismAndPrivacy.aspx>( Office of the High Commissionner)2010 accessed 20th February 2018

 Ztter K, Snoopware: New Technologies, Laws threaten Privacy PC World, March 2002 <www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,78070,00.asp> accessed 21st March 2018

Government Reports

Anderson D The Terrorism Acts in 2015, report on the independent reviewer on the operation of terrorism Act <https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/TERRORISM-ACTS-REPORT-1-Dec-2016-1.pdf> accessed 20th February 2018

Anderson D, Report of the Bulk Powers Review, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation <https://terrorismlegislationreviewer.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Bulk-Powers-Review-final-report.pdf> accessed 21st March 2018

Human rights and the fight against terrorism (The council of Europe Guidelines) <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pub_coe_Guidelines_terrorism_2005_ENG.pdf> accessed 21st March 2018

Liberty’s summary of the Investigatory Powers Bill for second reading in the House of Common (liberty protecting civil liberties and Promoting Human Rights) <https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Liberty%27s%20summary%20of%20the%20Investigatory%20Powers%20Bill%20for%20Second%20Reading%20in%20the%20House%20of%20Commons.pdf> accessed 18th March 2018

Scheinin M Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism ((United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, 2009) <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-37.pdf> accessed 20th February 2018

Reflective statement

I knew I wanted to write my dissertation based along the lines of ‘terrorism’. We often hear on the news when a terrorist attack happens that the government knew about them but by that time it is too late as the damage has been done. The question that arose in my mind was why the government did not act fast and arrest them if it is apparent that they have bad intent. However, despite them being ‘bad people’ that does not mean that they should not be entitled to their basic human rights. However, I wanted to find out how the state can actually distinguish between a high risk and a low risk person. Therefore, it triggered my interest on how far a state can breach a targeted persons’ privacy in order to protect the state. The topic area was based on terrorism and human rights however, this is very wide, and it had to be narrowed down. I did not want to pick topics which have been researched about extensively such as freedom of expression, the right to a fair trial and correct treatment. But, something recent and something that is affecting us in the modern times. Therefore, I manage to narrow it down to privacy and Human Rights.

One of the first problems I encountered was that it was a fairly new topic and the research content was very limited. Most of it is bypassed by authors as they mainly concentrate on other human rights aspects. Due to this I decided to change how I approached the question and apply a more theoretical approach to the dissertation. I concentrated mainly on academic opinions on what they believe on privacy as many of the information is highly confidential. This could be due to the government not wanting the public to know to what extent they had actually breached someone’s privacy in order to protect the state. The research was still difficult due to the limited research therefore this meant that I had to double the quantity of articles I read to find sufficient information. I also relied on government’s terrorism report to get an insight on cases that have not been reported to the media and how the government is trying to tackle the privacy vs state security issue constantly. However, all of the cases in the report is anonymous and they are very difficult to follow up in another source.

Secondly, I would type up a summary and relevant material of each and every article or document I have read onto a different word page. By the end I had about 20 – 30 different word tabs open and this made me confused as I was unclear about the direction I wanted my dissertation to take. I had the difficult task of having to read all of them over again and identify sources the relevant sources and not simply the ones that would make my dissertation sound clever. I then, typed them up in one single document so that I would know where and when to find them rather than struggling to find the relevant paragraph on paper. It was time consuming and hassling to reread all of the articles however, this helped me formulate my ideas and the direction I wanted my essay to go in. Thus, if I had to do this again, right from the onset I would identify the relevant information and organise the sources better so I would not struggle.

I also struggled with time management. At the beginning, I thought I would have a dedicated day of the week where I would do all of my dissertation research and writing up. However, what I did not anticipate was tutorial work and coursework that needed to get done and extra- curricular activities and general preparation for lectures. Therefore, most of the time I found myself doing little to no research for my essay. I was struggling as the deadlines were growing upon me and very little work was done. Thus, I decided to create a monthly calendar inserting all coursework’s and tutorial work that needed to get done and find a space to do my dissertation. I had to stick to it and be consistent otherwise I would again fall behind again. Due to this, I was able to successfully write and research my essay more effectively without neglecting my other duties and responsibilities. If I had to do this again, I would get plan a monthly calendar right from the onset and ensure I stick to it.

Finally, once I had gathered up all my research. I printed all of the documents up and I again highlighted all of the relevant parts and wrote a detailed planned, made counter argument links with the authors. Once this was done, it was simply a question having to type it all up.

If I had to redo this again, I would have liked to link it to freedom of expression as this would have allowed me to be more analytical in terms of how the state has wrongly convicted people of terrorism when they were simply expressing their religion. Also, this is a new area of research and the research is very limited. Many of the articles were written on American authors and how privacy had been affected since 9 / 11 however, there were very few solely concentrated on the UK. It was very difficult to find counter arguments and compare them. Also, many of the sources involved how terrorists are using the media as propaganda and how they actually go on to create the videos and brainwash young people however, again none of them concentrated on the breach of privacy to protect the state.

