Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Secret policy allows GCHQ to bulk NSA data 1

Submitted by hazeii
hazeii (5702) writes "Though legal procedings following the Snowden revelations, Liberty UK have succeeded in forcing GCHQ to reveal secret internal policies allowing Britain's intelligence services to receive unlimited bulk intelligence from the NSA and other foreign agencies and to keep this data on a massive searchable databases, all without a warrant. Apparently, British intelligence agencies can "trawl through foreign intelligence material without meaningful restrictions", and can keep copies of both content and metadata for up to two years. There is also mention of data obtained "through US corporate partnerships".

According to Liberty, this raises serious doubts about oversight of the UK Intelligence and Security Commitee and their reassurances that in every case where GCHQ sought information from the US, a warrant for interception signed by a minister was in place.

Eric King, Deputy Director of Privacy international, said:

“We now know that data from any call, internet search, or website you visited over the past two years could be stored in GCHQ's database and analysed at will, all without a warrant to collect it in the first place. It is outrageous that the Government thinks mass surveillance, justified by secret “arrangements” that allow for vast and unrestrained receipt and analysis of foreign intelligence material is lawful. This is completely unacceptable, and makes clear how little transparency and accountability exists within the British intelligence community.”"

Comment: Re:Why not? (Re:No. Just no.) (Score 1) 186

by mi (#48266589) Attached to: Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?

It is the type of society-eroding tactics usually ascribed to "terrorists".

No, what we ascribe to terrorists are perfectly overt violence...

As soon as you cannot take most things at face value anymore, civilization collapses.

A single suspect being fooled into clicking on a bogus link by the FBI does not affect my taking things at face value.

Comment: Re:What malware? (Score 1) 186

by mi (#48266577) Attached to: Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?

Thanks. "CIPAV", huh? The Wikipedia page claims, FBI has thought legal approval to use the tool. I wonder, if they've covered their asses in this case — would've been good for the rest of us to see it appealed and the Supreme Court to decide.

Although, the tools was not used to obtain any evidence — only to deanonymize, so, maybe, there is no purchase in appealing for the convict...

Comment: Ah, those pesky denialists! (Score 3, Insightful) 256

by mi (#48266507) Attached to: Imagining the Future History of Climate Change

leads scientists to be far too cautious, far too easily disrupted by the doubt-mongering of denialists

Can't we just shoot these doubt-mongering denialists and move on to the great new world of next Tuesday? What is it, that keeps the rest of us so cautious in dealing with these contemptible human beings? They are traitors to humanity and should be executed — instead of being allowed to affect the good scientists' work, while secretly scheming to escape to a private Elysium of their own, when the Earth is no longer habitable.

We — historians of science, politicians, music professors, and actors alike — know better!

Comment: Re:Why not? (Re:No. Just no.) (Score 1) 186

by mi (#48266375) Attached to: Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?

The simplest way to test if what they did was wrong and illegal is what the reaction would have been if a private citizen had done the same thing to the FBI.

Lying to the FBI (or any other federal agents) is illegal. The other way is not.

The FBI, nor any law enforcement agency has the right to willy nilly break the law

They don't alright. And they haven't. Not in this case, anyway.

Comment: Re:18 US Code 1343, Wire Fraud (Score 2) 186

by mi (#48266351) Attached to: Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?

And then when someone cites chapter and verse of the law you reply with a wikipedia link saying it isn't correct.

The citation requested must not only refer to actual law, but the referenced law must be applicable. Fraud is not — in my opinion.

The definition in that chapter is clear: "For the purposes of this chapter, the term “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." They were expecting the honest service of the specific newspaper.

No, I don't see, how the "victim" was deprived of anything, tangible or not. He could still go to the real seattletimes.com, nothing was taken away from him, nor was tricked into performing services. The law you are offering protects merchants (purveyors of tangible goods) and service providers (intangibles) against, essentially, non-payments.

Under your reading, most April 1st jokes would be "wire fraud"...

