Slashdot Mirror
UK Minister: British Cabinet Was Told Nothing About GCHQ/NSA Spying Programs
dryriver writes "From the Guardian: 'Cabinet ministers and members of the national security council were told nothing about the existence and scale of the vast data-gathering programs run by British and American intelligence agencies, a former member of the government has revealed. Chris Huhne, who was in the cabinet for two years until 2012, said ministers were in "utter ignorance" of the two biggest covert operations, Prism and Tempora. The former Liberal Democrat MP admitted he was shocked and mystified by the surveillance capabilities disclosed by the Guardian from files leaked by the whistleblower Edward Snowden. "The revelations put a giant question mark into the middle of our surveillance state," he said. "The state should not feel itself entitled to know, see and memorize everything that the private citizen communicates. The state is our servant." Huhne also questioned whether the Home Office had deliberately misled parliament about the need for the communications data bill when GCHQ, the government's eavesdropping headquarters, already had remarkable and extensive snooping capabilities. He said this lack of information and accountability showed "the supervisory arrangements for our intelligence services need as much updating as their bugging techniques."'"
There's a reason these programs are kept secret (along with their budgets) from the general "civilian" government. It's because they're huge money pits. They're pork. Free money for security services contractors. It's not some boogeyman new world order shadow conspiracy for power.
It's a much, much, older and familiar monster. Greed.
Didn't he hear the clicks on his phone line?
Duh.
WTF has SD become a government mouth piece or was it always this way? FUBO my friends.
... then you could have claimed you were an NSA/GCHQ customer.
I keep hearing astonishment at how so much web traffic can be stored with relative ease.
Sure, it's going to be a lot of data, but a whole lot of that data is duplication, and where there is duplication there can be compression. And where it's not, even at level 6/7 you can identify significant commonality (facebook user home page) and simply store the delta.
It's not like they're storing every byte sent and received by every Internet user at all.
and you can't replace them. If they don't want to what their ministers want, they simply don't and wait for the minister to be replaced.
This is the big question. Now that you know you were duped, spied on, and the citizens you are supposed to be serving have been taken advantage of, what will you do?
My guess is nothing, it'll be USA part 2. A few bands will file suit, everything will be classified secret, and nothing will happen. It's not just the US that needs to be considering a revolt, the UK is just as bad as we are in nearly everything.
Interesting to hear Russel Brand talk about his own country here in the US, since we really get little information that is not "party line".
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
So What ?!
The UK takes it's orders direct from the US, Israel and the banks.
Why should ministers need to know anything ?
This would be the same Chris Huhne who was jailed for eight months for perjury?
Yes, yes it would.
Huhne is a businessman, and a 'johny come lately; to the iffy and corrupt politics route that is the ppe, or the fast track to m15 and m16. The French have a similar setup
Oxbridge talks to Oxbridge only on matters of its choosing and distrusts people such as the non member as he is.
In other words pompous self-aggrandizing politician learns his true standing in the pecking order and what the powers that be really consider his worth.
His own reputation might be less than exemplary at this point, but I don't see that his ministerial position was particularly relevant here. Any MP, minister or otherwise, is the highest directly elected representative of their constituents in our government system. As a basic principle of representative democracy, it seems very dubious to me that anything like this should be "off limits" to someone in that position, or to people in that position acting collectively by asking questions in Parliament. I can accept reasonable arguments for keeping the specifics of individual cases or ongoing operations on a need-to-know basis and not routinely disclosing them to a few hundred MPs, but not the underlying principles and the existence of systemic practices.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The first thing he'd have done was go blab it (anonymously, if necessary) to the newspapers.
(They didn't tell Labor and the Tories because they'd have blabbed at cocktail parties.)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Please. Why would they tell every minister everything, or every Congressman everything, when far too many of them have their own agendas from an extreme third party, or can't keep it in their pants, or are in and out in 2 years. This guy didn't know because he's not a "need to know" as our most.
I'm not a fan of the spying programs, but Chris Huhne is overthinking his importance.
It's always easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission.
