Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Government Privacy United States

Secret Policy Allows GCHQ Bulk Access To NSA Data 95

Posted by samzenpus from the have-some-data dept.
hazeii writes Though legal proceedings following the Snowden revelations, Liberty UK have succeeded in forcing GCHQ to reveal secret internal policies allowing Britain's intelligence services to receive unlimited bulk intelligence from the NSA and other foreign agencies and to keep this data on a massive searchable databases, all without a warrant. Apparently, British intelligence agencies can "trawl through foreign intelligence material without meaningful restrictions", and can keep copies of both content and metadata for up to two years. There is also mention of data obtained "through US corporate partnerships". According to Liberty, this raises serious doubts about oversight of the UK Intelligence and Security Committee and their reassurances that in every case where GCHQ sought information from the US, a warrant for interception signed by a minister was in place.

Eric King, Deputy Director of Privacy international, said: "We now know that data from any call, internet search, or website you visited over the past two years could be stored in GCHQ's database and analyzed at will, all without a warrant to collect it in the first place. It is outrageous that the Government thinks mass surveillance, justified by secret 'arrangements' that allow for vast and unrestrained receipt and analysis of foreign intelligence material is lawful. This is completely unacceptable, and makes clear how little transparency and accountability exists within the British intelligence community."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Secret Policy Allows GCHQ Bulk Access To NSA Data More

Secret Policy Allows GCHQ Bulk Access To NSA Data

Comments Filter:

  • Time for a Layman's TOR? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    What would it take to produce a seamless, idiot-proof, and completely secure and encrypted Tor for every layperson to pick up and use? What would it take for it to have low impact on latency and bandwidth? And how could it be distributed in a extension-type way, like Adblock, where its presence is almost unnoticeable?

    This technology is possible today and could turn the lights out on all of our data and web activity (at least on the ISP end). Where is it?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cyn1c77 ( 928549 )

      What would it take to produce a seamless, idiot-proof, and completely secure and encrypted Tor for every layperson to pick up and use?

      A lot, given that most people don't even encrypt or password protect their smartphones.

      Government oversight would likely be required to enforce its usage!

      • Two years? (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Yeah, right. If they are doing this, they are storing it indefinitely. Who is kidding whom?

      • Many people says that TOR is the only weapon we have left to keep ourselves out of the prying eyes of the spooks - but is it truly secured ?

        If TOR is not totally secured then we will end up fooling ourselves thinking that we are under protection but in actuality our every.move is being monitored / recorded / analyzed by spooks

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This was launched today on Kickstarter; https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1227374637/cloak Looking good so far.

    • Under Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] any message in and out of 5 Eye nations and friends can be reconciled with a start and destination ip.
      If your still chatting, a back door or rootkit would get the rest.
      Anything encrypted just attracts interest until decoded or a plaintext way in is found.
      Then its the hops of friends, friends of friends and all networking usage.
      The only way around such systems is the number station or correct use of the one time pad.
      With data retention in other nations

  • Five Eyes (Score:5, Informative)

    by Travis Mansbridge ( 830557 ) on Thursday October 30, 2014 @12:42AM (#48267171)
    Be aware that the same "arrangement" likely exists for all members of the Five Eyes spying network, a.k.a. the ECHELON group, sometimes referred to as "AUSCANNZUKUS" for its members, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US. As long as any of these nations allows Orwellian surveillance, all five nations (and the rest of the world) will be in the same position.

    • "their reassurances that in every case where GCHQ sought information from the US, a warrant for interception signed by a minister was in place"

      you just need to parse the sentence correctly.

      It means that, when the minister was first appointed, he/she was instructed to sign a warrant that authorized access to all data until they are removed as minister + 30 days, just to cover the time until the next minister is appointed.

  • Oh! So it's unacceptable is it? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Thursday October 30, 2014 @12:45AM (#48267179) Journal

    Waddya gonna do about it, eh? Tell us again next week?

    • There are actually several things you can do if you do not like the massive government spy-programs. The first thing you should do is to look into how you can pay nothing or as little as you can in taxes. Most countries have laws against not paying taxes but you are screwed anyway: Most "free" western countries have passed laws against financing terrorist organizations and criminal networks the last decade which means that it is illegal to pay taxes - so you are screwed anyway.

