Lee Rigby report: Facebook accused of failing to flag extremist messages - as it happened
|
Version 0 of 1. 7.09pm GMT19:09 Guardian: Committee has looked in wrong direction The intelligence and security committee behind today’s report has allowed its attention to wander into more speculative territory rather than on focusing on a critical period of missed opportunities to potentially stop Lee Rigby’s killers, according to a Guardian editorial. It adds that while a US internet company, understood to be Facebook, has become the “new fall guy” in the case, the failure to to prevent the killers “does not lie with that company’s understandable caution about allowing a foreign government to trawl through its accounts and data”. The editorial, which you can read in full here, says: The bleak truth is that it’s possible nothing would have saved Lee Rigby from his awful fate. Some suggest fresh UK government powers to demand information from American and other firms are the answer. But first the UK authorities would have to prove that they have used the powers they already have wisely and that those powers have been exhausted. We are not at that point. It means the committee has looked in the wrong direction, perhaps under pressure from a government with a data communications agenda of its own. If anything might have saved Lee Rigby, it would have been tougher and better interventions against known suspects. That is the lesson both of this terrible case and for the essential unrelenting work of preventing a similar horror in future. 6.09pm GMT18:09 End-of-day summary MPs on the intelligence and security committee have published their report on the dealings of the security services with the killers of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed on the streets of Woolwich last year. This is the single issue which – had it been known at the time – might have enabled MI5 to prevent the attack. We don’t comment on individual cases but Facebook’s policies are clear: we do not allow terrorist content on the site and take steps to prevent people from using our service for these purposes. The truth is this: terrorists are using the internet to communicate with each other. We must not accept that these communications are beyond the reach of the companies. We expect the internet companies to do all they can … It is their social responsibility to act on this. You can catch up on the Guardian’s wider coverage of this story here. 6.02pm GMT18:02 An evening reading list if you’re just catching up with this story: 5.42pm GMT17:42 My colleague James Ball has been drilling into the detail of the ISC’s 200-page report on the murder of Lee Rigby. There are, he says, “a number of quite jarring points that emerge, some of which challenge the narrative set out by the committee and the UK intelligence agencies on mass-surveillance efforts”. 5.30pm GMT17:30 Facebook statement A spokesperson for Facebook has given the Guardian this statement on claims that it is the company accused in the ISC report of failing to pass on information about extremist messages sent by Michael Adebowale: Like everyone else, we were horrified by the vicious murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby. We don’t comment on individual cases but Facebook’s policies are clear: we do not allow terrorist content on the site and take steps to prevent people from using our service for these purposes. The full report is here. Updated at 5.31pm GMT 5.15pm GMT17:15 More on the news that Facebook is the previously unnamed internet company accused by the ISC today of failing to pass on information about one of Lee Rigby’s killers. Alex Hern reports: Facebook is the internet company accused by the intelligence and security committee (ISC) of failing to pass on information that could have prevented the murder of Lee Rigby, the Guardian understands. The ISC investigation found that one of Rigby’s killers, Michael Adebowale, conducted an online exchange detailing his desire to murder a soldier ‘in the most graphic and emotive manner’ with a known terrorist, five months before the attack, yet did not directly name the company concerned. ‘The party which could have made a difference was the company on whose platform the exchange took place,’ states the report. ‘However, this company does not appear to regard itself as under any obligation to ensure that its systems identify such exchanges, or to take action or notify the authorities when its communications services appear to be used by terrorists. ‘There is therefore a risk that, however unintentionally, it provides a safe haven for terrorists to communicate within,’ it states. The report does not name which US tech service Adebowale used, but at various points the 191-page report mentions Apple, BlackBerry, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Yahoo when giving examples of monitoring procedures. The Guardian undestands the company in question is Facebook. The report details 11 accounts run by Adebowale, with seven of those disabled by the company concerned and one closed by Adebowale himself. The ISC’s report says that the technology company closed the accounts in an automated manner for violation of the company’s terms of service. Two accounts were closed for non-terrorism related activities, but the other five were disabled for terrorism-associated reasons, including one for being part of terrorist groups. While no technology company would comment on the report to the Guardian, it is known that the posts were made in a private manner that was not indexed by a search engine, that the accounts could be members of groups, and that the company has automated systems for detecting and closing accounts for breach of terms of service. Facebook stands out among internet companies for proactively monitoring its platform to look for and remove content which raises concerns about terrorism and child safety issues. But the vast majority of moderation on Facebook is reactive, relying on reports from members of the public or on automated tools. Unlike the other internet companies consulted by the ISC, Facebook’s monitoring arrangements are heavily redacted in the resulting report. Facebook did not respond to requests for comment from the Guardian, nor did it respond when directly asked if it was the subject of the ISC’s report. No other technology company would comment on the report to the Guardian on the record. 5.05pm GMT17:05 Unnamed internet company is Facebook Facebook is the internet company accused by the Intelligence and Security Committee of failing to pass on information which could have prevented the murder of Lee Rigby, the Guardian understands. 