Spy scandal - anyone bothered by the US government sweeping through *everything* we do online..?

[edam]

Seems Uncle Sam can just hoover up data from Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, Youtube and the rest. US govt is busy reassuring Americans this 'only' applies to foreigners. Like us.

One boffin interviewed on Channel Four news said they may look for keywords like 'Iran' - so if you've ever commented on a thread about Iran, people working for that nice Mr Obama may have been watching...

Bothered about the principle of intelligence agencies helping themselves to everything with no explicit permission (as in warrant, not permission from the individual)? Yes. The US sneaked some very iffy laws through in the wake of 9/11

Bothered about them reading what I do online? No, not really, as I have generally operated on the basis that anything you say or do online (or by phone) is, in effect, public.

And while we might all agree that identifying individuals who are carrying a bomb is a good thing, it might be harder to agree the govt should be trying to identify who is more likely to travel to a climate camp, or oppose privatisation of the NHS, or attend a feminist conference, or vote UKIP. Or be black or Jewish or whatever.

All of which become easier to do cheaply with computer analysis of the right sort of mass comms data. I'm comfortable with the idea that limited resources form their own push-back against mass invasion of privacy, and force the state to focus on those likely to cause most harm.

Admittedly states' judgement about what constitutes "most harm" is often, um, interesting - as I was reminded by recent programmes about the suffragettes. But that doesn't make me want to hand them carte-blanche to achieve Stasi-level surveillance for peanuts.

V for vindetta springs to mind :(

We don't really know, do we?

And of course, receiving information on a person in UK might lead to a request to pass on anything else of security relevance that was found. Or if there was a legally authorised investigation into a UK person, enquiries might be made of UK's allies into that person's activities and that would include beyond UK borders. And I don't have a problem with those scenarios.

If unauthorised investigation are being mounted, then that is wrong whether it uses UK or any other capability. There might be one in the news now, but I am sure UK co-operates with more than just US and has done for many years.

The remaining question is whether the parliamentary oversight committees are doing their jobs properly. And of course if MPs can be trusted to act honourably and with rigour - essential when dealing with issues which have to remain secret to remain effective.

the Guardian's backgrounder on the scandal says:

The UK connection

Britain's GCHQ eavesdropping centre has had access to the Prism system since at least June 2010, and generated 197 intelligence reports from it last year, prompting controversy and questions about the legality of it. The prime minister, David Cameron, insisted that the UK's intelligence services operated within the law and were subject to proper scrutiny. The foreign secretary, William Hague, told the BBC that "law-abiding citizens" in Britain would "never be aware of all the things ? agencies are doing to stop your identity being stolen or to stop a terrorist blowing you up".

GCHQ and the NSA have a relationship dating back to the second world war and have personnel stationed in each others' headquarters ? Fort Meade in Maryland and Cheltenham in Gloucestershire.

Looks as if GCHQ is an active user, not merely a passive recipient. And passive recipients are not without culpability anyway - it's the old 'would you use evidence obtained by torture' question.

How can there be parliamentary oversight when parliament isn't told about it? Looks as if the spooks have been evading all legal and democratic scrutiny.

Never thought I'd realise Barack Obama is even worse than George W...

Parliamentary overnight is via ISC.

It's not the same as the "torture question" as the use of intercept material isn't subject to a treaty commitment to utter repudiation.

No, that's not the point re. treaties, there's a comparison between attempts to justify use of evidence gained by torture ('if the Americans have it, it'd be irresponsible not to use it, esp. if there's a ticking timebomb...' and (potential) attempts to say it's OK to be the passive recipient of surveillance material gained illegally.

There's a difference because we have signed up to a treaty saying we won't receive information we believe was obtained via torture under any circumstances. There is no such agreement for any other material.

The US government says that this project is legal (authorised under FISA).

It's not a police state when Google mines your searches or your emails for the purposes of selling ads so it's not a police state when a government for legitimate reasons (imo) mines the same communications or searches.

Surely by this point in time we understand we are all under surveillance pretty much all the time? There are cameras on streets recording our comings and goings. Since the invention of phones there has been the possibility of phone tapping. Police have relied on informants since police force were started. If we lived in small medieval villages we would be subject to the same scrutiny. People stick their noses in other people's business, always have and always will.

And yes, I would prefer not to live my life under Sharia law or any law imposed by people who used undemocratic means to secure power. I grew up in Ireland in the 70s -- I would prefer less terrorism risk, and if that meant more surveillance then fine. It's all very well and mighty fine until something horrific like Lockerbie happens and then everyone bleats about security. This is how security happens.

It doesn't matter who is 'better' than whom either. What matters is that we voted (for better or for worse) for who we have governing while we absolutely did not vote for those who seek to undermine our society. Surely as this controversy shows those we voted for can be held accountable for what they do? Whereas how far do you think you would get complaining about the hooligans who destroyed Timbouctou?

scaevola, so what?

