UK Intel Agencies Have Been Spying on Millions of People 'Of No Security Interest' Since 1990s (arstechnica.com) 101
The UK's intelligence agencies such as MI5, MI6, and GCHQ have been collecting personal information from citizens who are "unlikely to be of intelligence or security interest" since the 1990s, a thousand pages of documents published on Thursday revealed. The documents were published as a result of a lawsuit filed by Privacy International, a UK-based registered charity that defends and promotes the right to privacy across the world. According to the documents, GCHQ and others have been collecting bulk personal data sets since 1998 under the provisions of section 94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. J.M. Porup, reports for Ars Technica: These records can be "anything from your private medical records, your correspondence with your doctor or lawyer, even what petitions you have signed, your financial data, and commercial activities," Privacy International legal officer Millie Graham Wood said in a statement. "The information revealed by this disclosure shows the staggering extent to which the intelligence agencies hoover up our data." Nor, it seems, are BPDs only being used to investigate terrorism and serious crime; they can and are used to protect Britain's "economic well-being" -- including preventing pirate copies of Harry Potter books from leaking before their release date. The so-called "Bulk Personal Datasets," or BPDs are so powerful, in fact, that the normally toothless UK parliament watchdog that oversees intelligence gathering, the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), recommended in February that "Class Bulk Personal Dataset warrants are removed from the new legislation." These data sets are so large and collect so much information so indiscriminately that they even include information on dead people.
At least this report was obtained legally (Score:2)
Well, at least this report was obtained legally.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, at least this report was obtained legally.
Sure, but you should see the reports on the reporters reporting it!
Oh the irony (Score:5, Funny)
Telecommunications Act 1984
*1984*
Re: (Score:1)
It's pretty much exactly the dystopia that Orwell imagined. We've moved from the Information Age to the Psychology Age, with 24/7 manipulation.
Re: Oh the irony (Score:2)
You've clearly not read 1984.
Re: Oh the irony (Score:2)
UNIMPORTANT (Score:1)
The queen just got 90 years old! Isn't she doing well for her age?
And that little prince George, isn't he adorable?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the quick summary of today's Daily Mail.
Re: (Score:1)
The queen just got 90 years old! Isn't she doing well for her age?
90 ain't old for Lizard people...
And that little prince George, isn't he adorable?
Meh, if you're into Parasitology..
Re: UNIMPORTANT (Score:2)
90 ain't old for Lizard people...
lolol I hadn't seen this yet when I posted the below reply.
Re: UNIMPORTANT (Score:2)
This can't be right (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you so sure that you aren't fiction as well?
Re: (Score:3)
So, the only logical conclusion is that you are an enemy of the state.
*sad but true*
Re: This can't be right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please actually read some Orwell.
The surveillance did not make the "nightmare states". The nightmare states used surveillance as a tool to further oppress their citizens. If surveillance isn't possible, more violence is used to remove dissidents. If violence isn't an option, misinformation will convince everyone that the state's problems are all someone else's fault. If misinformation isn't fully effective, surveillance will be used to find dissidents.
Surveillance is just a tool. Worry less about it, and wo
Re:This can't be right (Score:4, Funny)
Typical Eurasian propaganda. No wonder we're at war with you, and always have been.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the cell phone on my nightstand every night?
Or the always-on audio monitoring so popular with voice agents today?
Re: This can't be right (Score:2)
Surveillance is just a tool.
You've certainly demonstrated that it takes one to know one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder what these systems were protecting us from before terrorism? Also, a certain teutonic master of propaganda would be proud of that argument re sympathizers and opposition
Re: (Score:2)
Captain Picard (Score:1)
I'll just defer to Captain Picard on this one...
A Matter of National Security [picturequotes.com]
wiped (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Until another 'TRIBE' comes along and relieves you of your freedom. The whole point of these types of services is to protect nations.
The secret services become the TRIBE that relieves you of your freedom, mate. And the best part is you just handed it over to them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: wiped (Score:2)
Lies lies and more lies (Score:1)
This is a lie.
They've been spying on everyone they can for centuries. This isn't new. This isn't conspiracy. This hasn't started in the 1990s. Lies.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a lie.
They've been spying on everyone they can for centuries. This isn't new. This isn't conspiracy. This hasn't started in the 1990s. Lies.
Aye, it's cute how they seem to think it all started with the Internet and computers..
'They' (the 'They' in this article) spied on my father through the 60's-90's as he was a communist.
'They' spied on me as I was the son of a communist (and had a raft of Irish relatives with Republican leanings).
