Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter And Yahoo Refuse To Cooperate With UK's 'Snooper's Charter'

from the that's-a-bit-of-a-problem dept

A month ago, we wrote about how the UK's infamous "Snooper's Charter" had been scuppered by Nick Clegg, the UK's Deputy Prime Minister. The Guardian now reveals that top Internet companies may have played a key role in this decision:

The five biggest internet companies in the world, including Google and Facebook, have privately delivered a thinly veiled warning to the home secretary, Theresa May, that they will not voluntarily co-operate with the "snooper's charter".

In a leaked letter to the home secretary that is also signed by Twitter, Microsoft and Yahoo!, the web's "big five" say that May's rewritten proposals to track everybody's email, internet and social media use remain "expensive to implement and highly contentious".

In the letter, originally posted online by the Guardian, but now taken down for some reason, the Internet companies write:

Although it seems that the revised Bill will address some of the concerns we and others raised in evidence to that [Parliamentary] Committee, we expect that the core premise of the Bill -- to create a new form of retention order for the data of UK-based users of communications services -- will remain highly contentious.

…

However, we also do not want there to be any doubt about the strength of our concerns in respect of the idea the UK government would seek to impose an order on a company in respect of services which are offered by service providers outside the UK.

The letter rather pointedly invokes efforts to promote online freedom around the world:

The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office in particular has played a leading role in promoting the value of freedom of expression on the Internet on the global stage. This freedom of expression is intimately linked to the fact that the Internet services are offered globally unlike traditional media channels, which may be under different degrees of state control in many parts of the world. Key to being able to offer a global Internet service is the understanding that the service provider can work primarily within the legal framework of its home jurisdiction.

It then paints a picture of what might happen if other countries brought in their own Snooper's Charter:

Service providers like ours can and do make reasonable accommodations to reflect local concerns and legal requirements including in the UK. But this is very different from a chaotic world within which every country seeks to impose potentially conflicting requirements on a global service provider in sensitive areas like the retention of personal data.

As the Guardian article explains:

The companies also detail an alternative approach to extend existing arrangements for them to meet the requests for personal data from the police and security services, including a new UK-US bilateral initiative to make the process faster and more efficient.

The letter concludes:

The Internet is still a relatively young technology. It brings enormous benefits to citizens everywhere and is a great force for economic and social development. The UK has rightly positioned itself as a leading digital nation. There are risks in legislating too early in this fast-moving area that can be as significant as the risks of legislating too late. We would urge you to follow the approach we have outlined above and see how far the needs of UK law enforcement can be met by improving existing legal instruments and treaties before making significant legislative changes.

This is a pretty significant move, underlined by the fact that traditional rivals have come together to form a common front against the UK government. If companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Twitter refuse to cooperate with the UK's surveillance plans, it will make the scheme much more difficult to operate, particularly when it comes to spying on encrypted data streams.

Unfortunately, whereas the Snooper's Charter looked pretty moribund a month ago, matters have been changed by the recent brutal murder of a soldier on London's streets. This has led to a knee-jerk reaction from some, who have called for the Snooper's Charter to be revived. But it turns out that the alleged attackers were already known to the UK's secret services, which suggests that the extreme surveillance powers contained in the Snooper's Charter are simply not necessary. Let's hope that the main Internet companies stick to their line of non-cooperation, and that the UK government realizes that the Snooper's Charter is not just pernicious, but unworkable.

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

Filed Under: privacy, snooper's charter, spying, surveillance, uk
Companies: facebook, google, microsoft, twitter, yahoo

Reporters Tell Attorney General Eric Holder They Won't Agree To 'Off The Record' Meeting As Scale Of Journalist Spying Expands

from the thousands-and-thousands dept

A few quick updates on the continuing saga of the DOJ's highly questionable spying on the communications of reporters. First up, we find out that the AP is claiming that the DOJ's scooping up of phone records wasn't nearly as limited as some people have suggested, but rather contained records for "thousands and thousands" of phone calls. Remember, the DOJ's own guidelines say that any such record retrieval must be very targeted rather than broad.