Last time I checked, the US didn't get to determine what's legal in the UK.

Well actually, as we didn't know which major party the kingmaking minority LibDems were going to plump for until some days after the election, I think your argument that the current government is some magnificent example of democracy is a bit weak, math.

Haven't noticed them being spectacularly accountable, either.

Just as an eg, did anyone notice they privatised the NHS last year? A sure vote loser in any election manifesto, and yet, lo, the bill is now passed.

"Democracy" is no guarantee of rights. As women, gay people, etc, have known for many, many years.

There is always Next Time for accountability to kick in. And there is no alternative to democracy as we know it no matter how much you may disagree with its fruits.

Come to think of it, Northern Ireland didn't even get one-person-one-vote democracy until people started setting bombs. Which very naturally the security services tried to prevent.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

FWIW, I think constant questioning of, and testing the proportionality of, state control is an essential part of a healthy country. Abdicating responsibility by saying, "Well it says democracy on the tin, so it must be fine," is the broad and gentle road to hell.

From the 1920s until the 1990s Northern Ireland was not really a democracy. It was a state with one party rule where one community dominated the other and excluded it from power.

Those wishing to change things had options other than bombs, as demonstrated in the American Civil Rights movement and in India. There were plenty of people on the Catholic/Nationalist side who abhorred the rise of armed militancy and returned SDLP councillors and MPs to elected bodies year after year, and on the other side Alliance and moderate unionists. For the most part, people in the late 60s who went on Civil Rights marches in NI just wanted civil rights. That movement was in many respects hijacked by the Provos, who had a different aim - unifying Ireland and destroying both northern and southern political entities. Hence the bombs.

Who knows what the outcome might have been if peaceful marching and focus on a political solution to the issues within NI had been allowed to continue by Unionists and Provisional IRA alike?

In the Republic the rise of Sinn Fein from the ashes of the Provisional IRA - a party that at one time wished to overthrow the Republic and its constitution and government system and put in place a Marxist workers' paradise (maybe it still does) - has been looked askance at.

It is possible to argue that the Provos lost the confidence of those they claimed to represent because in making NI an unworkable political entity they also contributed to making it a place that was unliveable (by drawing the presence of very heavy handed security forces to maintain order). I do not give the Provos any credit for the current tense peace in NI. I do credit the peace seeking majority on both sides of the border, both unionist and nationalist.

Indeed. And I'd have been with the Civil Rights marchers, not the bombers. And would probably also have received security force attention for this. Which security force was directed from London, under a one-person-one-vote democracy in England.

It's never simple.

The out of control behaviour of elements in the security forces in the 1970s is one of the reasons we now have parliamentary oversight and RIPA and all the rest of it. The regulatory process should to be supported and itself scrutinised, not waved away with a naive belief that a democratic state is reliably benign to all its citizens.

ParsingFancy I made the point about it being legal in the US, in reply to edam's comment that e material was obtained illegally, and the terms of FISA means that is not necessarily the case.

It is legal to receive information from Allies which has been legally obtained by those allies. It is also legal to follow up leads thus obtained, which may include a request for more information. It is also legal to ask intelligence allies if they have material on individuals who are already under investigation here.

It would be illegal to launch a investigation into sme random person, outside the requirements laid on the intelligence and security services. The Government sets those, and also scrutinises (via cross-party ISC). But that's nothing to do with whether material is requested/received from one particular foreign collection programme, and everything to do with the standards which should permanently be in place.

Your second paragraph would make it possible to operate a mutual back scratching searching arrangement allowing for almost total surveillance of all Allies, scaevola.

It will be interesting to see if this turns out to be the case.

I have nothing to hide. I'd rather the security intelligence had as much information as possible to catch the idiots out there wanting to destroy life for the rest of us.

DH on the other hand, has nothing to hide either, but doesn't like the idea of people snooping. He has stopped using google, doesn't have a gmail account any more, and luckily has never used facebook anyway.

Would it?

For a foreign agency to pass leads to UK, there would have to be reasonable ground to identify it as a lead with a valid UK angle. And for a British agency to make a request in pursuit of an investigation here, you'd need to have initiated an investigation is accordance with normal thresholds and authorisations.

Why is it so unreasonable to expect privacy?

If I'm suspected of doing something illegal, someone has to get a warrant and tap my phone/computer. It's called due process.

Bloody hell.

And what do you think that suspicion is based on??

Surely the Allies work closely enough to have at least a rough idea what might be of interest to each other? Blimey, I'm just Jo Public and I could think up a very crude list.

The problem is, it's a fishing expedition on the whole population to generate leads in the first place. That's exactly the sort of thing that's illegal in most non-police-state countries on their own turf.

Which is why it's important to know if you-search-mine-I'll-search-yours is being used to dodge the legislation.

I don't buy the thing about you only have to worry if you've done something wrong what does that mean anyway?