Step 1) Run a secret, illegal surveillance program with no oversight
Step 2) When a terrorist attack is averted, locate actionable intelligence about it within the data previously gathered
Step 3) If and when the public face of the government (those little people who have to stand for elections) finds out about your secret, illegal surveillance program, show them the data from Step 2 and claim the attack would have succeeded without your secret, illegal surveillance program
Step 4) Accept some toothless, ineffective oversight measures and continue as you were
There's nothing complicated about any of this. Ignorant legislators behave like frightened masses of people when you frighten them. They'll do anything they're told to do by anyone who projects authority and control over a scary situation. Whether it's impending market collapse, terrorist attacks, or the next killer plague, frightened masses will let you do just about anything you want if you promise to keep them safe and convince them you can do it.
This is the ultimate flaw in every system of government.
Dear MP,
It's called a secret. You were never supposed to be told.
Now that you know, it is no longer a secret. No one NO ONE cares that you didn't know or how pseudo "outraged" you are now. We feel that it is entirely just that you are subject to the same abuses that you deem adequate for your citizenry.
TTFN with love and kisses,
The Public
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied. Does that fit here? Maybe... in a way I think.
In other words pompous self-aggrandizing politician learns his true standing in the pecking order and what the powers that be really consider his worth.
You do realize that "Yes Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" were documentary and not comedy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_Minister
This quote combined with what the NSA/GCHQ have done reminds me a lot of "...or through inaction allow a human being to come to harm." The state should serve us, yes. The state should prevent us from harm, yes. But there is a point at which we are no longer served by harm prevention, and the NSA has clearly passed it. Even if they started off with good intentions initially (as implausible as that may be), by simply doing their jobs well they have come over to the dark side, and that's pretty interesting to me. There aren't that many good things you can do so well they start becoming bad.
Cabinet ministers and members of the national security council were^H^H^H^H told^H^H^H^H^H^ asked nothing about the existence and scale of the vast data-gathering programs...
FTFY
Nullius in verba
Page 8
I am not surprised at all. The show Yes, Minister has exposed a problem of civil servants keeping ministers in ignorance several decades ago. Keep in mind that Yes, Minister has been modelled after true events. You can actually learn politics from it.
Have we finally reached the stage where the security services are totally uncontrollable and have so much money and resources that they are no longer accountable or controllable?
...Any MP, minister or otherwise, is the highest directly elected representative of their constituents in our government system. As a basic principle of representative democracy, it seems very dubious to me that anything like this should be "off limits" to someone in that position, or to people in that position acting collectively by asking questions in Parliament...
Look at the history.
Security Service, SIS and GCHQ are DIRECT descendants of the equivalent services which were running during WW2. At that time there were many things which the state was doing which would certainly NOT be presented to Parliament - for obvious reasons. Encryption capabilities, military strategy, operational data - many things would be kept secret. For good reason. And Parliament would not expect to be told about these matters.
In most cases the state structures set up at that time (for instance, Bombing Target Policy committees) were quite happy to close themselves down and return to civvy street when the war ended. Not so MI5 and MI6. They were involved in the diplomatic politics during the restructuring of Europe and seamlessly went into the Cold War. During the 1950s to 1970s many MPs were suspected of Communist sympathies - they would certainly not be told anything about the activities of the intelligence community.
By now that mindset is rock-solid. These people have always lived in a world where they were (secretly) defending democracy against the Nazis or the Reds. This stopped, suddenly, around 1990. Only 20-odd years ago. But they are still trying to work as they always have - in secrecy, with an unlimited budget, fighting on behalf of their country against an implacable and highly organised foe.
That foe no longer exists. So they are simply making him up. Kid hackers become Master Cyber-criminals, in the pay of the Chinese. Individual political activists with a grudge - Muslim or Chechen - who set off a bomb, become shadowy agents of a vast world conspiracy instead of individual murders who should be dealt with by the police. We bomb local politicians/gang leaders in the Middle East who are fighting their own local wars, and pretend that that we are saving Western civilisation.