Of course, as all of this was happening, a sympathetic story leaked to the press, claiming that Eric Holder feels tremendous remorse for the specific case of the spying on James Rosen. Though, as you read the details, it sure sounds a lot more like "political expediency" rather than honest "remorse."

The sweeping seizure of the AP phone records had thrown Justice on the defensive. But at least in that case Holder had some personal insulation; having been interviewed by the FBI, he'd recused himself from the investigation and, thus, had not personally signed off on the subpoenas. In the Fox case, however, Holder knew he bore a direct measure of responsibility. He had approved a search-warrant application that equated a reporter's newsgathering activities with criminal conduct. That put Holder at the center of the brewing controversy, all while the Obama administration was being buffeted over allegations that the IRS had targeted conservative groups and by the continuing Benghazi tempest.

By week's end, Holder knew he had to be proactive in stemming the criticism and restoring the department's credibility with the press. He and his advisers began exploring ways to reform the Justice Department's internal guidelines for investigating leaks to safeguard the media against overly intrusive tactics. (Obama announced a review of the guidelines during a major speech on counterterrorism last Thursday.) Meanwhile, on Friday, Holder made a round of calls to Capitol Hill in an attempt to mollify concerned lawmakers. In calls to Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Holder said he understood why there had been such an outcry over his department's actions. As one of Holder's advisers put it, the message was: "Look we get it. We understand why this is so controversial, and we're ready to make changes to find the right balance." At the same time, Holder enlisted their help to get a media-shield law passed in Congress. (On Sunday, Schumer announced the formation of a bipartisan "gang of eight" to press for the legislation.)

However, he supposedly is upset that his public image is not reflective of what he thinks of himself.

But sources close to the attorney general says he has been particularly stung by the leak controversy, in large part because his department's—and his own—actions are at odds with his image of himself as a pragmatic lawyer with liberal instincts and a well-honed sense of balance—not unlike the president he serves.

Of course, one way to avoid being accused of such things is... you know... not to do them in the first place.

In response, Holder announced that he'd be holding a meeting with news organizations to go over the DOJ's guidelines on getting access to such information. But, he couldn't even do that correctly. After announcing that this meeting would be off-the-record, a variety of news organizations, including the NY Times and the Associated Press announced they would not attend.

Of course, they could just attend and then "leak" the results. What would Holder do in response?

Filed Under: attorney general, eric holder, off the record, reporters, spying
Companies: associated press, ny times

Two Judges Told DOJ It Had To Disclose Spying On Journalist; DOJ Found A Third Judge Instead

from the incredible dept

This probably won't come as a surprise, but as people dig deeper into the DOJ's surveillance of reporter James Rosen, now it's come out that the DOJ worked extra hard to avoid having to tell Rosen they were spying on him by bouncing around from judge to judge until they found one who said okay. First, the DOJ argued that they wanted to spy on him for a while, so letting Rosen know (even after a bit of time) would interfere with the ongoing spying:

[US Attorney Ronald C. Machen, Jr.] argued that disclosure of the search warrant would preclude the government from monitoring the account, should such a step become necessary in the investigation. Machen added that “some investigations are continued for many years because, while the evidence is not yet sufficient to bring charges, it is sufficient to have identified criminal subjects and/or criminal activity serious enough to justify continuation of the investigation.”

Of course, since any surveillance of reporters is supposed to be especially narrowly focused, it shouldn't have been allowed for ongoing situations. But it was. And that might be because the DOJ waited until they found a judge who bought their argument.

The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.

Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.

This suggests, yet again, that this wasn't a one-off effort, but rather part of a larger, concerted effort to spy on journalists and create chilling effects for whistleblowers.