5.03pm GMT17:03 MI6 involvement with the killers One of the most intriguing aspects of the case is the role of the overseas intelligence agency MI6, referred to in the report, SIS (the Secret Intelligence Service) and a trip made by Adebolajo to Kenya, reports Ewen Macaskill: MI6 and Kenya Adebolajo was arrested by Kenyan police apparently heading with five Kenyan youths to join an Islamist extremist group in Somalia, al-Shabaab. MI6 said it was notified of the arrest on November 22, 2010, but did not seek to interview him or ask to sit in on the Kenyan interviews or to put questions to him. Nor did it seek further information. The report says MI6’s “minimal involvement is surprising” and “it is difficult to understand their passive approach to Adebolajo’s arrest”. The committee also expressed concern at a discrepancy between evidence from MI6 and a British police counter-terrorism unit over when MI6 was first informed of the arrest. “In any case concerning a British national suspected of involvement in terrorism (whether in the UK or overseas) it is essential that all information – whether corroborated or not – should be properly recorded. That failed to happen on this occasion,” the report says. 3.57pm GMT15:57 The role of internet companies While the committee opted against placing blame on the intelligence agencies, it had no such reservations with regard to an unnamed internet provider which is the object of scathing criticism, Ewen Macaskill reports: Internet companies and online monitoring “We have found only one issue which could have been decisive. That was the exchange – not seen until after the attack – between Adebowale and an individual overseas [known as Foxtrot] in December 2012. In this exchange, Adebowale told Foxtrot that he intended to murder a soldier. “Had MI5 access to this exchange, their investigation into Adebowale would have become top priority. It is difficult to speculate on the outcome but there is a significant possibility that MI5 would then have been able to prevent the attack.” That was the conclusion of the intelligence and security committee, which also agreed that agencies could not themselves have obtained access to this information under current rules, as Adebowale was not under active investigation at the time. “The party which could have made a difference was the company on whose platform the exchange took place. However, this company does not appear to regard itself as under any obligation to ensure that its systems identify such exchanges, or to take action or notify the authorities when its communications services appear to be used by terrorists. “There is therefore a risk that, however unintentionally, it provides a safe haven for terrorists to communicate within,” the report says. In a further twist that seeks to shift responsibility to the internet companies, the report says that US internet providers do not feel compelled to comply with UK warrants seeking data. The exact nature of the exchange of information between US and UK agencies is a matter of debate. The committee acknowledges that UK agencies which work closely with the US intelligence agencies can still get access. The fact that US internet providers “do recognise the jurisdiction of the US courts means that the UK agencies or law enforcement can, in certain limited circumstances, ask their US partners to apply to the US courts for authorisation to obtain and share the relevant material with the UK”. However, the report adds: “In practice this is limited by the US courts to high priority investigations where there is a known threat to life.” The implication is that MI5 would not have been able to get information on an individual who in this case was regarded as low priority. 3.45pm GMT15:45 You can read the latest Guardian report on today’s developments here. 3.43pm GMT15:43 While the internet companies mentioned in the report (the firm at the centre of the claim that it should have intervened on Adebowale’s messages is unnamed) have not commented on the ISC findings – Facebook is the latest to tell the Guardian it won’t be making a statement – others in the field are pushing back at the recommendation that online activity ought to be more rigorously policed by service providers. Antony Walker, deputy CEO at techUK, the industry body, said: Tech companies take their security responsibilities incredibly seriously. Companies have taken significant steps to be transparent with the public about how they work with law enforcement and security agencies by publishing regular transparency reports. These reports make it clear that tech companies do engage with law enforcement and security agencies in the course of terrorist and other investigations and that the level of cooperation is undiminished … There are real legal challenges of jurisdiction where companies operate outside the UK jurisdiction and complying with UK law could put companies at risk of contravening their own domestic law. The only way to address these issues is by brokering diplomatic agreements and processes between governments. The report rightly focuses on the importance of the mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) process for providing a legal framework that enables companies based outside the UK to respond to access to data from UK agencies without the risk of contravening their own domestic law. This is best achieved diplomatic negation between national governments and in consultation with companies and other stakeholders … If the government believes that it needs additional powers to be able to access communication data it must be clear about exactly what those powers are and consult widely on them before putting proposals before parliament. 3.29pm GMT15:29 The role of the agencies: errors and surveillance Ewen MacAskill, the Guardian’s defence and intelligence correspondent, has been combing the ISC report and sends this dispatch on what it has to say about the way the security services dealt with Adebolajo and Adebowale when evidence of their extremism emerged ahead of the murder. The report praises the agencies for protecting the UK from a number of terrorist plots, averaging about one or two serious intended attacks a year: Nevertheless, when there is a terrorist attack, it is essential that there is a thorough investigation to establish whether mistakes have been made and to ensure that any lessons are learned. Here’s what the report says about MI5’s missed opportunities: Surveillance As the main domestic surveillance agency, MI5 had responsibility for keeping tabs on Adebolajo and Adebowale. Adebolajo, viewed as more of a priority than Adebowale, was caught up in MI5 investigations on five separate occasions, beginning with Operation Ash from May to September 2008. Concern was sparked after contact with a network suspected of terrorist links. Adebolajo was caught up in four further surveillance operations – Operation Beech, Operation Cedar, Operation Dogwood and Operation Elm – before the Woolwich attack. Adebowale was investigated by MI5 on two separate occasions: Operation Fir from August 2011 to June 2012, looking at links between UK-based individuals with an interest in extremist media; and Operation Gum, from January 2012 up until the Woolwich attack, looking at his extremist rhetoric and potential dissemination of extremist media. Errors Various errors were made, such as failure to follow up on recommendations to gather more information about Adebolajo. The committee expressed surprise that MI5 did not place one or both of the men under surveillance or increase the surveillance. The report says that MI5 has limited resources and has to prioritise its investigations. Adebowale was regarded as low priority and, as a result, there were significant and unacceptable delays in investigating him. The report says: Whilst we have concluded that the errors identified would not, individually, have affected the outcome, we have also considered whether there was a cumulative effect – i.e. whether, taken together, they might have made a difference. We do know that they would have led to different investigative decisions. However, it is impossible to conclude that those changes – all dependent on one another – would have resulted in MI5 discovering evidence of attack planning. We do not consider that, given what the agencies knew at the time, they were in a position to prevent the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby. There are those who feel that the intelligence and security agencies have too much power to intrude into an individual’s privacy. However, when a terrorist attack happens, the question often asked is why the agencies did not do more to prevent it. The balance between these two concerns is one that we are considering further in our separate inquiry into privacy and security issues. 