Nothing is simple, even if MI5 say it is
Bill,
Not unexpectedly the speech got extensive publicity and yesterday morning two "wise, old men" were on BBC radio commenting. One, Nigel Inkster, ex-No.2 at SIS:
Quote:
I sense that those most interested in the activities of the NSA and GCHQ have not been told very much they didn't know already or could have inferred.
Within a commentary:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...y-intelligence
The Security Service's Director-General has used RUSI as a venue before, but rightly others ask, as would I, when he remarks about the unnamed Snowden revelations - where is the GCHQ Director? See:http://www.spyblog.org.uk/
Then the Security Service's ex-legal adviser stated:
Quote:
Secrecy in this country is over-protected and under-regulated....The UK has signally failed to prepare itself for openness when dealing with politically sensitive issues such as terrorism or the involvement of their secret agencies in the gathering of information by secret means. We see only a fleeting and ephemeral face of the intelligence agencies chiefs; ministers glide over the threats, never explain their relationship with those agencies and are content to retain an obviously inadequate system for their supervision.
(Bickford said public scepticism was) ..made worse by the Communications Data Bill's proposal that the agencies themselves control their mining of communications data. Unless government takes this debate seriously, secrecy will be pierced by the needs of society and terrorism and organised crime will plunder our sovereignty.
Within a report on a speech by Hilary Clinton, in London:http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...clinton-spying
Issues of accountability, damage and necessity pale in significance when it is alleged politicians had not authorised the GCHQ-NSA collaboration to conduct such extensive surveillance of the innocent. Then bizarrely, in the UK, ministers from the coalition and Labour had promoted legislation to undertake such surveillance.
Inkster on Snowden myths and misapprehension
Nigel Inkster, ex-No.2 at SIS, now at IISS, has written a commentary 'Snowden myths and misapprehensions' and is worth a read:http://www.iiss.org/en/politics%20an...6/snowden-9dd1
He ends with:
Quote:
It seems that the revelations will continue for the foreseeable future and that, as they do, further myths and misapprehensions will take hold. For those who regard intelligence services as inherently illegitimate or take the view that the US is the worlds number-one rogue actor, no counter-narrative will ever be convincing. But for those who accept that covert capabilities of some kind are needed to combat the threats posed by an array of state and non-state actors or who adopt the realist perspective that countries are entitled to use covert capabilities to secure national advantage, provided that this is subject to proper controls there is scope for a more nuanced debate on how power can be responsibly exercised by governments in the cyber domain. That must start with an understanding of the issues based on facts rather than misapprehensions.
There is much I would agree with, but I do differ on whether the British accountability and oversight regime are today fit for public purpose, as distinct from the state's intended purpose.
Two additional UK stories, one 'Surveillance technology out of control, says Lord Ashdown'; he is an ex-Liberal-Democrat leader:http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ontrol-ashdown
The second by Simon Jenkins, a regular columnist in The Guardian, is 'The days of believing spy chiefs who say 'Trust us' are over'; a conclusion that is a moot point as the issues appear to have little public traction:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ver?CMP=twt_gu
There is a main SWC thread on the issues '"We are all honorary Muslims now" with PRISM?', which will absorb this thread one day.
Ex-SIS Director talk 'Terrorism and National Security: Proportion or Distortion?'
A short RUSI podcast (30 mins) of a lecture by Sir Richard Dearlove, former Chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) till 2004:https://www.rusi.org/events/past/ref.../#.U7rENdzGvlJ
Two different commentaries. The title in The Guardian:
Quote:
Islamist terror threat to west blown out of proportion - former MI6 chief Richard Dearlove says extremists are now focused on Middle East and giving them publicity in west is counter-productive
Link:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...chard-dearlove
Or this headline in The Daily Telegraph:
Quote:
Islamist terror is little threat to the West, and Saudis are backing Iraqi jihad': is this former spy chief right?
Link:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/sh...y-chief-right/
Those who have been 'C' rarely speak openly, so worth a listen IMHO.
