UK Data Retention Snooping Law Thrown Out One Year Later

from the now-let's-stop-the-repeats dept

Almost exactly a year ago, we wrote about how the UK Parliament rushed through a dangerous data retention bill, known as the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, or DRIP, with little debate. As soon as it became law, challenges were filed -- and now the UK's High Court has struck down the law. As you may also recall, the rush to pass DRIP was in response to an EU Court of Justice ruling that said widespread data retention violated privacy rules. And, rather than take the hint, the UK government used it as an excuse to try to just rewrite the rules to let them continue snooping on the public.

Not surprisingly, the current UK government (which has been looking to expand its snooping powers rather than limit them) has made it clear that it will appeal this ruling. Furthermore, the court is allowing the government until early next year to see if it can fix the law by itself:

The judges said that the first section of Dripa "does not lay down clear and precise rules providing for access to and use of communications data" and should be "disapplied".

But the judges said their order on disapplication should be suspended until after March 31 2016 "to give Parliament the opportunity to put matters right".

That's an interesting way of going about things: we see you've been violating the rights of the public for a year now, and so we'll give you another 9 months to do so and hope that during that time you'll figure out a way to maybe not violate the public's rights so much.

Filed Under: data retention, david cameron, drip, high court, privacy, snooper's charter, theresa may

UK Plans To Do Away With Free Speech... In The Name Of Free Speech

from the as-expected... dept

Last fall, we noted that UK Home Secretary Theresa May had made it clear that if her Conservative Party were re-elected, one of the first orders of business would be a new "Extremist Disruption Orders" plan that would outlaw any speech or events that the government declared "extremist." She wasn't kidding around. Following last week's election in the UK, David Cameron appears to be announcing just such a plan to basically wipe out anything resembling free expression in the UK (and, yes, I know, the UK doesn't view free expression in the same way as the US does, and there's nothing like the First Amendment there -- you don't have to point that out in the comments). The broad-reaching plans seem absolutely insane:

The orders, the product of an extremism task force set up by the prime minister, were proposed during the last parliament in March, but were largely vetoed by the Liberal Democrats on the grounds of free speech. They were subsequently revived in the Conservative manifesto.

The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.

"A risk of harassment"? "Alarm or distress"? That could include just about anything. A "threat to the functioning of democracy"? Does that include public protests or arguing against the current leadership? The likelihood of abuse seems absolutely, astoundingly, massive.

They would include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.

Yes, that's right. If you wanted to tweet something that creates "distress," you'd have to first submit it to the police to get their okay.

Oh, and here's the really insane part. David Cameron is claiming that he's doing this in the name of free speech. No joke:

“For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance.

“This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values.

“Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality.

“We must say to our citizens: this is what defines us as a society.”

Did you hear that? That's the sound of actual free speech supporters having their collective jaws hit the floor. Here he is, saying that for too long we've been "tolerant" of free expression, and thus we have to ban it, in support of "free speech" and democracy. And he flat out admits that they no longer think "obeying the law" should keep you out of trouble. That's some incredibly Orwellian bullshit right there.

As Glenn Greenwald rightly notes, once again it appears that the biggest threat to free speech is not from terrorism, but from those claiming to fight terrorism. He also points us to a video of Theresa May going on and on about how this is about "promoting British values" and stopping those who "look to divide our society." So, they don't want to "divide" society... and they're going to do that by telling everyone they can only have views that the government finds acceptable.

In short, the current UK government is promoting an out and out war on free expression, by saying you can only have free expression if you spout government approved thoughts.

Filed Under: david cameron, extremism, free expression, free speech, theresa may, uk

UK Government Brings In Yet More Counter-Terrorism Measures -- Including Internal Exile

from the time-for-another-solzhenitsyn dept

The UK has the sad distinction of leading the way in the West when it comes to playing up the terrorism threat to justify the introduction of disproportionate surveillance laws. One of the favorite rhetorical tricks employed here is to invoke the "capabilities gap": this refers to the fact that the security services are unable to capture all communications in the same way they once could. But it's a misleading comparison.

It's true that it was easier to spy on the public's communications in the past; the percentage of traffic that can be tracked today may be lower, but the overall quantity of information available to the police and security forces is vastly greater, simply because the range of digital communications is so wide, and their use in everyday life so pervasive. This means that it is quite unnecessary to put in place even more intrusive monitoring in order to gain equivalent amounts of relevant information. However, the UK's Home Secretary, Theresa May, didn't let a little thing like the facts get in the way when she introduced yet another counter-terrorist bill earlier this week:

I remain passionately convinced of the need to address the capabilities gap the authorities face when it comes to communications data. And I am pleased to say that the Bill will go some way to bridging that gap. It will therefore require internet providers to retain Internet Protocol -- or IP -- address data to identify individual users of internet services.

That might seem a curious thing to introduce, since UK ISPs are already required to store metadata. A useful post from the Open Rights Group (ORG) explains this is all about the rise of mobile Internet use:

The new proposal, while being consistent with existing arrangements for ISPs in the UK, is another proposal for blanket retention beyond what is needed for business purposes.

In any case, this is a rather backward proposal, dealing with a problem that exists because the mobile companies continue to rely on out of date technology. To take a moment to explain: the Internet is famously running out of addresses (numbers that identify a point on the Internet – Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) addresses).

To deal with the lack of address space, mobile companies use a technology called "Network Address Translation" or NAT, which allows several devices to share the same IP address. Most people use this at home to allow two or three computers to use the ADSL or cable connection, However the mobile companies do this at a far greater scale called "Carrier Grade NAT" -- and there will be hundreds of different people using the same IP address.

It is for this reason that the port number for each connection must also be stored under the new proposals. But as ORG goes on to point out, it would be far better if mobile phone companies were encouraged to upgrade their systems to IPv6, which has such an abundance of addresses that this kind of quick fix would be unnecessary. Even then, such addresses would only identify a device, not who was using it at any given time.

Similarly, ORG also notes that this blanket retention could fall foul of a recent ruling by the European Union's Court of Justice that data retention must be "limited to what is strictly necessary. Indeed, because all IP addresses and port numbers are retained, the fear has to be that sooner or later they will be used in an attempt to identify those accused of copyright infringement -- as in Australia.

However, it seems unlikely that the UK government will worry about these kind of details given that the new counter-terrorism and security bill includes even more troubling provisions, such as the following:

in response to the increased threat we face and in response to the police and security services telling us this is what they need, we will legislate to allow TPIM [Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures] subjects to be relocated to different parts of the country.

Yes, you read that correctly: the new bill will introduce internal exile for the UK. The parallels between the UK and Soviet Russia become more painfully apparent by the day.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: exile, ip address, law enforcement, surveillance, theresa may, uk government

UK's Home Secretary Says Terrorists Will Be The Real Winners If Country's Cell Coverage Dead Zones Are Fixed

from the 4G-means-four-times-the-terrorism dept

The UK's culture secretary wants to eradicate the nation's patchy cell phone coverage. UK cell phone users aren't able to switch towers on the fly -- something residents of other EU countries (as well as the US) enjoy -- but are forced to connect only with their provider's towers.

But Home Secretary Theresa May would rather UK citizens suffer through a plethora of dead zones (or "not spots" -- the term of choice for these no-service areas) than put her country in harm's way. According to an internal letter written by May, providing near-seamless coverage for UK phone users will open the door for increased terrorist activity.

[M]ay argues in the leaked internal Whitehall letter that Javid’s plans to end “not-spots”, by allowing customers to roam between rival networks, could aid criminals and terrorists. The Times reported that May’s objections centre around concerns that roaming would make it more difficult for the agencies to track suspects.

This is, of course, ridiculous. In the US, cell phone subscribers hop from tower to tower freely, and yet, law enforcement and national security agencies have plenty of options to track suspects and terrorists. It's hard to believe the GCHQ and UK's law enforcement agencies don't have access to the same methods and technology.

For one, IMSI catchers (Stingray devices) are able to spoof any service provider's tower and, if need be, force every phone in its effective range down to a 2G connection for easier surveillance. So, it ultimately doesn't matter whether these "not spots" exist or have been papered over by legislation or cooperative agreements between service providers.

On top of that, these agencies have access to "tower dumps," often without anything more powerful than a subpoena. This gives agencies a record of every connection made to these towers, whether it was a phone call or simply a ping for a viable signal.

Given what we've learned over the past year, UK's intelligence and law enforcement agencies likely have access to plenty of this information already. Even if they don't, they certainly have the power to compel it. In addition, the GCHQ has the invaluable assistance of the NSA -- an agency that isn't weighed down by the nominal privacy protections granted to UK citizens.

It would seem that the nation's security -- at least under the current "Five Eyes" regime -- would be more threatened by dead zones in coverage than vice versa. Going off the grid would seemingly be more conducive to bad behavior than flouncing about from carrier to carrier, spilling your secrets to at least two powerful intelligence agencies.