2.40pm GMT14:40 Afternoon summary MPs on the intelligence and security committee have published their report on the dealings of the security services with the killers of Lee Rigby, the soldier killed on the streets of Woolwich last year. This is the single issue which – had it been known at the time – might have enabled MI5 to prevent the attack. The truth is this: terrorists are using the internet to communicate with each other. We must not accept that these communications are beyond the reach of the companies. We expect the internet companies to do all they can … It is their social responsibility to act on this. 2.26pm GMT14:26 Hazel Blears, Labour MP and a member of the intelligence and security commitee that produced this morning’s report, is talking to BBC News about the extremist online messages sent by Adebowale before the murder: If we’d have had that earlier, that could have made a difference. It is possible [to monitor every conversation] … when a key word comes up, that can alert the system that something needs to be examined. This person [Adebowale] had seven or eight different accounts: some of them had been taken down … some of them hadn’t been. Where we think there is extremism and terrorism, we have to do something about it. You have to have legislation that is proportionate to the threat we face … Wherever you’re based, if you provide services in this country, you should be subject to our legal framework. People are indulging in extreme ideology … They [internet companies] have a responsibility to flag that up to the authorities, of course they do. 2.13pm GMT14:13 Renate Samson, chief executive of Big Brother Watch, which campaigns for online privacy, is unimpressed by David Cameron’s commitment to further moves to allow intelligence agencies more access to online communications: The conclusion that a failing of an unnamed technology company should determine future legislation, whilst the catalogue of errors by the intelligence agencies is all but excused, is of grave concern. The report revealed multiple failures by the intelligence agencies to use the powers available to them to monitor communications. The government should use this report as a blueprint to re-evaluate the decision-making and record-keeping processes of the intelligence agencies, as well as the training and resources allocated within the counter terrorism community. It is vital that existing powers to combat terrorist activity are used effectively before any further intrusive legislation is considered by parliament. Failure to do this will merely increase the burden on the agencies whilst unnecessarily intruding on the public’s civil liberties. 2.04pm GMT14:04 Haroon Siddique reports from Woolwich, the site of Lee Rigby’s murder. Woolwich resident Beverly Smith, 60, pictured below, was sceptical of the claims that the intelligence services could not have done more to prevent the murder. ‘I think the intelligence services know a lot more than they let on to the general public. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had information [about the killers]. ‘I feel angry. It was a big upset to the local community. It was a big shock.’ But Smith suggested that blaming an unnamed internet company for failing to report an online threat was unfair. ‘That’s terribly difficult to police,’ she said. ‘The internet’s huge – how can you police something that is open to everything and everybody? I don’t think that’s realistic.’ Despite the shockwaves sent through the community by the killing, Smith said Woolwich had responded in a positive way. ‘We haven’t had any trouble at the mosque,’ she said. ‘The community did pull together: it brought a lump to your throat.’ Another Woolwich resident, 62-year-old Christy, who did not wish to give her surname, had strong feelings about what she perceived to be the intelligence services failures in the case. ‘If they knew these boys were extremists, preaching against other people and they had them on record, they could have prevented it. People like that should be monitored every minute. ‘They let them get away with it. The poor boy has died for nothing. ‘I am a Nigerian and a Nigerian comes out in broad daylight slaughtering somebody. It’s not only Muslims [they are disgracing], it’s people’s background.’ 1.59pm GMT13:59 The Guardian’s technology reporter Samuel Gibbs has been researching how US-based internet firms deal with requests from the UK government for information. Most US technology companies detail their responses to law enforcement requests for user data in their transparency reports, including UK government requests, he reports. Between January and June 2014 the technology companies specifically mentioned in the ISC report gave the following information: 1.37pm GMT13:37 Murithi Mutiga reports from Kenya on claims that Michael Adebolajo was tortured there after his arrest on terrorism charges: A spokeswoman for the Kenya police, Zipporah Mboroki, denied claims that Adebolajo was ill-treated while in custody. ‘We do not torture suspects. Adebolajo was arrested while trying to cross into Somalia and we handed him back to the British authorities in good faith. Britain is our partner in the war against extremism and we cannot discuss the circumstances under which he was sent back to London.’ Adebolajo was detained on the troubled remote Island of Lamu on 21 November 2010. The island, located about two hours by speedboat from the border with Somalia, was once an idyllic tourism destination but has witnessed a wave of attacks in recent years including the murder of British publishing executive David Tebbutt and the abduction of his wife, Judith, in September 2011. Adebolajo was arrested in the company of Swaleh Abdulmajid, a son-in-law of Sheikh Aboud Rogo, a radical cleric who was suspected to have been a mastermind of the Paradise Hotel attacks in 2002, in which 13 people were killed, and who was executed in a drive-by shooting in Mombasa in August 2012. Mystery surrounds the circumstances under which Adebolajo was handed back to British authorities. In an earlier interview, the lawyer who represented Adebolajo in a Kenyan court, Wycliffe Makasembo, claimed that his client was released after the British high commission wrote to Kenyan authorities telling them that Adebolajo was a ‘clean man’. The British high commission in Nairobi referred all inquiries to the foreign office in London today. 1.34pm GMT13:34 Cameron, still speaking in the Commons, says he does not believe it is acceptable that there should be internet communications that authorities are not permitted to intercept. The government should legislate on this, he adds. 1.30pm GMT13:30 What was the role of the unnamed internet company in failing to identify the messages sent by Adebowale before the murder? David Cameron revealed that the messages only came to light after the attack “as a result of a retrospective review by the company”. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, chair of the ISC. said the information was given to GCHQ “by a third party” on a confidential basis. The ISC report says that Adebowale was in contact in late 2012 with an extremist, whom it calls Foxtrot, now known to have links to Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula. In their messages, Adebowale expressed desire to murder a soldier in retaliation for UK military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, although he had not developed a plan. Foxtrot then advised him on different methods, including using a knife. It later emerged that a number of Adebowale’s online accounts were automatically disabled by the internet company due to association with terrorism, but the web firm was unaware as it does not manually review such decisions. It did not notify law enforcement agencies. Updated at 1.39pm GMT 1.18pm GMT13:18 The Lee Rigby murder doesn’t justify an extension of internet snooping powers, argues Charles Arthur in this article for Comment is Free. There do appear to have been failings by the unnamed internet company: Adebowale had four out of seven internet accounts at one provider automatically closed over suspected terror-related activity; yet none was reviewed by a human. That’s a clear failure to link the action – closing an account – and the reason. But, he argues: If the UK can demand access to the contents of internet accounts – even where the data is stored overseas – of people in the UK, why shouldn’t Russia demand exactly the same of Britons who happen to be in Russia? Why shouldn’t border guards in China demand access to your hard drive as you get off the plane in Shanghai? What’s to stop Iran insisting on the decryption keys to any internet service that wants to connect its citizens? The current system is a mess – but making it easier for MI5 to get hold of our emails won’t actually make us any safer. Better work by the intelligence agencies will. As the report shows, they had plenty of opportunity to focus on the murderers. The ISC report makes depressing reading, because it shows that internet companies still haven’t decided quite what their priorities should be – and, equally, that our legislators are still apt to forget that the internet is global, and that the laws we try to make here could be used against us elsewhere. Updated at 1.21pm GMT 1.15pm GMT13:15 Labour MP Hazel Blears, another member of the ISC, now asks in the Commons about cuts to the Prevent programme, which is failing to avert extremism, she says. The Prevent programme needs to no longer be the “soft, fluffy end” of counter-terrorism, she says. Cameron says there is a legal duty on bodies to report extremism; there is nothing soft and fluffy about it. Updated at 1.22pm GMT 1.12pm GMT13:12 Another ISC member, Julian Lewis, a Tory MP, earlier condemned leaks to the media of some of the committee’s findings, anticipating that the report would support greater powers on communications data. Lewis said: “Nothing in our report is relevant to that argument.” Lewis now raises the issue in the Commons. Cameron agrees with him that such leaks are “particularly reprehensible”. But access to communications data is crucial for investigating serious crimes, Cameron says, and needs “full-throated legislation”. Updated at 1.25pm GMT 1.11pm GMT13:11 ISC member and Liberal Democrat MP Sir Ming Campbell has just spoken in the Commons – he talked to my colleague Vikram Dodd earlier and said any attempt by the government to use the committee’s findings to support greater communications data powers should be resisted: It is a remarkable coincidence, some might say, that the home secretary should have chosen to make public her further proposals on the eve of the publication of the ISC report. No doubt the purpose of doing so was to link her proposals to the committee’s conclusions. The committee never considered those proposals. 1.07pm GMT13:07 Cameron says the family of Lee Rigby can ask for meetings with whomever they want to speak to in the wake of the report, and they will get them. 1.04pm GMT13:04 If internet companies provide services in the UK, they should be subject to UK law, Cameron says. He says internet companies worry about their public image in terms of the privacy of their users, but they ought to worry about their public image if they’re being used by terrorists to plot attacks. 1.01pm GMT13:01 Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who unveiled the report this morning, is speaking in the Commons now. He says none of the redactions in the report would affect the conclusions and recommendations. Even if the errors had not been made by the security agencies, he says, there is no evidence the murder of Lee Rigby would have been prevented. The key was the online exchange, months before the murder, in which Adebowale talked about his desire to kill a soldier. Proper knowledge of that could have been crucial in preventing the murder, Rifkind says. If US-based internet companies can cancel online accounts if they identify possible criminal activity, why do they object to sharing this with the authorities, he asks. Cameron says it’s hard to think of any justification not to pass it on to the authorities. 12.58pm GMT12:58 Cameron welcomes the collaborative tone of Miliband’s response; the Labour leader said the government would have the full support of the opposition. He says the government is pushing for internet companies to agree a set of procedures for identifying and reporting online extremism. 12.54pm GMT12:54 Cameron rightly raised the issue of internet companies, Miliband says. Part of the problem is that there are no agreed set of procedures for companies, he says. For online child abuse, there are such procedures – should something similar be agreed for extremism, Miliband asks. 12.51pm GMT12:51 Cameron concludes. Ed Miliband pays tribute to Lee Rigby. He says criticisms of the agencies in the report need to be understood in the light of the pressures they face in preventing threats. He asks Cameron what is required beyond additional funding to prevent extremism. How will the relationship between agencies and the police be strengthened, he asks. 12.48pm GMT12:48 Cameron says he will toughen up guidance for security services in the treatment of terrorism suspects overseas and how it partners foreign intelligence services. 12.47pm GMT12:47 Cameron says the government is introducing new powers to remove passports from extremists and prevent terrorists from returning to Britain from overseas. 