UK Home Secretary: UK Isn't A Surveillance State… And I'd Give You Proof, But You Might All Die Because Of It

Say That Again

from the oh-do-shut-up dept

Theresa May, the UK’s Home Secretary has hit back after the UK’s Director General of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, Charles Farr, revealed how the UK believes it can spy on all “external” communications without a warrant and that it’s definition of “external” was pretty close to “everything” (and that’s only a slight exaggeration). May’s response might be summarized as denying everything and insisting that if the UK government revealed any details, everyone might die. First up, the denial:

“Some people have alleged that GCHQ is exploiting a technical loophole in legislation that allows them to intercept external communications – that is, communications either sent or received outside the UK – at will and without authorisation. This is… nonsense.”

Okay, so perhaps you could reveal more details about what GCHQ is actually doing and whether or not it’s actually got any purpose towards national security? Oh, sorry, that would be “helping the terrorists win” of course:

But Mrs May warned that it would be “cavalier and reckless” to let the public know details of which terrorist plots had been thwarted by the security services.

“Considerable” threats to UK security were developing with the emergence of militant group Isis, the collapse of Syria, the activities of Boko Haram in Nigeria, and the “expanding scope” of cyber crime, the home secretary said.

In other words: FUD FUD FUD, be afraid!!! Oh, and of course, in her mind, she’d actually prefer it if the UK were even more of a surveillance state:

She concluded by renewing a call to change the law to hand the security services more powers to scrutinise online communication

She’s specifically discussing the so-called Snooper’s Charter, which has been soundly rejected by both the public and other politicians, but which her party still wants… because they’re scared of fictional TV crime dramas (that’s not a joke).

I’m sorry, but this continuing game of “we’re not spying on you… but we need more powers to spy on you because FEAR FEAR FEAR… and we can’t give you any evidence because you all might die” is getting rather tired.

Filed Under: fear, fud, gchq, surveillance, surveillance state, theresa may, uk

When Vladimir Putin Is Envious Of Your Surveillance State, You've Gone Too Far

Politics

from the that's-quite-a-statement dept

Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a big press conference on Thursday, and spent some time talking about President Obama, Ed Snowden and the various US surveillance programs that have been revealed. Putin appeared to be quite supportive of the surveillance programs, saying that he believes that the US’s surveillance programs are a “necessity” and “mainly directed at fighting terrorism,” so there’s not a real problem with them. He even defended collecting data on everyone “because you have to monitor not only a specific terrorist suspect, but rather his whole network of relationships.” That Vladimir Putin would appreciate vast spying power is hardly a surprise. But this claim is raising some eyebrows:

“How do I feel about Obama after Snowden’s revelations? I envy him because he can do this without incurring any consequences.”

Did you catch that? Putin, the former head of the KGB, and very well known for using Russian intelligence services to his strong advantage is envious that President Obama has all this surveillance capabilities at his fingertips and that all of this can be revealed “without incurring any consequences.” It seems like there should be a general rule of thumb: when Vladimir Putin is envious of your surveillance state, you’ve gone too far.

Filed Under: barack obama, nsa, surveillance, surveillance state, vladimir putin

Helping Build The Surveillance State Is Good Business: Palantir Gets $196 Million More In Funding

Venture Capital

from the money-money-money dept

Palantir is definitely a fairly well-known (if somewhat secretive) company in Silicon Valley. While Silicon Valley firms actually tend to have a reputation for being skeptical of partnering up with the intelligence community, Palantir has always focused on trying to work directly with the intelligence community, quite successfully. Palantir got a bit of notoriety a couple years ago, when it was revealed to be associated with HBGary Federal when Anonymous leaked plans to try to discredit Wikileaks and various critics (including Glenn Greenwald) in a pitch to Bank of America and the US Chamber of Commerce. However, with the latest stories about NSA surveillance, and questions concerning the involvement of Silicon Valley, more and more attention has been paid to Palantir. Andy Greenberg and Ryan Mac did a profile in Forbes of the “deviant philosopher” who built the company. And the Telegraph recently called it the creepiest startup ever.

Apparently all the revelations concerning the surveillance state haven’t been bad for business either. Reports are that the company has recently closed on a little under $200 million from investors, bringing its total raised to around $500 million. Supposedly the latest valuation has the company around $8 billion — which would mean that the $200 million only bought around 2.5% of the company.

Obviously, there’s money in feeding the surveillance state. In fact, we’ve argued that so much of the hype around “cybersecurity” has really been about efforts to drum up more business for contractors, including Palantir. It’s just a shame that all these revelations don’t seem to have dampened the interest in building the surveillance state. Apparently the 4th Amendment doesn’t mean too much when all that money is on the table.

Filed Under: nsa, nsa surveillance, surveillance state, venture capital
Companies: palantir

FISA Court Judges Aren't Happy That The Public Is Upset Secret Court Issuing Secret Rulings Allowing NSA To Spy On Them

Legal Issues

from the well,-perhaps-they-should-have-thought-about-that-earlier dept

Shockingly, it appears that the various judges who make up the secretive FISA Court, which issues secret rulings on secret interpretations of the law that allow the government to spy on Americans, aren’t particularly happy about the sudden attention they’re getting. In fact, they’re complaining that the claims that they’re a rubber stamp are unfair, and that they’re human beings too. Specifically, they’re upset about the recent leaked revelations that include an inspector general’s report about some FISA court activities:

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, the former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, took the highly unusual step Friday of voicing open frustration at the account in the report and court’s inability to explain its decisions.
“In my view, that draft report contains major omissions, and some inaccuracies, regarding the actions I took as Presiding Judge of the FISC and my interactions with Executive Branch officials,” Kollar-Kotelly said in a statement to The Post. It was her first public comment describing her work on the intelligence court.

You see, they’re not just FISA court judges, but they’re human too. When you cut them, do they not bleed? When they issue secret rulings that appear to go completely against the 4th Amendment, are their phone call records and emails not subject to mass collection as well?

Kollar-Kotelly disputed the NSA report’s suggestion of a fairly high level of coordination between the court and the NSA and Justice in 2004 to re-create certain authorities under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that created the court in response to abuses of domestic surveillance in the 1960s and 1970s.

“That is incorrect,” she said. “I participated in a process of adjudication, not ‘coordination’ with the executive branch. The discussions I had with executive branch officials were in most respects typical of how I and other district court judges entertain applications for criminal wiretaps under Title III, where issues are discussed ex parte.”

Of course, it’s nice to say this, but when it’s all done in total secrecy, without any sunlight or real oversight, it’s difficult to believe that the process really is all that careful. Given the additional leaks that show that the NSA more or less signed off on massive data collections, it’s hard not to see that as a very cozy and “collaborative” setup, rather than particularly adversarial, where anyone is looking out for the rights of the public and the limits on government overreach as presented in the Constitution.

Filed Under: fisa court, nsa surveillance, rubber stamp, surveillance state