British Army To Create 1500-Strong Social Media Propaganda Force

from the Facebook-warriors dept

There's a small but growing club of countries that have created various kinds of groups to produce social media propaganda. Alongside Turkey, China and Israel, we can now add the UK to that list, as the Guardian reports:

The British army is creating a special force of Facebook warriors, skilled in psychological operations and use of social media to engage in unconventional warfare in the information age.

The unit, which is quite substantial -- 1500-strong -- will formally come into being in April. The Guardian story provides some interesting background to the announcement:

The move is partly a result of experience in counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan. It can also be seen as a response to events of the last year that include Russia's actions in Ukraine, in particular Crimea, and Islamic State's (Isis) takeover of large swaths of Syria and Iraq.

Nato has so far been unable to find a counter to what the US and UK claim is Russia creating unrest by sending in regular troops disguised as local militia, allowing president Vladimir Putin to deny responsibility. Isis has proved adept at exploiting social media to attract fighters from around the world.

When an army as traditional as the UK's is putting these kinds of resources behind online propaganda units, you know it's entered the mainstream. Expect many others to follow suit, and for the digital fog of war to become considerably thicker.

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

Filed Under: army, propaganda, social media, uk

Less Than A Week After Failing Last Attempt, UK Lords Try To Sneak Through Snooper's Charter Once Again

from the total-failure dept

A week ago, we noted that a group of UK Lords were trying to rush through the "Snooper's Charter" that had previously been rejected by the UK. The bill, of course, was about giving the government tremendous levels of access to everyone's electronic data with little oversight. Thankfully, despite having little notice, the attempt caused a flurry of attention and the Lords were forced to back off the plan. It seemed like another good "win" for supporters of privacy and democracy.

Many people still expected the UK government to try again, but few expected it would happen so soon. Yes, less than a week after having the last attempt rejected vocally, the same group of Lords are trying yet again:

On Saturday, ahead of a “report stage” debate on Monday (the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill is almost fully baked), Lords West, Blair, Carlile and King introduced a new amendment that appears to be almost identical to the last, and to the Communications Data Bill before it.

Again, this new amendment would force “telecommunications operators” – which these days includes the likes of Facebook and Skype, as well as traditional telcos – to store communications metadata for up to a year and hand it over to U.K. authorities when requested. This data retention regime may require the providers to install “specified equipment or systems.”

As David Meyer at GigaOm notes, just as with the last time, this bill lets any "relevant public authority" get access to the data, meaning that such data will be widely accessed and almost certainly widely abused as well. It appears that there are only very minor cosmetic changes between what was proposed and rejected last week and what has been proposed this week. Of course, it won't surprise you to learn the backgrounds of those pushing for this information:

The four peers in question all come from the security establishment — a former Metropolitan Police commissioner (Blair), a former secretary of defense (King), a former minister for security and counter-terrorism (West), and a former government anti-terror adviser (Carlile).

Meyer also quotes Lord King saying that he doesn't know about or understand the various new social media services like WhatsApp and SnapChat, "but what is absolutely clear is that the terrorists and jihadists do" -- which is why he thinks the Snooper's Charter is needed. In other words, he admits his own ignorance, but doesn't seem to care, because he is ruled by irrational fear. That does not seem like a particularly intelligent way to govern or to legislate.

Filed Under: democracy, lords, snooper's charter, terrorism, uk

UK Legislators Hoping To Rush Through New 'Snooper's Charter' In The Wake Of The Charlie Hebdo Attacks

from the throwing-paper-on-empty-desks dept

The UK legislators, law enforcement agencies and intelligence services looking to expand the government's surveillance programs got a big boost from the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This violent attempt to place extremist religious ideology ahead of free speech was twisted by many into justification for expanded government powers. Prime Minister David Cameron even went so far as to suggest that no citizen's communications should be beyond the government's reach.

This unexpected boost has propelled a raft of new amendments to the UK's so-called "Snooper's Charter," a once-rejected bill (Communications Data Bill) that would hand over ISP subscriber data to the goverment without a warrant. The amendments try to paper over the obvious flaws in the proposed legislation, limiting the use of this data to law enforcement and intelligence services only. (The previous version allowed several other government agencies to dip their toes into the data stream.)

The privacy protections are still insufficient and the wording is still vague, but those supporting this bill are hoping the recent terrorist attack -- combined with a very short time frame -- will help them guide this past the opposition, as the EFF points out.

