Slashdot Mirror
GCHQ Officials Given Immunity From Hacking Charges
An anonymous reader writes with news that members of British intelligence agency GCHQ have been granted immunity from prosecution for any laws they might have violated while hacking into citizens' computers or cellphones. The immunity was granted by changes to the Computer Misuse Act that weren't noticed until now, and not discussed or debated when implemented. While different legislation has long been thought to grant permission for illegal activities abroad, civil rights groups were unaware that domestic hacking activities were covered now as well. The legislative changes were passed on March 3rd, 2015, long after domestic spying became a hot-button issue, and almost a year after Privacy International and several ISPs filed complaints challenging it.
......this just formalizes it for the plebs .
"James Bond has a license to kill, does he not?"
"That's right."
"Shoot someone, get off scot-free?"
"Yes, why?"
"So then, why do computer crimes carry a worse sentence than murder?"
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
What the UK is doing really frightens me, for the people that live there, and for the rest of the world.
That's not the future I want.
Good thing Aaron Swartz got similar immunity from any laws broken.
Oh, wait, my bad. That's not what happened. Instead they tried to destroy his life. For fuck-all social harm, and arguable social good, compared to the NSA and GCHQ who have caused incalculable harm to our society.
This immunity from criminal prosecution also forms a large part of their claim that spying on Brits for a foreign power IS LEGAL.
They are NOT permitted to do bulk surveillance of British internet traffic,they are not supposed to spy on politicians, journalists, lawyers, campaigners,....but they DO bulk surveillance of internet traffic on all of those people, and hand access to that data to NSA staff. They claim its legal because they have immunity from prosecution.
The Snoopers charter was not passed into law, it was rejected despite lies told by Jacqui Smith MP. It was rejected repeatedly, rejected in the House of Lords when it was slipped into an amendment. Theresa May, (a Jacqui Smith clone from the other party) tried and failed to get it made law. She's said she'll try it again now they got elected. But as it stands, it was REJECTED and domestic surveillance is not legal.
We have a weird situation where a spy agency is spying on MPs in Britain, making that data available to the US, who in turn leverage British politics to get their way. The politicians who are compliant to US wishes (Theresa May et al), in turn are now trying to legalize the very surveillance that helps them get in power.
This is happening all across the 5 eyes countries.
If you scratch your head and wonder why East German STASI spied on East Germans for Russia, look no further than GCHQ's actions.
MPs who oppose the passing of Snoopers charter can have their data, their families data, their friends data, all pulled by the US spooks and it can be used against them courtesy of GCHQ, and you cannot prosecute GCHQ for any of it, because of the immunity amendments.
We all know Western Civilization has fallen to Fascism, so why not just come out and announce it? Why bother with these pieces of meaningless paper such as "Laws" and "Constitutions"? It's clear the rule of Law only applies to the Subjects, not the Wealthy or the Government. How about Marshall law? How about jackboots and arm bands and "show me your papers" and "up against the wall"? We're pretty much there anyway, but we all seem so intent on playing this bullshit game and pretending we still live in a free society.
When will someone just fucking go ahead and blink already????
As a member of the GCHQ I should take time to explain this to my fellow britons and the international community as a whole. You see, whilst portrayed to be a loveable middle-class eccentric bunch the average pint-pounding football-chanting briton, or as we know them 'bastard' isnt to be trusted with so much as a modicum of personal freedom. We've learned nearly every citizen to be a terrorist on some level (children are actually just very small terrorists.) and have taken great measures to protect actual god fearing pension clutching cloistered elite, whom we've found to be the real true citizenry of our great nation. So, in summation, Everything from VAT to the automated system of bollards and yes, even the chavs we strategically scatter along each and every mode of public transit charged with tactically dispersing vom, is part of this plan. Naturally retroactive immunity from prosecutorial oversight was necessary as in order to obtain critical knowledge of terrorisms. the knowledge that you, yes you, Chester Cleveston on Ellington road, have thrice now failed to finish a pint of Boddingtons because the foamy bit at the bottom puts you off, helps keep normal godfearing patriots of the jack accidentally gifting you a pint despite knowing full well you're a salaried man and can easily afford his own. So, in summation, should you be at this moment to have found yourself with a monocle perched upon your cheek then disregard this 'news.' However if you've just finished your sixth chesterfield and are at this moment urinating on a police car, you'll find solace and comfort in knowing we're here to protect you from Darryl Mansclover, working at the Lydsgate post office, who every morning puts lemon as well as milk in his tea in keeping with his savage tradition of domestic terrorism.
