NSA PRISM-gate: Relax, GCHQ spooks 'keep us safe', says Cameron British intelligence agencies have broken no laws and are subject to "proper" parliamentary scrutiny, Prime Minister David Cameron insisted today as the NSA PRISM scandal reached Blighty. He was forced to defend Brit spooks following allegations that UK eavesdropping nerve-centre GCHQ had access to the Americans' controversial …
If we think about it in terms of receiving a letter through The Royal Mail, what GCHQ are doing (using NSA as the Proxy) is intercepting a letter sent to us, reading it, then passing it on to us.
I'm more than sure if this example was peddled in the media, more people would take notice of this and see how serious this is to our freedom. We live in a country where it's supposed to be "Innocent until proven guilty". But right now, with this snooping, it's almost as if the Government need to prove we're innocent to themselves, and retry us a number of times after that to make sure.
It's also shocking to see the apathetic attitude the country is having towards this. Seems more people are worried about eating Black Beauty than Big Brother looking at their emails.
True, but I've always told people not to put anything in an email that they wouldn't feel comfortable writing on a postcard.
I wonder how many terrorist plots have been genuinely uncovered in this way (as opposed to monitoring existing 'people of interest'). It would take a really dim terrorist (of which, admittedly, there appears to be no great shortage) to send "I've got all the Semtex we need for the bomb" in an email. Surely you'd arrange for an apparently innocuous code: "All the guests have been invited to the wedding", or some such.
Now now, the NSA are not reading the letter.
They're intercepting the letter, opening it, photographing the contents, scanning it for OCR for text-based indexing and saving metadata about who the envelope says sent and received it, how many words there are, topic domains and so on for searching, then carefully sealing the photographs away, unread by humans.
If a later search across the metadata suggests there might be something, or if a full-text indexed search suggests there might be something, then they have evidence with which to establish probable cause to get a warrant to unseal the photographs of the letter you sent. Because they've successfully argued to the Star Chamber, er I mean FISA, that the interception doesn't _really_ take place until a human looks at the photos, they argue that this is all legal and compliant with the US Constitution.
And folks? Echelon has for decades operated on the principle of "we spy on your folks, you spy on our folks, neither breaks the letter of the law and then we just hand over the data to each other", in the USA treating the US Fourth Amendment as an inconvenient problem to be worked around, and the Bill of Rights as a subject of contempt, instead of something to be safeguarded.
The difference is that with PATRIOT the NSA was able to start cutting out the middle-man. If GCHQ are still involved at all then it's just because the NSA don't want to burn any bridges and want an ally to fall back on if PATRIOT ever gets repealed and they have to go back to the Old Ways.
Good to see The Guardian continuing this battle. It was 20 years ago that I first read (in The Observer?) about the Echelon stuff, and the British "Class Warrants".
Seriously, if folks in the UK are going to get upset, you should be upset about the continued existence and use (and lack of repeal) of Class Warrants. What is it, 98+% of the UK population covered under Class Warrants that have never been repealed? So if you own or have ever owned a motorcycle, then as a Dangerous Person the UK security services don't _need_ an individual warrant for you. You're already covered under a Class Warrant.
This post has been deleted by its author
NSA: hi GCHQ You might want to ask us if we have any information on Abdul Smith.
GCHQ: hi NSA, do you have any information on Abdul Smith?
NSA: Come to think of it, yes we do, would you like it?
GCHQ: yes please NSA.
10 minutes later.
NSA: hi GCHQ, do you have any information on Abdul Smith?
GCHQ: what a coincidence that you ask, we do, would you like it?
NSA: Now that would be fantastic GCHQ, yes please.
How to circumvent the safeguards.
Confused? They try to make you.
From previous experience working in Northern Ireland:
Do you have any information on Abdul Smith?
Well we have some on an Anabel Smith will that do?
Yes it's a 50% match - we will call that confirmation
One home grown soundex matching system we saw matched any Al/Ali to Alistair, this avoided any confusion between Alistair/Alisdair but didn't rather hamper their ablity to deal with any persons of middle-eastern origin
Now is the time to start asking questions,
Hold on, back in a minute there's someone at the door...
AAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggg. Uuuuuuuh................
