4 ms·

I would like my British MP to ask in parliament if GCHQ are spying on members of the U.S. Congress. This is because we already know that the NSA get GCHQ to do

I would like my British MP to ask in parliament if GCHQ are spying on members of the U.S. Congress. This is because we already know that the NSA get GCHQ to do little favours for them to get around domestic spying laws. I was thinking I just need to cut and paste the senator's question and get my MP to ask it, however, does anyone here have any details to wording or other ideas so that a weasel word response isn't all I get?

DanBC 13y ago
Whoever is asked the question would refuse to answer stating national security. Stuff about GCHQ is normally handled by the http://isc.independent.gov.uk/ http://isc.independent.gov.uk/
- Theodores 13y ago
  I think that answers my question. However, it is like the two guards in conundrum: "One guard always tells the truth and the other guard always lies. You don't know which one is honest and which one is the liar..." So it still must be possible to phrase the question in such a way the truth is revealed, where 'one guard' is the spy agency and the 'other guard' is the politician and the 'national security' response.
alan_cx 13y ago
Well, if we in the UK are some how responsible for Euro spying on behalf of our US masters, then presumably GCHQ is the centre for all spying on all US citizens who come to Europe. I kinda think its almost a silly question. Of course we are, we are just waiting for the relevant leak to confirm it. UK wise, I reckon its possibly more worthwhile to ask about GCHQ spying on MP's, UK MEPs, and members of the House of Lords. However, we actually do know that UK security services do spy on elected officials as we know a hell of a lot about what they got up to in Norther Ireland. IIRC, Americans were historically critical of how we treated Irish freedom fighters..... or was it terrorists? But were mainland British folk concerned because they spied on Northern Irish politicians? Not that I know of. Then look at the reaction of British politicians to the Snowden leaks. Pretty muted. Again, I suspect that they are kept in line by implied blackmail. What might be vaguely useful is if we had a set of standard well formatted questions, that people can copy and use to send to our MPs.
mpyne 13y ago
> This is because we already know that the NSA get GCHQ to do little favours for them to get around domestic spying laws. It's just as illegal under U.S. law to have GCHQ do it for you as for NSA to do it directly. This is a well-discussed loophole already and the courts have already made clear it's illegal. E.g. you have a Fourth Amendment right to avoid having your postal mail (or any other papers or effects) searched unreasonably. You do not have a Fourth Amendment right to avoid having your UPS parcel searched by UPS. Does this mean that the government can simply tell UPS to open your UPS parcel to evade the Fourth Amendment? It's not UPS's personal property so they have no Fourth Amendment protection to the parcel. And you have no Fourth Amendment protection from UPS. But as it turns out once UPS acts under the direction and control of the government, they also have to comply with the strictures on the government. So they cannot legally be made to violate the Fourth Amendment on behalf of the government. The big catch is that a third party may voluntarily divulge information (e.g. if they rip open your parcel by accident while throwing it out the truck on Christmas Eve and a bomb spills out, they can tell the government). But they can't do so on request of the government. And so it is for GCHQ and NSA. GCHQ could conceivably tip off the NSA if they happen to get evidence of a US person plotting a terrorist act (much like the USA might tip off Germany to a German national, if it were discovered). But the NSA can't ask GCHQ to deliver information on a US person. At least, not legally, but if you're assuming the NSA will just break the law anyways you're already screwed.
- betterunix 13y ago
  The "big catch" is what makes all that cooperation possible. GHCQ just happens to be spying on Americans and then giving the information to the NSA; the NSA returns the favor with a wink and a nod. Sure, nobody ever demanded that the other side do this, but both sides know that if they continue to give each other these "presents" then they can continue to exploit the loophole.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > GHCQ just happens to be spying on Americans and then giving the information to the NSA; the NSA returns the favor with a wink and a nod. There are about 300 million Americans. How does GCHQ know which ones to spill the beans on? It can't simply be all the information as NSA would then still need to choose which ones to look at, which would require a separate warrant to "look", even under their surreal logic. It can't be a specific person directed by NSA, as that makes GCHQ an agent of the U.S. government.

DanBC 13y ago

Whoever is asked the question would refuse to answer stating national security. Stuff about GCHQ is normally handled by the http://isc.independent.gov.uk/ http://isc.independent.gov.uk/

Theodores 13y ago
I think that answers my question. However, it is like the two guards in conundrum: "One guard always tells the truth and the other guard always lies. You don't know which one is honest and which one is the liar..." So it still must be possible to phrase the question in such a way the truth is revealed, where 'one guard' is the spy agency and the 'other guard' is the politician and the 'national security' response.

alan_cx 13y ago

Well, if we in the UK are some how responsible for Euro spying on behalf of our US masters, then presumably GCHQ is the centre for all spying on all US citizens who come to Europe. I kinda think its almost a silly question. Of course we are, we are just waiting for the relevant leak to confirm it. UK wise, I reckon its possibly more worthwhile to ask about GCHQ spying on MP's, UK MEPs, and members of the House of Lords. However, we actually do know that UK security services do spy on elected officials as we know a hell of a lot about what they got up to in Norther Ireland. IIRC, Americans were historically critical of how we treated Irish freedom fighters..... or was it terrorists? But were mainland British folk concerned because they spied on Northern Irish politicians? Not that I know of. Then look at the reaction of British politicians to the Snowden leaks. Pretty muted. Again, I suspect that they are kept in line by implied blackmail. What might be vaguely useful is if we had a set of standard well formatted questions, that people can copy and use to send to our MPs.

mpyne 13y ago

> This is because we already know that the NSA get GCHQ to do little favours for them to get around domestic spying laws. It's just as illegal under U.S. law to have GCHQ do it for you as for NSA to do it directly. This is a well-discussed loophole already and the courts have already made clear it's illegal. E.g. you have a Fourth Amendment right to avoid having your postal mail (or any other papers or effects) searched unreasonably. You do not have a Fourth Amendment right to avoid having your UPS parcel searched by UPS. Does this mean that the government can simply tell UPS to open your UPS parcel to evade the Fourth Amendment? It's not UPS's personal property so they have no Fourth Amendment protection to the parcel. And you have no Fourth Amendment protection from UPS. But as it turns out once UPS acts under the direction and control of the government, they also have to comply with the strictures on the government. So they cannot legally be made to violate the Fourth Amendment on behalf of the government. The big catch is that a third party may voluntarily divulge information (e.g. if they rip open your parcel by accident while throwing it out the truck on Christmas Eve and a bomb spills out, they can tell the government). But they can't do so on request of the government. And so it is for GCHQ and NSA. GCHQ could conceivably tip off the NSA if they happen to get evidence of a US person plotting a terrorist act (much like the USA might tip off Germany to a German national, if it were discovered). But the NSA can't ask GCHQ to deliver information on a US person. At least, not legally, but if you're assuming the NSA will just break the law anyways you're already screwed.

betterunix 13y ago
The "big catch" is what makes all that cooperation possible. GHCQ just happens to be spying on Americans and then giving the information to the NSA; the NSA returns the favor with a wink and a nod. Sure, nobody ever demanded that the other side do this, but both sides know that if they continue to give each other these "presents" then they can continue to exploit the loophole.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > GHCQ just happens to be spying on Americans and then giving the information to the NSA; the NSA returns the favor with a wink and a nod. There are about 300 million Americans. How does GCHQ know which ones to spill the beans on? It can't simply be all the information as NSA would then still need to choose which ones to look at, which would require a separate warrant to "look", even under their surreal logic. It can't be a specific person directed by NSA, as that makes GCHQ an agent of the U.S. government.