Good people go to bed earlier.
do you disappear while having sex or after?
Maybe all of this government sponsored asshattery will encourage more people to get off their asses and invest more effort into fixing all of our broken shit.
If governments want to piss away their capabilities hacking their own people because they can then let them do it and fuck themselves over.
be put alone in a corner where they feel very very unwell?
Something like a podest, where they have to stand on, maybe chained and everyone is free to spit at them.
At one point, enough will be enough.
But you understand don't you that they have to take away your rights and privacy in order to keep you safe. I'm sure you feel safe now, don't you?
Does anyone here believe in that bullshit?
I mean, there were supposed to be changes to an official act and nobody even bother to read those damn changes?
The entire thing is nothing but a lame excuse, man ... "oh, we didn't notice it until too late"
Fuck it!
How can you trust any of those motherfucking officials when they are all involved in the crime?
One advantage of an unwritten Constitution; the Courts might give you back your rights at some later point.
WE SLEEP
You may admit agent 00000111 for his debriefing. Oh, and send away all those nasty little people in police uniforms.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
What the UK is doing really frightens me, for the people that live there, and for the rest of the world.
That's not the future I want.
Then kill the fascist bastards and form a new government. That's what's going to happen very soon in the US if things don't change.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It's a well played Tory hack granting retroactive immunity.
To sum it up; They, the British government and GCHQ, have declared themselves to be not bound by any laws. The law only exists for the average citizen, The UK is no longer a society governed by the rule of law.
It's just a quantum insert/great cannon ruse to get you all worked up into an occupy wallstreet fervor where you can be catalogued intercepted and even further maligned.
"As long as there are rulers, we can't have rules"
Because they're always going to make exceptions for themselves and their cronies, and use the rules to stick it to everyone else, while loudly decrying that they speak *for* us.....
Liberty.
Quite obviously so. Otherwise, if what they were doing was legal, they would not need immunity. This also means Britain does not have "rule of law" anymore, because with that everybody is subject to the law. One more step into the abyss.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
We really should consider re-implementing the gallows for such treasonous behaviour of our leaders.
r no dem haxx0rz ur lookin 4
You seem to have made the easy but very big mistake of believing Braveheart to be historical. There are some bits of history mixed into the plot to support the illusion, but there are also massive errors of fact, and that is one of them. (Don't get me started on the chronology...)
Protip: If someone has to give them to you, they aren't rights; they're privileges.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Immunity from criminal law is immunity from criminal law. GCHQ do a FULL TAKE on the internet, those links carry mostly British, and EU data, including MPs, their families, journalists, the lot. NSA staff are given free access to that full take.
GCHQ did the hack of the Belgian phone system, i.e. spying on the EU. Which is also part of the British democracy.
And yes it IS FUCKING TREASON but its un-prosecutable because they have immunity.
"You were doing well until the paranoid conspiracy theory about the US subverting British democracy."
No, another Snowden leaks shows that the NSA keeps data useful to it on Britain, despite the 5-eyes no spy agreement, and Snowden complained about the CIA getting a Swiss banker drunk driving in order to back/befriend him. You can kid yourself they do not do this to Britain because of the 'special relationship' but thats childish faith.
The US can and does use all the information it has to ensure governments are favorable to its wishes. GCHQ are helping them undermine democracy.
Pray I don't alter it further. -- Darth Vader.
Bad enough they were using "1984" for laying out their society. But "Star Wars" for the legal system seems a bit over the top.
It doesn't matter the philosophy, religion, economy or climate. The royalty will never punish slaves for obeying orders. The alternative is fighting townsfolk and dodging pitchforks oneself.
If you want to keep a people safe from terrorism, then you look at the source of terrorism. The source is: absolutely shit foreign politics of USA, and the association of UK, France and the rest of allies with it.