How Governments suppress free speech, whatever you do don't have a sports bag/holdall/suitcase in your house.
You're mistaken. "Innocent until proven guilty" stems from "Presumption of innocence". In Common Law, this means that the accuser must prove that the accused is guilty with fact. The accused doesn't have to prove their innocence.
And in any case, the accused must first be accused of the crime for them to be then proved they are guilty. If they are snooping on everyone (which is probably the case - tuna fishing before people cared about dolphins) then they are either not informing these people they are accused of a crime, or these people haven't committed a crime in the first place but the government want the data. So, it is the letter example yet again. They're reading it, they don't particularly care about the contents unless it says something they don't like, and hand it back to you without you knowing.
Little Willie was on telly last night, carefully avoiding answering anything and blathering the usual 'Ministerial Bingo' quotes. He didn't actually say that either GCHQ or NSA or both were not giving head to servers.
I was far more concerned after the interview than before.
The constant drive from government to ensure everyone has "fast" internet just encourages more and more of us to use the internet as our primary form of communication. As "citizens" do their communication, purchasing, and even social interaction through one "pipe" it makes life so much easier for the state to keep tabs on us and also to restrict what information we have access to. The cynic in me says that this is exactly why governments are so intent on rolling out fast connections to everyone.
"If the British intelligence agencies are seeking to know the content of emails about people living in the United Kingdom, then they have to get authority. That means ministerial authority," he said.UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said on Sunday that law-abiding Brits had "nothing to fear".
The point is, Dave, they can just ask the NSA who, by inference, do the snooping for British Intelligence, without oversight or "ministerial authority ".
""If the British intelligence agencies are seeking to know the content of emails about people living in the United Kingdom, then they have to get authority. That means ministerial authority," he said."
and he never went any further than that.
Other than laughing at the merest suggestion that Mr 15Pints himself might not know what was going on.
So let me get this right. If GCHQ want's to know the content of emails about people living in the United Kingdom it just has to say "Please Minister can we have authority to know the content of emails abut people living in the United Kingdom" and the minister says "Yes, of course you can have authority to know the content of emails about people living in the UK," and that's it. Note "about" and not "of", "to" or "from".
"....If GCHQ want's to know the content of emails about people living in the United Kingdom...." Not quite. They are not allowed blanket cover for just any and all people, they have to be very specific in their requests and provide reasonable cause, politicians being very shy of giving the go-ahead for a spy op that could land them with bad press or time at one of HMG's prisons. In fact, the biggest brake on the whole system does appear to be the desire of politicans to avoid bad press and/or jailtime. This works because they can never be sure they won't be replaced by their less-than-friendly political rivals after an election (or even a cabinet reshuffle), leaving them at the mercy of said rivals if they have authorised any intercepts without due process. Forget the Official Secrets Act - if the incoming minister finds dirt on his predecessor they will leak it to a friendly journo for political gain.
This also undermines the other sheeple recipricol services bleat that we would simply ask the Yanks and they would in turn ask us to spy on eact other's citizens - how do we give the Yanks the info if we don't have it? We would have to go ask the minister before we could get the data to give the Yanks, and by the looks of it the CIA/NSA would have to go through their due process before passing any info to us, which kinda makes the recipricol angle sound like more conspiracy bleatings.
If I remember correctly, it was Michael Hestletine, who when a Minister, signed a document that stated it was ok to withold evidence that would prove the innocence of some company directors accused of supplying 'weapons parts' to Saddam Hussein. The supply of those parts had been carried out with the full knowledge of the UK security services, after the directors had raised their concerns about the contract with them.
His reason for signing the document was, "A senior civil servant told me that I had to sign it."
So, will Ministers act with probity, morality and good intentions?
"So let me get this right."
Sure: If they want to go to court with it, they could do that. Or they could cut the paperwork and ask the NSA if the NSA have anything... which they will have via interception. Then the NSA hand it over and GCHQ will have harvested from a legitimate and legal source... but of course can't be told where it came from because sources are protected.
Everyone's ass is covered. And once there's enough data to consider prosecution, THEN they can go about getting UK governmental approval for the intercepts.
I doubt it. The law is extremely clear hear, it does not depend upon interpretation or who is doing the collecting, if (UK) intelligence agencies need to see the data for a (UK) resident, they must have ministerial approval.
