Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seven ISPs Take Legal Action Against GCHQ

Posted by Unknown on from the ways-to-get-on-a-watch-list dept.

mrspoonsi (2955715) writes with this excerpt from the BBC: ISPs from the U.S., UK, Netherlands, and South Korea have joined forces with campaigners Privacy International to take GCHQ to task over alleged attacks on network infrastructure. It is the first time that GCHQ has faced such action. The ISPs claim that alleged network attacks, outlined in a series of articles in Der Spiegel and the Intercept, were illegal and "undermine the goodwill the organizations rely on." The complaint (PDF).

41 of 65 comments (clear)

  1. Well now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Good luck with that.

    1. Re:Well now. by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Yes, I offer them Good Luck too.

      We should reward companies for the things that they do well, and for the good.
      Punish them for the things that they do bad. All Carrot or all Stick approach doesn't work.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Well now. by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      ...All Carrot or all Stick approach doesn't work.

      And the carrot stick approach is pretty useless also...
      unless you're trying to get rid of ranch dressing!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  2. Re:WTF by zakeria · · Score: 4, Funny

    UK == United Kingdom

  3. How are they going to get proof? by timrod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article, it seems like the only ISP that was named in the Snowden leaks as being a target of NSA/GCHQ data collection was Belgacom, a Belgian ISP. I'm not sure how the law works in the UK, but in the US, all of the suits against the NSA so far have failed because the NSA can refuse to provide evidence. The only ISP they have direct evidence for is Belgacom, which does not appear to be a plaintiff in this lawsuit. If GCHQ can withhold evidence, how do they plan to prove that they were targeted?

    1. Re:How are they going to get proof? by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, Belgacom was only the attack vector to get the malware up and running. From there, other providers were attacked under the disguise of Belgacom. For instance, the german exchange points DE-CIX and ECIX were attacked, thus all providers with facilities there are victims to the attack.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:How are they going to get proof? by johanw · · Score: 1

      And even if they do, the ISPs can go to the EU supreme court. The UK could of course bluntly refuse to obeey their orders, but the Tatcher method of threatening to leave the EU could these days trigger a response in the way of "then leave if you like".

    3. Re:How are they going to get proof? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The standard of proof is "on the balance of probabilities", so with the Snowden files, some customer testimonials and some accounting data the onus would very much be on GCHQ to prove their innocence.

      Chances are they will try to wriggle out of it on some other grounds, rather than mount a defence.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:How are they going to get proof? by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      LOL. This is the intelligence world we're talking about. There are no courts.

      This particular complaint will be heard by a special tribunal that meets in secret, makes secret decisions, and has ruled against the intelligence agencies in less than 1% of all cases it's heard - they do publish the fact that a hearing took place, mostly, we think, of course if they didn't we'd have know way to know so the real number is probably much less than 1%.

      The UK has much worse accountability structures in place than even the FISA court, and that's a kangaroo court that's a fucking joke. So this complaint will go exactly nowhere. I have to assume at that point they'll try to go to the EU level, but of course nothing really ensures the outcome will be any different there either.

    5. Re:How are they going to get proof? by Kiwikwi · · Score: 2

      *cough* The European Court of Justice has ultimate jurisdiction if plaintiffs can show that GCHQ violated any EU ordinance.

      (Whether that is the case I'll leave up to the lawyers, but it's certainly not unlikely that they can find something...)

    6. Re:How are they going to get proof? by sabri · · Score: 1

      *cough* The European Court of Justice has ultimate jurisdiction if plaintiffs can show that GCHQ violated any EU ordinance.

      Did you even read the page you're quoting? The ECJ is not a Supreme Court, as national cases cannot be appealed to the ECJ. Even if you were confused with the ECHR, you're still mistaken. The ECHR only takes on cases involving human rights (i.e., no patent cases) and is limited to the interpretation of European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, the SCOTUS (with limited exceptions) only handles appeals cases.

      The Supreme Court has a much broader horizon when it comes to legal issues, most notably they can declare a national law to be unconstitutional. There is no European Constitution and even if there were, the ECHR has no jurisdiction in that area at this moment.