It almost seems like they are intentionally creating the environment for terrorism to thrive and focus itself on their borders while at the same time creating as big an influx of immigrants as possible under the guise of moral superiority complexes and sweetened talks of "justice", "ethics", and various shit appeals to emotion, so more terrorism can slip into the countries,
all for the sake of using the created terrorism to justify tightening the leash more and more every year until you have complete control of all people like a police state worse than Communist China in fashion.
Catch 22 of sorts. Create a source of fear, appear to fight the source of fear, feed the source of fear, use it as leverage to dominate the population as the ignorant majority gives up their rights in trade for safety guaranteed by the same people that have created the source of fear in the first place.
We really should consider re-implementing the gallows for such treasonous behaviour of our leaders.
The Queen should order the execution of the treasonous Government which means the politicians shall hang by the neck until dead and then their corpses burned. Massive executions are the only way to save democracy and restore the rule of law. And you can have Conrad Black as well; he deserves to swing from a rope.
by allowing them to hack unfettered, eventually they will come across someone who will hack back. By giving them immunity, it removes any possibility of legal recourse; the only path left for those who've been wronged by GCHQ hackers is now to follow far more illegal paths for retribution. "From Hell's heart, I strike at thee"...once the courts deny this, it will become an even more dangerous game.
One would think that Britain has had enough past experience of what happens when their rulers remove accountability from specific segments of their subjects. When the Courts won't listen, the next step is often quite bloody.
I just watched Ex Machina last night...BEST ENDING EVER.
They have not had a law to regulate the law enforcement actions related to technical surveillance and monitoring for this long? MP must have slipped on some partisan nuts to have overlooked the issue for so long. As to the illegal acts aboard, surely the Brittish can still negotiate with foreign governments to gain a mutually beneficial solution instead of just delivering the red coats and seeing how it goes?
Given that modern computers can be used to record audio and video within a premises, such immunity would have no genuine basis in law. It would effectively legalize activities that we would associate with agencies like the Stasi. Just because someone managed to drop it into act of Parliament, would not mean that it has the force of the law. Given the way the law was implemented, it could be viewed as some form of an attack on the UK itself. Recently, it has come to light that certain portions of GCHQ are involved in activities that run contrary to the interests of the nation and the very spirit upon which its democratic structures were established. So, it would seem that there is a certain level of contamination within GCHQ and quite possibly other agencies that needs to be addressed. I'm sure that the majority of those in GCHQ would agree with that position as well and that all that is required is the political will to implement change.
Won't happen in the US ever. Won't happen in the UK either. What might happen is an English version of Tiananmen square. Both governments will see it happening before it happens and it will be put down quickly. Thinking otherwise is little more than an invitation to be put down sooner than later.
Now is the time for the EU to show that it really cares about freedom. The Western countries have completely lost the moral high ground (if it ever *really* even existed) against totalitarian governments that we ever so often like to make examples of and criticize. How are we any better when we do the exact same thing? A few years back there was a lot of discussion when Nokia-Siemens sold network equipment to Iran that enabled the government to wiretap calls and other communication going through the system. What I find amusing (in a really dark sense) is that we here in the West have the exact same equipment, have used it to spy domestically and sent people -- our own citizens -- to autocratic countries to be tortured. Several countries have been complicit in this by turning a blind eye to prison flights traversing through their airspace and airfields knowing exactly what they were (and some supposedly democratic and just countries like Finland destroying records relating to these flights).
It makes me sad to think that all the rights that people have hard fought to get in the past are being pissed away in a couple of decades.
Quite obviously so. Otherwise, if what they were doing was legal, they would not need immunity. This also means Britain does not have "rule of law" anymore, because with that everybody is subject to the law. One more step into the abyss.
Really? So you think the concept of the "rule of law" requires prison guards to be guilty of kidnap, police officers who execute search warrants to be guilty of burglary, surgeons to be guilty of GBH etc? There are good reasons to believe that this is a questionable move, but this kind of silly response achieves nothing and is no better than the governments "but terrorists!" crap.
Unlike GCHQ, the Queen is subject to the law.
They are getting immunity. That protects them against being prosecuted for _crimes_ they have committed. What prison guards do is not a crime as long as they follow their job description. For the police to execute a legally obtained search warrant is not a crime. Doing surgery with proper authorization from the patient or under emergency condition and with the proper authorization to do surgery of the type done is not a crime. None of these things require immunity, just exceptions in the law. Immunity means you can break the law without consequences (often retroactively), not that there is an exception for what you do in the law.