Directly after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, we cautioned the public and politicians to be "wary of any attempt to rush through new surveillance and law enforcement powers." With depressing predictability, we've already seen that happen across the continent. Nowhere, however, has the attempt to bypass democratic debate been more blatant than in the United Kingdom, where a handful of unelected peers has taken the language of an old and discredited Internet surveillance proposal, and attempted to slam it, at outrageously short notice, into the wording of a near-complete counter-terrorism bill.

The result is that, unless you take action to warn Britain's House of Lords in time for the debate on Monday, there is a good chance that Britain will pass the infamous Snooper's Charter into law with barely any oversight.

Over the weekend, EFF supporters have taken action, and as the amended snooping bill hits the floor today, hopefully it will be met with increased resistance. But its supporters have done everything they can to prevent any examination of the proposed amendments by dropping the new wording off on Thursday and pushing for a simple "up/down" vote on Monday. This rush job indicates the amended bill won't stand up to scrutiny -- something its supporters are hoping to avoid by giving those voting a brief chance to glance at the new wording before being asked to push the bill forward.

The EFF has provided contact information for UK legislators, noting that certain methods may be more effective given the shortened time frame.

If you're a British citizen, you need to tell the members of the House of Lords that their right to analyze and discuss this legislation is being bypassed. We've set up an action alert for UK Internet users, so that you can send messages to the Twitter accounts of UK peers (you would be surprised how many British Lords use Twitter). You can also write to members of the House of Lords through the free service WriteToThem.com, but given the time frame, tweeting or phone calls are much better.

Twisting an attack on free speech into a call for more surveillance is most governments' standard MO. The UK is no exception. But this is never the right response to terrorist activity, especially when the end result will be a chilling effect on free speech -- making this bill's outcome indistinguishable from the attackers' aims.

Filed Under: charlie hebdo, house of lords, snooper's charter, surveillance, uk

Did David Cameron Just Say He Wants To Undermine All Encryption In The UK?

from the not-thinking-it-through dept

Techdirt has recently reported on New York's top prosecutor calling for laws against strong encryption on smartphones. This is part of a larger move by the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic to demonize this technology, as we noted before. In the wake of the murders in Paris, many of the same politicians and officials have lost no time in calling for more surveillance, again in both the US and Europe. One of those doing so is David Cameron, who said that, if re-elected in the UK general election in May, he would bring in an even more intrusive version of the Snooper's Charter -- one that sought access not just to everyone's metadata, but to the content of their messages too. This is how he phrased it:

The question is are we going to allow a means of communications which it simply isn’t possible to read. My answer to that question is: no, we must not.

Leaving aside the fact that Cameron seems to be saying that he wishes to make privacy impossible and/or illegal in the UK, one key question here is: how does he intend to do this? Neither the UK government nor the Conservative party offered any clarification about this election "promise," which has inevitably led to speculation. For example, The Independent newspaper wrote as follows:

David Cameron could block WhatsApp and Snapchat if he wins the next election, as part of his plans for new surveillance powers announced in the wake of the shootings in Paris.

The Prime Minister said today that he would stop the use of methods of communication that cannot be read by the security services even if they have a warrant. But that could include popular chat and social apps that encrypt their data, such as WhatsApp.

Apple's iMessage and FaceTime also encrypt their data, and could fall under the ban along with other encrypted chat apps like Telegram.

None of those programs was mentioned by Cameron in his speech. But many other news outlets have taken that speculation and reported it as if it were certain; others have interpreted his comments to mean that Cameron aims to ban or perhaps backdoor all strong encryption. It's quite possible that Cameron and his advisers have not thought this through, and simply assume there must be some clever way to give access to the content of encrypted services without undermining them. But as Techdirt has emphasized before, there is no "golden key" that can be used by just the authorities and no one else.

UK services and users can be forced by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to hand over whatever encryption keys they have. Most of the main online services come from US-based companies; some may choose to comply with UK warrants, but others probably won't. And then there is the extremely important class of open source encryption programs -- things like GnuPGP, OpenVPN and Tor: these don't always have companies that can be threatened with legal consequences. So what would Cameron do about those? Make their use illegal for all UK citizens? Even the increasingly-common HTTPS for general web servers is problematic: if they are located outside the UK, there is no way to force them to hand over their keys. So will Cameron forbid people from visiting millions of websites, just in case they allow some form of communication that can't be monitored?

Clearly, trying to implement this scheme will cause huge damage to the British public and to UK businesses, who will be more vulnerable to online attacks. It will also harm the UK economy, since startups with digital products or services will find users in other countries unwilling to use products that have been forced to insert backdoors for the UK intelligence services. And it will further harm the UK's already battered reputation as a civilized country, since Cameron's call to abolish all online privacy goes beyond even the worst oppressive regime (China must be delighted by his speech.)