But even worse than Theresa May's display of ignorance and fear is her suggestion that the public's connectivity be sacrificed on the altar of national security. David Mitchell -- of That Mitchell and Webb Look -- says it best:

Theresa May is the first person, as far as I know, to suggest that people’s activities should be restricted in order actually to facilitate the security services’ surveillance – to claim not only that it’s permissible for the police to snoop on everything we do and say, but also that we should be discouraged or prevented from doing things the police might have trouble keeping track of.

“Come off it!” some of you may be thinking. “She can’t be the first!” And of course you’re right – I’m exaggerating. She’s certainly not the first person ever – throughout history her point has frequently been made. In fact, the states of the former communist bloc were entirely predicated on this principle, as were most fascist regimes. It’s one of the issues over which Lenin and Tsar Nicholas II would probably find common ground if they got stuck with each other at an awkward drinks party in hell.

Mitchell's response is exactly what May's little written panic attack deserves. Politicians who filter everything through the terrorism lens tend to develop outsized blind spots. May would rather have UK citizens deal with lousy coverage (and being one step behind their EU counterparts) than perhaps have a terrorist jump towers and ditch pursuing GCHQ agents. Ridiculous.

Filed Under: cell phone coverage, dead zones, not spots, surveillance, terrorists, theresa may, uk

Thought Crime: UK Leadership Wants To Ban Predicted 'Extremists' From Social Media, TV, Events

from the police-state dept

Theresa May, the current UK Home Secretary, has announced that, if re-elected, her party (the Conservatives) will push for "extremist disruption orders" which would effectively ban people declared "extremist" (using a very broad definition) from using social media or appearing on TV.

Extremists will have to get posts on Facebook and Twitter approved in advance by the police under sweeping rules planned by the Conservatives.

They will also be barred from speaking at public events if they represent a threat to “the functioning of democracy”, under the new Extremist Disruption Orders.

The broad definitions here matter. Part of the plan is to make such rules cover a wide variety of groups and individuals, based on what the government "reasonably believes" they may be up to:

Under the Tories' new proposals, groups that cannot currently be proscribed could be subject to banning orders should ministers "reasonably believe" that they intend to incite religious or racial hatred, to threaten democracy or if there is a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, harassment or other criminal acts.

Yes, if the government "reasonably believes" you engage in harassment at some point in the future, it can have you declared an extremist, bar you from TV and public events, and make sure that all your social media posts are pre-reviewed for approval. Supporters flat out admit that this would be done to get people who are currently doing things that are perfectly legal:

The new orders will be part of the Government’s “Prevent” strategy, which tackles the ideology behind the terrorist threat. So-called hate preachers, who currently stay just within terrorism legislation, will be one of the targets of banning orders and Extremism Disruption Orders (EDOs).

But, of course, things like that imply that it will only be used against "terrorists" or terrorist sympathizers. But, as the details make clear, this expands way beyond terrorism to those who may be involved in other offenses. Big Brother Watch details how environmental groups may be tied up by this:

The fact that these Extremist Disruption Orders won’t only apply to potential terrorists, but simply to those who present a threat to public disorder, clearly highlights that this policy is the thin end of the wedge.

We were told that the National Extremist Database would contain details of those who posed a nations security, yet we know members of the public who have done little more than organise meetings on environmental issues are on the database.

What's especially galling is the fact that May is claiming that this is being done in the name of "British values," which certainly suggests that freedom of speech and freedom to associate are, in fact, antithetical to British values. Also, all of this assumes that speech, alone, is somehow dangerous -- despite years of proof that speech by itself is rarely dangerous. However, the suppression of speech often creates more problems.

Filed Under: censorship, extremism disruption orders, extremists, free assocation, free press, free speech, theresa may, uk

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

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

Yahoo UK Moves To Dublin To Escape Surveillance; UK Asks It To Stay... For The Spies

from the won't-someone-think-of-the-data-harvesters? dept

Yahoo discovered, as many tech companies did last year, that they had been opted-in to broad surveillance programs operated by the NSA and GCHQ. While these companies had always responded to official requests coming through official channels (the sort of thing detailed in their transparency reports), they were unaware that these agencies were also pulling data and communications right off the internet backbone and tech company servers.

This left most companies with no way to opt out of these collections. With the global reach of these two agencies, along with the others in the "Five Eyes" surveillance network, there are very few ways to avoid becoming another tool in the surveillance state toolchest.