      So no, the ECJ or ECHR are NOT an equivalent of the United States Supreme Court.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    7. Re:How are they going to get proof? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The ECHR only takes on cases involving human rights (i.e., no patent cases) and is limited to the interpretation of European Convention on Human Rights.

      "The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has reinforced the right of individuals to access the internet," (from a page describing some of the rights one has, as determined by the ECHR)

      The ECJ is not a Supreme Court, as national cases cannot be appealed to the ECJ.

      This is a language problem. The ECJ is a "higher" court, right? If the ECJ rules something, the EU Member State must abide by that ruling, even if a more local court has already ruled differently? If so, then the ECJ is a superior court. If there is no court above which can be petitioned to hear the matter, they they are the supreme court. That the US has the system aligned to filter nearly all applications to the Supreme Court through lower court, doesn't mean that the Supreme Court is restricted to hearing cases that have been decided by a lower court and appealed.

      So no, the ECJ or ECHR are NOT an equivalent of the United States Supreme Court.

      If their findings are binding against member states and the courts thereof, and there is no higher court, then I'd disagree. So what court is higher than the ECJ/ECHR?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    8. Re:How are they going to get proof? by Kiwikwi · · Score: 1

      So no, the ECJ or ECHR are NOT an equivalent of the United States Supreme Court.

      I never claimed that the ECJ was anything like the SCOTUS, only that it was a supreme court, as in "the highest judicial tribunal in a political unit" (Merriam-Webster), or specifically as in a court that makes final judicial decisions that bind lower courts and is not subject to any other court.

      And no, I was not thinking about the ECHR. Even if this case might tangentially touch upon European human right law, I am well aware that the ECHR is not an EU court.

      Did you even read the page you're quoting? The ECJ is not a Supreme Court, as national cases cannot be appealed to the ECJ.

      You (as a citizen) cannot appeal a case to the ECJ, but you can challenge the law or intepretation of that law (under which the original case was decided) in a national court; the court may then direct the case to the ECJ. In other words, if you can make a reasonable case that GCHQ violates EU law, but is found in a UK court not to violate UK law, the case can certainly end up before the ECJ.

      This has happened numerous times.

      The [U.S.] Supreme Court has a much broader horizon when it comes to legal issues, most notably they can declare a national law to be unconstitutional.

      The EU might not have a constitution, but the ECJ can certainly overturn EU law found to violate basic rights of citizens.

    9. Re:How are they going to get proof? by sabri · · Score: 1

      If the ECJ rules something, the EU Member State must abide by that ruling, even if a more local court has already ruled differently? If so, then the ECJ is a superior court. If there is no court above which can be petitioned to hear the matter, they they are the supreme court.

      I totally follow your line of thinking, I just slightly disagree. The EU is a not a country. It is a group of countries which have a bunch of treaties together, making them close friends. The ECJ hears and rules on disagreements between countries.

      The ECHR only rules based on the ECHR, and can only marginally touch the "local" member states' parliaments decisions (local laws) and practices.

      The SCOTUS is the highest legal authority for a federation. If you'd like a EU comparison: Germany is a federation. The SCOTUS makes decisions based on the US constitution, not on a bunch of treaties between member states.

      Now of course, you can go back and say "that's not what I intended to say", but in that case I'd like to refer you to the original message I was responding to which said:

      the EU supreme court

      and my simple response was "there is no such thing as the EU supreme court". And I'll happily stand by that. No single court has been appointed the Supreme Court of the European Union, with jurisdiction of every legal matter in the EU. SCOTUS does have jurisdiction over pretty much every legal matter in the US. And that is what I pointed out.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    10. Re:How are they going to get proof? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The SCOTUS makes decisions based on the US constitution, not on a bunch of treaties between member states.

      The US Constitution is a treaty between 13 original sovereign states. The members of the EU are called "member States" and the members of the USA are called states.

