The British on intelligence: a collection (SIS, MI5, GCHQ & more)

[davidbfpo]

'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:

...a monument to colleagues who died on active service – five in Afghanistan.

[davidbfpo]

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:

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:

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:

Presumably their definition of liberty is their liberty to do what they want.

Link:http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bri...s-surveillance

[AdamG]

Temporary stand-alone post for Max visibility.

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.

[davidbfpo]

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.

[davidbfpo]

For those with little time this commentary summarises the speech:http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-...sm-in-britain/

A wider article '....what are the implications of the Paris shootings for counterterrorism policy in Europe?' by two Kings College academics:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...in-Europe.html

[davidbfpo]

In April 2012 a London-based left of centre think tank, Demos, published a report; which I read and forgot to post here The three authors include Sir David Omand, one of Whitehall's respected intelligence guru's; which made it more interesting to read.

Link:http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/intelligence

The growth of social media poses a dilemma for security and law enforcement agencies. On the one hand, social media could provide a new form of intelligence – SOCMINT – that could contribute decisively to keeping the public safe. On the other, national security is dependent on public understanding and support for the measures being taken to keep us safe.
Social media challenges current conceptions about privacy, consent and personal data, and new forms of technology allow for more invisible and widespread intrusive surveillance than ever before. Furthermore, analysis of social media for intelligence purposes does not fit easily into the policy and legal frameworks that guarantee that such activity is proportionate, necessary and accountable.

This paper is the first effort to examine the ethical, legal and operational challenges involved in using social media for intelligence and insight purposes.

A "lurker" who works in this field commented:

a thoughtful analysis...they avoid that can of worms as they are keen to discuss the ethical / legal framework that would be needed to support this

The Frontline Club, London held a discussion evening after the launch, rightly the title was 'Cyber-snooping a threat to freedom or a necessary safeguard' and is available on a podcast:http://www.frontlineclub.com/events/...safeguard.html

[davidbfpo]

This week The Guardian published a commentary by Sir David Omand, an ex-GCHQ Director and now a War Studies Professor @ Kings College. He ends with:

Even so, some damage to our security could still inadvertently have been done, since journalists are not best placed to know exactly what detail may complete the jigsaw puzzles of our adversaries. Instead of more revelations the Guardian should focus on a principled debate on how to allow intelligence agencies and law enforcement to do their job in keeping us from harm whilst preventing unjustified snooping by public or commercial sectors.

Rightly he asks:

The real debate we should be having on the back of the Snowden case is about what privacy in a cyber-connected world can realistically mean given the volumes of personal data we hand over to the private sector in return for our everyday convenience, and the continued need for warranted access for security and law enforcement.

Whatever view we take on where as a society we want the balance between our right to privacy against our right to live in security, we all need to have confidence that in the hands of our authorities these powerful tools of interception are not being abused.

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...-cyber-attacks

I have looked at the follow-on comments and they do not help.

[davidbfpo]

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:

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 world’s 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.

[davidbfpo]

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:

The issue is how we the public can be sure that under any future government these tools cannot be misused.

[davidbfpo]

I have copied a small number of posts to here from the intelligence arena, where former senior British intelligence officers have spoken or written.

This thread should be read in conjunction with a law enforcement thread UK Counter-Terrorism (merged thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7768

There is a wide ranging thread Values and Order: a spook speaks (MI6 / SIS)which includes intelligence matters, but remains a stand alone thread in another arena:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=21756

[davidbfpo]

The full title of an article in 'The Register' is: How British spies really spy: Information that didn't come from Snowden:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07...es_spy/?page=1

The author has assembled an open source jigsaw for this:

....the part-time Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who in his day job is a high-flying human rights lawyer, also used his 373-page report to shed light on how spies use electronic surveillance, based on research that included a three-day visit to GCHQ in Cheltenham. This and other recently published documents provide new insights into how Britain’s electronic eavesdroppers work, and come from official sources rather than documents leaked by Edward Snowden.