6 ms·

There are some details of the legislation in question here[1]. It allows the UK to monitor "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom"

by 7952 13y ago

There are some details of the legislation in question here[1]. It allows the UK to monitor "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom" which seems a little broad! It would be interesting to know if this warrant targeted all users or a specific subset? I wonder how they decide whether to issue a warrant or just break into the site in question. A warrant could imply that they are unable to attack the provider, or that they want to have a chilling effect. [1]http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000/Part_I http://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investiga...

salient 13y ago
"In the name of the People, shut down this facility!" Well, that sounds familiar. It seems the more governments change over the decades, the more they stay the same.
- arethuza 13y ago
  In a case of "Just because you're paranoid Don't mean they're not after you" Harold Wilson, who was paranoid about lots of things but particularly being bugged by MI5, was in No 10 at a time when there were bugs in cabinet room and PM's study - whether the bugs were actually used or not isn't known: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson_conspiracy_theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson_conspiracy_theori... Edit: If anyone is interested in this stuff, I can strongly recommend Dominic Sandbrook's histories of the UK in the 60s and 70s: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dominic-Sandbrook/e/B001HCWSSW/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dominic-Sandbrook/e/B001HCWSSW/ref=n...
dingaling 13y ago
RIPA was strongly opposed by the IT and communications community during its 'consultation' period, but was passed largely intact. It was so intrusive a proposal that even people like me who often say 'I'll write and complain' actually did write a letter. Predictions of its misuse have been borne out, particularly as the authorized users of communication data were never enumerated or restricted. So we have the situation today where local Councils use RIPA to obtain communication data regarding individual citizens' activities.
- jackgavigan 13y ago
  > ..local Councils use RIPA to obtain communication data... It's worth noting that legislation introduced during 2012 limited the circumstances under which councils could use RIPA powers [1] and required judicial approval for the exercise of those powers [2]. [1]: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1500/article/2/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1500/article/2/made [2]: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/part/2/chapter/2/enacted http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/part/2/chapter/2/...
  - csmuk 13y ago
    This only happened after various scandals about privacy invasion by councils.
    - jackgavigan 13y ago
      And after a Tory-led government came to power...
      - csmuk 13y ago
        What's that got to do with it? (genuinely interested).
        jackgavigan 13y ago
        I think it's ironic that those who are in favour of personal liberties are often on the left of the political spectrum whereas, in this instance, it was the Tories who rolled back aspects of surveillance legislation that was introduced by Labour.
        csmuk 13y ago
        I think that the left/right distinction is silly myself. A typical red vs blue flag waving exercise rather than solving anything. Both labour and conservatives seem to mix the tenets of the two freely based on whim rather than manifesto. On one hand we have Big Society and smash socialism. On the other hand we have Big Society and smash socialism. Same turds, different coloured glitter. All parties have sold out to their corporate sponsors and are as bent as anything.
throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago
A warrant could imply that they are unable to attack the provider This is the institution which allowed U-boats to sink British ships so not to even hint that the ENIGMA cipher was cracked. I'm sure they're utterly incompetent at keeping secrets, and anyone on the internet can deduce their most critical SIGINT capabilities simply by observing how they deal with civil warrants in minor cases.
- 7952 13y ago
  Well the Snowden revelations suggest that yes this kind of capability will become public. We exist in a space that is bounded by technological opportunities and limitations which agencies are just as subject to as everyone else.
- CamperBob2 13y ago
  This is the institution which allowed U-boats to sink British ships so not to even hint that the ENIGMA cipher was cracked. I'm sure they're utterly incompetent at keeping secrets Easy call to make 70 years after the fact, I guess.
elemeno 13y ago
From https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/In_the_interests_of_the_economic_well-being_of_the_United_Kingdom https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/In_the_interests_of_th... - "The House will notice that the Bill restricts the activities of the SIS and GCHQ for safeguarding the economic well-being of the country to the acts or intentions of persons outside the United Kingdom. The agencies may not and do not get involved in domestic economic, commercial or financial affairs." So it's not quite as broad reaching as it reads on first glance. It is generally a problem though that laws need to be written so they're broad enough to cover circumstances which might not have been considered at the time of the laws' writing so that new laws don't need to be written all the time yet they can't be so overly broad as to be unworkable - which is why the judiciary has it's role in deciding how to interpret the laws and decide whether or not they ought to apply in a given circumstance.
- jackgavigan 13y ago
  Also, one can argue that it's a good thing in general that our intelligence and security services' activities are regulated by laws like this (instead of operating in grey areas beyond the law). And, by the way, activities carried out by the UK's intelligence and security services OUTSIDE the UK are also subject to RIPA.
DanBC 13y ago
A warrant might just mean that they're asking for the information legally, so that they can use it, rather than relying on their illegally gathered hacked information. A warrant might mean that they do not ever illegally hack sites, and that they only ever obey the law. RIPA is problematic law, and it's nice to see discussion of RIPA cases involving GCHQ. Not avoiding the problems of RIPA and GCHQ (I certainly think it needs better oversight and I'd prefer better law) RIPA has been abused quite a lot by many other organisations for stuff that US readers may find really awful. Local education authorities spy on parents to ensure they're actually in the catchment area of a school that they want to send children to, for example. Or councils spy on people applying for parking permits to make sure those people live in that area, and aren't just selling the permits on. Having that activity regulated is important, but RIPA is less regulation and more encouragment.
- jackgavigan 13y ago
  > A warrant might just mean that they're asking for the information legally, so that they can use it, rather than relying on their illegally gathered hacked information. Note that the "warrant", in this case, required that CertiVox hand over the key(s) to the encrypted data. It's possible that the authorities (not necessarily GCHQ itself, as NTAC provides assistance to other law enforcement and intelligence agencies) had already intercepted or seized the data but were unable to read it because it was encrypted.
anoncowherd 13y ago
>> It allows the UK to monitor "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom" which seems a little broad! You're right, that is a bit broad. "In the interests of the UK's ruling class" would be more accurate.