      Also note that the US Supreme Court isn't the supreme court over every legal matter in the USA. A state or local matter that doesn't invoke Constitutional protections will end up in the state high court, and isn't appealable to the federal level or Supreme Court without invoking a new Constitutional claim.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    11. Re:How are they going to get proof? by Kiwikwi · · Score: 1

      No single court has been appointed the Supreme Court of the European Union, with jurisdiction of every legal matter in the EU. SCOTUS does have jurisdiction over pretty much every legal matter in the US.

      The US Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction over all legal matters in the US. Specifically, it has no jurisdiction over state law, unless that law conflicts with federal law. In this respect it resembles the European Court of Justice quite a bit.

      Jurisdiction over federal law (including treaties to which the federation is a party)? Both. Jurisdiction over member state law not in conflict with federal law? Neither. Jurisdiction in disputes about federal law between member states? Both. Jurisdiction in other disputes between member states? No in the case of ECJ, and not applicable in the case of SCOTUS, since US states cannot enter treaties on their own and are hence only bound by federal law.

      I'll grant you that SCOTUS has jurisdiction over all maritime matters and the ECJ does not (unless regulated by EU law or a treaty to which the EU is a party), as well as certain federal officials. (In the EU, officials are bound by national law, except for actions in an official capacity, which are under ECJ jurisdiction like all other EU institutions.)

      The more you argue, the more I'm beginning to realize that the ECJ and the SCOTUS are in fact very similar; the biggest difference being that the EU still clings to the fantasy that it's not a federation. :-)

    12. Re:How are they going to get proof? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "Chances are they will try to wriggle out of it on some other grounds, rather than mount a defence."
      Thats the classic way.
      The UK gov will take any cleared staff or past cleared staff, press, academics to court, expose some aspect of their lives to a tame, friendly press then just drop the case.
      The UK gov will have not confirmed any material in open court but ensured any further statements by cleared staff or past cleared staff, press, academics will be seen along side the new spin.
      Sealed courts do not play well with the press and act as total conformation.
      "Ten years ago, a young Mandarin specialist at GCHQ, the government's surveillance centre in Cheltenham, did something extraordinary. Katharine Gun, a shy and studious 28-year-old who spent her days listening in to obscure Chinese intercepts, decided to tell the world about a secret plan by the US government to spy on the United Nations." (3 March 2013) http://www.theguardian.com/wor...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. But but but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "We're GCHQ and are therefore free to act in any way we see fit."

    1. Re:But but but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "We are above the law, it's to keep the peons under our control NOT vice versa."

    2. Re:But but but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      GCHQ: Outside the government, beyond the police. tagline suits them well.

  5. Re:WTF by quenda · · Score: 4, Informative

    GCHQ is one of those things known better by the acronym than their full name.
    Even their homepage does not tell you what it stands for. I could tell you, but then ... you know.

  6. Re: WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ISP = Internet Service Preventer

  7. Re:WTF by rossdee · · Score: 4, Funny

    My guess would be General Communication Head Quarters

    UK has lots of secret government organisations, that answer directly to the PM and cabinet, not to parliament.
    MI5, MI6, Special Branch, UNIT and TORCHWOOD

  8. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Der Spiegel - Distributed Enhanced Reprint of Soviet Propaganda In East Germany, Electronic edition.

  9. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At least tell us what the acronyms mean in the summary shithead.

    Ok, from Wikipedia...

    An Internet service provider (ISP) is an organization that provides services for accessing, using, or participating in the Internet. Internet service providers may be organized in various forms, such as commercial, community-owned, non-profit, or otherwise privately owned.

    The Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) is a British intelligence agency responsible for providing signals intelligence and information assurance to the British government and armed forces.

    The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is a British public service broadcasting statutory corporation. Its main responsibility is to provide impartial public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, and the Isle of Man.

    The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly referred to as the United States (US or U.S.), America, and sometimes the States, is a federal republic consisting of 50 states and a federal district.

    The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or simply Britain, is a sovereign state located off the north-western coast of continental Europe.

  10. Re:WTF by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  11. Re:WTF by will_die · · Score: 2

    GCHQ = GeoCaching HeadQuarters.

