This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/17/prism-isc-laws-internet-snooping-not-fit

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
ISC report recognises that internet snooping laws are not fit for purpose ISC report recognises that internet snooping laws are not fit for purpose
(about 5 hours later)
The report from the intelligence and security committee (ISC) is the first recognition that the laws surrounding GCHQ's use of the Prism intelligence-gathering programme may well be inadequate.The report from the intelligence and security committee (ISC) is the first recognition that the laws surrounding GCHQ's use of the Prism intelligence-gathering programme may well be inadequate.
The short three-page statement by senior parliamentarians appointed by the prime minister also provides official confirmation that the American National Security Agency (NSA) has shared personal intelligence data with GCHQ, Britain's own signals intelligence agency, as a result of the top secret Prism programme. The short three-page statement by senior parliamentarians appointed by the prime minister also provides official confirmation that the American National Security Agency (NSA) has shared personal intelligence data with GCHQ, Britain's signals intelligence agency, as a result of the top secret Prism programme.
The ISC report concludes that GCHQ has not used the NSA's Prism programme to access the content of private communications to circumvent British law. But the ISC report concludes that GCHQ has not used the NSA's Prism programme to circumvent British law in accessing the content of private communications.
It also says that the intelligence reports based on intelligence GCHQ has sought from the Americans, which were produced on either British citizens or people believed to be in the UK as a result of the NSA's monitoring, also conformed with its statutory duties. It also says the reports based on intelligence GCHQ has sought from the Americans, which were produced on British citizens and residents, also conformed with its statutory duties. And in each case where information was sought on an individual, a warrant signed by a minister was in place.
And in each case where information was sought on an individual, a warrant signed by a minister was in place. However, this is only a limited denial of what has been alleged about GCHQ's involvement with the NSA's Prism programme. The statement covers only the content of emails, web use and other internet traffic on named suspects; it does not deal with any intelligence offered by the Americans on individuals they thought might be of interest to Britain's security services.
But this is only a limited denial of what has been alleged about GCHQ's involvement with the NSA's Prism programme. The statement deals only with the content of emails, web use and other internet traffic on named suspects; it does not deal with any intelligence offered by the Americans on unwarranted individuals that they thought might be of interest to Britain's security services. In dealing only with the "content of private communications", the denial also fails to mention the vast bulk of the information involved in the Prism programme: the collection and storage of communications data, or metadata. This involves information on who sent what to whom, when and from what location. That can prove just as valuable to the security services as the content.
In dealing only with the "content of private communications", the denial also fails to deal with the vast bulk of the information involved in the Prism programme, which is the collection and storage of communications data, or metadata. This involves information on who sent what to whom when and from what location – not the content – but which can prove just as valuable to the security services. But more important than the limited nature of the rebuttal is the ISC report's recognition that the current legal framework surrounding such bulk surveillance operations is probably not fit for purpose.
But more important than the limited nature of the rebuttal in the ISC report is its recognition that the current legal framework surrounding such bulk surveillance operations is probably not fit for purpose.
It rightly concludes that it is "proper to consider further whether the current statutory framework governing access to private communications remains adequate".It rightly concludes that it is "proper to consider further whether the current statutory framework governing access to private communications remains adequate".
It goes on to confirm that in some areas the legislation is expressed only in general terms, and "more detailed policies and procedures" have been put in place by GCHQ itself in order to ensure it complies with the Human Rights Act.It goes on to confirm that in some areas the legislation is expressed only in general terms, and "more detailed policies and procedures" have been put in place by GCHQ itself in order to ensure it complies with the Human Rights Act.
It should be for parliament, not GCHQ, to put in place proper legal safeguards, and this should be a pressing matter for MPs.It should be for parliament, not GCHQ, to put in place proper legal safeguards, and this should be a pressing matter for MPs.
The ISC report also confirms the completely opaque nature of the law surrounding this activity. It admits the current legal framework is a "complex interaction" between three separate pieces of legislation – the Human Rights Act 1998, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The ISC report also spells out the completely opaque nature of the law surrounding this activity. It admits the current legal framework is a "complex interaction" between three separate pieces of legislation: the Human Rights Act 1998, the Intelligence Services Act 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.
None of these acts was framed in the digital age. Their vague and open-ended formulations have allowed the claim to be made that it is all being done legally. It is time they were made fit for purpose.None of these acts was framed in the digital age. Their vague and open-ended formulations have allowed the claim to be made that it is all being done legally. It is time they were made fit for purpose.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox every weekday.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox every weekday.