Doughnut boss gives interview
'The Doughnut' is the nickname for the HQ of GCHQ, the UK's SIGINT / COMINT organisation (similar to the NSA) and its Director is about to retire, so he gave an interview:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-our-own.html
His questioner, Charles Moore, gives him an "easy ride" IMHO and some phrases do jar.
I certainly don't recall this being public information:
Quote:
...a monument to colleagues who died on active service five in Afghanistan.
Doughnut boss adds and his critics respond
Yesterday Ian Lobban, GCHQ's retiring Director gave his official exit speech; choosing Churchill's WW2 Cabinet War Rooms in London. This is the official version:http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press_and_med...delivered.aspx
He ends with:
Quote:
My staff are the embodiment of British values, not a threat to them
One critical blogger has responded, with a passage by passage critique, which in my opinion is the better read:https://p10.secure.hostingprod.com/@...ry-speech.html
The anonymous author almost ends with:
Quote:
Most current GCHQ staff are probably not a threat to British values, but the automated infrastructure of snooping is a huge threat to us all, including such privileged insiders themselves.
A shorter response, on a US website, cites Professor Ross Anderson,, of Cambridge University, a critic:
Quote:
Presumably their definition of liberty is their liberty to do what they want.
Link:http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bri...s-surveillance
MI5 Director's speech: the threat and response
Temporary stand-alone post for Max visibility.
Quote:
London (AFP) - The head of Britain's domestic spy agency MI5 warned on Thursday that militant Islamists in Syria were planning "mass casualty attacks" in the West and that intelligence services may be powerless to stop them.
http://news.yahoo.com/militants-plan...005654650.html
Moderator's Note
This thread was originally entitled 'Militants planning mass casualty attacks against West' and has now been renamed.
MI5 Director's actual speech
The actual, full speech given yesterday by the British Security Service (MI5) has many, many points and reassurances on why:https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/about-us...ntability.html
I have yet to read it fully and may comment later.
Two ex-MI5 Directors cast doubt on UK CT strategy
For two ex-Security Service directors to wonder aloud critically on the UK's CT strategy is unprecedented, even more so as the effects of Paris are in political and media foreground.
Eliza Manningham-Buller, who retired as Director in 2007, spoke in a House of Lords debate on the government's latest proposed CT law:
Quote:
It seems to me that Prevent is clearly not working. This is not altogether surprising because it is difficult. We do not really know what works. I retired nearly eight years ago. I know that a great deal of effort has gone into thinking about how to counter this toxic and murderous ideology. I believe that we must have a better understanding of the roots of terrorism than we used to, and a better understanding of how to divert people—particularly vulnerable young people who have, in some cases, been groomed and exploited—from their path.
Some of those who come back from Syria will not be terrorists; some need to be reintegrated. The Channel programme is obviously to be applauded, but I am still concerned that it is bound to be slow, even over the long term.
It is understandable that it will be slow, but we do not seem—I beg to be corrected by others who are more up to date than me—to be having much effect. We are told that 600 dangerous extremists who are British citizens have fought in Syria. That is a large number. If Prevent had been working for the past 10 years, we might not have seen so many going.
It follows that I rather doubt that the Government, however laudable their efforts, are well placed to counter this ideology. A lead on that has and is beginning to come from moderate, mainstream Islam, which has itself suffered so much from the distorted version of its faith propounded by terrorists. One of the most appalling scenes from Paris was that of the Muslim policeman on the pavement being executed brutally by one of the terrorists.
It also follows, therefore, that I am not convinced of the value of putting Prevent on a statutory footing. I am out of date. The Government may be able to convince me, but I cannot see how legislation can really govern hearts, minds and free speech.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...as-failed.html and her full speech is on:http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/...5-01-13a.750.0
Jonathan Evans, who retired as Director in April 2013, in a maiden speech in the House of Lords, stated:
Quote:
....the “hesitancy” of the Government to “engage with the religious dimension of the threat we face” was making it harder to prevent young men becoming radicalised....events in Syria and Iraq had caused a “jolt of energy that has gone through the extremist networks in this country”, turning would-be jihadists into battle-hardened terrorists. A similar situation existed in Afghanistan before 9/11, he said, and: “Those circumstances led to a series of attacks internationally and over a long period. I fear we may be facing the same situation as we go forward today…
“Inadequate security will breed vulnerability and fear and that in turn will tend to limit people’s ability to contribute to civil society, will tend to provoke vigilantism and will tend to diminish people’s ability to exercise the very civil liberties and human rights that we wish to sustain.”
