DOCSLIB.ORG

Bulk Powers in the Investigatory Powers Bill: the Question of Trust Remains Unanswered

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Bulk Powers in the Investigatory Powers Bill: the Question of Trust Remains Unanswered Bulk Powers In The Investigatory Powers Bill: The Question Of Trust Remains Unanswered BULK POWERS IN THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS BILL: The Question Of Trust Remains Unanswered September 2016 1/10 Bulk Powers In The Investigatory Powers Bill: The Question Of Trust Remains Unanswered Introduction We are on the brink of introducing the most pervasive and intrusive surveillance legislation of any democratic country in the world. The Investigatory Powers Bill sought to answer important questions about the place that modern and highly intrusive surveillance capabilities have in a democratic society, questions that were raised by the Edward Snowden disclosures in 2013 and subsequent reports produced by David Anderson QC, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) in 2015. But just a matter of weeks before the new law is enacted, significant questions of trust remain unanswered. This paper highlights some of the key flaws Privacy International sees in the current incarnation of the Investigatory Powers Bill, and urges the House of Lords to put the brakes on the bulk powers, about which many important questions remain unanswered. In this paper we set out how: • the Bill fails to provide sufficient clarity, which was promised at the outset of the legislative process, to alleviate confusion around the UK’s surveillance laws; • the Bill has not advanced transparency to the degree needed, still leaving most of the public in the dark about the extent of the surveillance powers; • significant questions remain about the Bill’s safeguards and oversight regime; and • major questions also remain regarding the bulk powers, even in light of David Anderson QC’s recent report. The points we raise lead to a single recommendation for consideration by the House of Lords. Because of the significant questions that remain unanswered, we urge the House of Lords to introduce a series of amendments that will remove the bulk powers contained in the Bill. 2/10 Bulk Powers In The Investigatory Powers Bill: The Question Of Trust Remains Unanswered 1. The proposed Bill adds to our already confusing and impenetrable surveillance laws In an oft-quoted section of his 2015 report on the investigatory powers regime, David Anderson QC declared: “Obscure laws – and there are few more impenetrable than RIPA and its satellites – corrode democracy itself, because neither the public to whom they apply, nor even the legislators who debate and amend them, fully understand what they mean.”1 Anderson went on to say that many of the current surveillance laws are “so baldly stated as to tell the citizen little about how they are liable to be used.”2 The Investigatory Powers Bill was thus introduced with a goal of improving transparency and enhancing the safeguards that apply to modern surveillance.3 Unfortunately, it has fallen far short of those goals. The Bill is over two hundred pages long, and filled with vague language, confusing definitions and catch-all powers, like national security notices, that leave even experts confused as to what activities the Bill may permit in the future.4 The Bill also leaves in place most of the “obscure laws” criticised by Anderson, including significant portions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (ISA). Indeed, the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has criticised the Bill for encompassing only certain types of equipment interference (EI), while allowing “different forms of EI . [to] continue to sit under the broad authorisations provided to the Agencies under the [ISA].”5 In the past, the intelligence services have demonstrated their predilection for using the law that is most convenient, not necessarily the one that is most transparent.6 In this context, leaving RIPA, the ISA and other related acts in place while adding the Investigatory Powers Bill into the mix will only increase confusion. 2. The Government has failed to be transparent with the public about how it will intrude on their privacy • The public does not understand or give consent to the Bill It is important to recognise that the Investigatory Powers Bill is a materially different piece of legislation to the one that the Conservative Party’s 2015 election manifesto indicated would be put forward.7 The manifesto states “we continue to reject any suggestions of sweeping, authoritarian measures that would threaten our hard-won freedoms”.8 Despite this assertion, the bulk powers that are the foundation of this Bill amount to nothing short of a mass surveillance apparatus, and suspicionless collection and retention of the personal data of an entire population is a profound and dangerous antithesis to democratic principles and values. 1 A Question of Trust: Report of the Investigatory Powers Review, June 2015 ¶13.31 2 A Question of Trust: Report of the Investigatory Powers Review, June 2015 ¶13.31(a) 3 Draft Investigatory Powers Bill, November 2015, Forward from the Home Secretary 4 See, for example, Graham Smith, “The content v metadata contest at the heart of the Investigatory Powers Bill” 26 May 2016, available at http://cyberleagle.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/the-content-v-metadata-contest-at-heart.html 5 Intelligence and Services Committee, Report on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, 9 February 2016, ¶11-13. 