However, there is a small consolation to be drawn from this extraordinarily stupid and dangerous call by Cameron. The fact that something so controversial is being proposed at all confirms one of the most important points made by Snowden: encryption works.

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

Filed Under: backdoors, communications, david cameron, encryption, end-to-end encryption, mobile encryption, privacy, surveillance, uk

UK Bill: Nursery Staff Must Let Us Know When Toddlers Are At Risk For Becoming Terrorists

from the er,-what? dept

Spying is just all the rage these days, you guys. The CIA is spying on Congress, we're all spying on each other, our eBook readers are spying on all our stuff, and the NSA is spying on the entire world. If you've been following Techdirt for any measure of time, you realize that any rebuttal of these policies is occasionally met with safety concerns, specifically when it comes to kids. "Think of the children!"

No, seriously, think of them. What if they are the real threat to the glory of freedom and peace? Well, the UK is taking this question head on by asking caregivers in the country's nurseries to inform the government if any of those little shits look like they're going to become radicalized.

The directive is contained in a 39-page consultation document issued by the Home Office in a bid to bolster its Prevent anti-terrorism plan. The document accompanies the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, currently before parliament. It identifies nurseries and early years childcare providers, along with schools and universities, as having a duty “to prevent people being drawn into terrorism”.

The consultation paper adds: “Senior management and governors should make sure that staff have training that gives them the knowledge and confidence to identify children at risk of being drawn into terrorism and challenge extremist ideas which can be used to legitimise terrorism and are shared by terrorist groups.

Oh, this should go well. Turning nurseries into tiny little spy centers where the staff are required to inform the state if they think that any children might become radicalized in the future sounds like a foolproof plan. Hey, Marge, do you think little Tommy might be a suicide bomber in the future. "No." What about cute little Jenny? "Nah." Okay, next we have to ask about sweet little Usman Jaffer? "IT'S HIM! IT'S HIM! I DONT' KNOW WHY, BUT I'M SURE IT'S HIM!"

Critics of the law, including some within the government, are equally unimpressed.

David Davis, the Conservative MP and former shadow home secretary, said: “It is hard to see how this can be implemented. It is unworkable. I have to say I cannot understand what they [nursery staff] are expected to do.

“Are they supposed to report some toddler who comes in praising a preacher deemed to be extreme? I don’t think so. It is heavy-handed.”

No kidding. As far as silly government requests of civilians went, I thought Chicago's "If you see something suspicious on public transportation, tell someone." campaign was as bad as it got. I mean, have they never ridden a CTA bus or train? Everyone's suspicious looking. But to try to get nannies involved in the spy game? C'mon guys, dial back the crazy a few notches.

Filed Under: children, daycare, extremism, nurseries, uk

In 1985, Top UK Government Law Official Knowingly Shared Pirated Document With Prime Minister's Office; Asked For 'Discretion'

from the hypocrisy-much? dept

Copyright and hypocrisy seem to go hand in hand, judging by the numerous stories here on Techdirt about copyright maximalists being found with infringing materials. A tweet by Graham Smith points out that in the UK, this has been going on for decades at the highest levels of government. He links to a copy of a 1985 letter from a senior official in the UK's Royal Courts of Justice (pdf), who is forwarding a document to the Prime Minister's team at 10 Downing Street in London:

In case you can't read that, here's the rather extraordinary admission it contains:

May I point out that what you are getting is a "contraband copy", made in this Department, of another "contraband copy" made by the DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions, the official responsible for prosecuting criminal offenses] from a copy which he legitimately obtained from the shorthand writers on the usual commercial basis. The making of extra copies in this way is, I think, a breach of the shorthand writers' copyright and I think that they would be aggrieved if they knew about it. I should therefore be grateful if you would use the enclosures with discretion.

That is, one of the UK's top legal officials admits to making an infringing copy of an existing infringing copy made by another top legal official, and writes to ask that the Prime Minister's office keep this bit of governmental piracy quiet. After all, who cares about what the law says when you are the law?

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

Filed Under: government, piracy, uk

Joke Tweet Gets Man Arrested

from the funny-story dept

Joke tweets: the ones that land people in jail or under arrest typically aren't all that funny, usually aren't all that offensive or believable, and too often result in a massive overreaction that is more about emotions and cover-your-ass than about anything remotely resembling justice. From obviously not-serious jokes about blowing up an airport simply for being closed to obviously over-the-top sarcasm about the state of one's own mind, there's simply no reason why we must criminalize humor that deals with serious topics. Just because a joke is in bad taste, or isn't particularly funny, shouldn't make it illegal. Otherwise, the entire concept of comedy breaks down completely, where any topic of a joke can simply claim offense and have me the comedian arrested.