I'd imagine that in most scenarios the approval would be forthcoming though.
@Tom 38
There is a world of difference between arranging interception of a UK citizen's comms on UK infrastructure and asking the NSA if they have any info. One takes a lot of arranging and cooperation between a number of companies / agencies / people, while the other is a phone call between an MI5 spook and an NSA spook.
Are we to seriously to believe that they bother with "ministerial authority " for these nod and wink exchanges?
".....One takes a lot of arranging and cooperation between a number of companies / agencies / people, while the other is a phone call between an MI5 spook and an NSA spook....." Yeah, that's right, anyone in the UK services can pick up the phone and dial Langley and just ask to be put through to the bod that deals with subject X - seriously? There is a massive amount of safeguards and checks on who has access to what data in the UK and sharing data between British agencies, let alone handing it over to foreign ones. Yes, it does happen, but not off the back of a casual telephone call, and in line with a formal process and limited access list. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not like when M dials up Langley in "Quantum of Solice".
".....One takes a lot of arranging and cooperation between a number of companies / agencies / people, while the other is a phone call between an MI5 spook and an NSA spook....." Yeah, that's right, anyone in the UK services can pick up the phone and dial Langley and just ask to be put through to the bod that deals with subject X - seriously? There is a massive amount of safeguards and checks on who has access to what data in the UK and sharing data between British agencies, let alone handing it over to foreign ones. Yes, it does happen, but not off the back of a casual telephone call, and in line with a formal process and limited access list. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not like when M dials up Langley in "Quantum of Solice".
Says the man who doesn't know the difference between the NSA and Langley. Langley is the CIA, whilst Fort Meade is the NSA. So, if I wanted information from the NSA, you're right I wouldn't just call Langley; I'd call Fort Meade!!
Is the real reason that all the nine US companies that have blatantly given the NSA access to their systems are denying it is that EU law prohibits this and admitting it would most likely see them hauled up before some (e.g., German) privacy regulators and fined most likely billions over this systematic breach of privacy?
It might be OK by US law, but US companies have to also obey other countries' laws. This could see them fined quite a lot of money in many countries other than the US, should this start to be confirmed in a stand-up-in-court way.
>Is the real reason that all the nine US companies that have blatantly given the NSA access to their systems are denying it is that EU law prohibits this
Its even more basic than that. Not only does the NSA require them to give the information but it also requires that they deny giving the information including requiring lying to their customers and even investors. They even have laws to protect them in the US from liability. Granted that doesn't apply in the EU but if the EU presses the point then the US will get ugly once again to the EU and then all the UK readers can merkin bash on the article that will show up here. Never mind many in the US loathe our government as well.
Perhaps we are being unfair to these companies?
Perhaps they didn't know the NSA was spying on their data.
Perhaps Goole/Microsoft/Amazon/Facebook/Twitter/etc/etc security is so poor that anybody can walk into their data centers with a reel of fibre under their arm and a splitter and just patch into any of their systems.
> EU law prohibits this and admitting it would most likely see them hauled up
I'd like to see this situation cause the "Safe Harbor" (sic) provisions to be cancelled. The US very clearly does not have the same standard of data protection required by the DPA (and equivalents), so it seems a bit odd just to pretend it does...
Vic.
... the chairman of Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee, Malcolm Rifkind, hastily [announced] before the weekend that his panel of MPs expect a full report from GCHQ about PRISM imminently.
That'll be the same committee that only discovered last week that BT had signed up Huawei as a supplier eight years ago.
Sir Humphrey would be so proud of them.
So, what's a significant encroachment?
They only do this because they can. At no point have our governments tried to read all our meatspace post. Now we know why: not because it is a authoritarian and anti-democratic thing to do, but because it was too hard...
AGAIN, there are problems with this statement:
1. Classified programs operate based on an interpretation of the law. And because that interpretation happens outside the public's scope of knowledge, there is no public awareness to counteract the usual bureaucratic and political pressures towards the most authoritarian interpetation of the laws in question.