Really, have you even looked up what "rule of law" means? Because you certainly do not understand its meaning.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Fuck the UK.
The voters were dumb enough to vote a party back into power who more or less openly said they were going to fuck them over.
So, yeah, the UK is officially a lost cause.
You reap what you sow.
Won't happen in the US ever. Won't happen in the UK either. What might happen is an English version of Tiananmen square. Both governments will see it happening before it happens and it will be put down quickly. Thinking otherwise is little more than an invitation to be put down sooner than later.
Yes, abandon all hope.If we lick their boots convincingly, maybe we'll be the last into the gulag.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
civil rights groups were unaware that domestic hacking activities were covered now as well
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
They are getting immunity. That protects them against being prosecuted for _crimes_ they have committed. What prison guards do is not a crime as long as they follow their job description. For the police to execute a legally obtained search warrant is not a crime. Doing surgery with proper authorization from the patient or under emergency condition and with the proper authorization to do surgery of the type done is not a crime. None of these things require immunity, just exceptions in the law. Immunity means you can break the law without consequences (often retroactively), not that there is an exception for what you do in the law.
Really, have you even looked up what "rule of law" means? Because you certainly do not understand its meaning.
Really, have you even read the article or the legislation? Because you certainly do not understand its meaning. It's not a retrospective change, and in any case immunity does not have to be absolute or retrospective. Witness immunity normally refers to retrospective immunity but government agent immunity is normally prospective and qualified. What has been added here is a specific exemption that relates to activities carried out by government agents in respect of government business. It's not necessarily a good idea, or one I support, but it is not in a separate category from GCHQ's existing exemptions.
Without it, RIP 2(2)(a) could quite arguably have provided clear statutory grounds for GCHQ hacking activities:
(2) For the purposes of this Act, but subject to the following provisions of this section, a person intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a telecommunication system if, and only if, he—
(a) so modifies or interferes with the system, or its operation, [...]
Not that telecommunication system is defined to be any apparatus between the sender and receiver, so including not just the ISP or telecom but also the laptops / phones of the communicators.
Really?? Are you that stupid that you think the only way to change government is via violent revolution? I suppose you also think that whatever warlord replaces it will be the kind and gentle type that will gie you everything you ever wanted too.
I think people like you are dangerous to any thriving society and downright deadly to any less than thriving society. You will attract other idiots and eventually get them killed while justifying the jackboot tactics the government would use in response. Some twit in office will look at your writings and you will convince them that spying on citizens is just and reasonable. They will lower the bar for police killings and make a list of domestic terrorist. You will justify this by your own words.
Let's just hope they think you are little more than a retarded monkey that doesn't need to get on the list.
Until she decides it is too inconvenient and law gets changed like what happened here?
Or declared illegal. Even retroactively. ;-)
After all, our German Nazi-regime was ruling (and killing) (mostly) perfectly within its own laws.
Later on, after we lost the war, some people actually got the rope for their crimes (admittedly, only those who didn't run fast enough, weren't killed already, couldn't blame someone else or didn't have anything to bargain with (like a prospect of owning nuke-bearing ICBMs or a list of Soviet spies)).
So, if a future government, supported by enough people, wanted to override this exemption, I don't see that not happening. In theory.
Granted, it will be difficult to override, but as we know: the easy things are the most difficult
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
You will justify this by your own words
Yes, let's censor our own speech before the government does so violently. Sad that you are already a slave.
Some times it is required to put the law in your own hands, when someone is above it then you must be above it as well and do what is required..
(.)-(.)
Really?? Are you that stupid that you think the only way to change government is via violent revolution?
Not at all. The four boxes (soap, ballot, jury, ammo) are to be used in that order. So far we've tried soap, ballot, and jury.
Next, I would try peaceful non-compliance, but I'm not naive enough to believe that the government would not respond violently.
I think people like you are dangerous to any thriving society and downright deadly to any less than thriving society.
We do not live in a "thriving society", we live in a fascist oligarchy that is descending into collapse. You are delusional if you believe otherwise.
You will attract other idiots and eventually get them killed while justifying the jackboot tactics the government would use in response.
