According to the latest decision of the Dutch court, although the country’s government cannot spy on its citizens over the Internet, it still can use information stolen from them by the US spooks.

The local court has recently ruled that intelligence services re able to receive bulk information that might have been obtained by the American NSA via mass data interception programs, despite the fact that collecting information that way is against the Dutch law.

A civil case was launched by a coalition of defense lawyers, privacy advocates and journalists – all of them were trying to sue the Dutch government and asked for a court order to stop the agencies from obtaining information from foreign intelligence outfits that could not be obtained under the European and Dutch law.

The plaintiffs claim that the mass data collection programs of the National Security Agency of the Unites States violate human rights that are guaranteed to everyone by both international and European treaties including the European Convention on Human Rights.

Nevertheless, the court decided that under Dutch law, the local intelligence services can collaborate with the NSA, which in turn is bound by American law that doesn’t conflict with the human rights convention privacy requirements.

The court pointed out that given that raw information is shared in bulk, less stringent safeguards are required than would apply when the information is examined and used. In addition, the court believes that there would be a big difference between receiving information and using it for individual cases.

This court decision was delivered on general grounds, i.e. the actions of the state were assessed in general. The suggestions are that the result could be different when some individual lawsuits or complaints were filed. Of course, the lawyers who brought the case didn’t like the explanation. The called it “incomprehensible” and issued a statement saying that innocent citizens’ privacy rights should prevail over the interests of surveillance agencies. They also explain that since the information exchanged in bulk involves data on many innocent people, more stringent safeguards are required. The lawyers claimed that they would appeal the ruling.