12.46pm GMT12:46 Cameron: internet companies 'have responsibility to act' On internet companies, Cameron cites the report’s claim that Adebowale’s online exchanges could have been crucial to preventing the attack. The information came to light after the attack “as a result of a retrospective review by the company”. It’s a very serious finding, Cameron says. He agrees with the concerns of the committee about internet companies based overseas and their compliance – or lack of – with Ripa. There is much further to go … The truth is this: terrorists are using the internet to communicate with each other. We must not accept that these commucications are beyond the reach of the companies. We expect the internet companies to do all they can … It is their social responsibility to act on this. 12.42pm GMT12:42 Cameron: extra £130m to monitor extremists Cameron moves on to how agencies prioritise the various threats against the country. At the time of the Woolwich attack, MI5 was monitoring hundreds of potential threats. The two killers were known to the services, however. The report makes recommendations on how agencies should improve its tactics on “self-starting terrorists” - an extra £130m will be available over the next two years to monitor and disrupt such individuals, he announces. Updated at 12.55pm GMT 12.42pm GMT12:42 Jeremiah Adebolajo, the brother of Michael Adebolajo, has issued a statement via CAGE: Speaking as somebody very close to my brother I can only offer, to those willing to listen, the facts. My brother was constantly and closely monitored by the security services. He had almost no online presence at all, a fact that even caused the security services to request me to keep a closer eye on him. I think the facts of the case, the lack of publicly available evidence to support the report and the convenience with which the government will now be able to expand unpopular spying laws are all testimony to the fact that this report is nothing more than a distraction from the motives behind the attack and a way to put a particular segment of British society under further pressure and surveillance. The result: To alienate young Muslims, further ghettoising the Muslim community, to make lone wolf attacks even harder to detect as those contemplating such action will refrain from using social media to express their views and, most importantly, to restrict our freedom of movement and expression the government so hypocritically claims to uphold. Conclusion: MI5 did a great job, give 'em more powers, blame tech companies who don't give out your info. Foreign wars, torture? Codswallop! 12.41pm GMT12:41 Refresh the page to watch Cameron’s statement live above. 12.40pm GMT12:40 MI5 is improving guidance and training for its online teams, Cameron tells the Commons. The agencies are under extreme pressure, he goes on. 12.40pm GMT12:40 Cameron turns to the “serious delay and potential missed opportunities” in the agencies’ investigations into the two men once their extremist sympathies were identified. But there is no indication that increased surveillance would have provided advance warning of the attack, he says. None of their text messages showed any evidence of attack planning, he adds. 12.38pm GMT12:38 This is a very serious report and there are significant areas of concern within it, Cameron tells MPs. Things need to change, he adds. But he repeats the report’s central conclusion that, given what they knew at the time, the security agencies could not have prevented the murder. 12.36pm GMT12:36 Cameron says the government promised to learn the lessons of the Woolwich murder. The report answers the questions about what security services knew and what must now be done, he says. 12.35pm GMT12:35 David Cameron statement The prime minister is speaking now. He says the murder was a betrayal of Islam. 12.35pm GMT12:35 My colleague Alan Travis has written this piece arguing that the committee’s conclusion that an internet company should have alerted authorities to Adebowale’s extremism “is as outrageous as it is wrong-headed”. He goes on: It is also a dangerous accusation because it jeopardises the undoubted goodwill that exists among overseas internet companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google, that the British police and security services rely on for help, especially in emergency situations. It is not the job of the internet companies to intercept the content of their customers emails or other exchanges any more than it was the job of the Post Office to read everyone’s letters. The postmen did not steam open suspicious letters – that was the job of the police special branch, and the distinction is important. Only the state can have that power, and up to now most internet companies have shown themselves willing to respond to specific requests to monitor targeted individuals as long as it is backed by a legally enforceable warrant issued by a home secretary and preferably made enforceable by a court order. But, as the ISC report shows, no such request was made in the Woolwich case because the security services regarded Michael Adebowale as a low-level threat and so “intrusive action would not have been justified”. It is hard to see how if it was not justified for MI5 to take intrusive action to monitor his online activity in order to pick up the threat to kill a British soldier how it could be justified for a US internet company to do so. 12.29pm GMT12:29 Lee Rigby’s uncle Raymond Dutton has just been speaking to BBC News: I think everyone in Britain at that time was in a cocoon of safety … that was smashed by these two murderers. Questioned on the internet messages sent by Adebowale before the murder about his desire to kill a soldier, and whether the internet company should have alerted authorities, Dutton said: It’s very easy with hindsight … but that information must and should have been passed on. 12.23pm GMT12:23 The ISC report did not name the internet company it accused of failing to alert authorities to extremist activity. The Guardian has contacted Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Twitter and BlackBerry, who were specifically named in the report in the context of more general conversations the committee had with firms about their methods of identifying extremist material. A company spokeswoman for Yahoo told my colleague Samuel Gibbs: We are not commenting on the report at this stage. None of the others have yet responded with comment. 12.16pm GMT12:16 ISC report at a glance My colleagues Ewen MacAskill and Vikram Dodd highlight the main findings of the parliamentary intelligence and security report on the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich: Despite the considerable public interest in this case, it is nevertheless essential that we do not comment on the allegation that MI5 had been trying to recruit Adebolajo as an agent. In relation to allegations of harassment, we can confirm that we have investigated all aspects of MI5’s actions thoroughly, and have not seen any evidence of wrongdoing by MI5 in this area. You can read the full report here. Updated at 12.29pm GMT 12.07pm GMT12:07 The committee did identify a number of failings in how the security services dealt with Adebolajo and Adebowale before the killing. The main criticisms are the weaknesses in the government’s programmes to deal with emerging or potential extremists, and the failure of the security services to engage properly with Adebolajo after he was accused of terrorist activity overseas. Here are the key points from the ISC: We have seen in recent months the numbers of young British men and women who have travelled to Syria and Iraq to engage in terrorism. The scale of the problem indicates that the government’s counter-terrorism programmes are not working. Successfully diverting individuals from the radicalisation path is essential, yet Prevent programmes have not been given sufficient priority. In the same context, we have also considered SIS’s [secret intelligence service] work to disrupt the link between UK extremists and terrorist organisations overseas. In the case of Adebolajo – a British citizen arrested overseas and suspected of trying to join a terrorist organisation – SIS’s response was inadequate. They considered deportation (or voluntary departure) to be a sufficient solution; they failed to investigate his allegations of mistreatment; and neither they nor MI5 accorded him sufficient priority upon his return to the UK. Given the current situation in Syria and Iraq, we have very significant concerns in this regard. Updated at 12.15pm GMT 12.02pm GMT12:02 Here’s more from the committee