Filed Under: doj, forum shopping, journalists, spying

Good Question: Why Is Eric Holder In Charge Of Investigation Of Eric Holder Spying On Journalists?

from the doesn't-make-much-sense dept

We noted earlier that President Obama has expressed concern about the chilling effects his own administration has caused on investigative reporting by aggressively spying on journalists reporting on government actions, even to the point of accusing some of being co-conspirators and/or using the Espionage Act against whistleblowers and reporters. That seemed weird enough already, but one point that was even stranger deserves to be called out separately. In asking for a review of the administration's policy, Obama has asked Attorney General Eric Holder to run that review. And that's ridiculous. It's asking Eric Holder to review his own surveillance of journalists. We're not even talking conflict of interest at this point, we're just talking ridiculous. He needs to do a review to determine if his own actions are problematic? How's that likely to turn out?

It would seem putting Eric Holder in charge of these investigations is like putting a shoplifter in charge of inventory.

While both Obama and Holder have talked about press freedom, they both have defended the Justice Department's actions and have not even mildly second-guessed the broad AP subpoenas or the “co-conspirator” label.

The only action they've taken so far is to push for a renewed debate on a federal shield bill that would supposedly protect the media's sources in scandals like these. Of course, the Justice Department already have the power to not subpoena reporters, they apparently just can't help themselves. As  Ted Boutrous pointed out, their call for a shield bill is akin to saying “stop us before we kill again.”

How can there not be someone independent in charge of exploring this issue?

Filed Under: doj, eric holder, fbi, investigation, journalists, spying

Think DOJ Spying On Reporters Was 'Unprecedented'? Think Again

from the common-practice dept

We've already written about how the DOJ has a bit of history of spying on journalists' phone records without following the rules, and that was only scratching the surface. On Monday we showed that to be the case with the revelation about the questionable spying on a Fox News reporter. The DOJ didn't just spy on him, but also suggested he was a co-conspirator, for merely doing basic journalism. Over at Mother Jones, Julian Sanchez has an article, which was written prior to the revelation about Rosen, but talking about how everyone claiming that the DOJ's actions with the AP are "unprecedented" is probably wrong. The Justice Department has a variety of loopholes it can jump through to claim spying on reporters is legal. Often, this seems to happen because the FBI/DOJ seem to believe that they get to interpret the rules however they want to interpret them with little or no oversight:

Only in January 2009 did the FBI think to ask the Justice Department's in-house lawyers whether the press restrictions apply when reporter records are obtained through indirect means such as community of interest requests. Government lawyers said yes, but the FBI concluded it didn't have to tell the press in the specific case it had inquired about, because agents had not "understood at the time the subpoenas were issued that the subpoenas called for reporters' records."

As he points out, the real story around all of this might not be the "unprecedented" nature of spying on reporters, but rather how common it is, without anyone knowing that it's happening (and while the DOJ's publicly stated rules suggest that this kind of spying won't happen).

The real scandal may be just how much snooping on the media the current rules permit. To fully understand the AP seizures, the media and the public need a clearer picture of the rules governing all forms of spying on media—and how often such info-grabs have happened. Maybe the seizure of AP records is an extraordinary case. Or maybe the only extraordinary thing is that we're hearing about it.

So, instead of being outraged about just how unprecedented these events appear to be, perhaps we should be outraged over how common they probably are -- and how the DOJ appears to have a totally cavalier attitude towards spying on journalists.

Filed Under: doj, journalists, spying, surveillance

Partisanship Over Spying On Journalists Is Stupid: Spying On Journalists Is Bad, Period

from the stupid-partisans dept

I've said many times before that I'm not a member of any political party, nor a fan of partisanship in general, and that means most political parties are a ridiculous concept to me, because they're more focused on "beating the other guy" than doing what's right. This often becomes quite clear when power shifts from one party to the other, and people who used to complain about too much power in the executive suddenly want more power for "their guy" or vice versa. The latest example of this on display can be seen in the partisan response to the DOJ spying on AP reporters.

