UK Government Admits Intelligence Services Allowed To Break Into Any System 107
An anonymous reader writes Recently, Techdirt noted that the FBI may soon have permission to break into computers anywhere on the planet. It will come as no surprise to learn that the U.S.'s partner in crime, the UK, granted similar powers to its own intelligence services some time back. What's more unexpected is that it has now publicly said as much, as Privacy International explains: "The British Government has admitted its intelligence services have the broad power to hack into personal phones, computers, and communications networks, and claims they are legally justified to hack anyone, anywhere in the world, even if the target is not a threat to national security nor suspected of any crime." That important admission was made in what the UK government calls its "Open Response" to court cases started last year against GCHQ.
asdf (Score:5, Insightful)
Does it matter if the are allowed to or not? They would do it anyways. I mean, it's not like it being illegal has ever stopped them before.
Shining Examples of Western Democracy ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this what " Western Democracy " supposed to mean?
The United States of America and Great Britain, the two shining examples of Western Democracy, the two nations who go around the world criticizing other countries' 'human right abuses' --- themselves turn out to be nothing but motherfucking police states !
Or should the concept of " Western Democracy " supposed to be an inane joke?
It's a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I'd be very surprised.
I'm British. I like my "western, secular, demcocracy"
But then our governments have shown no sign of respecting any limits either.
I think we find ourselves today existing in a world where every power, will do whatever it can, and answers to nobody. I don't like it, I've seen the 'revelations' but none of us seem to have stepped up and prosecuted any hypocrisy.
Defending something should come with a cost.
Defending is supposed to be about making a stand.
If your justify your defending by ripping up your own rules, then you've tainted yourself forevermore.
Re: It's a joke. (Score:1)
Western citizens are kept fat and entertained so they don't feel the negative consequences of their government's actions. Only coloured people on the other side of the world breast the brunt of the injustice of your "Western secular democracy".
So long as you have your chips and pie and get to watch cable TV and videos of cats on YouTube, why should you care that your government's policies result in unspeakable misery for others around the world?
TL:DR; Fuck you you selfish ass.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the problems is that being able to hack into anyone's accounts is not a preserve of the intelligence agencies. Other people do, and will do it all the time.
I like my Western, secular democracy too.
Which limits exactly should our government respect, and which should they not?
Re: (Score:2)
Well... They had the constitution thing a while back, but then I think they ran out of toilet paper. They didn't realize in 1954 exactly how powerful occult self destruction really is.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the corner stones of democracy is that no-one has too much power. GCHQ clearly has too much and there is no balance, no ability for us to check or control them.
Re: (Score:2)
Or should the concept of " Western Democracy " supposed to be an inane joke?
It was made that way by the voters, who have decided to live in fear. There is nobody to blame but the fickle and submissive public.
Re: (Score:1)
Somebody else.
Re: (Score:1)
It's a race to the bottom.
In the US: "They have permission to X in the UK. We need those powers here in the US [passes legislation for X & Y]"
In the UK: "They have permission to Y in the US. We need those powers here in the UK [passes legislation for Y & Z]"
lather, rinse, repeat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, you're right, that doesn't matter because they break the law on a daily basis anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on whether the law is based on case law and precedents, or statutes. If the laws are based on what parliament passes as law (which is used in most countries under Roman law but perhaps not in the UK) then it would be a matter of looking at the relevant laws. Several centuries of history would not matter one whit if there was a new law passed that allowed it.
Re: (Score:3)
And the exception... Dutch judges are using international agreements to see if the laws are violating them. If they are, the plaintiffs will be released/compensated based on the international agreements as they are overriding national laws, especially when they are EU judicial guidelines.
So there is no constitution, but in the EU we are now getting a weird mix of Roman law and case law.
Re: (Score:1)
And the exception... Dutch judges are using international agreements to see if the laws are violating them. If they are, the plaintiffs will be released/compensated based on the international agreements as they are overriding national laws, especially when they are EU judicial guidelines.
So there is no constitution, but in the EU we are now getting a weird mix of Roman law and case law.
so odd, what a world we live in.
Re: (Score:2)
They may be in the UK, but I'm not, and if they do it here it's illegal. I will grant that this won't stop them, but British law isn't the only relevant law. And if they do it here the proper description is "illegal spying". I'd presume most other countries have similar laws (though they might exhempt their own "Intelligence Agencies").
Re:asdf (Score:4, Informative)
It's legal. This is the UK. There is no constitution.