by 7952 13y ago

salient 13y ago

"In the name of the People, shut down this facility!" Well, that sounds familiar. It seems the more governments change over the decades, the more they stay the same.

arethuza 13y ago
In a case of "Just because you're paranoid Don't mean they're not after you" Harold Wilson, who was paranoid about lots of things but particularly being bugged by MI5, was in No 10 at a time when there were bugs in cabinet room and PM's study - whether the bugs were actually used or not isn't known: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson_conspiracy_theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wilson_conspiracy_theori... Edit: If anyone is interested in this stuff, I can strongly recommend Dominic Sandbrook's histories of the UK in the 60s and 70s: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dominic-Sandbrook/e/B001HCWSSW/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dominic-Sandbrook/e/B001HCWSSW/ref=n...

dingaling 13y ago

RIPA was strongly opposed by the IT and communications community during its 'consultation' period, but was passed largely intact. It was so intrusive a proposal that even people like me who often say 'I'll write and complain' actually did write a letter. Predictions of its misuse have been borne out, particularly as the authorized users of communication data were never enumerated or restricted. So we have the situation today where local Councils use RIPA to obtain communication data regarding individual citizens' activities.

jackgavigan 13y ago
> ..local Councils use RIPA to obtain communication data... It's worth noting that legislation introduced during 2012 limited the circumstances under which councils could use RIPA powers [1] and required judicial approval for the exercise of those powers [2]. [1]: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1500/article/2/made http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1500/article/2/made [2]: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/part/2/chapter/2/enacted http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/part/2/chapter/2/...
- csmuk 13y ago
  This only happened after various scandals about privacy invasion by councils.
  - jackgavigan 13y ago
    And after a Tory-led government came to power...
    - csmuk 13y ago
      What's that got to do with it? (genuinely interested).
      - jackgavigan 13y ago
        I think it's ironic that those who are in favour of personal liberties are often on the left of the political spectrum whereas, in this instance, it was the Tories who rolled back aspects of surveillance legislation that was introduced by Labour.
        csmuk 13y ago
        I think that the left/right distinction is silly myself. A typical red vs blue flag waving exercise rather than solving anything. Both labour and conservatives seem to mix the tenets of the two freely based on whim rather than manifesto. On one hand we have Big Society and smash socialism. On the other hand we have Big Society and smash socialism. Same turds, different coloured glitter. All parties have sold out to their corporate sponsors and are as bent as anything.

throwaway_yy2Di 13y ago

A warrant could imply that they are unable to attack the provider This is the institution which allowed U-boats to sink British ships so not to even hint that the ENIGMA cipher was cracked. I'm sure they're utterly incompetent at keeping secrets, and anyone on the internet can deduce their most critical SIGINT capabilities simply by observing how they deal with civil warrants in minor cases.

7952 13y ago
Well the Snowden revelations suggest that yes this kind of capability will become public. We exist in a space that is bounded by technological opportunities and limitations which agencies are just as subject to as everyone else.
CamperBob2 13y ago
This is the institution which allowed U-boats to sink British ships so not to even hint that the ENIGMA cipher was cracked. I'm sure they're utterly incompetent at keeping secrets Easy call to make 70 years after the fact, I guess.

elemeno 13y ago

From https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/In_the_interests_of_the_economic_well-being_of_the_United_Kingdom https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/In_the_interests_of_th... - "The House will notice that the Bill restricts the activities of the SIS and GCHQ for safeguarding the economic well-being of the country to the acts or intentions of persons outside the United Kingdom. The agencies may not and do not get involved in domestic economic, commercial or financial affairs." So it's not quite as broad reaching as it reads on first glance. It is generally a problem though that laws need to be written so they're broad enough to cover circumstances which might not have been considered at the time of the laws' writing so that new laws don't need to be written all the time yet they can't be so overly broad as to be unworkable - which is why the judiciary has it's role in deciding how to interpret the laws and decide whether or not they ought to apply in a given circumstance.

jackgavigan 13y ago
Also, one can argue that it's a good thing in general that our intelligence and security services' activities are regulated by laws like this (instead of operating in grey areas beyond the law). And, by the way, activities carried out by the UK's intelligence and security services OUTSIDE the UK are also subject to RIPA.

DanBC 13y ago

A warrant might just mean that they're asking for the information legally, so that they can use it, rather than relying on their illegally gathered hacked information. A warrant might mean that they do not ever illegally hack sites, and that they only ever obey the law. RIPA is problematic law, and it's nice to see discussion of RIPA cases involving GCHQ. Not avoiding the problems of RIPA and GCHQ (I certainly think it needs better oversight and I'd prefer better law) RIPA has been abused quite a lot by many other organisations for stuff that US readers may find really awful. Local education authorities spy on parents to ensure they're actually in the catchment area of a school that they want to send children to, for example. Or councils spy on people applying for parking permits to make sure those people live in that area, and aren't just selling the permits on. Having that activity regulated is important, but RIPA is less regulation and more encouragment.

jackgavigan 13y ago
> A warrant might just mean that they're asking for the information legally, so that they can use it, rather than relying on their illegally gathered hacked information. Note that the "warrant", in this case, required that CertiVox hand over the key(s) to the encrypted data. It's possible that the authorities (not necessarily GCHQ itself, as NTAC provides assistance to other law enforcement and intelligence agencies) had already intercepted or seized the data but were unable to read it because it was encrypted.

anoncowherd 13y ago

>> It allows the UK to monitor "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom" which seems a little broad! You're right, that is a bit broad. "In the interests of the UK's ruling class" would be more accurate.