6 Privacy International, “New documents reveals that GCHQ and MI5 stretched law to breaking point” 6 June 2016, available at https://www.privacyinternational.org/node/872 7 The Conservative Party Manifesto 2015, available at https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto 8 The Conservative Party Manifesto 2015, p. 61 3/10 Bulk Powers In The Investigatory Powers Bill: The Question Of Trust Remains Unanswered Indeed, the manifesto recognises that the power that should be maintained is “the ability of the authorities to intercept the content of suspects’ communications, while continuing to strengthen oversight of the use of these powers”.9 Yet, Part 6, Chapter 1 of the Bill is devoted to bulk interception, which inherently involves the interception of communications of people both abroad and in the UK who are not suspected of any crime. The far-reaching bulk powers contained within the Bill affect literally everyone in the UK but public knowledge of the Bill - and even a rudimentary understanding of its impact on the privacy of everyone’s personal data - is extremely low. According to a ComRes poll commissioned by Liberty in June 2016, 72% of people polled have either never heard of the Investigatory Powers Bill or know nothing about it.10 In the same poll, ninety percent of the public either said it is only acceptable for the Government to access and monitor records of their emails, text messages, phone calls and online browsing history if they are suspected of or have committed a crime – or say this practice is never acceptable. Most fundamentally, nine out of 10 British adults polled believe state surveillance powers proposed by the Investigatory Powers Bill are not acceptable. A manifesto commitment that has been greatly exceeded and a lack of public understanding and support for the Bill demonstrate the Government’s failure to secure a proper democratic mandate for a law that rewrites the contract between the state and the citizen. • Powers vs programmes The conversation around the Bill has also suffered from a failure to address some of the ways in which the bulk powers may operate in practice. While the police and intelligence agencies’ capabilities were revealed in broad strokes with the introduction of the Bill, many questions about how those powers actually operate remain unanswered. Despite the publication of hundreds of pages of draft legislation, explanatory notes and codes of practice, the Government has explained very little to Parliament or the public about the nature of the bulk operations. As such, the legislation remains abstract, and lacks clarity and transparency about the specific capabilities Parliament is on the verge of sanctioning. Indeed, it may only be through examining known operational capabilities that a full understanding of the bulk powers can be ascertained. For instance, the Snowden disclosures reveal that through a programme codenamed ‘Optic Nerve’, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had collected screen captures of 1.8m Yahoo webcam users.11 Such widespread collection was disturbing both because of its scale and the extremely private and intimate nature of some of the images obtained, which were described as containing “substantial quantities of sexually explicit communications.”12 9 The Conservative Party Manifesto 2015, p. 65 10 Liberty, “Ninety per cent of Brits believe Government surveillance powers contained in new Snoopers’ Charter are not acceptable, new poll finds” 5 June 2016, available at https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/press-releases-and-statements/ninety-cent-brits-believe-government- surveillance-powers 11 Ackerman and Ball, “Optic Nerve- millions of Yahoo webcam images intercepted by GCHQ,” The Guardian 27 February 2014 12 Ackerman and Ball, “Optic Nerve- millions of Yahoo webcam images intercepted by GCHQ,” The Guardian 27 February 2014 4/10 Bulk Powers In The Investigatory Powers Bill: The Question Of Trust Remains Unanswered Under the Investigatory Powers Bill, it is very possible that a programme like Optic Nerve might continue pursuant to a bulk interception warrant. The debate around the Bill has provided no assurances this won’t happen, in part because of the Government’s continuing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mass Surveillance
    Mass Surveillance Mass Surveillance What are the risks for the citizens and the opportunities for the European Information Society? What are the possible mitigation strategies? Part 1 - Risks and opportunities raised by the current generation of network services and applications Study IP/G/STOA/FWC-2013-1/LOT 9/C5/SC1 January 2015 PE 527.409 STOA - Science and Technology Options Assessment The STOA project “Mass Surveillance Part 1 – Risks, Opportunities and Mitigation Strategies” was carried out by TECNALIA Research and Investigation in Spain. AUTHORS Arkaitz Gamino Garcia Concepción Cortes Velasco Eider Iturbe Zamalloa Erkuden Rios Velasco Iñaki Eguía Elejabarrieta Javier Herrera Lotero Jason Mansell (Linguistic Review) José Javier Larrañeta Ibañez Stefan Schuster (Editor) The authors acknowledge and would like to thank the following experts for their contributions to this report: Prof. Nigel Smart, University of Bristol; Matteo E. Bonfanti PhD, Research Fellow in International Law and Security, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa; Prof. Fred Piper, University of London; Caspar Bowden, independent privacy researcher; Maria Pilar Torres Bruna, Head of Cybersecurity, Everis Aerospace, Defense and Security; Prof. Kenny Paterson, University of London; Agustín Martin and Luis Hernández Encinas, Tenured Scientists, Department of Information Processing and Cryptography (Cryptology and Information Security Group), CSIC; Alessandro Zanasi, Zanasi & Partners; Fernando Acero, Expert on Open Source Software; Luigi Coppolino,Università degli Studi di Napoli; Marcello Antonucci, EZNESS srl; Rachel Oldroyd, Managing Editor of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism; Peter Kruse, Founder of CSIS Security Group A/S; Ryan Gallagher, investigative Reporter of The Intercept; Capitán Alberto Redondo, Guardia Civil; Prof. Bart Preneel, KU Leuven; Raoul Chiesa, Security Brokers SCpA, CyberDefcon Ltd.; Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Parallel Construction” on Communities of Color