  12. Re:WTF by Rashdot · · Score: 5, Funny

    ISPs = plural of ISP
    U.S. = United States
    shithead = mirror

    --
    This is not the sig you're looking for.
  13. There will be GCHQ workers reading /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, guys, any of you want to give your take on this?

    Go on - present your case on its merits.

    Thought not.

  14. Re:WTF by erikkemperman · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure the TORCHWOOD reference will mean much to the /. crowd. It should though, excellent series!

    --
    Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
  15. Re:WTF by BigZee · · Score: 1
    some good guesses and a few very funny answers. GCHQ is in fact the Government Communications Headquarters. Although it's in a completely different location, GCHQ can trace its roots back to Bletchly Park.

    In the spirit of the above suggestions, I presume the FBI is the Farming Board of Investigation and the CIA is the Central Idiots Agency.

  16. Re:WTF by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

    UNIT is not a British organisation, it's under UN control.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  17. Re:I'm confused... by cgriffiths · · Score: 1

    Not every sovereign state's populace or courts are quite so friendly towards such measures taken by the NSA, recent news events from the NSA's activities has been widely discussed and there isn't much approval for it in Europe. Admittedly the UK is probably the CCTV capital of the world and we are scooped upon by our intelligence agencies probably a bit more than our EU counterparts but that doesn't mean that we have to take it lying down when this happens.

  18. Re:WTF by arth1 · · Score: 1

    And here I thought it was Guitar Center. I could understand people being a little upset with them, but...

  19. Re:WTF by erikkemperman · · Score: 1

    Right, because Doctor Who isn't associated with nerds or anything like that.

    Well, actually I would guess that the nerd association with Doctor Who is rather less pronounced than, say, everything Star Trek.

    The anniversary episode was a major event here in Europe, for instance, certainly extending well beyond geekdom. Maybe that is different in the US.

    But back to the Torchwood spin-off, I don't think I'd seen it referred to here /. so I guess I just presumed it hadn't been a thing in the US.

    --
    Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
  20. Re:I'm confused... by HiThere · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but they had a lot to hide. What you really mean is that government rules about what's prohibited are often extremely evil. And I agree with that.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  21. Re:WTF by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 2

    UK has lots of secret government organisations, that answer directly to the PM and cabinet, not to parliament. ... and TORCHWOOD

    The funny thing is, they COULD now name a secret organization TORCHWOOD. All of the Doctor Who references would pop up and the real organization would be buried in the noise.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  22. Re:get spied upon by your own govt or others: choi by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    Nice strawman. Oh, and nice strawman.
    Two strawpersons in three lines. Must be a /. record.

  23. There will be GCHQ workers reading /. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    It could end up like the Zircon affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z... with a former employee of the GCHQ and four unnamed defence officials in the UK press.
    Once the information had spread to the public, further feeding a political crisis by going to court was seen as unproductive by the UK gov.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  24. I'm confused... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    It hurts the cool Cool Britannia image so carefully cultivated. Within the UK establishment exists a diverse set of feelings on helping the NSA with nothing positive to show for it long term.
    The UK knows the USA can turn off the shared sites over any military or political issues at any time. The US has only agreed to share its methods and hardware for UK sites. That gives the no UK leverage if it really faces a conflict the USA has no interest in or wants a different outcome - Falkland, Diego Garcia.
    Deep down the smarter people in the UK know the US has and will turn off the global US supplied information flow and the UK is then left lost in a very complex world.
    So different factions in the UK gov want more UK only methods, less sharing and better exports from the UK to the world without always stopping due to US foreign policy.
    UK staff at shared sites are serving two masters long term and over time the UK gov knows they cannot function if the US says no.
    Events like this give a few very smart people in the UK gov and mil the option to reshape the total UK dependance on the US.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  25. Re:WTF by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The Government Code and Cypher School had known origins in 1919.
    Government Communications Headquarters seems to have been cover for Bletchley Park in 1939 along with terms like BP, Station X. Even GC&CS was used as a cover name for the GCHQ.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"