Ever since Edward Snowden disclosed the intelligence practices of both the American National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ), more and more information has been coming to light about their spying, hacking, and intelligence gathering methods. 

The UK government is conducting a full scale review of GCHQ and its powers, whilst many private and public sector campaigning groups have put pressure on various government organisations to investigate GCHQ further, and have gained large amounts of public support for doing so. This initially led to the setting up of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which is now responsible for dealing with complaints from individuals, charities, and other groups about intelligence agencies.

So far, the IPT has conducted a review of GCHQ, related specifically to its data sharing practices with the NSA, and the extent of its intelligence powers. Although the final outcome of this review has already been published, new information about the details of their judgement is still coming to light. This week, it has been revealed by the IPT that GCHQ spied on a number of different charities, pressure groups, and anti-spying campaigns, including Amnesty International, one of the world's largest charities. 

GCHQ retained information related to Amnesty International, and many other charities including the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and the South African Legal Resources Centre, for longer than is permitted by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Under this act, intelligence agencies are only allowed to retain information gathered from intelligence practices for a limited time, if it is not used in connection with a criminal case. However, the IPT has not revealed when or why these charities were spied on by GCHQ in the first place. This, coupled with the fact that the charities in question would not have known they were spied on had it not been for GCHQ breaking the law, has angered many people in the charity sector. 

This revelation could spark further public outrage and debate about the organisation and its intelligence practices, and the charities involved are now calling for a separate public review into why this happened in the first place.