Some more information on the legal action here [1]<p>The action makes repeated reference to the European Convention of Human Rights, and UK lawyers have already questioned [2] the legality of revelations around GCHQ's activities in relation to ECHR.<p>The current legislation [3] covering GCHQ's activities is from 1994.<p>1: <a href="https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog/stop-breaking-the-internet-internet-and-communications-service-providers-take-legal-action" rel="nofollow">https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog/stop-breaking-the-...</a><p>2: <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/28/gchq-mass-surveillance-spying-law-lawyer" rel="nofollow">http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/28/gchq-mass-sur...</a><p>3: <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/crossheading/the-secret-intelligence-service" rel="nofollow">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/crossheading/the...</a>
"While the ISPs taking the action were not directly named in the leaked Snowden documents..."<p>Does the UK have the same legal concept of "standing" as the US does?<p>"In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law." [1]<p>The US government often uses the absence of (or the secrecy of) proof of <i>direct</i> harm to a person or agency to have the complaint quashed before it can ever really be argued.<p>[1] <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)" rel="nofollow">http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)</a>