On the Republican side, politicians are reasonably up in arms about this, but they seem to ignore that when "their guy" was in the Oval Office, they were very much in favor of having the DOJ sift through reporters' emails. On the Democratic side, you have groups like Media Matters, ridiculously destroying its own credibility by coming out with talking points about how the DOJ did the right thing in spying on reporters. Basically, it's all about "defend your guy / attack the other guy" no matter what the situation is. This obviously isn't true across the board -- there certainly have been some party members "crossing lines" to express horror at this kind of surveillance.

Frankly, this kind of partisanship is part of why so few people trust Congress. It seems like a pretty clear case of what's good and right, and spying on journalists' communications is generally considered not right. A principled stance would be to oppose that, no matter which party is in power. When positions are staked out clearly based on partisanship, the public loses whatever little trust it has that the government has its best interests in mind.

Filed Under: journalism, partisanship, politics, spying, surveillance, wiretaps

Saudi Arabian Telco Asks Pro-Privacy Researcher To Help Them Spy On Citizens, Hilarity & Then Seriousness Ensues

from the perhaps-google-the-person-you're-contacting-first dept

Via Chris Soghoian, we learn that a Saudi Arabian telecom company (one of just two) contacted well-known pro-privacy researcher Moxie Marlinspike recently to see if he might help them intercept communications from a variety of popular communications apps, including Twitter, Viber, Line and WhatsApp. Curious about what they wanted, Marlinspike emailed with them a bit, and then published what he was told -- including the fact that they later told him they very quickly and easily figured out how to intercept WhatsApp communications. Eventually, he told them that he wouldn't work with them, and the guy he was communicating with told him by not helping the Saudi government intercept communications, he was helping the terrorists:

I know that already and I have same thoughts like you freedom and respecting privacy, actually Saudi has a big terrorist problem and they are misusing these services for spreading terrorism and contacting and spreading their cause that’s why I took this and I seek your help. If you are not interested than maybe you are on indirectly helping those who curb the freedom with their brutal activities.

From there, however, Marlinspike goes on into a very interesting discussion, well worth reading, about changes in the hacker/security community lately and the lucrative business of selling 0day exploits (often to governments) rather than publishing them and getting things fixed.

Forgetting the question of legality, I hope that we can collectively look at this changing dynamic and perhaps re-evaluate what we culturally reward. I’d much rather think about the question of exploit sales in terms of who we welcome to our conferences, who we choose to associate with, and who we choose to exclude, than in terms of legal regulations. I think the contextual shift we’ve seen over the past few years requires that we think critically about what’s still cool and what’s not.

Maybe this is an unpopular opinion and the bulk of the community is totally fine with how things have gone (after all, it is profitable). There are even explicitly patriotic hackers who suggest that their exploit sales are necessary for the good of the nation, seeing themselves as protagonists in a global struggle for the defense of freedom, but having nothing to do with these ugly situations in Saudi Arabia. Once exploits are sold to US defense contractors, however, it’s very possible they could end up delivered directly to the Saudis (eg, eg, eg), where it would take some even more substantial handwaving to think that they’ll serve in some liberatory way.

Exploits will be exploited. Helping anyone to make use of them means that eventually they're going to get exploited by others in ways you might not agree with.

Filed Under: hacking, interception, moxie marlinspike, privacy, saudi arabia, selling vulerabilities, spying, surveillance
Companies: mobily

Did FBI Counterterrorism Agent Reveal That Feds Now Record All Phone Calls?

from the er...-what? dept

It's long been assumed (or hinted at very strongly by a variety of evidence) that the feds have been making and collecting copies of pretty much every digital communication available. A whistleblower from AT&T more or less revealed the details on that. The NSA's ability to collect all this data is well documented, and people are just now coming to terms with the legal loopholes used to justify this mass sweeping up of communications.