Makes sense (Score:2)
Re: Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, they're preventatively collecting information on everyone because they don't know in the future who will and won't become a terrorist.
Or for another reason entirely.
Who Cares (Score:2, Insightful)
Really. Who care anymore? The ideals of western democracy have been dying for a long time, and most people are too overworked, in-debt, anti-informed, and propagandised to bother caring anymore.
What pretense our ascendancies have for respecting the rule or law, the betterment of society, or the shared social contract are evaporating along with the value of our jobs, currencies, values and way of life (such as remains). Backwards, totalitarian, extremist, reactionary philosophies are springing up left and ri
Re: Who Cares (Score:1)
We saw in the Arab spring what the tired and apathetic were willing to do when their internet got turned off. I believe there is a peaceful way forward. We are all human beings just trying to survive.
Re: Who Cares (Score:2)
I believe there is a peaceful way forward.
My feelings also tell me that this *should* be the case. (Hint: it isn't.)
Re: (Score:3)
Democracy in the West is a complete farce especially in the USA and anywhere else with a two-party system. It ultimately becomes a one-party system with the voting public fooled into believing they have a choice between two opposing parties. In actual fact the 'two parties' are run by the same powers behind the scenes.
The vote is a currency. People spend their vote. The same techniques that can be used to influence spending behavior when buying consumer goods, ie advertising, are also used to influence vote
'who cares' is a way to absolve responsibility. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly ninety-nine percent of the test subjects accepted the program provided they were given a choice - even if they were only aware of it at a near-unconscious level. While this solution worked, it was fundamentally flawed, creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that, if left unchecked, might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those who refused the program, while a minority, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster. - The A
Re: Mass surveillance? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You never know when someone might mobilize an army of the dead. Never seen the Evil Dead series? Even our Pentagon made a plan for a zombie apocalypse.
i see dead people (Score:1)
These data sets are so large and collect so much information so indiscriminately that they even include information on dead people
That's probably a good thing because a lot fraud and other criminal actions including passport forgery happens because the bad guys steal dead people's identities. In fact, that would be useful information so I doubt the information has been indiscriminately collected.
Evaluation and critique please (Score:2)
Dear GCHQ employee who reads my slashdot posts,
I mean a UK citizen posting to a US based site must be slightly out of the ordinary behaviour worthy of further investigation, right? Anyway I was just after a general evaluation of how you think my posts are. I got a +5 funny once you know.
Thanks,
Yours faithf... you already know my real name and where I live anyway, don't you?
Re: (Score:1)
Dear "Coisiche",
Actually you got a +5 Funny twice. Once was on an AC post you made that you never checked back on.
Best,
GCHQ employee who reads your Slashdot posts
PS: I'm not allowed to post your real name here due to the Data Protection Act.
Re: Evaluation and critique please (Score:2)
And at the same time (Score:2)
Re: And at the same time (Score:2)
Sounds fine to me... (Score:4, Interesting)
Just to play Devil's advocate a bit here, but isn't this exactly the way the system is supposed to work?
Having information on someone is what puts them in the "no security interest" category, rather than the "unknown" category. In reviewing that information, crimes like copyright infringement may be discovered, and that puts the person in a different category entirely.
Now, if understand the typical Slashdotter's perspective, the government shouldn't be allowed to gather information on people of "no security interest", but they can't know who that is without gathering information. Naturally, then, we will lobby to prohibit all gathering of information, and when successful, we will mock the government's eventual failure to find people who are of "security interest" with their then-nonexistent capabilities.
Re: (Score:1)
You obviously trust the government to keep the data to themselves. Which is only sensible.
The data could never possibly be abused or sold to, say, rich bastards such as insurance companies or banks who will, for no reason at all, charge you twice the insurance rate that your neighbour pays them. Or they'll refuse you a loan because you'll never pay it back after having been diagnosed with a benign tumor.
Re: (Score:2)
...and is that wrong?
If an insurance company raises your rates, there should be a documented reason, and if that reason is that your history shows a higher risk, then I see no reason why it's unjustified. After all, the point of insurance is to pool risk and costs, so the actual cost of a claim is amortized to affordable levels, regardless of when the claim actually occurs.
If you're being denied a loan due to a benign tumor, it is again a function of risk. Does that tumor carry a known risk of other conditi
Re: (Score:2)
the government shouldn't be allowed to gather information on people of "no security interest", but they can't know who that is without gathering information.
People can become a security interest in other ways than simply grepping bulk data. It may be justified to track convicted criminals, suspected criminals, those with links to criminals or suspects because the likelihood of them being involved is higher than a random member of the public. Likewise if in the course of an investigation you confirm that someone you have collected data on really isn't linked, then you can delete the data.