on its claim that internet companies – particularly those based outside the UK – are “providing a safe haven for terrorists”: None of the major US companies we approached proactively monitor and review suspicious content on their systems, largely relying on users to notify them of offensive or suspicious content. We also found that none of them regard themselves as compelled to comply with UK warrants obtained under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 [Ripa]. Therefore, even if MI5 had sought information – under a warrant – before the attack, the company might not have responded. They appear to accept no responsibility for the services they provide. This is of very serious concern: the capability of the agencies to access the communications of their targets is essential to their ability to detect and prevent terrorist threats in the UK … The problem is acute: until it is resolved the British public are exposed to a higher level of threat. Updated at 12.03pm GMT 11.51am GMT11:51 The ISC press conference has finished now. At 12.30pm, we expect David Cameron to make a statement in the Commons about the report. 11.49am GMT11:49 My colleague Richard Norton-Taylor has this analysis of the report’s argument that online firms should bear a greater responsibility for identifying extremism: The parliamentary intelligence and security committee’s report into Lee Rigby’s murder has been conveniently sandwiched between the home secretary’s keynote speech on Monday on what she described as an unprecedented terror threat and the publication on Wednesday of the government’s new counter-terrorism and security bill. Just how convenient is made abundantly clear by the way Sir Malcolm Rifkind, chair of the committee, pointed the finger at internet companies, clearly regarded as the enemies (along with civil liberty groups) in the fight against terrorism. Had MI5 been able to read an online exchange between Michael Adebowale and an ‘extremist overseas’, there was a ‘significant possibility that MI5 would have been able to prevent the attack’, says Rifkind. Rifkind does not stop there. In a press notice, he goes so far as to say that internet companies ‘appear to accept no responsibility for the services they provide’. He adds: ‘This is of very serious concern: the capability of the [security and intelligence] agencies to access the communications of their targets is essential to their ability to detect and prevent terrorist threats in the UK.’ In a remarkably blunt fashion, Rifkind and his committee thus appear to come close to blaming internet companies for Rigby’s murder. The companies have been a chief target of MI5 and GCHQ, strongly backed by Theresa May and senior Home Office officials. The message was rammed home by GCHQ’s new director, Robert Hannigan, who in a column in the Financial Times early this month described web giants such as Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp as ‘command-and-control networks … for terrorists and criminals’. The companies are under extreme pressure to provide their data with the least possible control and oversight. Whitehall officials have indicated that if the companies do not cooperate more with MI5 and GCHQ then they will force them to or get the data by the back door – a message that will not have been lost on China and Russia. Edward’s Snowden’s disclosures make clear GCHQ already has direct access to internet communications. The committee does criticise MI5’s procedures and processes in a way that reflects its report on the 7/7 London underground and bus bombings in July 2005. It sharply attacks MI6 for failing to pursue Michael Adebolajo and says neither MI5 nor MI6 accorded him ‘sufficient priority’ when he returned to the UK from Kenya. But there is no doubt where the committee wants to place the blame – at the door of the internet companies. Updated at 11.54am GMT 11.43am GMT11:43 My colleague Haroon Siddique is in Woolwich, the site of Lee Rigby’s murder, and has been talking to people close to the barracks where the soldier was based. Enda Mcniffe, a 22-year-old student who has lived in Woolwich all his life, and was this morning walking past the spot where Drummer Rugby was killed, said From what I read at the time, there was information circulating about [the killers before the murder] and I thought it could have been acted on a bit more. But it was going to happen, if not to poor Lee Rigby then to someone else. McNiffe agreed with the finding that an internet company should have reported online threats made by one of the killers. It’s got to report it if you’re talking about public safety. Even if it’s said as a joke, it’s better to be safe than sorry. There has to be an obligation. Eighteen months on from the murder, he said Woolwich as a community had “grown stronger, but a bit more identity” and said it was difficult not to feel a sense of fear when something so horrific had happened so close to home. Updated at 11.44am GMT 11.43am GMT11:43 Rikfind repeats the findings of the report that the committee found no evidence that Adebolajo was harassed by MI5 when he returned to the UK. He says further classified information on those claims has been sent to the prime minister, who has a fuller report, without the redactions of the version that has been made public today. 11.37am GMT11:37 The report’s conclusion that internet companies must allow greater access to the security services will stoke further arguments about online privacy. Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, says: The government should not use the appalling murder of Fusilier Rigby as an excuse to justify the further surveillance and monitoring of the entire UK population. To pass the blame to internet companies is to use Fusilier Rigby’s murder to make cheap political points. The committee is particularly misleading when it implies that US companies do not co-operate, and it is quite extraordinary to demand that companies proactively monitor email content for suspicious material. Internet companies cannot and must not become an arm of the surveillance state.As the report admits, ‘lone wolf attacks’ are almost impossible to predict – and therefore difficult to prevent. The security services should focus their efforts on the targeted surveillance of individuals like Michael Adebolajo rather than continuing to monitor every citizen in the UK. Mass surveillance erodes the basic trust between citizen and state by treating us all as suspects. If the government keeps finding new ways to justify indiscriminate whole population trawls, it will be fair to say that we have lost our liberty and the terrorists have won. 11.34am GMT11:34 11.33am GMT11:33 Report: internet firms have responsibility to notify authorities of online extremism On pages 170-171 of the report – you can read it in full here – the ISC deals with what it says was the “single issue which – had it been known at the time – might have enabled MI5 to prevent the attack”: the extremist messages sent by Adebowale before the murder. Here are the key passages; the highlighting is mine: After the attack, information was provided to GCHQ by a third party revealing a substantial online exchange between Adebowale and FOXTROT (an extremist thought to have links with AQAP) in December 2012, in which Adebowale expressed his desire to murder a soldier in the most explicit and emotive manner … The company on whose systems this exchange took place had not been aware of the exchange prior to the attack. However, they had previously