      The second thing you can do

      • The third and probably most important thing is to talk to your friends and family about privacy and why it matters. Try to make them care.

        And if that conversation goes anything like it does here on Slashdot - the tinfoil hat nuttery is going to cause them to tune you out pretty quickly.

        I know this is hard to do if the people in question watch television but do try. Western governments are out of control because a whole lot of people (almost all people above 50) love automatism and fascism and think

        • And if that conversation goes anything like it does here on Slashdot - the tinfoil hat nuttery is going to cause them to tune you out pretty quickly.

          The thing that'll cause them to tune you out is their lack of principles and disrespect for the constitution and fundamental liberties.

          And your next two sentences just prove my point.

          Lots of people seem to be in favor of unconstitutional, rights-violating mass surveillance of our communications, so that's just a bit of an exaggeration. The mass surveillance is just less visible.

          • Lots of people seem to be in favor of unconstitutional, rights-violating mass surveillance of our communications, so that's just a bit of an exaggeration. The mass surveillance is just less visible.

            I think people aren't in favor of it so much as they'll only object in so far as it doesn't inconvenience them... ie: "I hate all the bullshit I have to go through at the airport but it's worth it if I can spend a week at an all inclusive in Mexico... I'm not doing to deny myself my semi-annual beach vacation!". "I know Facebook uses my data against me but it's the only way I can keep in touch with friends!" "I don't care if Facebook knows what I had for breakfast". "If you have something to hide ... "

            Tha

            • I think people aren't in favor of it so much as they'll only object in so far as it doesn't inconvenience them

              I don't think that's true. A startling number of people are actively in favor of it, because they want safety over freedom. Certainly, there are also lots of apathetic people. When these two groups are combined, they're enormous.

              "If you have something to hide ... "

              That one is actually a statement in support of a police state, since it supposes (incorrectly, given history) that the government can do no wrong and make no mistakes. It's a statement made out of highly concentrated ignorance.

            • Those who do it for "convenience" I can understand. Almost all of us have "principles" we attempt to live within the bounds of. But those principles are breakable by anyone because we're human and nature isn't black and white, but fuzzy and indirect. In addition, my principles may not be yours. So I understand their decision at their current level of awareness, knowledge, whatever you want to call it. Whatever we are, we're a free country and people have to have the right to choose their own values.

              The ones

          • The thing that'll cause them to tune you out is their lack of principles and disrespect for the constitution and fundamental liberties.

            So what would you propose to do about it? Blame isn't going to get anywhere. Regardless of whether it's me being tinfoil hattish, or them being unprincipled, I'm not going to persuade them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by serviscope_minor ( 664417 )

        The first thing you should do is to look into how you can pay nothing or as little as you can in taxes.

        The trouble is that the world isn't black and white. I don't like having massive government spy programs. However, I do like the existence of infrastructure. You know, good roads, schools, a health service, mass transportation and so on. You can't opt out of one without opting out of others unfortunately.

        • Translated:

          "However, I do like other people paying for things I can use. You know, good roads, schools, a health service, mass transportation and so on."

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by cduffy ( 652 )

            "However, I do like other people paying for things I can use. You know, good roads, schools, a health service, mass transportation and so on."

            Well, uhh, yeah. The whole point is that that kind of thing is so expensive that no one person can pay for it alone.

            Is this supposed to be controversial?

      • you are under 40 and _dont_ use facebook or google ... suspicious in and of itself!

      • The first thing you should do is to look into how you can pay nothing or as little as you can in taxes.

        You missed out the stage where you become an independently wealthy Criminal Mastermind with a secret lair hidden inside a Carribean volcano first. Twat.

        a whole lot of people (almost all people above 50) love automatism and fascism

        Fuck you, you ignorant piece of shit. If anything it's the younger generation who are quite happy to share everything on facebook and the rest of the "social media".

      • No, you got it exactly backwards. (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Your post makes you sound like an anarchist nut.

        If you don't like what the government is doing, you must apply political force to making the government stop.

        That means, first and foremost providing financial support to a lobby that has this cause as their primary purpose. Despite the popular preferences to this effect, in the real world money is what drives politics, and lobbies are how you can make your voice heard.

