BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT Farr, the Director-General of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (“OSCT”) at the Home Office, which explained that the statutory framework set out in those Acts was underpinned by detailed internal guidance, including arrangements for securing that the services only obtained the information necessary for the proper discharge of their functions. He further indicated that staff received mandatory training on the legal and policy framework in which they operated, including clear instructions on the need for strict adherence to the law and internal guidance. Finally, he stated that the full details of the arrangements were confidential since they could not be published safely without undermining the interests of national security. 41. The IPT acknowledged that as the arrangements were not made known to the public, even in summary form, they were not accessible. However, the IPT considered it significant that the arrangements were subject to oversight and investigation by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (“the ISC”) and the independent Interception of Communications Commissioner (“the IC Commissioner”). Furthermore, it itself was in a position to provide oversight, having access to all secret information, and being able to adjourn into closed hearing to assess whether the arrangements referred to by Mr Farr existed and were capable of giving the individual protection against arbitrary interference. 42. Having considered the “below the waterline” arrangements, the IPT was satisfied that the 9 October disclosure (as subsequently amended – see paragraphs 33 and 36 above) provided a clear and accurate summary of that part of the evidence given in the closed hearing, and that the rest of the evidence given in closed hearing was too sensitive for disclosure without risk to national security or to the “neither confirm nor deny” principle. It was further satisfied that the preconditions for requesting information from the Government of the United States of America were clear: there had to exist either a section 8(1) warrant, or a section 8(4) warrant within whose ambit the proposed target’s communications fell, together, if the individual was known to be in the British Islands, with a section 16(3) modification (see paragraph 86 below). Any request pursuant to PRISM or Upstream in respect of intercept or communications data was therefore subject to the RIPA regime, unless it fell within the wholly exceptional scenario outlined in 1(b) of the material disclosed after the first hearing. However, a 1(b) request had never occurred. 43. The IPT nevertheless identified the following “matter of concern”: “Although it is the case that any request for, or receipt of, intercept or communications data pursuant to Prism and/or Upstream is ordinarily subject to the same safeguards as in a case where intercept or communication data are obtained directly by the Respondents, if there were a 1(b) request, albeit that such request must go to the Secretary of State, and that any material so obtained must be dealt with pursuant to RIPA, there is the possibility that the s.16 protection might not apply. As already indicated, no 1(b) request has in fact ever occurred, and there has thus been no 11