Yet it's happened again. Over in the UK, a 19-year-old man made a mildly offensive and mildly funny joke in the wake of a garbage truck driving over a 100 people after the driver lost control. And he totally got arrested for it.

The tweet said: "So a bin lorry has apparently driven in 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it's picked up in one day".

Tasteless? Meh, I guess. Funny? Eh, perhaps a tiny bit. Criminal? Oh, possibly, according to the Northumbria Police, who informed the media that the young man, Ross Loraine, was being sought on suspicion of making a malicious communication. Loraine has since made bail and is presumably shaking his head vigorously at how silly this all is.

See, the problem with magically using the law to make something "offensive" into something "malicious" is that there are no literal limits on something so subjective. Suddenly you have the Danish cartoons situation on your hands, except that the self-censorship results from the actions of a state willing to be offended on behalf of its citizens. So much so, in fact, as to allow that state to levy criminal complaints against people for thinking some stuff is funny when other people don't. The lever that puts this insane machine into action appears to simply be "offense taken", which puts any semblance of free speech, not to mention humor, at grave risk.

Filed Under: free speech, glasgow, joke tweet, jokes, malicious communication, offensive, social media, uk

Search Something, Say Something: David Cameron Asks Google, Yahoo To Be 'Good Citizens' And Report Users Searching For 'Terrorist' Subject Matter

from the so,-why-is-the-GCHQ-still-collecting-paychecks? dept

UK Prime Minister David Cameron doesn't ask for much from the world's tech companies. All he wants is for them to proactively police the web for child pornography, piracy and extremist content. He's not offering to pay for these services. He just expects Google et al to do this on their own time and own dime to make the world a better place.

Now, he's enlisting Google and Yahoo into the counterterrorism battle. As if the GCHQ and its stateside partner didn't have enough tendrils intertwined with every cable and backbone between here and the UK, Cameron now wants the two search companies to be a part of an informal "search something, say something" program… all for free and all because it would be the neighborly thing to do.

Internet companies like Google and Yahoo should tell the police if possible terrorists are searching for tips to make bombs on the internet, David Cameron has said.

The Prime Minister said he wanted to apply to the internet the "principles of common sense, decency, moral responsibility as we do to real life".

It's simply not enough to index the web for searchability. Now, search engines need to act as unpaid informants for the world's law enforcement agencies, turning over information on questionable searches to the proper authorities.

Of course, Google and Yahoo have no way of knowing whether searches for bomb-making tips are originating from terrorism suspects or screenplay writers or bored youths using search engines as an Anarchist's Cookbook proxy. These prickly issues have likely never troubled Cameron's grey matter. If so, these inane soundbites never would have escaped his lips. The more he talks, the more inane his platitudes-masquerading-as-solutions sound.

Mr Cameron said he wanted internet companies to take the same moral responsibility as if someone overheard a group planning a bombing in a pub.

"See something, say something" has done little more than tie up limited resources with a mass of false positives. Putting Google and Yahoo in this position is just asking for more of the same. What Cameron is asking for is the compilation of useless information that will only snag the innocent and the inept. If these are the sorts of "terrorists" Cameron wants removed from circulation, he should just ask his local law enforcement to follow the FBI's lead. Busting handcrafted terrorists is far easier than hunting down actual threats, but it still sounds like real "wins" in press releases or politicians' mouths.

Any would-be terrorist who doesn't want to end up behind bars knows better than to plan violent acts in public, unlike the metaphorical extremists in Cameron's fantasy. Using the two largest search engines isn't much different than mapping out a bombing over a few pints at the local pub, but asking Google and Yahoo to treat their search engines like overheard conversations is guaranteed to end in futility.

Cameron compares it to child porn (because of course he does) even though there's a big difference between searching out plainly illegal content and searches that may seem ominous when observed without context. Search engines track searches to provide relevant results to users, so there's little doubt this information is retained somewhere. But it isn't something that should be turned over to law enforcement just because certain terms were used. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for researching topics that are "terrorist-related" but Cameron's request doesn't leave any room for essential nuances like these.