        People are very eager to be political when all it requires is a vote now and then. People

    • Re: Oh! So unacceptable... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      All Governments Lie
      http://www.ifstone.org/macpherson.php

      Educate your children. Teach them that ideals should inform their morality and ethical systems. But their governmental leaders should be required to prove their loyalty. Faith should be reserved for deities.

      Teach them to encrypt their email, their hard drives and consider Google to be another iteration of, " the slime oozing out of your TV set."

      • Faith should be reserved for deities.

        You should also be teaching your children that "deities" don't exist.

    • it's interesting that you ask that today of all days - the way the news cycle works, today is the last day to drop a big story to affect the US midterm elections. Greenwald promised Snowden that he would publish to maximize political impact (to effect the most change) and an October surprise was strongly hinted at. There's nothing of great surprise on The Intercept today - some decent confirmatory stories but nothing politically destabilizing.

      Many people have been of the mind "Greenwald's got this" but it

  • Conversely they spy on Brits for the NSA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30, 2014 @12:53AM (#48267187)

    The the flip side of this is they spy on British people for the NSA, and each uses the other to circumvent those pesky privacy laws.

    GCHQ, intercepts all of politicians and potential politicians, family, friends, employees, communications, hands that to the NSA who can trawl through it freely without restriction, and use that to shape who wins elections in the UK.

    I noticed the latest leaks show that they have field work operatives, who work in agencies and break into systems. Someone in GCHQ pushed the idea of this, and that person is a traitor to the UK and potentially a spy.

    None of the giant data centers being built by these agencies have been cancelled and no company has been brought up on charges for feeding NSA data from UK citizens.

    • I'm not sure they really care about elections. Politics is ephemeral; these guys will be listening to your phone calls and reading your mail no matter who wins. At their level, spying on politicians for politics' sake probably seems dirty and vulgar, too banal. When you have root to the world's comms, Mittens vs Obummer looks like the joke that it is: the tawdry showmanship of the electoral gutter. The Five Eyes, if they're really as supranational and omniscient as they are made out to be, wouldn't give a d

      • Bankers to that (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 30, 2014 @02:06AM (#48267385)

        No they don't just spy on countries for no purpose, they shape policies to be more favorable to the USA by shaping politics to be more favorable. We even have examples of shaping from Snowden, see is discussion about the CIA and the Swiss Banker, and he wasn't even involved in most of it.

        http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance

        And this idea that being powerful is *not* having control of the Bundesstag or Parliament is the exact opposite of what the dictionary definition of power is. So of course they want leverage, but they also want to ensure the people who get to the top are the people who support their agenda, hence its worth spending 10 billion a year spying on them.

        GCHQ on the other hand are tasked with the job of securing British communications from foreign spying, and for some reason, someone in there has risen to a position of power, where he thinks his job is to spy on Britain for a foreign power. It doesn't take a genius to see what's happened there. I'm sure a considerable amount of effort was expended to ensure he got into that position.

        See if you were the Secret Service, and being investigated for hookers and blow in Columbia and the investigator was a little too vigorous, you too might simply leak a few details of his Florida hooker friend, so he gets replaced with someone more helpful.

        • GCHQ on the other hand are tasked with the job of securing British communications from foreign spying, and for some reason, someone in there has risen to a position of power, where he thinks his job is to spy on Britain for a foreign power. It doesn't take a genius to see what's happened there. I'm sure a considerable amount of effort was expended to ensure he got into that position.

          Individuals' goals have nothing to do with it.

          In organisations like the Civil Service or the Armed Forces, you get to the top by embracing the culture of that organisation.

          GCHQ is not a bunch of radical libertarians tragically perverted by one evil genius mole working for A Foreign Power.

    • Re:Conversely they spy on Brits for the NSA (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thesupraman ( 179040 ) on Thursday October 30, 2014 @01:13AM (#48267243)

      I dont think you quite understand...
      Why would they use it to craft who wins elections?
      They only need it to drop a few hints to the politician of choice at the time, that they know all their secrets, so they better vote X on Y.
      You think any career politician is going to stand up to them with that hanging over their heads? Not a chance.

      The interesting thing with all of this is how much evidence of criminal activity must they be IGNORING in this data, to keep their capabilities quiet.

      They are of course now solidly and effectively above all laws, including international law (thanks to their cooperation).

      Have a nice day.

  • We once wrote that these federal gov people can't not fuck up every day.