Yahoo is exploring one option, which would limit its exposure to surveillance efforts. In the wake of revelations showing GCHQ collected tons of Yahoo webcam chats, it announced its plan to move its center of European operations to Ireland and out of Scotland Yard's reach.

Following the Guardian's disclosures about snooping on Yahoo webcams, the company said it was "committed to preserving our users trust and security and continue our efforts to expand encryption across all of our services." It said GCHQ's activity was "completely unacceptable..we strongly call on the world's governments to reform surveillance law."Explaining the move to Dublin, the company said: "The principal change is that Yahoo EMEA, as the new provider of services to our European users, will replace Yahoo UK Ltd as the data controller responsible for handling your personal information. Yahoo EMEA will be responsible for complying with Irish privacy and data protection laws, which are based on the European data protection directive."

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), the UK government can force UK-based service providers to turn over data from their servers. Ireland, however, operates under European data privacy laws, not the UK's, which would theoretically help Yahoo hold onto its customers' data.

The potential loss of a large data source seems to have touched off a mini-panic within the intelligence community, which strongly suggested UK Home Secretary Theresa May take the internet company aside and discuss "security concerns."

[C]harles Farr, the head of the office for security and counter-terrorism (OSCT) within the Home Office, has been pressing May to talk to Yahoo because of anxiety in Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism command about the effect the move to Dublin could have on their inquiries...

"There are concerns in the Home Office about how Ripa will apply to Yahoo once it has moved its headquarters to Dublin," said a Whitehall source. "The home secretary asked to see officials from Yahoo because in Dublin they don't have equivalent laws to Ripa. This could particularly affect investigations led by Scotland Yard and the national crime agency. They regard this as a very serious issue."

Well, chances are RIPA won't apply, which would be the only reason these agencies are "concerned." They may have to go elsewhere to collect thousands of potentially naked webcam photos and videos. I'm sure the argument that terrorists will shift to Yahoo services as a result of the company's move is right around the corner. But the reality is that UK agencies will be forced to clear one additional minor hurdle before gaining access to the info it feels serves national security interests.

From Friday, investigators may have to seek information by using a more drawn out process of approaching Yahoo through a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between Ireland and the UK.

And how difficult can a "mutual assistance" process actually be? As we've seen detailed repeatedly since the leaks began, the world's intelligence communities enjoy relationships that range from "symbiotic" to "incestuous." That agency heads would feel the need to send a top government figure out to persuade Yahoo to stay within the easy reach of surveillance tentacles shows that these agencies love having tons of data, but really hate having to make the slightest amount of effort.

Filed Under: gchq, ireland, theresa may, uk
Companies: yahoo

Committee That Grilled Guardian Editor Over Snowden Documents Won't Get To Question Intelligence Boss

from the of-course-not dept

We recently wrote about the ridiculous performance put on by the UK Parliament in quizzing the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, concerning the legality of reporting on the Snowden leaks. Now, it appears that the same committee sought to hold a hearing with the head of the British MI5 intelligence agency, Andrew Parker, in order to see if he could back up the claims that the Guardian's reporting had put UK citizens in danger. However, that's not happening. UK officials won't let Parker testify in front of the same committee. Why? Because.

The home secretary, Theresa May, told the home affairs committee chairman, Keith Vaz, that she had rejected the request for the spy chief to give evidence because his appearance would "duplicate" the existing oversight provided by the prime ministerially appointed intelligence and security committee.

And, indeed, it is true that the intelligence and security committee held a hearing on the topic not so long ago -- but, like the Congressional counterparts, it was almost entirely softballs allowing them to spew rhetoric, rather than answer serious questions concerning the intelligence community.

Even worse, it appears that the UK leadership is working extra hard to keep trying to pass a hot potato to make sure no one has to testify on this particular issue:

A similar request for Kim Darroch, the national security adviser, to give evidence to the committee's inquiry into counter-terrorism was also rejected in a letter from David Cameron. He said "it was not a good idea" because Darroch's role focused on providing private advice to him and the national security council and his appearance would "set a difficult precedent".

The prime minister said it should be left to the home secretary to give evidence to the MPs on their concerns about counter-terrorism and the Guardian's disclosures of mass digital surveillance by GCHQ and the US national security agency.

The decision prompted a furious reaction from Vaz, who said: "The prime minister has suggested that the home secretary should come before us to answer our questions and Theresa May is suggesting that it is a matter for the intelligence and security committee. We cannot play pass the parcel on the issue of accountability on these important issues.