So, with heavily-armed domestic paramilitary units assaulting the homes of citizens for things like student loan debts and misdemeanors, just how much farther does the government need to go before you would justify self defense? After you've been rounded up and sent to a camp is a bit late.
Some twit in office will look at your writings and you will convince them that spying on citizens is just and reasonable.
News flash, Bunky. They have believed that for decades.
Let's just hope they think you are little more than a retarded monkey that doesn't need to get on the list.
Nice ad hominem. Down to the last resort of those who cannot defend their position, eh? Let's hope they don't believe that everyone will roll over and lick their boots as you seem adamant to do, as that guarantees they will proceed at full speed.
You will justify this by your own words.
Yeah just sit down, shut up, and comply, right? Attitudes like that are historically what have enabled tyranny to fester.
Let me translate it into a language you'll comprehend;
"Baa-aaa-aaahhhh!"
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Unlike GCHQ, the Queen is subject to the law.
Subject to the law in that she has to only appoint her authority over the law and her 'prosecutors' are literally sent running before they get their heads chopped off or similar fate.
Until she decides it is too inconvenient and law gets changed like what happened here?
Exactly, but much much faster; this is the Queen we're talking about here, not some unnecessary spy agency. Anyone trying to prosecute the Queen would end up instead being prosecuted themselves, at her Majesty's pleasure.
Your knowledge of the English/Scottish/British constitution is about 400 years out of date.
Which AC are you specifically referring to here?
Yeah, I think that's the point: the 4th amendment has become a privilege. Not just phone calls and emails, not having your pockets searched is a, well, white privilege.
Unlike GCHQ, the Queen is subject to the law.
Incorrect; the Crown Proceedings act prohibits it.
Which AC are you specifically referring to here?
Not sure but if he's referring to me, he's the one that's out of date; the UK doesn't even have a constitution! The closest is the Magna Carta.
The fuck-all of it is that several of the people living in the U.K. (and U.S.) aren't aware of this and the other faults and still want to chant about how great their respective countries are.
People in the U.S. complained about the U.N. and the "new world order": 'foreigners are trying to take over 'merica!' Where are those people now that the 'merica is trying to take over everything? And the U.K. is just about tied when it comes to this mentality.
captcha: examined
You don't show any understanding of rights with that statement.
Did you think rights just floated down from the sky, mana from heaven?
All rights are given. That doesn't mean that, as you claim, there is no such thing as the word "rights" and every time anybody says "rights" they really meant "privileges." It does mean that words have context, and that the meanings don't always align with extremist principles.
Protip: the UK doesn't have a 4th Amendment.
They have an "unwritten constitution." They believe this makes rights more resilient, because even if somebody tries to take them away, and uses a legal process, the courts might just give them back at any time without needing specific justification.
Americans generally discount that idea, but lots of legal experts do disagree on the results, both theoretical and actual.
Did you think rights just floated down from the sky, mana from heaven?
No, they're inherent to the fact that we're living, sentient beings with dignity and value.
All rights are given.
No, rights cannot be "given" because something given can be taken away. Privileges are given and privileges can be taken away. Rights are inherent (see above) and can only be infringed inasmuch as we allow them to be.
That doesn't mean that, as you claim, there is no such thing as the word "rights" and every time anybody says "rights" they really meant "privileges."
Strawman; no such claim has been made. Precisely the opposite. On the other hand, sometimes people say "rights" when they mean "privileges" and vice versa.
It does mean that words have context, and that the meanings don't always align with extremist principles.
There's nothing extremist about living, sentient, valuable individuals having rights. Whether you believe they're inherent to the existence of that individual or endowed upon them by their creator is irrelevant. In either case, the individual is naturally provided with their rights as a fundamental component of their existence. Once this is understood and accepted, it becomes obvious why no law or act of violence can rob you of your rights; rather, merely infringe upon their free exercise. As limited creatures, we lack the requisite ability to alter the fundamental nature of mankind.
Put another way: you can prevent me from exercising my right to self-determination or my right to self-defense, but you cannot eliminate those rights. You can - at worst - kill me.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Apparently Justice is not blind after all. GCHQ Just got a Get Out Of Jail Free card, and can use it any way they want.
Nice gig, if you can get it.