Yes, it's partly the money. Working in the intelligence community is a comfy, well paid position with no competition. But it's also this mindset. Everyone who does not support you whole-heartedly is suspicious, and should not be told anything. It's standard World War paranoia - institutionalised....
You do realize that "Yes Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" were documentary and not comedy?
Possibly the most true and insightful comment I've read on Slashdot for a long time!
I would believe a word this lying dirtbag says
There to keep you shouting "Blue team!, no, Red team! no, Blue team!, no, Red team!!!"
Imagine how much money you could make if you could listen in on international trade negiotiations.
From Casablanca: Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds? Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money] Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Yes lets be honest as a very junior minster from the junior partner in government what did he expect its not like he is the Home secretary (Security Service) or the Foreign Secretary (SIS and GCHQ).
And Mrs Thatchers favorite program apparently.
The question is just as in the USA possibly he didn't read all his briefing papers and understand what he was being told. The lib dems have form in saying what people want to hear ask any Labour or Conservative activist and they will agree with me
"the supervisory arrangements for our intelligence services need as much updating as their bugging techniques."
Hear, hear.
Well, it'd be a start.
Imagine for a moment that Chris Huhne was fully, completely, 100% informed of these surveillance programs. Perhaps he needed to inform the citizenry and did not do so. In order to protect himself from criticism, prosection, and/or reputational damage he decides to deny knowledge.
It's not terribly likely I would guess. There would likely be a paper trail and witnesses (although if it was top secret...), so it could be disproved. On the other hand you might find that the other participants were not willing to talk.
Ultimately this is the problem with pervasive secrecy. Who do you believe? A senior minister claiming no knowledge? A low level whistle blower? The tinfoil hat crowd, who suddenly look a bit more credible? Official looking documents that could be faked except that there are so many of them, and the government does not claim they are fakes?
This is why stamping everything security-related as "secret" breeds suspicion and mistrust. It's not the basis for any government we want. That's not a partisan position either.
So a parliament of one country (UK) wasn't briefed about the classified actions(NSA spying) of another country (USA)? Who'd have thought.
As far as GCHQ... do the parliamentarians have the right clearance level? No? Do they need to know? No? Why SHOULD they be told?
"Yes, Minister" is used as an orientation manual. Apparently, new cabinet ministers and even backbenchers in both the UK and Canada (and probably Australia) use them as such. There is some really good material in the programs about what tactics the bureaucracy can use to stop things, and how to overcome the resistance.
Remember: Just because the civil service follows your instructions - does not mean anyone wants the result!
This makes fascinating reading.
He tells a bunch of stories about kooky paranoid MI5 spies and the general incompetence of the organization. Great stuff.
I find it hard to believe they knew nothing of what there own spying agency was doing. And they could careless about the details or the protocol for collecting data on it own citizens. And as typical they voted or passed laws that allowed these agencies to conduct these programs, and even after these agencies had been exposed the politicians continue to pass (of course quietly) more laws that give them even more power.
-----However-----
Its not like they need these "terrorist laws" to do this, they where doing just fine behind everyone's backs.
And judging how brainless politicians are when it comes to common sense, and buying into its own propaganda, it is possible they're completely clueless as to how there own spy agencies have destroyed privacy.
The law , aka the Snoopers Charter* that was rejected under the last government, and again under the new government. The law that was the legal basis for spying on Brits internet connections, WAS NEVER PASSED. Yet the money to install the surveillance was paid out and spend, and those computer systems bought and budgetted for.
The program it would have legalized aka "Mastering the Internet", went ahead ANYWAY.
I suspect the money was from an upgrade for the serious crime office computers in 2010. The same time Jacqui Smith was pushing to spy on Brits internet connections. There are 4000 policemen in that office SOCA, Jacqui Smith announced an upgrade to SOCA's PCs costing 500 million quid. That's 125,000 per computer! Obviously hiding something, I suspect the budget for spying on Brits.
