A British intelligence watchdog defended the country's mass collection of private communications, calling the practice "essential," though the group said the legal framework is too complicated and lacks transparency.
The report by Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) says that British intelligence agencies fully complied with existing laws in their bulk collection of data, claiming it was necessary, as it helped to prevent terrorist and cyber attacks, reported The Washington Post.
The committee launched the investigation following disclosures by Edward Snowden in 2013, which revealed details of U.K. and U.S. mass surveillance operations.
According to the report, only a "tiny" amount of data collected is actually ever seen by human eyes.
ISC said intelligence agencies "do not seek to circumvent the law" and are required to obtain "specific authorization" from a cabinet member before spying on any civilians in the U.K.
"Only the communications of suspected criminals or national security targets are deliberately selected for examination," the report said.
Britain's top spy agency, GCHQ, which intercepts all private communications conducted in the country, doesn't use its powers for unlawful purposes, according to ISC.
In February, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal found that the Cheltenham-based national listening station had illegally collected data for seven years, reported RT.
But the ISC believes that since GCHQ targets and filters all collected data, "it does not equate to blanket surveillance, nor does it equate to indiscriminate surveillance."
Further, GCHQ cannot examine any communications without first obtaining a "specific authorization naming that individual, signed by a secretary of state [minister]," ISC said, adding, "Nevertheless, there is more that could and should be done."
"While we accept that they need to operate in secret if they are to be able to protect us from those who are plotting in secret to harm us, the government must make every effort to ensure that information is placed in the public domain when it is safe to do so," the committee said.
Some staff members have been disciplined and even dismissed for "inappropriately accessing personal information" in recent years, the report noted.
The report also criticized the legal framework surrounding the surveillance program, saying it "lacks transparency" and is "unnecessarily complicated."
Lawmakers should introduce a single law to regulate U.K. intelligence services and their collection of private communications data, ISC said.
Jodie Ginsberg, the chief executive of Index on Censorship, told The Washington Post that she was "dismayed that the committee has accepted the premise that bulk collection of data does not constitute mass surveillance."
"It does," she added. "Bulk and indiscriminate collection of data poses a serious and severe threat to our civil liberties, including our rights to free expression and to privacy."