    VIA ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION Chief Commissioner Martin Castro United States Commission on Civil Rights 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1150 Washington, DC 20425 Request to the United States Commission on Civil Rights to investigate disproportionate impacts of “Parallel Construction” on communities of color October 23, 2015 Request prepared by: Sean Vitka X-Lab Fellow Email: [email protected] Request to USCCR re: impacts of “Parallel Construction” I. Introduction Parallel Construction is a broadly defined practice in which law enforcement conceals and/or recreates the origin of an investigation. It was first widely reported by Reuters in August 2013.1 The term is derived from government documents that reveal guidance on the deliberate masking and falsification of investigative history in order to erase investigations’ origins.2 According to the report, the Special Operations Division (SOD), a unit of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), distributes information in partnership with two dozen other agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Information distributed through this partnership has been used to spark domestic, non-national security related investigations.3 The information and its source are not merely concealed by the government in order to avoid legal challenges and judicial review of controversial surveillance methods. Instead, as described in the Reuters report, “[a]gents are instructed to then use ‘normal investigative techniques to recreate the information provided by SOD.’”4 In other words, investigators are told to find a second source for the same information, allowing the government to use evidence in court without ever facing legal scrutiny of its true sources and methods.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the EUROPEAN COURT of HUMAN RIGHTS App No. 24960/15 10 HUMAN RIGHTS
    IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS App No. 24960/15 10 HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS – v – THE UNITED KINGDOM THIRD PARTY INTERVENTION OF THE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER Introduction 1. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) welcomes the opportunity to submit these written comments pursuant to leave granted on February 26, 2016, by the President of the First Section under Rule 44 §3 of the Rules of the Court. These submissions do not address the facts or merits of the applicants’ case. 2. EPIC is a public interest, non-profit research and educational organization based in Washington, D.C. 1 EPIC was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, freedom of expression, and democratic values in the information age. EPIC routinely files amicus briefs in U.S. courts, pursues open government cases, defends consumer privacy, coordinates non- profit participation in international policy discussions, and advocates before legislative and judicial organizations about emerging privacy and civil liberties issues. EPIC is a leading privacy and freedom of information organization in the US with special expertise in government surveillance related legal matters. 3. The matter before the Court in 10 Human Rights Organizations and Others v. the United Kingdom impacts the human rights to privacy, data protection and freedom of expression of people around the world, which is reflected also by the variety of the applicants’ affiliations. The matter before the Court is an issue of broad international importance because it involves arrangements to transfer personal data between the United States and European countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Years After Snowden
    TWO YEARS AFTER SNOWDEN PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN AN AGE OF MASS SURVEILLANCE (COVER IMAGE) A student works on a computer that is projecting former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden as he appears live via video during a world affairs conference in Toronto © REUTERS/Mark Blinch 2 TWO YEARS AFTER SNOWDEN JUNE 2015 © REUTERS/Zoran Milich © REUTERS/Zoran “The hard truth is that the use of mass surveillance technology effectively does away with the right to privacy of communications on the Internet altogether.” Ben Emmerson QC, UN Special Rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On 5 June 2013, a British newspaper, The exposed by the media based on files leaked by Guardian, published the first in a series Edward Snowden have included evidence that: of revelations about indiscriminate mass surveillance by the USA’s National Security Companies – including Facebook, Google Agency (NSA) and the UK’s Government and Microsoft – were forced to handover Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). their customers’ data under secret orders Edward Snowden, a whistleblower who had through the NSA’s Prism programme; worked with the NSA, provided concrete evidence of global communications the NSA recorded, stored and analysed surveillance programmes that monitor the metadata related to every single telephone internet and phone activity of hundreds call and text message transmitted in of millions of people across the world. Mexico, Kenya, and the Philippines; Governments can have legitimate reasons GCHQ and the NSA have co- for using communications surveillance, for opted some of the world’s largest example to combat crime or protect national telecommunications companies to tap security.
