A/HRC/13/37 searches of the media if there are “special reasonable grounds” that the information has “substantial value” in an anti-terrorism investigation.49 The Special Rapporteur stresses that the legitimate interest in the disclosure of confidential materials of journalists outweighs the public interest in the non-disclosure only where an overriding need for disclosure is proved, the circumstances are of a sufficiently vital and serious nature and the necessity of the disclosure is identified as responding to a pressing social need.50 36. The rights to freedom of association and assembly are also threatened by the use of surveillance. These freedoms often require private meetings and communications to allow people to organize in the face of Governments or other powerful actors. Expanded surveillance powers have sometimes led to a “function creep”, when police or intelligence agencies have labelled other groups as terrorists in order to allow the use of surveillance powers which were given only for the fight against terrorism. In the United States, environmental and other peaceful protestors were placed on terrorist watch lists by the Maryland State Police before political conventions in New York and Denver.51 In the United Kingdom, surveillance cameras are commonly used for political protests and images kept in a database.52 A recent poll in the United Kingdom found that one third of individuals were disinclined to participate in protests because of concern about their privacy.53 37. Freedom of movement can also be substantially affected by surveillance. The creation of secret watch lists, excessive data collection and sharing and imposition of intrusive scanning devices or biometrics, all create extra barriers to mobility. As described in previous sections, there has been a substantial increase in the collection of information about people travelling both nationally and internationally. Information is routinely shared and used to develop watch lists that have led to new barriers to travel. When profiles and watch lists are developed using information from a variety of sources with varying reliability, individuals may have no knowledge of the source of the information, may not question the veracity of this information, and have no right to contest any conclusions drawn by foreign authorities. A mosaic of data assembled from multiple databases may cause data-mining algorithms to identify innocent people as threats.54 If persons are prohibited from leaving a country, the State must provide information on the reasons requiring the restriction on freedom of movement. Otherwise, the State is likely to violate article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.55 38. One of the most serious effects of surveillance measures is that they may lead to miscarriages of justice and violate due process guarantees. The challenge of gaining access to judicial review is that some legal regimes may prevent access to the courts unless individuals can show that interference has taken place, which is precluded by the secretive 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 14 Anti-terrorism Act, third schedule, para. 8. See also recommendation No. R (2000) 7, of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to member States on the right of journalists not to disclose their sources of information and Ontario Superior Court of Justice, O’Neill v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006, para. 163. See L. Rein and J. White, “More groups than thought monitored in police spying”, The Washington Post, 4 January 2009. See P. Lewis and M. Vallée, “Revealed: police databank on thousands of protesters”, The Guardian, 6 March 2009. See A. Jha and J. Randerson, “Poll shows public disquiet about policing at environmental protests”, The Guardian, 25 August 2009. See United States National Research Council, Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists: A Framework for Assessment, Committee on Technical and Privacy Dimensions of Information for Terrorism Prevention and Other National Goals, October 2008. See, similarly, Human Rights Committee, B. Zoolfia v. Uzbekistan, communication No. 1585/2007, 2009, para. 8.3. GE.09-17804