    That when the time is right, just pointing this out will be 'shooting-fish-in-barrel' or some such statement. (Check yourself: facebook "Steven.Work", start about Christmas maybe.)
    .
    So, case in point .. NSA handing out my information so others in other countries may victimize me and everyone .. priceless!

  • Just saying, it's probably impossible to have privacy these days. Probably far better to democratize this so there is greater access to information instead of having a privileged class.

  • Is this news? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I thought we knew about this in the late 1980's. I guess we didn't care as much then with the cold war going on and no one was using email. Echelon has been around a long time

  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Thursday October 30, 2014 @02:59AM (#48267475)

    Can someone remind me why it is that we, the people who elect and pay the wages of the politicians and public servants who seek to destroy our right to privacy in this way, continue to allow such outrageous behavior to continue?

    Has the concept of a democracy been replaced by one of serial fascism where voters are lulled into a false sense of empowerment by governments which collude with the *real* power-brokers to simply look after their own best interests and for who "voters" are synonymous with taxpayers -- a necessary evil required to keep the oily wheels of government turning?

    They say we get the governments we deserve -- if that's true, we must be truly evil bastards!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

      Unfortunately we waited too long to fix it democratically. All the realistic democratic options will keep spying on us.

      Because we left it so late, we have reached the point where the only option is to fight back. Hopefully we can win by making surveillance so expensive that they can't do it any more. Encrypt and anonymize everything, and make it the default option. If that fails, using violence to destroy GCHQ will be the only thing left, and I really want to avoid that.

      Not posting anon because it won't pro

    • From embassy details in the 1920's and 1930's to HOW (Home Office Warrant), to ENIGMA in ww2, to early satellite ground stations, Skynet (satellite) efforts, every call in and out of Ireland, to what is now understood of the internet under US/UK collect it all.
      Over years the UK likes to read about the world in plain text and in near real time.
      When tasked staff ask, they are told its legal in a domestic context.
      The tame press is told to talk of tracking Soviet/Russian movements. Thats sells the hardware

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sudon't ( 580652 )

      Can someone remind me why it is that we, the people who elect and pay the wages of the politicians and public servants who seek to destroy our right to privacy in this way, continue to allow such outrageous behavior to continue?

      Has the concept of a democracy been replaced by one of serial fascism where voters are lulled into a false sense of empowerment by governments which collude with the *real* power-brokers to simply look after their own best interests and for who "voters" are synonymous with taxpayers -- a necessary evil required to keep the oily wheels of government turning?

      Something like that. I don't know how they do it where you live, but here in the US, we're given a choice between two pre-vetted candidates. The ruling class decides who we'll get to vote for. Which is to say, it's not really a choice, but the illusion of choice. It's certainly not a democracy.

    • They say we get the governments we deserve -- if that's true, we must be truly evil bastards!

      Sure, just like that cute little girl gets the rapist she deserves. WTF?

  • The laws protecting citizens are a sham (Score:5, Insightful)

    by msobkow ( 48369 ) on Thursday October 30, 2014 @04:02AM (#48267597) Homepage Journal

    The laws protecting citizen's rights in the Five Eyes nations are a sham. They just use the data collected by their partners to spy on their own citizens. They all do it, including Canada.

  • What this effectively does is create a legal loophole through which the US intelligence agencies can request data from the GCHQ, on US citizens thereby bypassing surveiling citizens directly.

    • What this effectively does is create a legal loophole through which the US intelligence agencies can request data from the GCHQ, on US citizens thereby bypassing surveiling citizens directly.

      If only they'd had such systems in place before 9/11, the world's most spectacular terrorist outrage might have been prevented.

      If only...

      • Well, its a classic chicken and the egg situation. If the measures were in place, Al Quaeda would have used different channels, like I presume they do now.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by koan ( 80826 )

          What does Al Quaeda have to do with 9/11?

        • Well, its a classic chicken and the egg situation. If the measures were in place, Al Quaeda would have used different channels, like I presume they do now.

          The CIA has been using British intelligence to spy on US citizens since they were first banned from spying on citizens in 1976 [wikipedia.org].

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by koan ( 80826 )

        Uh huh, because our government did not willingly ignore warnings and allow it to happen.

  • By the way Israel gets the data too.

Slashdot Top Deals

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Close