The swath of these intercepted communications, were sometimes simple mass-PR emails sent to dozens of journalists but also included correspondence between reporters and editors discussing stories. These transmissions were retained by GCHQ and were available to all cleared staff on the agency intranet. It is not known if any journalists were intentionally targeted. New evidence revealed by Snowden, from the UK intelligence documents, shows that a GCHQ information security assessment listed “investigative journalists” as a threat in a hierarchy alongside terrorists or hackers. Senior editors and lawyers in the UK have called for the urgent introduction of a freedom of expression law amid growing concern over over reaching laws and concerns over the police use of surveillance powers linked to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa). Over 100 editors, have signed a letter, coordinated by the Society of Editors and Press Gazette, to the UK prime minister, David Cameron, protesting at snooping on journalists’ communications. Since the terror attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices and a Jewish grocer in Paris, Cameron has become emboldened to further bulk-surveillance powers. Ripa has been used to access journalists’ communications without a warrant, including cases of police accessing the phone records of the Sun’s political editor, Tom Newton-Dunn, specifically over the Plebgate investigation. GCHQ information security assessments, routinely list journalists between “terrorism” and “hackers” as “influencing threat sources”, with one matrix scoring journalists as having a “capability” score of two out of five, and a “priority” of three out of five, scoring an overall “low” information security risk. Terrorists, listed immediately above investigative journalists on the document, were given a much higher “capability” score of four out of five, but a lower “priority” of two. The matrix concluded terrorists were therefore a “moderate” information security risk. A spokesman for GCHQ said: “All our operational processes rigorously support this position. In addition, the UK’s interception regime is entirely compatible with the European convention on human rights.”