[1] Vinay Lal, “Terror and its Networks: Disappearing trails in cyberspace”

<www.nautilus.org/archives/virtual-diasporas/paper/Lal.html> accessed 31st January 2018

[2] Gabriel Weinnman Terror on the internet (2006, 1st edn, US Institute of Peace Press) 98

[3] Human Rights Act 2010, Article 8

[4] Martin Scheinin, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/13session/A-HRC-13-37.pdf> accessed 20th February 2018 (United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, 2009) 5

[5] United Nations Human Rights, Safeguard privacy while countering terrorism.

<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/CounterTerrorismAndPrivacy.aspx>( Office of the High Commissioner)2010 accessed 20th February 2018

[6] Ibid

[7] Thomas Hammarberg Human Rights in Europe, no grounds for complacency (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, 2011)

< https://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/source/prems/HR-Europe-no-grounds-complacency_en.pdf#page=273> accessed 15th February 2018

[8] Ibid

[9] Steve Furnell & Matthew Warren. Computer Hacking and Cyber Terrorism: The Real Threats in the New Millennium (Computers and Security 18(1) 2000) 54

[10] Timothy Thomas Al Qaeda and the Internet: The Danger of Cyberplanning Parameters Spring. <http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03spring/thomas.htm> accessed 10th March 2018

[11] Ibid (n 1) 54

[12] Richards Rogers Operating Issue Networks on the Web (Science as Culture 2002) 191

[13] Michele Zanini Middle Eastern Terrorism and Netwar (Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 1999) 22(3)

[14] David Anderson Report of the Bulk Powers (independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation 2017) 171

[15] Ibid Case A9/4

[16]Anderson, Ibid (n 14) Case A9/8

[17] Anderson, Ibid (n 14)  173

[18] Amitai Etzioni, “seeking middle ground of privacy vs security” <https://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1015/p11s02-coop.html> accessed 12th March 2018

[19] Ibid

[20] Kim Ztter, “Snoopware: New Technologies, Laws threaten Privacy,” PC World, March 2002 <www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,78070,00.asp> accessed 21st March 2018

[21] Aumeeruddy Cziffra and others v Mauritius (2000) AHRLR

[22] Klass v Germany [1978] ECHR 4

[23] Ibid

[24] Lachmayer, Konrad The Challenge to Privacy from Ever Increasing State Surveillance: A Comparative Perspective (UNSWLawJl 282014) 37(2) 54

[25] Nadina Foggetti 2009, Cyber-terrorism and the right to privacy in the third pillar perspectives <https://journals.muni.cz/mujlt/article/view/2547>  accessed 10th March 2018

[26] Human rights and the fight against terrorism (The Council of Europe Guidelines 2015) <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Pub_coe_Guidelines_terrorism_2005_ENG.pdf> accessed 21st March 2018

[27] Haralambie v Romania [2009]

[28] Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign Commonwealth Affairs & Ors [2017]

[29] Wilberg v Hyatt

[30] Liberty’s summary of the Investigatory Powers Bill for second reading in the House of Common (liberty protecting civil liberties and Promoting Human Rights) <https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Liberty%27s%20summary%20of%20the%20Investigatory%20Powers%20Bill%20for%20Second%20Reading%20in%20the%20House%20of%20Commons.pdf> accessed 18th March 2018

[31] Anderson Ibid (n 14) 17

[32] Anderson Ibid (n 14) 18

[33] Security council resolution s/RES/1963, preamble

<http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/monthly-forecast/2018-02/counter-terrorism_15.php> accessed 21st March 2018

[34] Forgetti Ibid (n 18)  55

[35]Khan v Chief Constable of West Midlands EWCA Civ 53, [2000]

[36] Popp R  Countering terrorism through information and privacy protection technologies, (IEEE computer society, security and privacy 2006) 19

[37] Hammaberg, T. 2008, protecting the right to privacy in the fight against terrorism. <www.wcd.coe.int/view.coe.int/view doc.jsp?id=1469161> accessed 15th March 2018

[38] Liberty and others v The United Kingdom ( 2008)

[39] David Freary Privacy vs Protection: should governments have the power to access our personal data?

<https://prestudentconversation.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/privacy-vs-protection-should-governments-have-the-power-to-access-our-personal-data/> accessed 21st March 2018

[40] Lindsey Wade, Terrorism and the internet (Knowledge, Technology and Policy 16 (1):104-127 2003)85

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

All Tags

Content relating to: "Terrorism"

Related Articles

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this dissertation and no longer wish to have your work published on the UKDiss.com website then please: