ISPs take legal action against GCHQ

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&#x27;s activities in relation to ECHR.<p>The current legislation [3] covering GCHQ&#x27;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:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.privacyinternational.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;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:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;uk-news&#x2F;2014&#x2F;jan&#x2F;28&#x2F;gchq-mass-sur...</a><p>3: <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/crossheading/the-secret-intelligence-service" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.legislation.gov.uk&#x2F;ukpga&#x2F;1994&#x2F;13&#x2F;crossheading&#x2F;the...</a>

&quot;While the ISPs taking the action were not directly named in the leaked Snowden documents...&quot;<p>Does the UK have the same legal concept of &quot;standing&quot; as the US does?<p>&quot;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&#x2F;she&#x2F;it is or will &quot;imminently&quot; be harmed by the law.&quot; [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:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Standing_(law)</a>

Great work by all involved.<p>Shameful that larger ISPs are not taking similar action.