This article is from the source 'nytimes' 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.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/world/europe/british-agency-is-cleared-of-illegal-data-gathering.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
British Agency Is Cleared of Illegal Data Gathering British Agency Is Cleared of Illegal Data Gathering
(35 minutes later)
LONDON — A parliamentary committee on Wednesday cleared Britain’s electronic intelligence-gathering agency of working with its American counterparts to bypass laws governing the collection of data about its citizens, but said new legislation might be needed to police electronic surveillance.LONDON — A parliamentary committee on Wednesday cleared Britain’s electronic intelligence-gathering agency of working with its American counterparts to bypass laws governing the collection of data about its citizens, but said new legislation might be needed to police electronic surveillance.
The report concluded that allegations that the agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, “acted illegally by accessing communications content” from the enormous American surveillance program known as Prism were “unfounded.”The report concluded that allegations that the agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, “acted illegally by accessing communications content” from the enormous American surveillance program known as Prism were “unfounded.”
The allegations followed the release of classified information by the American Edward J. Snowden, a former intelligence contractor. But the report also called for further scrutiny of the laws under which Britain’s intelligence services operate because “in some areas the legislation is expressed in general terms.” That means that the GCHQ’s work is guided by its own internal procedures when it comes to trying to comply with Britain’s human rights law. The accusations followed the release of classified information by the American Edward J. Snowden, a former intelligence contractor. But the report also called for further scrutiny of the laws under which Britain’s intelligence services operate because “in some areas the legislation is expressed in general terms.” That means that the British agency’s work is guided by its own internal procedures when it comes to trying to comply with the country’s human rights law.
“The purpose of our inquiry has been: Did they break the law or attempt to break the law, is there any evidence that they did?” Malcolm Rifkind, chairman of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee and a former foreign and defense secretary in previous Conservative governments, told reporters. “For the reasons we specify here our answer is: Unreservedly, unanimously, no they did not.” “The purpose of our inquiry has been: Did they break the law or attempt to break the law, is there any evidence that they did?” Malcolm Rifkind, chairman of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee and a former foreign and defense secretary in previous Conservative governments, told reporters. “For the reasons we specify here our answer is: Unreservedly, unanimously, no, they did not.”
The committee concluded that each GCHQ request for information from Prism, which collects data from the major Internet companies, was accompanied by the requisite warrant for interception signed by a minister. The committee found that each Government Communications Headquarters request for information from Prism, which collects data from Internet companies, was accompanied by the requisite warrant for interception signed by a minister.
But privacy advocates complained that the committee looked at only one agency, GCHQ, and did not investigate whether data was transferred from the United States without specific requests from other agencies. But privacy advocates complained that the committee looked at only one agency and did not investigate whether data was transferred from the United States without specific requests from other agencies.
“Any other questions, including, ‘What about when you don’t ask for it but somebody volunteers it’ — that is a wider issue that is not relating to the accusations that were put against GCHQ,” Mr. Rifkind said, adding, “We will come to a view what wider issues deserve to be looked at in regard to the legal framework under which the intelligence agencies operate.”“Any other questions, including, ‘What about when you don’t ask for it but somebody volunteers it’ — that is a wider issue that is not relating to the accusations that were put against GCHQ,” Mr. Rifkind said, adding, “We will come to a view what wider issues deserve to be looked at in regard to the legal framework under which the intelligence agencies operate.”
Reports about the scale of electronic surveillance have caused widespread dismay in Europe, particularly in Germany, where privacy issues are acutely sensitive. The European Parliament has announced plans for an inquiry into programs run by the National Security Agency and by European governments, though the GCHQ is unlikely to cooperate with it to the extent that it did with the parliamentary committee.Reports about the scale of electronic surveillance have caused widespread dismay in Europe, particularly in Germany, where privacy issues are acutely sensitive. The European Parliament has announced plans for an inquiry into programs run by the National Security Agency and by European governments, though the GCHQ is unlikely to cooperate with it to the extent that it did with the parliamentary committee.
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, a civil liberties advocacy group, criticized the committee’s findings and its decision not to investigate allegations made about a British program, Tempora, under which the GCHQ taps fiber-optic cables carry Internet traffic in and out of Britain and containing details of millions of e-mails and Web searches. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, a civil liberties advocacy group, criticized the committee’s findings and its decision not to investigate allegations made about a British program, Tempora, under which the GCHQ taps fiber-optic cables carrying Internet traffic in and out of Britain and containing details of millions of e-mails and Web searches.
“The painfully careful words of the I.S.C’s report clean absolutely nothing up,” Ms. Chakrabarti said in a statement. “There’s nothing to allay fears that industrial amounts of personal data are being shared under the Intelligence Services Act, and concerns that all U.K. citizens are subject to blanket surveillance under GCHQ’s Tempora program aren’t even mentioned. This spin-cycle is marked “whitewash.’ ”“The painfully careful words of the I.S.C’s report clean absolutely nothing up,” Ms. Chakrabarti said in a statement. “There’s nothing to allay fears that industrial amounts of personal data are being shared under the Intelligence Services Act, and concerns that all U.K. citizens are subject to blanket surveillance under GCHQ’s Tempora program aren’t even mentioned. This spin-cycle is marked “whitewash.’ ”
Foreign Secretary William Hague also issued a statement, this one welcoming the committee’s findings. “I see daily evidence of the integrity and high standards of the men and women of GCHQ,” he said. “The I.S.C.’s findings are further testament to their professionalism and values.”Foreign Secretary William Hague also issued a statement, this one welcoming the committee’s findings. “I see daily evidence of the integrity and high standards of the men and women of GCHQ,” he said. “The I.S.C.’s findings are further testament to their professionalism and values.”