While the US process has been something of a joke, at least Congress has been able to get James Clapper, Keith Alexander and others out to testify a bunch of times on these issues. Some in the UK, however, would apparently like to sweep the whole issue under the rug.

Filed Under: andrew parker, edward snowden, mi5, oversight, theresa may, uk parliament

Gary Mckinnon Extradition To US Blocked By UK Home Secretary

from the hacker-stay-home dept

Way back in 2002, Gary McKinnon made his Techdirt debut when he was caught hacking into NASA and Pentagon computers from the UK in an apparent attempt to find evidence that America was covering up evidence of UFOs. Since that story, subsequent stories were done on how he basically went on an appeal-losing-tour to avoid being extradited to the United States. But now, despite all those losses, it appears the United Kingdom's version of Fox Mulder will indeed be staying in the UK and not be trotted off to the States.

UK Home Secretary Theresa May has announced that McKinnon will not be extradited due to mental illness and a fear for his safety. McKinnon reportedly suffers from both depression and Asperger's Syndrome, and experts consulting with May believe that he is a significant suicide risk if extradited.

Mrs May said: "After careful consideration of all of the relevant material I have concluded that Mr McKinnon's extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon's human rights. I have therefore withdrawn the extradition order against Mr McKinnon."

Mrs May also said measures would be taken to enable a UK court to decide whether a person should stand trial in the UK or abroad - a so-called forum bar.

This move is immensely significant, as it represents the first time an extradition was blocked by a Home Secretary under the Extradition Act of 2003. As extraditions over alleged computer and IP crimes have come into vogue, with the United States leading the charge, it's a welcome sign that the UK wants to be able to review cases in which their citizens would potentially be carted across the world to face massive prison sentences (or worse). One would hope similar scrutiny would be applied in the case of Richard O'Dwyer, though Theresa May has thus far failed to do so. Instead, she has so far bowed to the will of the United States and MPAA sock puppetry in extraditing him.

To be clear, none of this suggests that McKinnon will not face a trial at home. In fact, according to May, the UK will now decide whether to bring a case against him at home.

She said it was now for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, to decide whether he should face trial in the UK.

Where he can be tried without the added threat to his well-being. A foreign national, accused of computer crimes against the United States facing trial in his home country. How refreshing.

 

Filed Under: extradition, gary mckinnon, richard o'dwyer, theresa may, uk, us

Terrorists And Pedophiles Get More Protection In UK Than Guy Who Hosted Links To TV Shows

from the terrrorists-don't-bother-the-MPAA dept

For a while now, we've been following the ridiculous story of Richard O'Dwyer, the student in the UK who the US is trying to extradite to face criminal charges, all because he created a website where people linked to streaming TV shows (some legal, some not). At no time did he host illegal content. He just built the site. While the public has spoken out against the extradition, the Home Office, led by Home Secretary Theresa May, has so far held fast to sending O'Dwyer across the Atlantic.

Given all that, it's interesting to see this story, sent over by PressurCookrTheatr, highlighting the kinds of folks that Theresa May and the UK Home Office have refused to extradite over the last few years. It turns out it's a large and growing number, and even includes some terrorists. In those cases, however, May has magically decided that there are "human rights" reasons to keep them in the UK.

• In 2011, at least one terrorist – and possibly up to four – was allowed to stay, as well as up to eight killers and rapists. Also among the total were 20 robbers and up to eight paedophiles, plus as many as four people convicted of firearms offences.
• In 2010, the Home Office conceded in the cases of up to four murderers and up to four people convicted of manslaughter, as well as up to four rapists, up to eight paedophiles and 43 people convicted of violent crime or robbery.

That's from The Telegraph, which found out that and much more via a Freedom of Information Act request. The article has a lot more detail, but it seems pretty clear that May and the UK government have rejected extradition on all sorts of cases involving people accused of all sorts of horrible things. But when it comes to O'Dwyer? Well, you know, the MPAA is upset with him, so he's gotta go...

Apparently many of these decisions were made to avoid violating the Human Rights Act. For example, one guy, a Ukrainian accused of running "Britain's biggest sham marriage racket," has avoided extradition because he has two kids in the UK. What O'Dwyer should have been doing, instead of fighting extradition through legal means, was knocking someone up so he had a kid in the UK to convince Theresa May that he should stay.

Filed Under: extradition, richard o'dwyer, theresa may, uk
Companies: mpaa