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...oss-warns.html and his entire speech is on:http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/...5-01-13a.690.0
'Prevent' is one of the four strands in 'Operation Contest', the UK national CT strategy; the other three strands are Pursue, Prepare and Protect.
'Prevent' has long been the weakest strand, both in its design, level of resourcing, public acceptance and credibility.
There are two main SWC threads on UK CT:
a) UK CT:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7768
b) Foreign Fighters: preventative action (UK mainly):http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=20549
Leaving aside the impact here I do wonder as the 'Contest' strategy has been widely copied elsewhere, will those nations think again. I include the USA, where CVE is the 'Prevent' equivalent.
Bizarrely Westminster-Whitehall have managed to think and now via this new law make counter-radicalisation extend to nursery schools! When six hundred people have reported left to fight in Syria, that does seem weird.
Understanding digital intelligence from a British perspective
Professor Sir David Omand has written a short commentary, it reflects his years as an "insider" and his studies since. He remains a stalwart defender of what GCHQ in particular has been doing:http://strifeblog.org/2015/02/05/und...h-perspective/
I note his emphasis that:
Quote:
The issue is how we the public can be sure that under any future government these tools cannot be misused.
We deal with the Russia we have, not the Russia wed like to have
A phrase taken from Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6 (SIS), in his lecture @ Kings War Studies:http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ers-mi6-europe
Quote:
Ukrainians look to us to help them have their chance to embrace the order and values we enjoy here in modern Europe. We and they may end up with a new debilitating frozen conflict in Ukraine, well into the future. That is a wretched outcome for Ukrainians. But it may be the least bad attainable outcome.”
Sawers said efforts by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, to restore calm deserved the west’s full support. He added: “Once we have calm – if we have calm – we’ll need a new approach to co-existence with president Putin’s Russia.
The convergence between Russia and the west which we had hoped for after the cold war won’t happen while he is in charge. We now know that. Any foreseeable change of power in Russia may well be for the worse. Managing relations with Russia will be the defining problem in European security for years to come.
The full speech is available:http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/department...F-SECURITY.pdf
Values and Order: a spook speaks (MI6 / SIS)
Yesterday Sir John Sawers, the recently retired SIS (MI6) Chief, gave the annual Kings War Studies Lecture, he used the title The Limits of Security and a transcript is available:http://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/department...F-SECURITY.pdf
Kings summary:
Quote:
Addressing a packed lecture theatre, Sir John offered a rare insight into decades of service for the British diplomatic and intelligence services, and the ongoing battle for ‘shared value and order’ in an increasingly unstable global landscape. He discussed the ideological conflicts currently faced in Europe, where despite initial glimmers of economic, social and political reform, he said Russia has ‘not confronted and overcome its past’, and the foundations on which a post-Cold War society led by President Putin could hope to prosper have been undermined by a lack of ‘serious moral reckoning, and no assertion of new healthy values.’ Sir John warned: ‘Russian politics have slipped back: rather less democratic and more autocratic. Managing relations with Russia will be the defining problem in European security for years to come’.
Curiously he cites and recommends Henry Kissinger's latest book. For many here Dr. K. is not admired, even if memories fade.
I am sure this has been said before:
Quote:
The test for any policy option is not so much “Is this the right next step?” The more important test is: “Where will we be in two years’ time if we follow this path?
Later he comments on the agents working for SIS:
Quote:
The secret agents who work for MI6 are mainly not British. Foreign nationals operating in their own countries, directly risking their own lives.They work for us for different reasons. But for many of them one reason comes first. They believe in the British approach to Order and Values.