I can't believe this has been modded informative when it is blatantly, and even legally, wrong.
The UK certainly does have a Constitution [ucl.ac.uk], and in fact our political system is termed a 'Constitutional monarchy'.
I'm sorry, but this is taught early on at in British Secondary Schools.Anyone who's been to school in the UK should know this. Any UK immigrant who's passed the UK citizenship test will know this.
The laws which the security services are alleged to have broken form part of that constitution.
Re:asdf (Score:5, Interesting)
If it is illegal, then individuals within that organization can be prosecuted.
If it is legal, then individuals within that organization can use the government's resources to track husbands/wives/exes/your daughter/celebrities/etc.
They've confused the line between secrecy and privacy.
Re: (Score:1)
The UK's courts have already deemed many of the actions of the GCHQ to be illegal. Yet, not a single person will ever be prosecuted for it. Hell, they aren't even going to put an end to it, but full on intend to expand upon it.
The same thing is happening here in the US. It was illegal. It is still illegal. And nothing is being done about it.
You know what would change their tune, and do it quick, without the need for any violence? Stop paying taxes. If you could convince enough people to stop paying taxes un
Re: (Score:2)
People value a stable government. They won't stop paying taxes until they fear their government more than the anarchy that would replace it. They don't fear this enough.
Re: (Score:2)
There likely aren't enough people capable of participating in a plan around stopping paying taxes. Most everyone has their taxes deducted from their pay before they even receive it. I think the income tax system was set up purposely for this effect.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Withholding tax law may have been written for that purpose, but the purpose of the Income Tax was to weaken the power of the states relative to the federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really saying that the UK implemented income tax to help some Federal government, perhaps Australia as they have States.
Income tax was implemented in most western countries to pay for war at a time when war couldn't just me magically paid for, how it has evolved since varies from country to country but it is used mostly to raise funds. Most federal systems have federal income tax as well as state, province etc income tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I was talking about the US income tax. I've no idea what the motivations behind British income tax were.
The GGGP post in the thread mentions *both* the US and the British governments, and I focused on the US, though either, or even both, are consistent with most of the intermediate posts.
Re: (Score:2)
People value a stable government. They won't stop paying taxes until they fear their government more than the anarchy that would replace it. They don't fear this enough.
You know that 'anarchy' is "a state of society without government or law" so if a government is ignoring the law it is halfway to anarchy already. I think the thing is that they don't value their freedom enough to stand up to the government that is constantly taking it away by deceiving the population.
If you fear the government then you are not free, if the government fears the people then you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop paying taxes and they put you in jail. End of protest.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you honestly don't need to pay taxes. Quit working and you don't have to pay. Don't even have to quit working, just reduce your income below the minimum for paying taxes.
If everyone sat down, refused to work and pay taxes, there would be change.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is legal, then individuals within that organization can use the government's resources to track husbands/wives/exes/your daughter/celebrities/etc.
A doctor can look at the medical records of anyone for the purpose of providing medical treatment, it doesn't mean he can snoop on the records of husbands/wives/exes/your daughter/celebrities/etc. so I don't see how military intelligence is different in that respect. A lot of people technically have access to acquire privileged information, it doesn't mean they can snoop on whoever they like or do whatever they want with it. You could have picked many good arguments against this, that was not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Please tell me you're not planning to stay FULL RETARD.
Doctors can't see your medical records unless you sign a release and allow them access, usually by joining their practice as a patient.
Only after that, can they request your records from your previous doctors and only then will they be provided, usually by mail.
The NSA on the other hand, probably has them in a database and at their fingertips already. Which ones you ask? ALL of them (that are in electronic medical record clouds).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, under UK law, who can grant authorization?
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's interesting to see how people love this sort of thing when James Bond is doing it, yet create massive uproar when it actually happens in real life.
What a bunch of arseholes (Score:3, Insightful)
+1 insightful
Admits it, as if it's not clearly noted? (Score:3)
Anyway, it's pretty ballsy of them to say they're legally entitled to do so in all foreign nations!
Re: (Score:1)
Wouldn't it be covered in the law for anyone to read if this were the case? Or are there some secret laws, or non-obvious interpretations of the law?
No, it's actually quite explicit in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act:
2 Meaning and location of “interception” etc.
...
“telecommunication system” means any system (including the apparatus comprised in it) which exists (whether wholly or partly in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) for the purpose of facilitating the transmission of communications by any means involving the use of electrical or electro-magnetic energy.
...
