Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Your Rights Online

Seven ISPs Take Legal Action Against GCHQ 65

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the ways-to-get-on-a-watch-list dept.
mrspoonsi (2955715) writes with this excerpt from the BBC: ISPs from the U.S., UK, Netherlands, and South Korea have joined forces with campaigners Privacy International to take GCHQ to task over alleged attacks on network infrastructure. It is the first time that GCHQ has faced such action. The ISPs claim that alleged network attacks, outlined in a series of articles in Der Spiegel and the Intercept, were illegal and "undermine the goodwill the organizations rely on." The complaint (PDF).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Seven ISPs Take Legal Action Against GCHQ

Comments Filter:
  • Well now. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Good luck with that.

    • Yes, I offer them Good Luck too.

      We should reward companies for the things that they do well, and for the good.
      Punish them for the things that they do bad. All Carrot or all Stick approach doesn't work.

      • ...All Carrot or all Stick approach doesn't work.

        And the carrot stick approach is pretty useless also...
        unless you're trying to get rid of ranch dressing!

  • by Joe Gillian (3683399) on Wednesday July 02, 2014 @09:00AM (#47367757)

    From the article, it seems like the only ISP that was named in the Snowden leaks as being a target of NSA/GCHQ data collection was Belgacom, a Belgian ISP. I'm not sure how the law works in the UK, but in the US, all of the suits against the NSA so far have failed because the NSA can refuse to provide evidence. The only ISP they have direct evidence for is Belgacom, which does not appear to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If GCHQ can withhold evidence, how do they plan to prove that they were targeted?

    • by Sique (173459) on Wednesday July 02, 2014 @09:10AM (#47367827) Homepage
      No, Belgacom was only the attack vector to get the malware up and running. From there, other providers were attacked under the disguise of Belgacom. For instance, the german exchange points DE-CIX and ECIX were attacked, thus all providers with facilities there are victims to the attack.
    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      The standard of proof is "on the balance of probabilities", so with the Snowden files, some customer testimonials and some accounting data the onus would very much be on GCHQ to prove their innocence.

      Chances are they will try to wriggle out of it on some other grounds, rather than mount a defence.

      • by AHuxley (892839)
        Re "Chances are they will try to wriggle out of it on some other grounds, rather than mount a defence."
        Thats the classic way.
        The UK gov will take any cleared staff or past cleared staff, press, academics to court, expose some aspect of their lives to a tame, friendly press then just drop the case.
        The UK gov will have not confirmed any material in open court but ensured any further statements by cleared staff or past cleared staff, press, academics will be seen along side the new spin.
        Sealed courts do
  • But but but... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "We're GCHQ and are therefore free to act in any way we see fit."

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "We are above the law, it's to keep the peons under our control NOT vice versa."

      • by Anonymous Coward

        GCHQ: Outside the government, beyond the police. tagline suits them well.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    So, guys, any of you want to give your take on this?

    Go on - present your case on its merits.

    Thought not.

Uncompensated overtime? Just Say No.

Working...