However, for the most part, it was believed that the content of phone calls was not included in this broad sweep. While it's well known that law enforcement can get a wiretap on your phone if they suspect something, there was little indication that other calls are being recorded. Similarly, information about who you called and when you spoke to them tends to be easy for law enforcement to get. However, Glenn Greenwald is noting that a former FBI counterterrorism agent, Tim Clemente, went on TV, and in discussing the investigation of Katherine Russell (the wife of deceased accused Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev) has clearly said that the contents of historical phone calls are also available to the feds.

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

It's possible this was an exaggeration, but when questioned about this particular point later, Clemente again insisted that it was the case and specifically added that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored. Of course, again, he may have misspoken. Or he may be exaggerating for effect. There's also the possibility that Tamerlan's phone calls were actually being tapped given the earlier investigation of him for possible terrorist connections.

So there are numerous possibilities here, but it is still a case of an FBI counterterrorism agent claiming, multiple times, that the contents of all phone calls are being recorded, which, if true, would be quite a revelation (and probably not something Clemente is supposed to be revealing via an interview with the media). At the very least, it would be good for there to be some serious follow up on this to find out how true Clemente's claims really are.

Filed Under: fbi, katherine russell, nsa, phone calls, recordings, spying, surveillance, tamerlan tsarnaev, tim clemente

New Zealand Wants New Spying Powers To Legalize Illegal Spying On Kim Dotcom And Others

from the i'm-sure-that-will-go-over-well dept

You may recall that in the course of the case against Kim Dotcom in New Zealand, it was revealed that the New Zealand intelligence service, the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB), illegally wiretapped and spied on Kim Dotcom. The GCSB's mandate is that it can only spy on foreign communications, but used its powers illegally domestically. While NZ prime minister John Key apologized for the episode, it has raised lots of questions about his role in the whole matter -- and when he knew the law was being broken. Other info has come out as well, including attempts to cover up the illegal surveillance, and the fact that the GCSB illegally spied on nearly 100 people. Dotcom is now suing the government over this whole mess.

Given all that, you might think that PM Key would be focused on putting in place safeguards to stop the system from being so abused in the future. Not so. Instead, as reader aster points out, Key is now trying to change the law to make it easier to spy on citizens and others in the country. In other words, he's seeking to legalize domestic spying for the intelligence agency. The new proposal would allow for domestic spying on citizens and residents if approved by PM Key. As if he didn't already appear untrustworthy in the matter, he's now suggesting that because it has to go through him, it'll somehow avoid abuses? Opposition politicians are pointing out how laughable it is that Key is now asking people to trust him personally that such spying powers won't be abused.

Filed Under: gcsb, john key, kim dotcom, new zealand, privacy, spying, surveillance

Investigation Into Illegal Spying On Kim Doctom Reveals NZ Intelligence Illegally Spied On 85 People

from the oops dept

Remember how the New Zealand intelligence organization GCSB (Government Communications Security Bureau) had to admit that it had illegally spied on Kim Dotcom? That kicked off an investigation that has now revealed that the GCSB illegally spied on somewhere around 85 people.

GCSB director Ian Fletcher said in February that his agency did not illegally spy on anyone else on behalf of law enforcement agencies.

But the Kitteridge report contradicts this - questioning the lawfulness of GCSB surveillance involving 85 New Zealanders. The agency is forbidden from spying on anyone with citizenship or permanent residence here.

The illegal spying was conducted between April 2003 and September last year and done on behalf of the Security Intelligence Service, the domestic spy agency.

But wait... there's more. The report also found that it's likely GCSB violated other laws as well, including the Privacy Act and the Defence Act. Not surprisingly, the report also finds a mess of an agency with terrible management, poor record-keeping and little oversight. Shocking, isn't it, that such conditions would lead to abuse of power and illegal surveillance, huh?

Filed Under: gcsb, kim dotcom, new zealand, spying, surveillance