Of course you are correct to note that if you know everything about eve
Re: (Score:2)
People can become a security interest in other ways than simply grepping bulk data. It may be justified to track convicted criminals, suspected criminals, those with links to criminals or suspects because the likelihood of them being involved is higher than a random member of the public.
So how does an investigator know if I have a link to a known criminal?
Every day, I go to a particular cafe and order fish and chips, served in the traditional paper wrapping. Is that suspicious? A mobster, currently in prison, is visited weekly by his apparently-law-abiding longtime friend. Is that suspicious? The childhood friend owns a cafe that sells fish and chips to loyal customers. Is that suspicious?
What's suspicious is when the officer assigned to surveil the cafe sees that my paper has a name writt
Re: (Score:2)
The part you're missing is the stewards of that data. You assume someone unswervingly on the said of good. A Dudley Dorite. Alas, he's fictional.
What happens when Snidely gets in to office and wants to know who these "Citizens for a Better Tomorrow" are. The nefarious group that opposes his cuts to education and healthcare? Well, let's see, they meet at the corner of A and B every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Amazing, your records show that you have consistently bought chips at the place across the street
Re: (Score:2)
There's a leap of faith you're making there.
What's the authority for Snidely to have me audited? What's his justification to have my computer confiscated? With video evidence of jaywalking... Well, jaywalking's a crime, and it should be pursued like any other crime, at the discretion of the appropriate prosecutor.
The key to minimizing abuse is that the system should be built such that actually causing an abuse requires a large number of conspirators and enough documentation to raise a big red flag to oversi
Re: (Score:2)
No, I just have to look at what happens in real life. Did you know it is illegal to use the social security card/number as identification for any purpose? It is. But even the DMV ignores that and demands SS card.
What's the authority for Snidely to have me audited?
He has dirt on the people who decide who will be "randomly" audited. On the other hand, if he puts in a good word, they will find they have a significantly better chance of a promotion next year.
Watch the news and you'll see that not expecting the abuses to happen YET AGAIN is the real leap of faith
Re: Sounds fine to me... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that this is how the Stasi did things. Create dossiers on everyone, suspect it otherwise, in case they needed them later. Combine that with the fact that everyone has things to hide and something about them you could hang them over, and it's an extremely effective tool of oppression and violation.
GCHQ and the British government counter this by saying that there are safeguards. Turns out those safeguards are a drop down menu to select the reason for accessing data and a text box to type your j
Re: (Score:2)
Just to play Devil's advocate a bit here, but isn't this exactly the way the system is supposed to work?
No. Period, full stop. Very few think the "system" should gather as much data as possible on as many people as possible. I don't know the U.K. laws, but in the U.S., the authorities aren't allowed to search out whatever they want about you without probable cause and/or warrants.
Having information on someone is what puts them in the "no security interest" category, rather than the "unknown" category. In reviewing that information, crimes like copyright infringement may be discovered, and that puts the person in a different category entirely
So, we should hoover up all the information we can about everyone, so we can be sure we know who would be "of interest"? Cardinal Richelieu would be delighted.
Now, if understand the typical Slashdotter's perspective, the government shouldn't be allowed to gather information on people of "no security interest", but they can't know who that is without gathering information. Naturally, then, we will lobby to prohibit all gathering of information, and when successful, we will mock the government's eventual failure to find people who are of "security interest" with their then-nonexistent capabilities.
Why, yes, most of us on Slashdot use a silly fake paradox to conclu
Blackmail files (Score:2)
This is all the kind of information you need to have a blackmail dossier on someone.
That backbencher asking too many questions? A quiet talk about some of the more sensitive information in his file ought to be enough to shut him up, along with a reminder how awkward explaining that stuff to his wife or constituents would be.
It's not really about blackmail, it's about cooperation, though. Just cooperate with us and we will protect your sensitive information.
aren't you glad? (Score:2)
European privacy regulations are strong! They protect you from evil US corporations that will show you ads for Angry Birds and lingerie! In Europe, only the government and corporations in cahoots with the government can listen to you, and they have your best interests at heart, as history shows!
(Incidentally, the same shit has been going on in France and Germany.)
What does this mean: (Score:2)
"Class Bulk Personal Dataset warrants are removed from the new legislation."????
No Duh (Score:1)
And it precedes the 1990s. Or it least it did when we routinely did this in the 1980s.
However, the scope drastically increased since then. And the retention of data.