(2) For the purposes of this Act, but subject to the following provisions of this section,
a person intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a
telecommunication system if, and only if, he—
(a) so modifies or interferes with the system, or its operation,
(b) so monitors transmissions made by means of the system, or
(c) so monitors transmissions made by wireless telegraphy to or from apparatus comprised in the system,
as to make some or all of the contents of the communication available, while being transmitted, to a person other than the sender or intended recipient of the communication.
So if an interception warrant is issued, the method of fulfilling the warrant can involve 'interfering' with the operation of a telecommunication system, which could be at any point from the originating computer, the destination computer or any of the routers in between.
Anyway, it's pretty ballsy of them to say they're legally entitled to do so in all foreign nations!
In context, it means that they are entitled under the Intelligence Services Act in the UK. No foreign intelligence service in the world could operate under the co
Why is this unexpected? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apart from some meaningless bluster, there has been absolutely no negative impact on intelligence services for spying on citizens.
So why should they not simply say what they are doing, when there are no repercussions for doing so?
It's not like anyone is going to stop using computers, they will just maintain the happy illusion that no-one is spying on them...
Re: (Score:1)
It's just something to talk about, like the weather, or your last prostate exam. Most people are perfectly okay with the 'security' it provides.
Re:Why is this unexpected? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But what about the politician running for public office?
What about them? They have been impacted in some elections, but have very little say over what intelligence agencies do, and cannot be too publicly against them or be declared weak on crime/terrorism.
The rest of your statements veer further and further away from my point - that it doesn't matter what the impact is to anyone but the intelligence agencies, as far as them being open about what they are doing.
Re: (Score:3)
what about them?
you don't understand? if the intelligence agency has no checks and has all the information, then they potentially have all the power while not being elected. it's not that "be declared weak on crime or terrorism" but getting something leaked or manufactured to destroy their chances of getting elected. so potentially they cannot be publicly(or even privately!) against the intelligence agencies out of fear of getting outed by the intelligence agencies.
that is, they have a say over what intel
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe one or two, you wishful thinker, but that is way larger than the number of people impacted by these violations.
When the number of violations is greater than the number impacted, something is wrong.
When the number impacted is greater than the number of violations, that's still not a good sign - there are still violations.
I can't support your hypothetical bullshit, and the I assume 4 idiots who did should share the shame.
Re: (Score:2)
00733+ (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like the burden of proof for combat actions will always exceed the proof that can be obtained from computer forensics.
Further, the likelihood of taking action is inversely proportional to the capabilities of the enemy. The US (for example) has no issue with bombing a third-world country, but would not take combat actions against Russia or China for cyber-crime. For all anyone knows, the evidence was entered in emacs by Spooks at the CIA to make it look like it was China. That's completely different
Do you have a right to have secrets? (Score:5, Insightful)
Spying on another country has always been "illegal" in the country that is the target. It's "spying". A sovereign state doesn't have to follow the laws of another country.
The deeper (and IMHO more interesting) question is "Are you permitted to have secrets from your own government?"
It's up to you and your government to protect yourself from other governments. But what about your own? That's the [real] question we've been debating for the last several years (i.e. AS ... After Snowden).
Re: (Score:1)
> Then why do you argue like attacking some other country's network is any less barbaric than attacking their "real" infrastructure?
Actually, I'm in agreement that a cyber attack could be very bad, potentially as bad or worse than a physical attack. However, proving who was responsible may be impossible (to the burden of proof necessary to justify a military response.)
> The lack of civilized behavior which speaks from your notion of "every country for themselves" is appalling.
Whether you agree or disa
Re: (Score:1)
A sovereign state doesn't have to follow the laws of another country.
More generally: a sovereign state doesn't have to follow any laws, not even its own.
That's what the sovereign part means. (Even if many states DO follow its own laws, and allow themselves be sued).
Re: (Score:2)
"Spying on another country has always been "illegal" in the country that is the target."
The vast majority of "spying" is done in the reading room of public libraries, reading local newspapers and the vast majority of "spies" spend their entire lives reading such things.
When it's illegal to read the local papers, let me know. It's how you gather that intelligence into a whole which matters. (The UK's intercepts of enigma crypts gathered far more information from the movements of personnell than from the actu
As long as I am free.... (Score:2)
I'll really start to worry if or when I am legally required to install a backdoor onto my network and computers in order to get any online connectivity at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but in practice there will always exist a confidence level somewhere below 100% where the confidence still outweighs any concerns they have about their security. Requiring me to have a backdoor in my computers or network for *ANYONE* that I do not personally administrate would put my confidence level somewhere in the vicinity of 0.
