5 ms·

Concern grows over GCHQ Prism spying allegations

70 points by dan1234 13y ago

Zenst 13y ago
Given this is being driven by Keith Vaz a well known and documented politician of debatable integrity (corruption, bribes, lies etc) then I wonder why this is being driven. This is after all knee-jerk news or FOTM too some. No new evidence has been presented, no insight and yet more Britons personal details are violated by the hollywood law changes that the goverment has instigated. It is not new that the UK and USA are buddies, we share data, we don't like criminals and like to catch them, nothing changed there. Heck given BBC has a department called BBC monitoring that is located in a secure building and who's job is to monitor all the news Worldwide and on the floor above is a office run by a USA agency, then if anything one could question anything the BBC says. Like most, I'm more shocked at the rabble rabble, OMG I had no idea this was happening mentality of many than I am about this old cold-war legacy exchange of information comming to light, albiet no new evididence has actualy come to light and it is just Mr Vaz jumping on another bandwaggon for personal gains. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Vaz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Vaz Would you trust him
- keithpeter 13y ago
  "The documents were said to show that the British agency had generated 197 intelligence reports through the system in the 12 months to May 2012 - a 137% increase on the previous year." Perhaps we need more details about these documents. May has not denied the specific allegation, just mentioned the usual 'legal framework' thing.
  - Zenst 13y ago
    Very true, the aspect nothing was denied is about as close as we may get to a admission. Though what those 197 cases involved and results would be more of interest, again we probably will never known. If anything I'm supprised that figure seems as low as it is. Probbaly more concerning is that documents leak out to the press, what leaks out to the criminals you do wonder.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Oh, so now we play the man and not the ball? Is this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10106507/GCHQ-has-been-accessing-intelligence-through-internet-firms.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/1010650... non BBC, non leftie source good enough for you?
  - Zenst 13y ago
    WHAT! Please don't like sites that make AV flash up red with warnings (probably some hijacked advert). Also lacks details about context of said reports, proof said reports happened and again, general says nothing. As said before UK and USA work together, nothing new there, 197 seems rather low and when not measured against results is futile in discussing.
btilly 13y ago
Fascinating. I'm amazed that people aren't pointing out the consequences to the USA of GCHQ had access to data covertly gathered from leading internet firms in the US. Under US law, US investigators are not allowed to follow trails into this data that go to US citizens without a warrant. According to leaked training materials, they follow that rule. This is part of why they claim that this data collection is not an issue for Americans. But if the data is shared with other intelligence services, who CAN legally follow those trails, then that's a pretty serious loophole. I'm reminded of the early Bush policy of turning over prisoners of interest to police in non-US jails where torture could be used and then the resulting intelligence reports shared back with the US. Also the American investigators are told to report all times that they followed a trail to a US citizen. Were those trails shared as well? If so, then it gets worse still.
- Zenst 13y ago
  Well if you look at TAX laws and how companies avoid TAX by offshoring then how can anybody be supprised that data gets offshored and loopholes are found.
- gsnedders 13y ago
  FWIW, under both English and Scots law evidence gathered by such means cannot be used in a court of law; though, certainly, it can be used by police (and often has been in NI to great success) as a means to observe crimes being planned (where you don't have evidence to prosecute, typically for conspiracy to murder in the NI case) and then have police ready to act to thwart the crime (thus the number of IRA bombers caught on their bomb run, at police checkpoints set up at the last minute).
  - btilly 13y ago
    But can such evidence be used to establish the grounds for a warrant? That is a common trick in the USA. Data obtained in ways that would not be admissible in court can be used to get a warrant, and then data collected under the warrant can be used in court.
    - 13y ago
SCAQTony 13y ago
What astonishes me about PRISM is the motive behind it. It appears the purpose of PRISM is to keep the government and it's politicians in operation only. It has nothing to do with protecting the citizens of the United States or otherwise. For instance: if we presume PRISM is as omnipotent as described, and I do believe it is as sinister as it was chronicled. One has to ask this: if the "purpose" is to "protect" American/British citizens from harm then imagine how many child molesters, child pornographers, cartel bosses, under-ground arms dealers, etc. etc. are tacitly allowed to do business. In other words their raison d'etre "to protect us" is bullshit for more people are harmed from all of the above or even in car accidents then from the sinister people they want to "protect us" from. Perhaps they want to "protect themselves" from we the citizens?