    [Show full text]
  • GCHQ, NSA Collected Webcam Images from 1.8 Million Yahoo Users
    GCHQ, NSA Collected Webcam Images from 1.8 Million Yahoo Users By Thomas Gaist Region: Europe, USA Global Research, February 28, 2014 Theme: Intelligence, Police State & Civil World Socialist Web Site Rights Under a program code-named “Optic Nerve,” the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), working in coordination with the American National Security Agency (NSA), has been collecting webcam images in bulk and saving them to agency databases. According to documents obtained by the Guardian (“Yahoo webcam images from millions of users intercepted by GCHQ”), GCHQ targeted 1.8 million webcam users in a single six-month period in 2008. Collection of images has been carried out indiscriminately, without regard to whether users were targets of an intelligence investigation. The operations collected imagery from the webcams by saving screen shots every five minutes during live video chats. The GCHQ documents also mention possible surveillance efforts involving other web-based video technologies, including the Xbox 360 “Kinect” camera, and indicate that Optic Nerve was still active as of 2012. Yahoo has responded with a statement condemning the surveillance operations, saying, “This report, if true, represents a whole new level of violation of our users’ piracy that is completely unacceptable, and we strongly call on the world’s government to reform surveillance law consistent with the principles we outlined in December.” Despite Yahoo’s criticisms, the major telecommunications companies have been collaborating with the NSA’s surveillance operations for years. The PRISM surveillance program, for instance, has been systematically spying on millions of users of Skype, Google, Facebook, YouTube, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, and others since 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Secret Government Searches and Digital Civil Liberties
    Secret Government Searches and Digital Civil Liberties By Neil Richards* Perhaps surprisingly, the most compelling moment in Oliver Stone’s “Snowden” biopic is the sex scene. Halfway through this movie about government surveillance and whistleblowing, the audience is shown a graphic and seemingly gratuitous sexual encounter involving Edward Snowden (played by Joseph Gordon Levitt) and his girlfriend Lindsay Mills (played by Shailene Woodley). In the midst of their passion, Snowden’s eyes rest on Lindsay’s open laptop, the empty eye of its camera gazing towards them. In a flash, he recalls an earlier event in which NSA contractors hacked laptop cameras to secretly spy on surveillance subjects in real time. Edward and Lindsay’s mood was ruined, to say the least, by the prospect of government agents secretly watching their intimate activities. The scene evokes George Orwell’s famous warning about telescreens, the omnipresent surveillance devices in Big Brother’s Oceania, by which the Thought Police could secretly watch anyone at any time.1 It also has grounding in reality. The use of millions of hacked webcams as monitoring devices was a program known as “Optic Nerve,” which was part of the Snowden revelations.2 Another program leaked by Snowden involved the surveillance of the pornography preferences of jihadi radicalizers (including at least one “U.S. person”), with the intention being the exposure of their sexual fantasies to discredit them in the Muslim world.3 Snowden himself famously appeared on John Oliver’s HBO show “Last Week Tonight,” humorously but effectively reducing unchecked government surveillance to the basic proposition that secret surveillance allowed the government, among other things, to “get your dick pics.”4 * Thomas & Karole Green Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law; Affiliate Scholar, The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School; Affiliated Fellow, Yale Information Society Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Surveillance After Snowden: Effective Espionage in an Age of Transparency By: Robin Simcox ISBN 978-1-909035-18-8
    SURVEILLANCE AFTER SNOWDEN Effective Espionage in an Age of Transparency Robin Simcox Published in 2015 by The Henry Jackson Society The Henry Jackson Society Millbank Tower 21-24 Millbank London SW1P 4QP Registered charity no. 1140489 Tel: +44 (0)20 7340 4520 www.henryjacksonsociety.org © The Henry Jackson Society 2015 The Henry Jackson Society All rights reserved The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and are not necessarily indicative of those of The Henry Jackson Society or its Trustees. Title: Surveillance after Snowden: Effective Espionage in an Age of Transparency By: Robin Simcox ISBN 978-1-909035-18-8 £10.00 where sold All rights reserved Front Cover Image: Laura Poitras/Praxis Films (© wikimedia.org). www.istockphoto.com SURVEILLANCE AFTER SNOWDEN Effective Espionage in an Age of Transparency Robin Simcox www.henryjacksonsociety.org 5 SURVEILLANCE AFTER SNOWDEN Effective Espionage in an Age of Transparency Acknowledgments Many of those who agreed to speak to me in the course of this project cannot be named. They all have my thanks, as does Elliot Soward for his research assistance. Additional thanks to Richard Black, Samantha Feuer, Mark Finegold, Oscar Isham, Livinia Mouries, Jeevan Vipinachandran, Chris Underwood and Quentin Wight. About the Author Robin Simcox is a Research Fellow at The Henry Jackson Society, where he works on terrorism and security issues. He has written for the likes of Foreign Affairs, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, New Republic and The Atlantic; and comments in the media for the likes of the BBC, CNN, Sky News, al-Jazeera and Fox News.
