GCHQ Oversight Tribunal Has To Ask GCHQ's Permission To Reveal GCHQ's Wrongdoing
from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong? dept
One of the key themes to emerge in the debate about surveillance is the oversight of the agencies involved, and to what extent it is effective. In the US, that has been put into stark relief by news that the committee that is supposed to keep an eye on the spies was itself spied upon. And now over in the UK, we learn that things are just as bad when it comes to the equivalent oversight body, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). Its powers sound impressive:
The Tribunal can investigate complaints about any alleged conduct by, or on behalf of, the Intelligence Services - the Security Service (sometimes called MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (sometimes called MI6) and GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters).
Unfortunately, the IPT's credibility as the public's watchdog for the intelligence services has just been seriously undermined by the following information published by The Guardian:
The scope of conduct the IPT can investigate concerning the Intelligence Agencies is much broader than it is with regard to the other public authorities. The IPT is the only Tribunal to whom complaints about the Intelligence Services can be directedA controversial court that claims to be completely independent of the British government is secretly operating from a base within the Home Office, the Guardian has learned.
It gets worse:
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which investigates complaints about the country's intelligence agencies, is also funded by the Home Office, and its staff includes at least one person believed to be a Home Office official previously engaged in intelligence-related work.the IPT will not say whether GCHQ had disclosed the existence of its bulk surveillance operations, which attempt to capture the digital communications of everybody -- including those people who complain to the tribunal.
So the body tasked with overseeing GCHQ has to get GCHQ's permission before it can reveal any wrongdoing by GCHQ, which it doesn't bother doing when it knows it would be refused. Isn't oversight a wonderful thing?
Nor will it disclose whether it has issued any secret ruling on the lawfulness of those operations, on the grounds that the rules under which it operates stipulate that it cannot do so without the permission of GCHQ itself. It has not sought that permission on grounds it knows it would not be given.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: gchq, ipt, surveillance, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
At this point you have to wonder if the US or UK thought of the idea first, though whoever was second obviously didn't waste any time coming up with their version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You'd think if Anonymous had done the exact same things these officials did, there would be a worldwide person hunt. I mean they nudged PayPal and people were threatened with huge fines and sentences... one would hope that the people who sold out their citizens, violated every supposed right of those citizens, and continue to hide how far they have gone might face more than some skiddies who nudged a website.
JUST KIDDING.
Nothing will happen, nothing will change.
They no longer answer to the people who put them in power, and those people don't seem to give a shit. Let the world burn. Perhaps when the flames finally get big enough, destroy enough, people might wonder how all of this happened while they were busy ignoring it. Let them look up to the people who wasted time trying to save them all along and scream save us, because we'll probably say no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All these agencies certainly fear proper transparency and oversight, thus they must have one hell of a lot to hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cozy job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cue yes minister joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is illegal under ECHR to begin with (right to fair trial, and right to privacy).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]