British Intelligence Spied On G20 Officials' Phone Calls And Emails During 2009 Summit

from the of-course-they-did dept

Late Sunday, the Guardian revealed that during the G20 summit in London in 2009, the UK government made sure to intercept phone calls and internet communications of foreign politicians and officials who were attending. As the article notes, many have suspected this kind of activity, but this is the first time that evidence has been presented of it happening and that it was organized by GCHQ (the UK equivalent of the NSA). And, of course, this had nothing to do with "stopping terrorism" but was about "the more mundane purpose of securing an advantage in meetings." The listed activities:

• Setting up internet cafes where they used an email interception programme and key-logging software to spy on delegates' use of computers;
• Penetrating the security on delegates' BlackBerrys to monitor their email messages and phone calls;
• Supplying 45 analysts with a live round-the-clock summary of who was phoning who at the summit;
• Targeting the Turkish finance minister and possibly 15 others in his party;
• Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow.

Of course, this seems like traditional espionage that has gone on for ages, which by itself is less troubling to me. What's more revealing is some of the methods -- such as the ability to get around the security on the BlackBerry. As for the "internet cafe" -- who in their right mind would use such a thing, knowing that it was almost certainly being monitored?

Filed Under: ed snowden, espionage, g20, g8, gchq, london, nsa, nsa surveillance, spying

As ACTA 1.0 Lies Dying, Are G8 Countries Already Working On ACTA 2.0?

from the never-gonna-give-you-up dept

As we recently reported, ACTA has been dealt a serious blow by the EU Rapporteur's recommendation that the European Parliament should reject the treaty. In a fascinating leaked document (pdf) obtained by EDRI, it seems that even the G8 countries have accepted that ACTA is probably dead -- and have started working on a successor.

Although the short (three-page) document appears to have avoided ACTA's mistake of mixing two totally different issues -- physical counterfeits and digital copying -- and concentrates on the former, there are still major ramifications for the online world, as EDRI points out:

The Internet section, while avoiding the issue of policing of digital copying, is partially copied and pasted from the White House annual report on IPR Enforcement.

Moreover, like ACTA, the initiative is also a thinly-veiled attempt to implant the US's approach in countries around the world:

The G8 document seeks to export the entire US policy on the role of intermediaries in the trade in physical counterfeits. In particular, it seeks to make American companies into a form of global non-judicial police force / government, with responsibilities ranging from "educating" citizens to policing and, ultimately, punishing companies and citizens on the basis of allegations.

The main way the new plan hopes to do that is through "voluntary cooperative efforts", of the kind employed by ACTA, SOPA and the planned six-strikes scheme in the US, which handily avoids the need for new legislation:

Promoting voluntary cooperative efforts to tackle the proliferation of illegal Internet pharmacies. G8 countries could pledge to facilitate voluntary cooperative efforts among businesses in the pharmaceutical supply chain to stem the flow of counterfeit medicines. The voluntary industry actions could include options ranging from the financial (e.g. blocking credit card payments), to the physical (e.g., shippers refusing transportation), to the virtual (e.g., taking appropriate action against unlawful websites).

The other interesting feature of the leaked "non-paper", as it calls itself, is the way that the Internet is being demonized for its involvement with the increased flow of fake medicines:

Reports of counterfeit drugs being found in U.S. supply chains are now a frequent occurrence. These drugs pose grave threats to public health. Increased access to the Internet, coupled with new methods of manufacturing and distributing illegal pharmaceuticals have created new challenges to safeguarding the legitimate supply chain.

It's hard not to see this as a further attempt to paint the Internet as a dangerous, lawless place that needs "taming" because of the "grave threats to public health". I suppose it's a change from asking us to think of the children.

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

Filed Under: acta, g8

Russian President Skeptical Of Today's Copyright Laws

from the outdated-and-obsolete dept

Here's a story from the G8 Summit that apparently didn't get very much attention in the mainstream press. It seems that, while most of the countries' leaders expressed support for greater internet regulations when it came to copyright issues, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev questioned the validity and necessity of such laws. Part of the G8 event was an attempt to put together specific recommendations on "internet governance" with the suggested text concerning intellectual property reading:

"With regard to the protection of intellectual property, in particular copyright, trademarks, trade secrets and patents, we recognize the need to have national laws and frameworks for improved enforcement. We are thus renewing our commitment to ensuring effective action against violations of intellectual property rights in the digital arena, including action that addresses present and future infringements."

Straight out of the RIAA/MPAA playbook, of course.

And the only one willing to point out that this made little sense, apparently, was Dmitry Medvedev, who pushed back:

"The declaration reflects an absolutely conservative position that intellectual property rights should be protected according to the existing conventions," said Medvedev. "No one questions that, but I have repeatedly stated that, unfortunately, those conventions were written 50 or almost 100 years ago, and they are unable to regulate the whole complex of relations between the copyright owner and users."

Characteristically unafraid to ruffle his fellow leaders' feathers, Medvedev continued "Unfortunately, this was not included in the declaration because, in my opinion, my colleagues have a more conservative opinion than is necessary at the moment. Or maybe they just don't use the Internet and have little understanding of it."

I think the final sentence may be accurate, though, I'm sure that heavy lobbying from the entertainment industry impacts their views as well...

Filed Under: copyright, dmitry medvedev, g8

Maryland Judge Declares Pontiac G8 GT's Factory Taillights Illegal; Tells Car Owner To Get A Different Car [Updated: Or Maybe Not...]

from the judge-this dept

Update: As some folks are pointing out in the comments, people digging into this have discovered that the guy did, in fact, modify his taillights to make them look like stock. Some are suggesting it still didn't violate local laws, but it's not as clear cut any more...

Aaron Martin-Colby alerts us to the bizarre story of how the owner of a standard, unmodified Pontiac G8 GT was first pulled over for having illegal taillights, and then told by the judge that he should just get a new car, because the taillights, despite being approved by the Department of Transportation, are illegal:

Went to court for my clear tail lights on my car and was found guilty!

The judge actualy told me she didn't care what the manufacturer said, what the federal govt said, what the DOT # stamped onto my taillights said if the officer says my lights aren't legal then they're not legal. I took the G8 sales brochure in along with pics of my car and other G8 GT's and the VIN trace by 3 different dealers saying my lights were factory none of it mattered she found me guilty of failing to display or reflect red light on the rear of the car. Didn't matter the reflecters were in the bumper, didn't matter where the light is has that little red circle, the whole lens isn't red so they're not legal. Also where the back-up and turn signals are should be the reflectors according to the cop so the V6 cars lights aren't legal either.

Judge stupid went on to tell me that maybe I should consider trading in or selling the car since its not legal in MD and that I'm going to continue to get the $60 tickets till I get rid of the car.

Nice to know that the officer and the judge seem to know better than everyone else, including the Department of Transportation...

Filed Under: g8, maryland, taillights
Companies: pontiac