closed some of Adebowale’s accounts because their automated system deemed them to be associated with terrorism – yet they neither reviewed those accounts nor passed any information to the authorities. We take the view that, when possible links to terrorism trigger accounts to be closed, the company concerned – and other communications service providers – should accept their responsibility to review these accounts immediately and, if such reviews provide evidence of specific intention to commit a terrorist act, they should pass this information to the appropriate authority. It has been difficult to gain a clear understanding from GCHQ and the company of exactly what happened in this particular case. The monitoring process used by the company is still not sufficiently clear to the committee or, it appears, to GCHQ. On the basis of the evidence we have received, the company does not have procedures to prevent terrorists from planning attacks using its networks. We have explored whether it would have been possible, theoretically, for the agencies to have accessed Adebowale’s exchange with FOXTROT before the attack, had they sought to do so. Given the number of variables concerned, we consider that access would have been possible but unlikely without the co-operation of the company concerned. Adebowale’s expressed intention to murder a soldier was highly significant. If Adebowale’s exchange with FOXTROT had been seen by MI5 at the time, then we believe that the investigation would have increased to Priority 1, unlocking all the extra resources this would have entailed. This is the single issue which – had it been known at the time – might have enabled MI5 to prevent the attack. We note that several of the companies ascribed their failure to review suspicious content to the volume of material on their systems. Whilst there may be practical difficulties involved, the companies should accept they have a responsibility to notify the relevant authorities when an automatic trigger indicating terrorism is activated and allow the authorities, whether US or UK, to take the next step. We further note that several of the companies attributed the lack of monitoring to the need to protect their users’ privacy. However, where there is a possibility that a terrorist atrocity is being planned, that argument should not be allowed to prevail. The capability of the agencies to access the communications of their targets is essential to their ability to detect and prevent terrorist threats to the UK and our allies. The considerable difficulty that the agencies face in accessing the content of online communications, both in the UK and overseas, from providers which are based in the US – such as Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter and Yahoo – is therefore of great concern. 11.28am GMT11:28 Report's key findings Here are the key findings identified by the ISC in the introduction to its report: 11.26am GMT11:26 Isc member George howarth says report does NOT make case for greater surveillance powers and "wrong" for government to use it that way 11.25am GMT11:25 My colleague Alex Hern sends this response to the report from the Open Rights group, which campaigns to protect digital rights: .@OpenRightsGroup “…and it is quite extraordinary to demand that companies pro-actively monitor email content for suspicious material.” 11.20am GMT11:20 Rifkind is asked why the committee will not name the internet company or even indicate what type of forum it is. He says the information came to light when GCHQ was given it by a third party on a confidential basis, and so it has to remain confidential. We have made it clear in our report that it is a US company, he adds. 11.18am GMT11:18 Rifkind says that when internet companies identify extremism, they often close an account “but they seem to feel no obligation to pass that on to the authorities … even if it relates to terrorist activity”. No information was passed on by the (unnamed) internet company in this instance, he goes on – even the company’s automatic system did not spot the messages from Adebowale about killing a soldier, which Rifkind says shows the weakness of the system. 11.16am GMT11:16 Report: no comment on claims MI5 tried to recruit Adebolajo The report refuses to comment on claims that the security services attempted to recruit Adebolajo on his return from Kenya, Vikram Dodd points out. The report states: To publish any information in response to allegations that MI5 harassed Adebolajo or tried to recruit him as an agent would damage national security – irrespective of the substance of such allegations. Despite the considerable public interest in this case, it is nevertheless essential that we do not comment on the allegation that MI5 had been trying to recruit Adebolajo as an agent. In relation to allegations of harassment, we can confirm that we have investigated all aspects of MI5’s actions thoroughly, and have not seen any evidence of wrongdoing by MI5 in this area. 11.13am GMT11:13 The online exchange only came to light after the murder, Rifkind says. Internet companies lack of monitoring of potential extremists gives them safe haven and they "need to play their part", says isc 11.13am GMT11:13 There was no evidence of attack planning in the information security services had on the two killers before the murder, Rifkind says. Specific knowledge would have been needed to have raised the level of surveillance on them. 11.11am GMT11:11 Here is the full story on the ISC’s findings, which conclude that the brutal murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby could have been prevented if an internet company had passed on an online exchange in which one of the killers expressed “in the most graphic terms” his intention to carry out an Islamist jihad attack. 11.10am GMT11:10 Rifkind says MI6’s treatment of Adebolajo on his return to the UK from Kenya was not adequate and they did not give him high enough priority as a threat. 11.08am GMT11:08 The full report Here is the full report from ISC: 11.07am GMT11:07 If MI5 had seen this exchange at the time, their investigation into Adebowale would have become top priority - it might have prevented the attack. The one party that could have made a difference was the “overseas internet company” on whose forums the exchanges took place, Rifkind says. He says the company does not consider itself to have any responsibility to act on such conversations. “This is of very great concern.” Agencies must be able to access such conversations, he says. Updated at 11.12am GMT 11.05am GMT11:05 Rifkind says there was an online exchange in 2012 between Adebowale and an overseas extremist (whom the report calls Foxtrot) in which Adebowale set out his desire to kill a soldier. The description was “graphic and emotive”, Rifkind says. Foxtrot encouraged him and gave suggestions as to how he might carry out such an attack, including locating places where soldiers might be less securely protected. 11.03am GMT11:03 MI5 did not have any intelligence that Adebolajo intended to carry out any attack, Rifkind says. At any one time, many people are under investigation for alleged links to Islamic extremism, he says. That the killers had extremist views was not in doubt. But the security services did not have information that they were planning an attack. 11.02am GMT11:02 Sir Malcolm Rifkind, chair of the ISC, is speaking now. We have concluded that given what the agencies knew at the time, they were not in a position to prevent the murder of Fusilier Rigby. 