    [Show full text]
  • Witness Statement of Eric King
    IN THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS TRIBUNAL Case No IPT/13/92/CH BETWEEN: PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL Claimants -and- (1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (2) GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION HEADQUARTERS Defendants WITNESS STATEMENT OF ERIC KING I, Eric King, Deputy Director, Privacy International, 62 Britton Street, London EC1M 5UY, SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1. I am the Deputy Director of Privacy International. 2. I hold a Bachelor of Laws from the London School of Economics and have worked on issues related to communications surveillance at Privacy International since 2011. My areas of interest and expertise are signals intelligence, surveillance technologies and communications surveillance practices. I regularly speak at academic conferences, with government policy makers, and to international media. I have spent the past year researching the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing arrangement and the materials disclosed by Edward Snowden. 3. I make this statement in support of Privacy International’s claim. The contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief and are the product of discussion and consultation with other experts. Where I rely on other sources, I have endeavoured to identify the source . 4. In this statement I will address, in turn, the following matters: a. The transmission and interception of digital communications; b. The difference between internal and external communications under RIPA, as applied to the internet and modern communications techniques; c. Intelligence sharing practices among the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada (“the Five Eyes”); d. The UK’s consequent access to signals intelligence collected by the United States through its PRISM and UPSTREAM collection programmes; e.
    [Show full text]
  • Rumold Declaration Final
    Case 2:15-cv-02573-PSG-JPR Document 32-1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 1 of 69 Page ID #:296 1 MARK RUMOLD (SBN 279060) [email protected] 2 DAVID GREENE (SBN 160107) 3 NATHAN D. CARDOZO (SBN 259097) LEE TIEN (SBN 148216) 4 KURT OPSAHL (SBN 191303) 5 HANNI FAKHOURY (SBN 252629) JAMIE L. WILLIAMS (SBN 279046) 6 ANDREW CROCKER (SBN 291596) 7 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 815 Eddy Street 8 San Francisco, CA 94109 9 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 10 11 Counsel for Plaintiff Human Rights Watch 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 WESTERN DIVISION 15 16 17 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, ) Case No: 2:15-cv-2573-PSG-JPR ) 18 Plaintiff, ) DECLARATION OF MARK RUMOLD FILED IN SUPPORT 19 v. ) ) OF PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION 20 DRUG ENFORCEMENT ) TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS 21 ADMINISTRATION, et al., ) ) 22 Defendants. ) 23 ) Date: August 17, 2015 ) Time: 1:30 p.m. 24 ) Courtroom 880 – Roybal 25 ) Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF MARK RUMOLD Case 2:15-cv-02573-PSG-JPR Document 32-1 Filed 07/27/15 Page 2 of 69 Page ID #:297 1 I, MARK RUMOLD, hereby declare: 2 1. I am an attorney of record for plaintiffs in this action and a member in 3 good standing of the California State Bar. I am admitted to practice before this 4 5 Court. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration and if 6 called upon to do so I am competent to testify to all matters set forth herein.