70 points by dan1234 13y ago

Zenst 13y ago

Given this is being driven by Keith Vaz a well known and documented politician of debatable integrity (corruption, bribes, lies etc) then I wonder why this is being driven. This is after all knee-jerk news or FOTM too some. No new evidence has been presented, no insight and yet more Britons personal details are violated by the hollywood law changes that the goverment has instigated. It is not new that the UK and USA are buddies, we share data, we don't like criminals and like to catch them, nothing changed there. Heck given BBC has a department called BBC monitoring that is located in a secure building and who's job is to monitor all the news Worldwide and on the floor above is a office run by a USA agency, then if anything one could question anything the BBC says. Like most, I'm more shocked at the rabble rabble, OMG I had no idea this was happening mentality of many than I am about this old cold-war legacy exchange of information comming to light, albiet no new evididence has actualy come to light and it is just Mr Vaz jumping on another bandwaggon for personal gains. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Vaz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Vaz Would you trust him

keithpeter 13y ago
"The documents were said to show that the British agency had generated 197 intelligence reports through the system in the 12 months to May 2012 - a 137% increase on the previous year." Perhaps we need more details about these documents. May has not denied the specific allegation, just mentioned the usual 'legal framework' thing.
- Zenst 13y ago
  Very true, the aspect nothing was denied is about as close as we may get to a admission. Though what those 197 cases involved and results would be more of interest, again we probably will never known. If anything I'm supprised that figure seems as low as it is. Probbaly more concerning is that documents leak out to the press, what leaks out to the criminals you do wonder.
alan_cx 13y ago
Oh, so now we play the man and not the ball? Is this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10106507/GCHQ-has-been-accessing-intelligence-through-internet-firms.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/1010650... non BBC, non leftie source good enough for you?
- Zenst 13y ago
  WHAT! Please don't like sites that make AV flash up red with warnings (probably some hijacked advert). Also lacks details about context of said reports, proof said reports happened and again, general says nothing. As said before UK and USA work together, nothing new there, 197 seems rather low and when not measured against results is futile in discussing.

btilly 13y ago

Fascinating. I'm amazed that people aren't pointing out the consequences to the USA of GCHQ had access to data covertly gathered from leading internet firms in the US. Under US law, US investigators are not allowed to follow trails into this data that go to US citizens without a warrant. According to leaked training materials, they follow that rule. This is part of why they claim that this data collection is not an issue for Americans. But if the data is shared with other intelligence services, who CAN legally follow those trails, then that's a pretty serious loophole. I'm reminded of the early Bush policy of turning over prisoners of interest to police in non-US jails where torture could be used and then the resulting intelligence reports shared back with the US. Also the American investigators are told to report all times that they followed a trail to a US citizen. Were those trails shared as well? If so, then it gets worse still.

Zenst 13y ago
Well if you look at TAX laws and how companies avoid TAX by offshoring then how can anybody be supprised that data gets offshored and loopholes are found.
gsnedders 13y ago
FWIW, under both English and Scots law evidence gathered by such means cannot be used in a court of law; though, certainly, it can be used by police (and often has been in NI to great success) as a means to observe crimes being planned (where you don't have evidence to prosecute, typically for conspiracy to murder in the NI case) and then have police ready to act to thwart the crime (thus the number of IRA bombers caught on their bomb run, at police checkpoints set up at the last minute).
- btilly 13y ago
  But can such evidence be used to establish the grounds for a warrant? That is a common trick in the USA. Data obtained in ways that would not be admissible in court can be used to get a warrant, and then data collected under the warrant can be used in court.
  - 13y ago

SCAQTony 13y ago

What astonishes me about PRISM is the motive behind it. It appears the purpose of PRISM is to keep the government and it's politicians in operation only. It has nothing to do with protecting the citizens of the United States or otherwise. For instance: if we presume PRISM is as omnipotent as described, and I do believe it is as sinister as it was chronicled. One has to ask this: if the "purpose" is to "protect" American/British citizens from harm then imagine how many child molesters, child pornographers, cartel bosses, under-ground arms dealers, etc. etc. are tacitly allowed to do business. In other words their raison d'etre "to protect us" is bullshit for more people are harmed from all of the above or even in car accidents then from the sinister people they want to "protect us" from. Perhaps they want to "protect themselves" from we the citizens?