UK using PRISM to circumvent their spying laws too...tip of the iceberg, cont.

[nashville_brook]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/07/uk-gathering-secret-intelligence-nsa-prism

UK gathering secret intelligence via covert NSA operation

The UK's electronic eavesdropping and security agency, GCHQ, has been secretly gathering intelligence from the world's biggest internet companies through a covertly run operation set up by America's top spy agency, documents obtained by the Guardian reveal.

The documents show that GCHQ, based in Cheltenham, has had access to the system since at least June 2010, and generated 197 intelligence reports from it last year.

The US-run programme, called Prism, would appear to allow GCHQ to circumvent the formal legal process required to seek personal material such as emails, photos and videos from an internet company based outside the UK.

The use of Prism raises ethical and legal issues about such direct access to potentially millions of internet users, as well as questions about which British ministers knew of the programme.

(snip)

more at link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/07/uk-gathering-secret-intelligence-nsa-prism

[CJCRANE]

1. This is so obvious. Anyone who is surprised at these revelations

hasn't been paying attention for the last ten years.

I wonder what the purpose of these revelations is...is it purely political, is it to reduce British and American intelligence effectiveness or is there some other purpose?

[nashville_brook]

4. how do you mean "obvious"? and how would that mediate outrage?

[CJCRANE]

5. I'm pretty sure all of this information has been revealed before. None of it is new to me. nt

[nashville_brook]

6. is this an Alex Jones thing -- and, does that make it okay?

[CJCRANE]

9. It's nothing to do with Alex Jones. I think it's more an attempt

to brand Obama with anything that Bush did. That's Greenwald's agenda.

Greenwald is very Rovian IMO.

But something good might come out of this. We'll see.

[nashville_brook]

10. and does that belief make you less outraged about having all your information spied on?

[CJCRANE]

11. I'm not outraged because I assumed it was happening already.

The warrantless wiretapping story broke in 2005.

There was also a story about a "fusion center" in San Francisco.

After that I pretty much assumed that any electronic communications could be monitored or recovered.

[nashville_brook]

12. so you're completely OK with scrapping the 4th Amendment on search and seizure?

just b/c you know about -- that's all it takes to make you OK with it?

[CJCRANE]

13. Well, I always assumed that the whole point of facebook etc.

was to collect information on people and then sell it to the government or the highest bidder.

I can't really be outraged at corporations doing what corporations always do.

Personally, I would rather go back to the pre-digital age where when we had more privacy, we weren't all connected and people were less narcissistic.

[nashville_brook]

14. and your email -- can I have a peek? would you mind posting all your photos on DU?

what about your local Democratic committee -- is it okay for all their communications to be open to GOP operatives?

[CJCRANE]

15. None of is it secure.

How many news stories have we seen where they print emails, text messages, voicemail, messageboard comments etc?

I don't like it but that's the risk you take.

Of course I wasn't aware of that when I started using the internet. If I knew then what I know know I'd probably avoid using it as much as possible and would never have joined facebook etc.

FWIW I trust the corporations even than I trust the government.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. But you said you knew that Obama was already doing this, like Bush

and you think that everyone who was paying attention knew it too. So you can't call it an 'attempt to brand Obama'. Nor can it be an attempt to reduce intelligence effectiveness, if you think all the real targets knew as well.

[CJCRANE]

17. There's a difference between a few people knowing and it being broadcast on the MSM.

The timing and the fact it's in the MSM is it what makes part of a campaign of "scandals".

Plus many of the real targets didn't know this because nowadays a lot of terrorists are amateur "self-starters".

I found a jihadi messageboard (on a popular social networking site) and it was obvious that the commenters had no idea that they could easily be tracked.

But I also think that social networking in some ways encourages extremism. So if the extremists know they're being monitored maybe they'll quit social media and go and do something more useful instead of radicalizing themselves.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. So your main point is that you are far superior to most people

That it's obvious to you, but you don't expect normal people, including some terrorists, to have known this.

[CJCRANE]

19. It's obvious to people who have been on DU or following politics closely for some time.

I made no comment about whether that means we're superior or not. In fact that's a non sequitur and has nothing to do with what I said, nor do I believe that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. But you seem surprised at the media trying to inform people who haven't been paying attention

as much as you. Isn't that the purpose of the media - to inform people?

Anyway, we can have suspicions. But actually having the confirmation of what they're doing, in the form of a secret court order, really is different. They wouldn't bother to keep it secret if there was no doubt about what they were doing.

[CJCRANE]

21. I'm not that surprised at the media either. It's "scandal" season.

I believe these "scandals" are done for political reasons but that's just my hunch, I may be wrong.

[nashville_brook]

24. boom goes the dynamite -- you see, this is REALLY a nefarious plot!

"a campaign of scandals"!! zomg!!1

[CJCRANE]

7. I'm always more interested in the story behind the story:

why was this information released now?

Other people can be outraged on cue, I like to look a little deeper. For example, is it a limited hangout? Is it a political leak? What are the geopolitical ramifications?

[nashville_brook]

23. i'm sure you have a CT for that!

[CJCRANE]

25. A theory is just a theory. It can be true or false. The earth is round was a theory.

I assumed that this program existed - maybe that was a CT - but now it's a fact.

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. Britain and USA have become political twins, going back to Raygun

if not before. We saw it most strongly in Bush and what people called Bush's poodle, Tony Blair.
No surprise that both countries are working in tandem when it comes to financial and political gain and control.

[nashville_brook]

26. particularly with US/UK relationship, there's always a financial angle.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. I look forward to the London -

protests.

[nashville_brook]

22. they're always so much better than ours.

[Solly Mack]

3. K&R

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. Chair of home affairs committee: "chilling"; info commissioner: conflict with UK Data Protection?

Labour MP Keith Vaz, said: "I am astonished by these revelations which could involve the data of thousands of Britons.
...
"This seems to be the snooper's charter by the back door. I shall be writing to the home secretary asking for a full explanation."
...
The UK's data protection watchdog the information commissioner, also raised concerns about the report.
...
"Aspects of US law under which companies can be compelled to provide information to US agencies potentially conflict with European data protection law, including the UK's own Data Protection Act.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22813893

The 'Snooper's Charter' is a proposed bill to make internet companies retain the data of their customers:

Internet companies warn May over 'snooper's charter'

Exclusive: Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo! and Twitter dismiss email tracking as too costly and 'highly contentious'

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".

The private letter, which has been passed to the Guardian, is part of a series of continuing confidential discussions between the industry and the Home Office. It says that May's "core premise" to create a new retention order requiring overseas internet companies to store the personal data of all their British-based users for up to 12 months has "potentially seriously harmful consequences".
...
The private letter is dated 18 April when the coalition's battle over whether the legislation should be in this year's Queen's speech was at its peak. Nick Clegg blocked the bill days later but both May and the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, have demanded that it be revived in the wake of the Woolwich terrorist murder.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/30/snoopers-charter-web-five-letter

Ah, the irony - the companies complain it's too expensive - but they're actually allowing the NSA to do it already. But the NSA pays for it, I guess.