2. UK spooks operate within the law and don't look at UK internet/data traffic without ministerial approval. And that ministerial approval is classified, so only the spooks the the pols know what's going on. It's not like there is an annoucement that "due to a perceived threat, the PM has OK'd the monitoring of emails for half of Leeds", or "5 families in London", or a "select group of 89 potential terrorist sypathizers"
3. And GCHQ doesn't need to access Brit internet traffic directly. They can get the NSA to read emails/whatever for them and then give them a report on what they found. So now they aren't accessing Brit's data, just the report. Likewise the NSA can offshore it's domestic surveillance to the GCHQ. This kind of bending the meaning of words is why you had indignant tech execs saying "that we don't give the NSA DIRECT access to our servers". That's just legalese for "We copy a bunch of stuff for the NSA and put it into a data warehouse so that they don't slow down our servers and we can plead that there is no direct access"
1. ".....And because that interpretation happens outside the public's scope of knowledge....." Rubbish! Apart from the risk of whistleblowers or upset civil servants leaking to tame journos, politicians are always under the threat that they will be replaced at the next election by their political opponents who will think nothing of leaking their dirty laundry to a journo, regardless of the Official Secrets Act. Politicians are very wary of anything that could get them bad press and downright allergic to anything that could land them in jail, so the threat that their opponent could screw them over denies them the free hand you suggest.
2. Politicians are vulnerable to being replaced by other politicians that will leak their misdoings for political gain, so politicians are actually a good form of check as they hate anything that could land them with bad press or jailtime. So the politicians will not sanction illegal spook activity without at least confirming they have a legal defence. The thirty year rule etc only protects the dirty laundry both the government and opposition of the day want to keep hidden.
3. Complete cobblers. If the NSA/CIA made a request to our services they would have to go get ministerial approval to get the info the Yanks wanted, and if we went to the Yanks they would have to go through their approval process to do the same for us, so the idea they can negate the checks in place is simply stupid. Intelligence doesn't just magic itself out of thin air.
TBH, stick to marketing.
1. And yet, we have Congressmen like Jim Sensenbrenner, who helped write the Patriot act, and he is complaining about the abuse of the law. He anticipated that the act would streamline the gathering of intel on specific named individuals or groups for whom there was a suspicion that they might be sympathizing with or planning terror attacks. Not a datamart on the whole U.S. population including phone records, credit card transactions and internet activities
2. How does a pol who is not privy to the extent of these programs out another pol's support of these programs? I hate thieves and rapists, but since criminals don't make me privy to their activities I have yet to be able to name and shame one, much call the cops on them.
3. The U.S. FISA courts rarely, if ever, deny a warrant for this surveillance. Part of this is their place in the bureaucracy that performs this snooping. Part is also the bureaucratic rules around the FISA court. For instance, there is no "privacy counsel" that gets to put forward a case why a given warrant SHOULDN'T be granted. There is just the intel community putting forward their argument why the activity should be blessed. Legal protections for foreign citizens are even less. There isn't even FISA court oversight for them.
On a professional level, I will stick to Marketing. On a political level, it's my right (at least it was my right) as a citizen to oppose what I perceive to be unjust and intrusive governance.
"Complete cobblers. If the NSA/CIA made a request to our services they would have to go get ministerial approval..."
Toss, Matt. That's not how intel sharing works. The source is never specifically named not only to protect it, but also to side-step legal implications. GCHQ and NSA do things for each other that it'd be grossly illegal for each to do on their own citizens, then hand it over as intel advisories.
Lets see people will only be fired over this for it going public not for what they were doing which means in a few words, the bad guys have won. A handful of islamic terrorists have done what the USSR could not. They have successfully taken away some of our rights forever and the worst part is the public doesn't even care.
"....the bad guys have won...." What a completely moronic statement, only the most idiotic and blinkered sheeple could come up with such rubbish. Please go develop a sense of proportion, then go read up on the "liberties and freedoms" that were sacrificed during WW2 - ID cards, total mail intercepts, censorship. Do you want to suggest Hitler won then?
