No, they care. When it was discovered that a target had once applied for citizenship, rendering him an USPER and thus off limits, Alexander had the man's file printed out, erased from the system, and then burned it in front of the entire NOC to make a point.
Yes, their procedural controls suck. Yes, "collect it all" is likely an illegal mantra. And if someone bad gets their hands on this data the result could be horrific. But right now, it's being mainly used to target and neutralize actual foreign terrorist threats.
I mean, these are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. I've got a pretty good record of everything leaked over the last year or so on my home computer.
GCHQ, meanwhile, is not restricted from storing or querying such a database should they obtain a copy. Further, the NSA is not barred from asking GCHQ to return queries against the content of databases they hold. Lastly, GCHQ would be wise to automate the servicing of such requests, as a cost saving measure.
So this restriction has the potential of slowing the NSA's phone record snooping by roughly one RTT across the Atlantic. A delay that could amount to as much as 0.15 seconds.
Yes, assuming the US lets the GCHQ store US information. I'd say its more likely AT&T, Verizon, et al. just provide a "Prioritized Law Enforcement" API and sell access to the Government.
FVEY really is a neat arrangement. We can all circumvent laws about spying on our own citizens by having our closest allies do it. Hail Britannia, I suppose, except instead of owning the waves they now own the packets.
GCHQ also seems to punch way above its weight for such a small country. And yes, the scenario described is exactly what an intelligence officer would think, in order to handle the situation.
For me, the GDP is the important part. Hacking, snooping, spying has always been less about national security than it has about power, control, money and greed. The interwebs has just provided new challenges whilst making it easier to collect data on the masses. Terrorism is the new excuse.
I think not. Canada is one of the five and is much much closer. GCHQ is in the news, but much of the cross-boarder legal fiction stuff happens via Canada. Britain controls the international routes two and from europe, but when it comes to domestic spying Canada is the much closer partner.
Mmm... I'd need a citation on that. CSE isn't just overlooked in the news, it's a much less powerful agency (about ~50% greater budget for GCHQ according to news sources.)
Additionally, every high level collaboration, according to news reports, involved GCHQ as the chief partner.
True. Though nothing new about this unfortunately. Duncan Campbell first reported about the reverse of this process happening under the Tatcher Government in the 1980s.
And by 'will not be allowed to keep', they really mean transfer to a contracted 3rd party to 'delete' it, until it might be needed or become more legitimate to be keeping... during the next crisis.
This time.. THIS TIME they're follow the law and tell the truth. Because they have such a great track record.
Remember, this is the Administration that first claimed they weren't collecting anything, then they were but not on Americans, then they were but only for suspected terrorists, then they were but only for people connected to terrorists, then they were but only metadata. How dumb do they think we are to believe that story?
And - as others have noted - GCHQ probably has a copy of everything too so this is yet another paper tiger.
For what it's worth, when you said "Civil liberties groups and charities... and allied politicians" I thought you were referring to domestic organizations/persons.
34 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 87.2 ms ] threadIt seems the NSA doesn't care about any laws it breaks domestic or international since there are no repercussions.
Yes, their procedural controls suck. Yes, "collect it all" is likely an illegal mantra. And if someone bad gets their hands on this data the result could be horrific. But right now, it's being mainly used to target and neutralize actual foreign terrorist threats.
And civil liberties groups and charities. And foreign businesses in allied countries. And allied politicians.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/08/snowden-council-of-europe-t...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/22/gchq-surveill...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/20/gchq-targeted...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/05/22/nsa_gchq_...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/world/nsa-dragnet-included...
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-braz...
I mean, these are just the ones I remember off the top of my head. I've got a pretty good record of everything leaked over the last year or so on my home computer.
So this restriction has the potential of slowing the NSA's phone record snooping by roughly one RTT across the Atlantic. A delay that could amount to as much as 0.15 seconds.
GCHQ also seems to punch way above its weight for such a small country. And yes, the scenario described is exactly what an intelligence officer would think, in order to handle the situation.
Depends what you mean by small country. By land mass certainly, but that didn't stop them amassing the largest empire in history [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire] and it's the 5th largest in terms of GDP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...]
For me, the GDP is the important part. Hacking, snooping, spying has always been less about national security than it has about power, control, money and greed. The interwebs has just provided new challenges whilst making it easier to collect data on the masses. Terrorism is the new excuse.
This article was also posted earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9959818
It's old news under a new guise, and the collaboration is a long standing one.
I think not. Canada is one of the five and is much much closer. GCHQ is in the news, but much of the cross-boarder legal fiction stuff happens via Canada. Britain controls the international routes two and from europe, but when it comes to domestic spying Canada is the much closer partner.
Additionally, every high level collaboration, according to news reports, involved GCHQ as the chief partner.
Remember, this is the Administration that first claimed they weren't collecting anything, then they were but not on Americans, then they were but only for suspected terrorists, then they were but only for people connected to terrorists, then they were but only metadata. How dumb do they think we are to believe that story?
And - as others have noted - GCHQ probably has a copy of everything too so this is yet another paper tiger.
Shrug.
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/03/1...
Collecting phone records without a warrant is still a violation of the Fourth Amendment.