We expect our search providers to return search results, not subject us to additional government scrutiny simply because our searches contain a few arbitrarily-flagged terms. If search engines become just another form of direct government surveillance, more and more users will take their business elsewhere. Terrorists -- at least those with any instinct for self-preservation -- already have.

Filed Under: david cameron, monitoring, privacy, search something say something, search terms, surveillance, terrorism, uk
Companies: google, yahoo

Challenges To The UK's Surveillance And Data Retention Powers Continue To Mount

from the unacceptable-in-a-democracy dept

As Mike wrote recently, to no one's surprise, the UK's meek Investigatory Powers Tribunal decided that GCHQ's surveillance did not violate anyone's human rights, despite its scope and scale. All is not lost, however, since that case is now likely to move to the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, it's just one of a growing number of a challenges to the UK's spying activities.

A key element of the argument that GCHQ's activities are legal is the use of powers granted under the UK's Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). This, too, is being scrutinized by a variety of official groups, including the Intelligence and Security Committee of the UK Parliament, the Independent Reviewer of UK Terrorism Legislation, and a further standalone surveillance review. In addition, the important Home Affairs Committee of the UK Parliament has been looking at one particular aspect of RIPA, its use against journalists:

This inquiry addresses police forces' use of RIPA powers to acquire communications data in the course of investigations. In two recent, high-profile cases, police have used RIPA powers to obtain material which might be regarded as journalistic material for the purposes of [the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984].

That has naturally sent shockwaves through the UK journalistic establishment, which sees its privileged communications with sources under threat. The Home Affairs Committee's report is short, and offers an interesting summary of how RIPA is being used, including the following statistic:

In 2013, there were 514,608 notices and authorisations for communications data, down from 570,135 in 2012. Of these, 87.7 % were submitted by law enforcement agencies and 11.1 % by the intelligence agencies.

Its conclusion is equally short, but unequivocal in its scathing rebuke to UK police forces for the way they are currently using RIPA in their investigations:

RIPA is not fit for purpose, with law enforcement agencies failing to routinely record the professions of individuals who have had their communications data accessed under the RIPA. The recording of information under RIPA is totally insufficient, and the whole process appears secretive and disorganised with information being destroyed afterwards. Whereas we acknowledge the operational need for secrecy both during investigations and afterwards (so that investigative techniques more broadly are not disclosed), we are concerned that the level of secrecy surrounding the use of RIPA allows investigating authorities to engage in acts which would be unacceptable in a democracy, with inadequate oversight. We recommend that the Home Office use the current review of the RIPA Code to ensure that law enforcement agencies use their RIPA powers properly.

Alongside RIPA, there is also the more recent DRIPA, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which was pushed through the UK Parliament in record time this summer in response to the EU's Data Retention Directive being ruled invalid. Two MPs -- the Tory David Davis, and Tom Watson from Labour -- immediately announced that they would seek a judicial review of DRIPA, and this week a High Court judge has given permission for the review to go ahead. The UK government may show no sign of reining in its snooping voluntarily, but challenges to the UK's spying apparatus continue to multiply, which offers the hope that at some point it will be forced to do so.

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

Filed Under: data retention, legal challenges, privacy, surveillance, uk

When Is A Terrorist Not A Terrorist?

from the probably-just-a-coincidence dept

Here's a little quiz. On the basis of the following information from the Guardian, is the person described a terrorist or not?

A [UK] soldier who wrote of murdering immigrants and who praised Adolf Hitler has been jailed for two years after building a viable nailbomb packed with 181 pieces of shrapnel to maximise the carnage it would cause.

Here's a clue:

Ryan McGee, 20, described by his defence team as "a bit of a loner", wrote in a journal: "I vow to drag every last immigrant into the fires of hell with me."

If you're still unsure, maybe this will help:

He downloaded a video of two bound and gagged men beneath a swastika flag, one being beheaded and the other killed by a gunshot to the head and went online to tell people to do something if they hated immigration.

Here's the correct answer, kindly provided by the UK's prosecution service:

It had decided not to prosecute McGee as a terrorist because "it was never McGee’s intention to use the device for any terrorist or violent purpose, and that he had no firm intention to activate the device."

Presumably he built the nailbomb "packed with 181 pieces of shrapnel to maximise the carnage it would cause" purely as an intellectual challenge, or maybe to give to his mother to use as a flower stand. Still, this refusal to prosecute such behavior as "terrorism" is rather curious in an age when so many harmless activities are viewed with suspicion and alarm. A cynic might almost think it had something to do with the race of the person involved.

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

Filed Under: hate crimes, law enforcement, ryan mcgee, subjectivity, terrorism, terrorist, uk