    [Show full text]
  • Ben Buchanan • Nobody but Us 3
    A HOOVER INSTITUTION ESSAY Nobody But Us ThE RiSE AND FALL OF THE GOLDEN AGE OF SigNALS INTELLigENCE BEN BUCHANAN Aegis Series Paper No. 1708 Introduction The United States’ National Cryptologic Museum in Fort Meade, Maryland, displays versions of two important encryption machines. The first is the Enigma machine, the most famous cryptographic apparatus ever built. The second machine, less well known, is called SIGABA. These devices are similar in certain important respects. Each employs an electromechanical rotor-based design. Each was used during World War II; the Nazis deployed Enigma while US forces relied on SIGABA. It is no exaggeration to say that, during the conflict, these machines protected—or tried to protect—some of the most important messages in the world. National Security, Technology, and Law and Technology, Security, National Both sides treated the machines as closely guarded secrets. The United States took enormous steps to protect SIGABA, requiring that it only be deployed to areas where American forces could guard it and instructing these forces to destroy the machines before they could be captured.1 American cryptologists feared what could happen if the enemy gained access to SIGABA and reverse engineered it. On the other hand, the Allies achieved an enormous success when they captured an Enigma machine. Acquiring the physical device was one of the many factors that enabled the Allies to eventually understand its workings and decrypt the messages it protected.2 These encryption devices are more than just historical artifacts. They represent perhaps the purest form of signals intelligence work. One machine represents the challenge of breaking an enemy’s code, while the other represents the imperative to secure friendly communications.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Briefs on Behalf of Itself and Others in Cases Involving
    Case: 13-50572, 11/05/2015, ID: 9745936, DktEntry: 25, Page 1 of 47 13-50572 IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT dUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, —v.— BASAALY MOALIN, Defendant-Appellant. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO.10-CR-4246 HONORABLE JEFFREY T. MILLER, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, FREEDOM TO READ FOUNDATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS, NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL AND COMMUNITY DEFENDERS, REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND REVERSAL MICHAEL PRICE* FAIZA PATEL BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW SCHOOL OF LAW 161 Avenue of the Americas 161 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10013 New York, New York 10013 (646) 292-8335 (646) 292-8325 *Counsel of Record Attorneys for Amici Curiae Brennan Center for Justice, American Library Association, and Freedom to Read Foundation (Counsel continued on inside cover) Case: 13-50572, 11/05/2015, ID: 9745936, DktEntry: 25, Page 2 of 47 ALAN BUTLER LISA HAY ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER CENTER (EPIC) DISTRICT OF OREGON 1718 Connecticut Avenue NW One Main Place Washington, DC 20009 101 Southwest Main Street, (202) 483-1140 Room 1700 Portland, Oregon 97204 DAVID M. PORTER (503) 326-2123 CO-CHAIR, NACDL AMICUS COMMITTEE HEATHER ERICA WILLIAMS 801 I Street, 3rd Floor FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER Sacramento, California 95814 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (916) 498-5700 801 I Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 BRUCE D.
    [Show full text]
  • After Snowden: Rethinking the Impact of Surveillance
    International Political Sociology (2014) 8, 121–144 After Snowden: Rethinking the Impact of Surveillance Zygmunt Bauman University of Leeds Didier Bigo King’s College London and Sciences-Po Paris Paulo Esteves Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro Elspeth Guild Queen Mary and Radboud University Nijmegen Vivienne Jabri King’s College London David Lyon Queen’s University and R. B. J. Walker University of Victoria and Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro Current revelations about the secret US-NSA program, PRISM, have con- firmed the large-scale mass surveillance of the telecommunication and electronic messages of governments, companies, and citizens, including the United States’ closest allies in Europe and Latin America. The trans- national ramifications of surveillance call for a re-evaluation of contempo- rary world politics’ practices. The debate cannot be limited to the United States versus the rest of the world or to surveillance versus privacy; much more is at stake. This collective article briefly describes the specificities of cyber mass surveillance, including its mix of the practices of intelligence services and those of private companies providing services around the world. It then investigates the impact of these practices on national secu- rity, diplomacy, human rights, democracy, subjectivity, and obedience. Large-Scale Techniques of Surveillance and the Global Reach of the Internet: A Permanent Gap Edward Snowden has famously disclosed extensive information about the prac- tices of the US National Security Agency (NSA) with regard to PRISM and other Bauman, Zygmunt et al. (2014) After Snowden: Rethinking the Impact of Surveillance. International Political Sociology, doi: 10.1111/ips.12048 © 2014 International Studies Association 122 After Snowden US surveillance programs—including Xkeyscore, Upstream, Quantuminsert, Bullrun and Dishfire—as well as the involvement of services in other states, such as the UK-GCHQ and its Tempora (as well as its Optic Nerve) programs.
    [Show full text]