So you should ask yourselves, if Parliament didn't know, and the Cabinet didn't know, where did the money to do it come from??
http://www.theregister.co.uk/Print/2008/12/10/soca_it_revamp/
"The UK's Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) has budgeted up to £500m on plans to upgrade its IT systems for the 21st century. Between £300m and £500m will be spent on projects focused on replaced outdated legacy systems with an integrated system as part of the 2010 Programme. Tenders are invited with awards expected to be granted from 20 January."
See 2010, huge overspend on SOCA, just as they're setting up a cyber-crime unit. i.e. Internet connections on their budget would appear to match their remit, even if the money is insane for the work they were doing.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/03/gchq_mti/
"Spy chiefs are already spending hundreds of millions of pounds on a mass internet surveillance system, despite Jacqui Smith's announcement earlier this week that proposals for a central warehouse of communications data had been dumped on privacy grounds.
"The system - uncovered today by The Register and The Sunday Times - is being installed under a GCHQ project called Mastering the Internet (MTI). It will include thousands of deep packet inspection probes inside communications providers' networks, as well as massive computing power at the intelligence agency's Cheltenham base, "the concrete doughnut"."
See? Why wait for the laws to be passed if you don't work within a legal framework anyway. Once you have the surveillance, your political masters will never challenge it, because NSA/CIA would simply leak secrets about them. So effectively GCHQ has been re-purposed as an NSA spying agency against Britain, a Stasi for Britain.
Nobody on the National Security Council has denied his claim that the NSC was never informed. Just to re-iterate that, THE PARLIAMENTARY BODY TO OVERSEE THE SECURITY AGENCIES WAS NEVER TOLD ABOUT THEIR MASS SURVEILLANCE OF BRITS BY THE SECURITY AGENCY.
Not least because the laws to make it legal were never passed.
Ahh, but the NSA and the President knew. Probably creeps like Feinstein knew, but not Parliament.
Now we have a situation where the NSA can spy on government, newspapers, any British comms and GCHQ assists them in that and very few people dare speak out in case they're targetted. Huhne has already been targetted so he feels freer to speak.
He was on the NSC, the body in government that overseas the security services.
Take your propaganda cold fjord and fuck off. Yeh, we get it, anyone who speaks out will be attacked with propaganda, and anti terror laws.
Do you get it? You are not defenders of democracy, you are the Stasi, you are the ones undermining democracy.
You seem delighted to put him in his place. Unfortunately he also happened to be an elected minister and the only influence you have on how your country is run.
So if his standing in the pecking order is worthless, where does that leave the rest of us?
Politicians don't have the slightest clue about technology. They all studied PPE at Oxbridge and worked as a political adviser before becoming an MP. Most of them are scientifically illiterate.
Its not at all surprising that they don't have a clue how far GCHQ and the NSA have got. Even Slashdot readers are surprised by the scale of it.
In theory the NSA and GCHQ now have sufficient power to actually run their respective countries,
the big question is why aren't they? Lack of imagination? Prefer to pull the strings from behind the scenes?
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
The PM and perhaps some other high level people know
watch Page 8 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/pageeight/
I understand that when it was on, the lady was not for turning.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
We don't believe you!
We are all absolutely certain that his being jailed for covering up traffic offences, surely the most egregious criminal evasion in modern British history, is completely unrelated to his opposition to unlimited and possibly unlawful spying on all classes of British subjects.
The person/groups responsible for political oversight of a programme such as this, in order of hierarchy, would probably be the Prime Minister, followed by a Cabinet committee, then the full Cabinet, and finally a senior minister (possibly the Foreign Secretary).
The Cabinet is rather large - with 28 members in the photo below - and significant churn year-on-year. For obvious reasons they are not all told the details or even the existence of every secret programme. Some of them are incapable of keeping secrets; others, like Huhne, are common criminals (Huhne committed perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice). In practice the Prime Minister and a Cabinet committee will be in charge of the programme. The senior minister is fourth in the order of responsibility, but interestingly he is the fall guy if anything goes wrong. This is not as perverse as at first sight, because he will almost certainly be a member of the Cabinet committee that has oversight, as well as having day-to-day responsibility.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01636/11-Cabinet_1636624a.jpg