The difference is after WW2 the government was willing to give rights back. They could also demonstrate a clear and present danger and clear line of when the danger is past. Not some 100 year open war on terror (like the eternal War On Drugs ie war with Eurasia, always with Eurasia) whatever that means. If PRISM is so great how come they didn't see the Boston bombers even though the Russians all but told them. How come in the UK they didn't see the soldier butcher dudes? Seems to me its just another way for the government to have an information asymmetry over any potential threats such as politicians (Senator, etc) trying to do the right thing. Oh you want to shut us down. Ok lets see want to explain to the public all these calls to this woman who isn't your wife? That's a rare leak Obama wouldn't investigate.
The fact is you are more likely in the west to win the lottery almost than to die or be injured by an Islamic terrorist. IMHO people freak out more because of the economic panic than the actual violence. People are willing to piss away all kinds of rights in order to protect their pocketbook.
"The difference is after WW2 the government was willing to give rights back."
Like hell they were! You know that the only reason that we still don't have national ID cards is because a few years after the war someone actually said "Hold on: Why are we still legally obliged to carry this?!"
In some ways, Hitler might feel vindicated:
- Secret spying on every citizen: See, you do it too.
- Secret courts: See, you do it too.
- Extralegal vanishing and killing of state enemies: See you do it too.
He would even claim that he did it all he did, honestly, to keep his people safe from terrorists, communists and other destructive forces. Democracy cannot work if the people are left in the dark about the working of their government.
Here I agree with Obama: "[...]one of the things that we’re going to have to discuss and debate is how were we striking this balance between the need to keep the American people safe and our concerns about privacy, because there are some trade-offs involved. And I welcome this debate. And I think it’s healthy for our democracy."
I just wonder why some poor bloke has to risk his career and maybe ruin his life to start this discussion.
this is 'news'
Its not, its been going on for years, everyone spies on everyone else and then the 'nudge nudge wink wink' of heres the dirt on the bad guys you want living in the UK, if we get the dirt on the bad guys we want living in your country.
Its the nature of the business, and it always goes on behind closed doors.
Heck for all you know that weirdo geezer in the raincoat behind you on the bus home could be a NSA spook listening to your music selection via a backhole in the bluetooth on your mobile.
"But its my privacy.... " you wail.... best you stop posting the entire contents of your life on facebook then
Mr Hague is an honourable man and his statement: If the British intelligence agencies are seeking to know the content of emails about people living in the United Kingdom, then they have to get authority. seems pretty clear.
That statement makes no mention of how the information is obtained, so can we be happy, then, that ministerial approval would be required even if the source was outside the UK?
The history books will record the official downfall of the United States as during the W Bush / Obama turd sandwich. Obama is doing everything homeland bs security wise Bush did but on steroids. Even Bush didn't use the homeland security to go after copyright infringers. Stupid worthless Baby Boomers. F__k the village idiot W Bush and f__k Obama the Chicago hack.
In the US a century from now (assuming we still exist as this rate) in history class in school they will talk about the whole war on terror in the same terms of embarrassment and disgust they talk about the communist witch hunts, the real Salem witch hunts and even slavery and Jim Crow laws. I am sure white people in Mississippi in the 1940s had rationalized why the system should be able to execute black men for sleeping with white women just like today they have rationalized why the government should be allowed to spy on the population in ways Stalin could only dream of all in the name of our security.
What I love is how we are willing to change our laws and our whole way of life when a bunch of goat farmers got incredibly lucky due somewhat to our own negligence and killed 2,996 people. In 1889 a handful of super wealthy %1ers built a hunting lodge on lake with a dam poorly built which burst and killed nearly as many (2,209) people and very little changed and the people who were responsible got off scott free. The difference is it was poor people killing some rich people in 9/11 instead of the usual vice versa so of course it was unprecedented. I guess my point is not only are most fellow americans retarded at geography but their history knowledge is garbage as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood
And if you are honest with yourself, you will say there is NO DIFFERENCE.
BTW, in no way can you relate any of this crap back to the sacrifices our parents made during a "Real War" like WW2. Those were real, not imagined reasons for security.
Our collective governments have now done far more to violate our trust and civil rights than the "terrorists" have.
As I have said in previous posts, no amount of surveillance will ever stop the concerted efforts of a terrorist, especially a small cell of the self radicalized variety. If they don't brag and stay off the radar, they can't be easily caught.
The fact is that the "cure" is more harmful than the terrorists will be themselves.
I meta meta data; I don't (heart) control freaks and hucksters leading me around by the nose.
