海角大神

The general and indiscriminate collection and storage of data such as internet search histories and usage of messages and apps is not justifiable in a democratic society, Europe's highest court ruled Wednesday.

The decision by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg is a defeat to Britain鈥檚 new cyber-surveillance law, which requires telecommunications companies to keep records and web activity of Britons for one year, and allows government officials unprecedented access to this database. The 15-judge panel found it unlawful for European governments to force communication companies to retain all user data, presenting challenges for laws such as Britain's Investigatory Powers Act, which gave such access to a range of departments聽鈥� one of several countries wrestling with security and聽privacy聽concerns amid terrorist threats that some argue demand more data tracking.

The high court's decision stems from a legal challenge in Britain over the law, which opponents dubbed the "snooper's charter." The Investigatory Powers Act was first introduced in聽British parliament in May 2015 to replace the expiring Data Retention Investigatory Powers Act. One part of the legislation required telecommunications companies to create a database of websites Britons visited and messages and apps they used. This information would remain in a database officials could access for up to a year. Excluded from the database, however, were specific pages Britons visited or the contents of the messages they sent.

But British politicians David Davis and Tom Watson, backed by civil liberties groups, challenged the legality of the law. They won that legal challenge in the British High Court, but the government appealed the decision and the case was referred to the European Court of Justice.

In its summary ruling, the Luxembourg court found electronic communications allow 鈥渧ery precise conclusions to be drawn concerning the whose data has been retained,鈥� as The Guardian reported.

鈥淭he fact that the data is retained without the users of electronic communications services being informed of the fact is likely to cause the persons concerned to feel that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance,鈥� wrote the court. 鈥淟egislation prescribing a general and indiscriminate retention of data 鈥� exceeds the limits of what is strictly necessary and cannot be considered to be justified within a democratic society.鈥�

Instead, the court said only 鈥渇ighting serious crime鈥� such as terrorism could justify such state interference. In that case, officials must request a court or independent body authorize the access of such data.

The case will now return to a British court of appeal to resolve the country鈥檚 cyber-surveillance law.

In the ECJ case, lawyers for the British government argued cyber-communications have been central to recent terror investigations.聽British Home Secretary Amber Rudd put forth a similar argument when she described the purpose of the law in November, after the bill received Royal Assent.

鈥淎t a time of heightened security threat, it is essential our law enforcement, security and intelligence services ,鈥� Secretary Rudd said, adding that the internet 鈥減resents new opportunities for terrorists鈥� that the country must now address.

But Liberty, the civil liberties group that backed the legal challenge, said the ruling meant Britain鈥檚 law must be changed right away.

鈥淭oday鈥檚 judgement upholds the rights of ordinary British people not to have their personal lives spied on without good reason or an independent warrant,鈥� said Liberty director Martha Spurrier.

The ruling applies to聽the British law as long as the Kingdom remains a member of the European Union. But once the government carries through with a successful referendum to leave the EU, the ruling could become merely 鈥渁cademic鈥� in the privacy vs. security debate, according to The Guardian.

The ruling comes at a time when Europe and the United States are testing the boundaries of surveillance to thwart perceived terrorist attacks.

鈥淚n the wake of the [Paris attack] that left 130 dead, European governments bemoaned an intelligence 鈥榖lack hole鈥� stemming from countries failing to share intelligence. Now, lawmakers are considering ways of enhancing surveillance practices and rethinking many privacy safeguards designed to prevent pervasive data tracking and collection across Europe,鈥� Rachel Stern reported for 海角大神 in February.

Such considerations have included governments having a so-called 鈥渕aster key that officials could use to unlock encrypted communications to disrupt terrorists鈥� use of the Internet,鈥� an idea harshly criticized by digital rights and civil liberties groups.

Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, offered a similar argument in refusing to comply with the US government's order to unlock the iPhone of Syed Rizwan Farook, who, with his wife, killed 14 people in an attack in San Bernardino, California last December.

If Apple built the software to do so, it would risk creating an unacceptable "master key," Mr. Cook said, compromising the encryption of all the company's devices.

This report contains material from Reuters and the Associated Press.