11.01am GMT11:01 'Murder could have been prevented if internet firm had alerted MI5 to messages' The report has been published. Ewen MacAskill and Vikram Dodd sent this report: The brutal murder of Lee Rigby could have been prevented if an internet company had passed on an online exchange in which one of the killers expressed ‘in the most graphic terms’ his intention to carry out an Islamist jihad attack. The 191-page report by the intelligence and security committee (ISC) says that had MI5 had access to the exchange between one of the killers, Michael Adebowale, and an extremist overseas, Adebowale would have become a top surveillance priority. By failing to alert the authorities the company had, ‘however unintentionally’ provided a ‘safe haven for terrorists’. ‘There is then a significant possibility that MI5 would have been able to prevent the attack,’ the report says. The internet company is not named in the report. The intelligence agencies, MI6 as well as MI5, escape with only light criticism. The intelligence committee, which is headed by former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, found that MI5, broadly responsible for domestic intelligence, had made errors. The committee found the response of MI6, responsible for overseas intelligence-gathering, in dealing with the other killer, Michael Adebolajo, to be ‘inadequate’. But overall there was little the two agencies could have done to prevent the attack, the report says. 10.53am GMT10:53 My colleague Haroon Siddique is in Woolwich, outside the barracks where Lee Rigby was based. He sends this picture of the memorial to the soldier: 10.37am GMT10:37 There have been questions over the extent of MI5’s awareness of the two killers since they slaughtered Rigby in May 2013. As my colleagues Sandra Laville and Vikram Dodd reported last year, after Adebolajo and Adebowale were found guilty of murder: Adebolajo came to the attention of the authorities when he was arrested by the Kenyan police along with seven other young men in November 2010, during what the police said was an attempt to travel to Somalia to fight for al-Shabaab. Adebolajo, who was born in Lambeth, south London to Nigerian parents, was suspected of masterminding the plan, which involved the seven – including two schoolboys – travelling to Lamu Island, 68 miles from the Somali border, and then by speedboat on to Kizingitini, Pate Island. But the group was arrested after a tipoff and taken into custody. Adebolajo was eventually deported after he alleged he was tortured during his period in detention. The Kenyans have said they warned the British that he was a dangerous extremist. It has also emerged that there were apparent sightings of Adebolajo in October of that year at the Musa mosque in Mombasa, where the extremist cleric Sheikh Aboud Rogo preached weekly. Rogo was suspected of funding the group’s plan to join al-Shabaab. On his return to the UK, Adebolajo’s family say, he was approached by the security service, which attempted to recruit him as an informant. Relatives also say they were approached. But the suspected extremist was not put under surveillance or considered a candidate for either a terrorism prevention and investigation measure (TPIM), or the Channel programme, which attempts to deradicalise individuals … Adebolajo was considered to be at the bottom of a pyramid of several thousand people on the security service radar. More intensive scrutiny, carried out with the necessary warrants and agreement of the home secretary, is only targeted at those people at the very top of the pyramid, where there is sufficient intelligence to justify it, the Guardian was told. 10.27am GMT10:27 Here is the letter that Abu Nusaybah, also known as Ibrahim Hassan, sent to Sir Malcolm Rifkind, chair of the ISC, last year. In it he alleges that his friend Michael Adebolajo was subjected to “systematic torture and sexual abuse … by Kenyan troops, which he believed was at the behest of British intelligence … He could not forget or forgive them”. Furthermore, Hassan alleges in the letter: After his return to the UK, he informed me that he was subject to further harassment and intimidation by the security services in order to pressure him into working for them as an agent, which to him would constitute a betrayal of his own community. Hassan pleaded guilty in March this year to charges of encouraging terrorism and disseminating terrorist material. He was jailed for three years in June. He had previously served a jail sentence in 2008 for inciting terrorism overseas and terrorist fundraising after delivering inflammatory speeches at Regent’s park mosque in central London. 10.10am GMT10:10 As my colleague Vikram Dodd reported yesterday, there are concerns ahead of the publication of the report that the ISC failed to speak to a number of potentially important witnesses about the alleged involvement of MI5 with one of the killers, Michael Adebolajo, before he killed Lee Rigby: After Rigby’s murder, several witnesses said Adebolajo had complained of his treatment by the security services. Adebolajo has alleged that there was British complicity in his ill-treatment after he was arrested in Kenya in 2010. His brother, Jeremiah, who was working at a university in Saudi Arabia, claimed he had also been approached and pressed by MI6 for information. Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, both converts to Islam, had been known to the security services for up to eight years before the attack. Adebolajo went to Kenya in 2010, where he was arrested as he attempted to join extremists in Somalia, and was released in murky circumstances to return to the UK. A friend of his, Abu Nusaybah, also known as Ibrahim Hassan, later went on television to claim Adebolajo had been tortured in Kenya and harassed by MI5 – which asked him to spy for it on his return. Nusaybah was arrested after making these claims and later convicted of terrorist offences. After his arrest Nusaybah wrote from his cell to the ISC’s chair, Sir Malcolm Rifkind: ‘I implore you to investigate any connection between the UK and Kenyan authorities in the mistreatment of Michael Adebolajo … I am witness to the fact that the Michael I knew ceased to exist after his treatment in Kenya.’ Tasnime Akunjee, solicitor for Nusaybah, said: ‘They are precisely the kind of people you need to speak to. The security services spent a huge amount of effort trying to speak to them before they did crazy things – the idea you don’t speak to them now is nonsensical.’ Updated at 10.17am GMT 9.50am GMT09:50 Good morning. The official inquiry into the jihadi-inspired murder of Lee Rigby in 2013 is due to publish its report at 11am. This liveblog will cover its findings, the implications and the reaction throughout the day. The report by parliament’s intelligence and security committee (ISC) will set out what the intelligence services knew before the attack by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale in May 2013 on a street in Woolwich, south-east London. Both were sentenced in February to life imprisonment for the soldier’s murder, with Adebolajo, the dominant of the pair, told he would never be released. The Guardian understands that no individual will be criticised in the report into the security services’ handling of the case and that MI5 itself will not be blamed for failing to stop the attack. Vikram Dodd has the full background here. You can also follow his tweets @VikramDodd. I’ll be tweeting key developments @Claire_Phipps. |