3 ms·
Nowhere in that article does it appear that GCHQ actually asked NSA to tap UK citizens' private communications. Is it buried under one of the other links? Inst
by mpyne 11y ago
Nowhere in that article does it appear that GCHQ actually asked NSA to tap UK citizens' private communications. Is it buried under one of the other links?
Instead it appears that NSA had gathered data relating to UK citizens (under NSA's existing legal authorities) and that the GCHQ then asked for that data to be shared with it.
UK law is incredibly surveillance-friendly compared to the USA so I'd be surprised if there were even a reason for GCHQ to ask NSA to do surveillance on GCHQ's behalf; GCHQ could much more easily do it directly.
But NSA-sourced data could still be useful for GCHQ, which would make sense that GCHQ asks for it when it's been collected, for the same reason Germany's BND was found to be sharing data with NSA (in BND's case, because they wanted NSA to share their own data with BND).
- Retric 11y agoThat first quote was from this link. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement Which uses 53 as its source. "US spy base `taps UK phones for MI5'" which may or may not be credible. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/us-spy-base-taps-uk-phones-for-mi5-1364399.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/us-spy-base-t.... However, my second posts links to a court case which suggests they overstepped some bounds.