100% confidence in all circumstances is not required... and as you point out, it is actually useless. Anything that simply approaches 100% for all practical purposes
Re: (Score:3)
The products that ship from the big international brands seems to be helping with the decades of tame crypto, telco networks and junk standards.
The UK has a long history of that going back to ww1, ww2, Ireland and for domestic issues.
All a person can do is be aware of the quality of crypto offered to the public, the OS and telco network collaboration.
The backdoors and trapdoors
Evil bit (Score:2)
the truth is bad enough, no in need to lose credib (Score:3)
The truth about these agencies is bad. There is no need, and I would say it is harmful, to so distort their statements as to be lying about what they said. This story only harms whatever credibility Privacy International may have had.
What the court response actually said is that a court can grant a search warrant in a criminal case, not just a national a security related case. Okay, so what is the process for such warrants and under what conditions are they granted? What limitations are put on those warrants? What are the consequences for proceeding without a warrant or beyond a warrant? Those are very important questions, which need to be addressed. Pretending those questions don't exist and falsely claiming "they said they can spy on anyone they want, any time they want" is HARMFUL to privacy. A guaranteed way to always lose a fight is by misunderstanding what the fight is. PI has grossly misstated what we're fighting and done is all a disservice in doing so.
And now, by extension ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The US and the UK have defined the playing field such that every other government will decree it is their sovereign right to break into any system.
And to claim otherwise if a steaming pile of shit.
And now I believe the black hat hackers should more or less just go scorched earth.
If there's no system left, there's no evidence. Just burn it on your way out.
And the rest of the world will be stuck in the middle, and our own governments will have made it impossible for us to have any security.
Fucking morons.
Re: (Score:1)
The US and the UK have defined the playing field such that every other government will decree it is their sovereign right to break into any system.
I Guess this means the (alleged) North Korea Sony hack was legal - at least from their point of view. Sony was making a movie that mocked their leader and threatened North Korea's national security.
Re: (Score:2)
There is precisely zero difference between one government and another saying they have the right to break into any system they want.
Unless one of those governments really are stupid enough to think "we're the good guys, it's OK". Because, obviously, the other government believes the same thing.
Essentially every nation on Earth has equal standing to break into US and UK systems.
Claiming otherwise is essentially irrational bullshit whereby the
Re: (Score:2)
And now I believe the black hat hackers should more or less just go scorched earth.
If there's no system left, there's no evidence. Just burn it on your way out.
i feel the same way but for a different reason: if there are no insecure systems left standing, only secure systems will be able to stand. in effect, security by destruction of the insecure. a sharp learning curve but companies will start making secure products that way.
No, they are not allowed to (Score:2)
It may not be forbidden by law for them to do so, that doesn't make it fine and permissible. I will still fight it with any means possible.
What's really scary about this development is that we used to have laws that had a general consensus in the population. Of course, there have been rather unpopular laws, but in the end, people would understand that they're necessary. I mean, you may not like speed limits, but you understand why they exist. And you might not like tax laws but it's understandable that they
Jurisdiction (Score:2)
claims they are legally justified to hack anyone, anywhere in the world,
GCHQ/FBI personnel had better not travel abroad anywhere. If some country takes issue with their servers being hacked, the prison sentence could be rather long.
Newspaper Vs government phone hacking... (Score:2)
So here in the UK it's a *bad* thing (and rightly so) for newspapers to hack people's phones for juicy shit to help sell their papers, but it's a *good* thing (and not rightly so) for the government to hack anybody's phones because they feel like it. One rule for the powerful and fuck everybody else.
I would love to hear about the UK government hacking US telecoms - wouldn't that be classed as an act of war by the US? How's that special relationship working out now, eh? (Special as in "bend over, I'm comi
FBI != intelligence service (Score:2)
It's a federal police/crimefighting body.
The USA equivalent to GCHQ/MI6 are the CIA and NSA.
My systems (Score:1)
So, hypothetically speaking, if say the US or UK breaks in to a company's systems without any real justification, authorization or knowledge (i.e. for fun, for espionage, or to illicitly gain control of information or systems for whatever purpose), can the company sue them in an international court?
Can the company lodge a criminal complaint against the offending government in the local jurisdiction?
Can the company lodge a criminal complaint in the offending country pursuant to whatever acts (CFAA, for examp