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.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/11/philip-hammond-powers-warrants-understanding

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

Version 0 Version 1
Philip Hammond ‘confused’ about extent of UK surveillance powers Philip Hammond ‘confused’ about extent of UK surveillance powers
(35 minutes later)
Philip Hammond has been criticised for not understanding the legislation surrounding government powers to sweep up and analyse huge volumes of electronic communications such as email.Philip Hammond has been criticised for not understanding the legislation surrounding government powers to sweep up and analyse huge volumes of electronic communications such as email.
Eric King from rights group Privacy International said the foreign secretary appeared “confused” while giving evidence to parliament’s intelligence and security committee, which is reviewing the need for new legislation to regulate the UK’s electronic espionage agency, GCHQ, in the light of revelations on bulk data collection by Edward Snowden, a former contractor for US intelligence. Eric King, from rights group Privacy International, said the foreign secretary appeared “confused” while giving evidence to parliament’s intelligence and security committee. The committee is reviewing the need for new legislation to regulate the UK’s electronic espionage agency, GCHQ, in light of revelations on bulk data collection by Edward Snowden, a former contractor for US intelligence.
The accusation follows a judgment on Friday that ruled the Tempora programme, for which Hammond signed the warrants, was legal, despite widespread concern from human rights groups.The accusation follows a judgment on Friday that ruled the Tempora programme, for which Hammond signed the warrants, was legal, despite widespread concern from human rights groups.
“It is clear that he [Hammond] is unfortunately confused about the effect of the warrants he is signing into force, how they deal with British communications and the difference between so called internal communications and external communications,” said King. “This is one of the huge problems with having ministers sign warrants.” “It is clear that he [Hammond] is unfortunately confused about the effect of the warrants he is signing into force, how they deal with British communications and the difference between so-called internal communications and external communications,” said King. “This is one of the huge problems with having ministers sign warrants.”
Campaigners say that in testimony to the intelligence and security committee in October, Hammond appeared not to understand the details of how the warrants he was signing worked – including whether or not they allowed the interception of communications of UK residents.Campaigners say that in testimony to the intelligence and security committee in October, Hammond appeared not to understand the details of how the warrants he was signing worked – including whether or not they allowed the interception of communications of UK residents.
During the session, Hammond – who oversees the work of GCHQ and the foreign intelligence agency MI6 – initially appeared to say that any email exchange in which either the sender or recipient was based in the UK was treated as an internal communication and therefore any government agency wanting to access it was subject to stricter controls under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).During the session, Hammond – who oversees the work of GCHQ and the foreign intelligence agency MI6 – initially appeared to say that any email exchange in which either the sender or recipient was based in the UK was treated as an internal communication and therefore any government agency wanting to access it was subject to stricter controls under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).
Later he said that if either sender or recipient were outside the UK it was an external communication and therefore subject to a different warrant, which allows the foreign secretary to authorise much broader examination by the intelligence agencies than is the case with UK-based communications.Later he said that if either sender or recipient were outside the UK it was an external communication and therefore subject to a different warrant, which allows the foreign secretary to authorise much broader examination by the intelligence agencies than is the case with UK-based communications.
Eric King queried the detail of Hammond’s evidence: “If you listened to him on what Ripa does, it seems the article 8, section 4 warrants don’t ever collect UK communications and instead are exclusively for foreign to foreign communications. However, that is false on two grounds: article 8, section 4 warrants, while targeting external communications, expressly include UK to foreign, or foreign to UK and as such UK communications routinely get swept up as part of them,” said King. “Secondly, the idea you need a more targeted article 8, section 1 warrant to intercept information about someone in the UK has not been true for a long time, and plainly wrong in the face of GCHQ programs like Tempora that are automatically intercepting, filtering and analysing a huge number of our communications on a daily basis.” King queried the detail of Hammond’s evidence: “If you listened to him on what Ripa does, it seems the article 8, section 4 warrants don’t ever collect UK communications and instead are exclusively for foreign to foreign communications. However, that is false on two grounds: article 8, section 4 warrants, while targeting external communications, expressly include UK to foreign, or foreign to UK and as such UK communications routinely get swept up as part of them,” he said.
The issue of what can be intercepted under such “one-end foreign” warrants is a complicated one in the online era. If, for example, two people living in the UK send each other an email using Gmail, that may seem to clearly be a domestic communication which would need an individual warrant. However, if the intelligence services define it as each person communicating with Google’s servers in Ireland, the communication can be defined as one-end foreign, and mass-intercepted. “Secondly, the idea you need a more targeted article 8, section 1 warrant to intercept information about someone in the UK has not been true for a long time, and plainly wrong in the face of GCHQ programs like Tempora that are automatically intercepting, filtering and analysing a huge number of our communications on a daily basis.”
The issue of what can be intercepted under such “one-end foreign” warrants is a complicated one in the online era. If, for example, two people living in the UK send each other an email using Gmail, that may clearly seem to be a domestic communication which would need an individual warrant. However, if the intelligence services define it as each person communicating with Google’s servers in Ireland, the communication can be defined as one-end foreign, and mass-intercepted.
Privacy and civil rights groups have argued that, in light of the Snowden revelations, all electronic surveillance warrants should go before a judge to ensure the huge power available to government as a result of modern surveillance technology should be subject to some form of judicial constraint.Privacy and civil rights groups have argued that, in light of the Snowden revelations, all electronic surveillance warrants should go before a judge to ensure the huge power available to government as a result of modern surveillance technology should be subject to some form of judicial constraint.
King said: “Hammond’s clear confusion is the predictable outcome of a legal framework that depends upon secret interpretations and that obscures the reality of the powers it grants. The fact that those signing the Ripa warrants do not understand how it works underlines the need for a new law governing surveillance powers, a law which provides for a judicial process to ensure these warrants are being issued lawfully, with proper consideration and due understanding.”King said: “Hammond’s clear confusion is the predictable outcome of a legal framework that depends upon secret interpretations and that obscures the reality of the powers it grants. The fact that those signing the Ripa warrants do not understand how it works underlines the need for a new law governing surveillance powers, a law which provides for a judicial process to ensure these warrants are being issued lawfully, with proper consideration and due understanding.”
During the session, Hammond said judges would assess surveillance warrant requests primarily from a legal standpoint and that only an elected official could properly apply political judgment on the necessity and proportionality of an eavesdropping operation.During the session, Hammond said judges would assess surveillance warrant requests primarily from a legal standpoint and that only an elected official could properly apply political judgment on the necessity and proportionality of an eavesdropping operation.
A spokesman for the Foreign Office said: “The UK has one of the strongest legal and regulatory frameworks in the world for intelligence. Legislation around the use of warrants is naturally a technical area. That is why the foreign secretary went to great lengths to explain their use to the committee.”A spokesman for the Foreign Office said: “The UK has one of the strongest legal and regulatory frameworks in the world for intelligence. Legislation around the use of warrants is naturally a technical area. That is why the foreign secretary went to great lengths to explain their use to the committee.”