Finally, the law is limited to interstate communications, which probably did not occur. But that — had it been my only rebuttal — would've been weaseling out on my part.

Their malware is covered under [...]

What malware? They sent him a link, which he clicked, thus revealing his IP-address...

15 USC 1114 seems to have that covered quite thoroughly

False. Go back to law school. The 15 USC 1114 starts with "... use in commerce ...". The FBI did not engage in any commerce...

Defamation is pretty strong

There is no law named "defamation" — you know, what "citation" means, you've offered quite a few already (even though none apply). Why did you change to a generic legal term again?

Comment: Re:Why not? (Re:No. Just no.) (Score 1) 186

by mi (#48265373) Attached to: Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?

Wire fraud could be used to prosecute pretty much anyone in cases like these

The definition of "wire fraud" reads:

In the United States, mail and wire fraud is any fraudulent scheme to intentionally deprive another of property or honest services via mail or wire communication. It has been a federal crime in the United States since 1872.

Does not apply to sting operations...

Comment: Re:Why not? (Re:No. Just no.) (Score 1, Insightful) 186

by mi (#48264915) Attached to: Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?

1) Identify theft. 2) Slander of Title. 3) Copyright Infringement. 4) Trademark Infringement. 5) Defamation of Character.

These may be legal terms, but not actual laws. Please, try again — cite an actual law (Federal or Washington State's). If you can, mention the paragraph/verse you think was violated. Thank you.

Comment: Re:Why not? (Re:No. Just no.) "except under oath"? (Score 2) 186

by mi (#48264425) Attached to: Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?

face worse penalties for breaking the law than the general public

Though I agree with you in general, we are yet to find an actual law, that the FBI have broken dealing with this case... All of the accusers so far have been unable to offer a citation.

There are a number of problems with our law enforcement, but that's not the topic here.

Comment: Re:Why not? (Re:No. Just no.) "except under oath"? (Score 1) 186

by mi (#48264335) Attached to: Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?

"except under oath"? Don't tell that to Mark Furhman, who perjured himself in the O.J. Simpson trial, and was fined $200

I would not tell him that, alright. What's your point? That punishment for perjury could range from nothing to a small fine to impeachement? Nothing new here — my point was, such lying is illegal — not what the punishment for it is (or should be).

Comment: Re:Why not? (Re:No. Just no.) (Score 2) 186

by mi (#48264269) Attached to: Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?

Identity theft.

There is no such law. I asked for a citation — please, be exact.

Or more practically, try trademark dilution by tarnishment

Ok, that's better. But have you read that law? It states — right at the beginning — that it is only applicable to commercial misuses of trademarks:

Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact [....]

But that's my reading — IANAL... Seattle Times has plenty of lawyers — the law entitles them to damages. If they don't attempt to sue, then their legal department must have found, the law does not apply, contrary to what (some of) Slashdot thinks.

Comment: What malware? (Score 5, Informative) 186

by mi (#48263847) Attached to: Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?

The Internet's been abuzz the past 48 hours about reports the FBI distributed malware via a fake Seattle Times news website.

From TFA:

When the suspect clicked on the link, FBI software revealed his location and IP address to agents working the case.

If there is a slashdotter, who — from reading the above "description" — does not realize, that there was no "malware" installed on the doofus' computer and the suspect's IP was obtained simply from the FBI's web-server log, ought to close his account (and change his name)...

Comment: Why not? (Re:No. Just no.) (Score 5, Insightful) 186

by mi (#48263795) Attached to: Is the Outrage Over the FBI's Seattle Times Tactics a Knee-Jerk Reaction?

Not only is it clearly illegal

Please, cite the violated law. Thank you.

it's also a serious breach of trust

Trust between which parties? The fake was sent to only one person — the suspect, who then became a convict. The suspect knows very well now, that it was a fake — so he continues to trust the actual Seattle Times as much as he did before.

Also, we all know, that it is perfectly legal for police to lie — except, of course, under oath. So, which trust are you talking about?

After an instrument has been assembled, extra components will be found on the bench.

Working...