British Spy Agencies Assert Power to Intercept Web Traffic
British Spy Agencies Assert Power to Intercept Web
Traffic
By MARK SCOTTJUNE 16, 2014
LONDON — In a broad legal rationale for collecting
information from Internet use by its citizens, the British government has
asserted the right to intercept communications that go through services like
Facebook, Google and Twitter that are based in the United States or other
foreign nations, even if they are between people in Britain.
The British position is described in a report released
Tuesday by Privacy International and other advocacy groups. The report,
confirming a summary seen Monday by The New York Times, says the findings are
based on a government document that the groups obtained through a lawsuit.
The government document, released with the report, says
contact between people in Britain through social networks based elsewhere, or
use of search engines located outside Britain, constitutes “external
communication,” and as such, is subject to interception, even when no
wrongdoing is suspected.
By contrast, under British law, “internal communication”
between people based in the country may be intercepted only when there is
suspicion of illegal activity as specified in a government-issued warrant overseen
by the courts.
It is not clear how loosely the British government is
applying such an interpretation of “external communication” or how many
warrants it may have obtained under those guidelines to intercept the
communications of people in the country.
The British surveillance agency that oversees such
activity, the Government Communications Headquarters, declined on Monday to
affirm the portrayal of its position, citing “a longstanding policy that we do
not comment on intelligence matters.” But it added, in a statement, that “all
of G.C.H.Q.'s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy
framework which ensures that our activities are authorized, necessary and
proportionate.”
The government document is attributed to Charles Farr,
director general of the Office for Security and Counter Terrorism, a British
government body that helps coordinate the country’s antiterrorism strategy.
Privacy International declined to comment Monday on the
summary of its report before its official release. Apprised of the contents of
the summary, Google issued a statement that said in part: “We provide user data
to governments only in accordance with the law. Our legal team reviews each and
every request, and frequently pushes back when requests are overly broad or
don’t follow the correct process.”
A Facebook representative declined to comment, and
Twitter did not immediately respond to an invitation to do so.
The British government’s defense was in response to a
lawsuit filed last year by privacy advocates, including Privacy International
and Amnesty International, related to disclosures about government surveillance
by Edward J. Snowden, a former contractor for the National Security Agency.
Among other things, the privacy groups are calling for
the British government to stop using information from Prism, a system that
allows the N.S.A. to collect emails of non-Americans abroad, without
individualized warrants, from American-based providers like Facebook, Gmail,
Yahoo and Hotmail.
The privacy groups also want the British government to
stop its Tempora surveillance program, under which an intelligence agency may
tap fiber-optic cables carrying Internet traffic in and out of Britain. The
cables each day transport millions of emails and web searches, among other
personal data.
As part of the legal case, which is to be heard next
month by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, a British court that handles legal
cases against the country’s intelligence agencies, Mr. Farr of the Office for
Security and Counter Terrorism will be a crucial witness for the British
government in its efforts to keep using the surveillance methods.
When revelations surrounding Prism and the other
surveillance activities first occurred last year, the British government said
the country’s intelligence agencies abided by local rules aimed at protecting
citizens’ privacy.
But the legal defense reflected in the privacy groups’
report would be the most detailed discussion that has surfaced of the
government’s approach to collecting individuals’ communications on some of the
most popular Internet services.
Charlie Savage contributed reporting from Washington.
A version of this article appears in print on June 17,
2014, on page B3 of the New York edition with the headline: British Spy
Agencies Assert Power to Intercept Web Traffic.
Comments
Post a Comment