The biggest problem is not what the NSA knows, it is what Silicon Valley is telling them what they know without a shread of evidence their methods have validity.
Silicon Valley: For an extra penny per gigabyte we'll tell you who is wearing green socks today!!!!
NSA: Hmmmm green socks! That changes everything! Wait a minute, no it doesn't. Here's your penny.
Committee chairman Rifkind told BBC's Radio 4 that the current law about intercepting communications was "quite clear.".
"If the British intelligence agencies are seeking to know the content of emails about people living in the United Kingdom, then they have to get authority. That means ministerial authority," he said.
And if all they ask the US for is the header info - to/from/time? Wouldn't that be the same info the Snooper's Charter was supposed to allow them to collect directly in the UK?
It never rains but it pours .... Good (or bad) things do not just happen a few at a time, but in large numbers all at once, and all of the time in cyberspace if one knows what to do and what one is doing and where IT will lead to
The Chilcot Inquiry report, which is seriously long overdue, and those sorts of uncomfortably and increasingly difficult to plausibly justify delays almost always are surely a signature indication of desperate attempts at furious nobbling and crass and crashing perversions of the course of natural justice, will give all in the world a true picture of the state of psychotic and/or maniacal pussy leadership in politically incorrect terrorist cells in UKGBNI, and their dumb mainstreaming media support teams which would be complicit and accessories to violent acts, both before and after the facts?
It is nice to know though, and all of the evidence is clearly shared in the body of comments in this thread, that the strange workings of secret security intelligence services are safe and unknown, and known by only the few with needs to know.
And that last paragraph is surely a Rumsfeldism?:-) Enjoy and wonder as you ponder on these brainy quotes of his.
And is subversion, terrorism to pervert the course of natural justice and put in its place, a corrupt system of asset/man management to be run by a proxy team of para-military wannabe leader types/sub-prime clones and/or drones of the real thing, which obviously wouldn't be at all pleased with such an impertinence and would be both honour and duty bound to act as is necessary to right the wrong or suffer the dire consequences of what would be only classed as abject object and subject mis-rule? …….. globe trotting lunatics in charge of the asylum, always ends badly for asylum seeking globe trotting lunatics?. It is only natural and normal, and always to be fully expected, for it be universally supported by all but the criminally insane and/or moronic slow-witted and idiotic, and with Command and Control of IT and Media, is it just a tall tale and breaking news item away every day in a series of zeroday trades.
And now y'all know, what some who may be many in bands of a chosen few would rather you didn't know, so that the unknown rules the roost and reigns with reins and rains of imagined terror/manufactured hardships/austere programs?
And Intelligence Services make and rewrite the law and can fully justify the breaking of laws which are shown to be manifestly corrupt and self-serving to subversive regimes with oppressive inequitable support systems and right dodgy servers.
Welcome to the New Reality of Virtual Reality Programming for Future Perfect Present Imperfect Projects with AIdDefinite Vision ProVision Supply, which is GCHQ working to assure and ensure you are insured against all manner of foul and rank risk ... 4ur2die42 is IT all said in GBIrish CodeXSSXXXX .... and whenever not an exclusive western confection/London Pride, does its IT direction and support automatically autonomously default to an inclusive eastern delight/Shanghai Surprise ....... such be the Present Future Nature of SMARTR Realities.
All legal? Ok prove it!! Oh yeah you can't. Reassured by a professional truth-bender about something that can't be proven. I feel better now. Why not put a CCTV camera In everyone's front room( the innocent have nothing to fear). When Kim Jong-un was sabre-rattling last month, a common theme on the news was about how he (and his father) controlled North Korea by perpetuating a sense of fear in the population by repeatedly telling them they where under the threat of war. Seems to be quite a common approach.. If we didn't have the cold war and then the threat of terrorism, what would the US and UK governments spend all that tax money on? Do you think it is just a big protection racket?
So assume for a moment they are telling the truth and they are not using PRISM to bypass UK laws...
Surely they should be actively protecting us from the US invading our privacy? Give advice on what services are subject/suspected of being monitored by US authorities?
I'm making an active effort now to remove my data from US servers, and shift as much as possible to my own servers (of course with everything being cloudy this is nearly impossible)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
