GCHQ Neglected To Tell Its Overseers That The NSA Granted Widespread Access To PRISM Databases
from the oversight! dept
Ryan Gallagher, over at The Intercept, has a report on some previously unreleased Snowden documents, detailing how GCHQ was given a taste of widespread access to the NSA PRISM database as well as its bulk metadata collections during the London Olympics in 2012, and that they were basically begging for continuous unrestricted access to those databases. At the time of the documents, the NSA had not yet given GCHQ such access (beyond that one shot during the Olympics) but apparently seemed receptive to the idea. That wasn't the most interesting part of the article, however. After all, what kind of spies would they be if they weren't constantly seeking more access to the troves of info that the NSA had been collecting as well. The part that struck me as just as noteworthy is that it appears that GCHQ hid its level of access to the NSA databases from its overseers in Parliament:One of the common themes that these revelations keep re-emphasizing is that the intelligence community keeps insisting that they won't abuse their powers because of their strong "oversight." And yet, every time we get a chance to look more closely at the actual oversight, we find that the oversight is almost non-existent. The intelligence community is as cagey and misleading in private classified sessions as they are in public.[Julian] Huppert, the member of Parliament, served on a committee that reviewed – and recommended against – a push from the British government for more powers to access private data before the Snowden materials became public last year.
At no point during that process, Huppert says, did GCHQ disclose the extent of its access to PRISM and other then-secret NSA programs. Nor did it indicate that it was seeking wider access to NSA data – even during closed sessions held to allow security officials to discuss sensitive information. Huppert says these facts were relevant to the review and could have had a bearing on its outcome.
“It is now obvious that they were trying to deliberately mislead the committee,” Huppert told The Intercept. “They very clearly did not give us all the information that we needed.”
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, nsa, olympics, oversight, prism, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hey! Look over there!
"While you're looking, I'll just take this stuff from you that you don't notice."
Yeah, that's how it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Putting it mildly
Fixed for accuracy.
Both the NSA and GCHQ have shown no hesitation in misleading, obstructing, and flat out lying to those that are supposed to provide 'oversight' over them, with absolutely zero repercussions for their actions.
Making it worse, the ones providing the 'oversight' only know what the spy agencies let them know, as they either can't, or won't, investigate the agencies themselves, relying instead on what they're told by the agencies in question.
When the ones providing the 'oversight' have to rely on the 'honesty' of the ones they're supposed to be watching, it's not a case of 'almost no oversight', but just plain 'no oversight at all'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Putting it mildly
Why can't you tell us what you are or are not looking at? Terrorism.
How can I be sure you're not looking at the private data of regular citizens? Terrorism.
Why do I have to ask for permission to carry out oversight? Terrorism.
The fact that our representatives keep falling for this schtick is the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as long as there are no consequences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/may/01/uk-slips-press-freedom-list-snowden-nsa-leaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]