3 ms·

To me, much more concerning is Snowden's revelation that the British intelligence program 'Tempora' "saves everything": "Tempora is the first 'I save everythin

by jboy 13y ago

To me, much more concerning is Snowden's revelation that the British intelligence program 'Tempora' "saves everything": "Tempora is the first 'I save everything' approach ('full take') in the intelligence world. It sucks in all data, no matter what it is, and which rights are violated by it. ... Right now, the system is capable of saving three days' worth of traffic [...]. 'Full take' means that the system saves everything. If you send a data packet and if makes its way through the UK, we will get it."

user24 13y ago
even more concerning when coupled with the fact that no UK news outlet is covering Tempora due to the D-Notice. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-media-censor-surveillance-security http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-me...
- grey-area 13y ago
  Worse than that, the BBC is running puff pieces like this one today telling us how GCHQ kept the lights on at the Olympic ceremony: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23195283 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23195283 Telling us how useful GCHQ is in the fight against terror without mentioning Tempora.
DanBC 13y ago
To me there's something of the "if a tree falls in a forest" koan here. "If an agency caches the data but doesn't grep the data for anything related to me has my privacy been violated?" I would be a lot more worried if it was a US and not a UK agency. I would also be a lot more worried if it wasn't GCHQ, but was a police force. There are other databases in the UK that are a lot more concerning to me. All the stuff that supermarkets collect on people with loyalty cards[1], all the medical databases, the misuse of criminal records bureau checking. (These last two have real world examples of real world harm being done to individuals. But perhaps GCHQ's doesn't because it's secret and the information is shared with weird routes.) [1] Many years ago some friends and I had a loyalty card for "Ivor Trots". He only ever bought loo roll.
- grey-area 13y ago
  If an agency caches the data but doesn't grep the data for anything related to me has my privacy been violated? If it's stored indefinitely (as they have the ambition to do, and will soon have the ability), it doesn't matter if it is not used today, or in the past. What if at some point in your life you run for parliament, or your business strikes a prominent deal with a foreign power? At that point your records can be taken out and scrutinised by whoever has access to this data at that point in time, and you won't even know, because it's secret. Information has a habit of spreading beyond the intended boundaries, and if it is collected in secret, we have no way of controlling that spread or controlling its use. I would be a lot more worried if it was a US and not a UK agency. You should be worried then, because this data is routinely shared with the NSA, seems to be collected under the remit of a joint program, and is probably stored indefinitely by several GCHQ partners where someone is judged to be of interest or enemy of the state/agency, the definition of which will of course vary with the agency. I would also be a lot more worried if it wasn't GCHQ, but was a police force. I'd be surprised if access is not given the police on some level, given their participation in counter-terrorism activities, and there's nothing to stop a secret policy change giving more access, you wouldn't even know about it. So you should be worried. There are other databases in the UK that are a lot more concerning to me. Given that those databases exist online, and are probably transmitted regularly as backups etc as well as accessed via the internet, you can assume that all that data is also accessible by GCHQ partners and clients. The important difference though is that, as you point out, these databases are public, acknowledged to exist, and controlled by our existing law. If you want to you can challenge the use or collection of the data in a court, sometimes you can stop using these services, or ask to see all information collected on you, but no such options are available for information gathered and shared in the name of security. What I find troubling here is that the only limit on the indefinite storage of all this material by GCHQ is technical, not legal or moral, and that limit will soon be overcome.
  - jboy 13y ago
    > You should be worried then, because this data is routinely shared with the NSA, seems to be collected under the remit of a joint program Exactly. Snowden says "If you send a data packet and if [sic] makes its way through the UK, we will get it." Given that Snowden is an NSA whisteblower, who's talking here about the "Five Eyes" intelligence alliance (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand), this suggests pretty strongly that the "we" is the NSA.

by jboy 13y ago

user24 13y ago

even more concerning when coupled with the fact that no UK news outlet is covering Tempora due to the D-Notice. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-media-censor-surveillance-security http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/defence-d-bbc-me...

grey-area 13y ago
Worse than that, the BBC is running puff pieces like this one today telling us how GCHQ kept the lights on at the Olympic ceremony: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23195283 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23195283 Telling us how useful GCHQ is in the fight against terror without mentioning Tempora.

DanBC 13y ago

To me there's something of the "if a tree falls in a forest" koan here. "If an agency caches the data but doesn't grep the data for anything related to me has my privacy been violated?" I would be a lot more worried if it was a US and not a UK agency. I would also be a lot more worried if it wasn't GCHQ, but was a police force. There are other databases in the UK that are a lot more concerning to me. All the stuff that supermarkets collect on people with loyalty cards[1], all the medical databases, the misuse of criminal records bureau checking. (These last two have real world examples of real world harm being done to individuals. But perhaps GCHQ's doesn't because it's secret and the information is shared with weird routes.) [1] Many years ago some friends and I had a loyalty card for "Ivor Trots". He only ever bought loo roll.

grey-area 13y ago
If an agency caches the data but doesn't grep the data for anything related to me has my privacy been violated? If it's stored indefinitely (as they have the ambition to do, and will soon have the ability), it doesn't matter if it is not used today, or in the past. What if at some point in your life you run for parliament, or your business strikes a prominent deal with a foreign power? At that point your records can be taken out and scrutinised by whoever has access to this data at that point in time, and you won't even know, because it's secret. Information has a habit of spreading beyond the intended boundaries, and if it is collected in secret, we have no way of controlling that spread or controlling its use. I would be a lot more worried if it was a US and not a UK agency. You should be worried then, because this data is routinely shared with the NSA, seems to be collected under the remit of a joint program, and is probably stored indefinitely by several GCHQ partners where someone is judged to be of interest or enemy of the state/agency, the definition of which will of course vary with the agency. I would also be a lot more worried if it wasn't GCHQ, but was a police force. I'd be surprised if access is not given the police on some level, given their participation in counter-terrorism activities, and there's nothing to stop a secret policy change giving more access, you wouldn't even know about it. So you should be worried. There are other databases in the UK that are a lot more concerning to me. Given that those databases exist online, and are probably transmitted regularly as backups etc as well as accessed via the internet, you can assume that all that data is also accessible by GCHQ partners and clients. The important difference though is that, as you point out, these databases are public, acknowledged to exist, and controlled by our existing law. If you want to you can challenge the use or collection of the data in a court, sometimes you can stop using these services, or ask to see all information collected on you, but no such options are available for information gathered and shared in the name of security. What I find troubling here is that the only limit on the indefinite storage of all this material by GCHQ is technical, not legal or moral, and that limit will soon be overcome.
- jboy 13y ago
  > You should be worried then, because this data is routinely shared with the NSA, seems to be collected under the remit of a joint program Exactly. Snowden says "If you send a data packet and if [sic] makes its way through the UK, we will get it." Given that Snowden is an NSA whisteblower, who's talking here about the "Five Eyes" intelligence alliance (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand), this suggests pretty strongly that the "we" is the NSA.