

Concern grows over GCHQ Prism spying allegations - dan1234
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22813893

======
btilly
Fascinating. I'm amazed that people aren't pointing out the consequences to
the USA of _GCHQ had access to data covertly gathered from leading internet
firms in the US._

Under US law, US investigators are not allowed to follow trails into this data
that go to US citizens without a warrant. According to leaked training
materials, they follow that rule. This is part of why they claim that this
data collection is not an issue for Americans.

But if the data is shared with other intelligence services, who CAN legally
follow those trails, then that's a pretty serious loophole. I'm reminded of
the early Bush policy of turning over prisoners of interest to police in non-
US jails where torture could be used and then the resulting intelligence
reports shared back with the US.

Also the American investigators are told to report all times that they
followed a trail to a US citizen. Were those trails shared as well? If so,
then it gets worse still.

~~~
gsnedders
FWIW, under both English and Scots law evidence gathered by such means cannot
be used in a court of law; though, certainly, it can be used by police (and
often has been in NI to great success) as a means to observe crimes being
planned (where you don't have evidence to prosecute, typically for conspiracy
to murder in the NI case) and then have police ready to act to thwart the
crime (thus the number of IRA bombers caught on their bomb run, at police
checkpoints set up at the last minute).

~~~
btilly
But can such evidence be used to establish the grounds for a warrant?

That is a common trick in the USA. Data obtained in ways that would not be
admissible in court can be used to get a warrant, and then data collected
under the warrant can be used in court.

~~~
gsnedders
Grounds for a warrant is a matter for a court, and as it cannot be presented
in court, no.

The typical behaviour in the days of IRA activity was that an attack being
planned would be discovered through espionage (be it wiretaps, double agents,
etc.) but no action would be taken (though several crimes have already been
committed: membership of a terrorist organisation, conspiracy to murder, and
often various other more minor offences) until they had the bomb with them, on
their way to the attack, as until that point they didn't have evidence they
could use in court. Typically a road block was set up, quickly (the bomb was
normally transported by two cars, about a mile apart, the first one there to
spot any police to abort it, so the roadblock could only be set up after this
had past), by police and army. Obviously this relies on the people wanting to
get out alive (I.e., not willing to blow it up with themselves in hope of
getting arresting officer), but while they'd often put up a fight, they
normally knew when it was over.

------
Zenst
Given this is being driven by Keith Vaz a well known and documented politician
of debatable integrity (corruption, bribes, lies etc) then I wonder why this
is being driven.

This is after all knee-jerk news or FOTM too some. No new evidence has been
presented, no insight and yet more Britons personal details are violated by
the hollywood law changes that the goverment has instigated.

It is not new that the UK and USA are buddies, we share data, we don't like
criminals and like to catch them, nothing changed there.

Heck given BBC has a department called BBC monitoring that is located in a
secure building and who's job is to monitor all the news Worldwide and on the
floor above is a office run by a USA agency, then if anything one could
question anything the BBC says.

Like most, I'm more shocked at the rabble rabble, OMG I had no idea this was
happening mentality of many than I am about this old cold-war legacy exchange
of information comming to light, albiet no new evididence has actualy come to
light and it is just Mr Vaz jumping on another bandwaggon for personal gains.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Vaz](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Vaz)
Would you trust him

~~~
alan_cx
Oh, so now we play the man and not the ball?

Is this:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-
order/1010650...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-
order/10106507/GCHQ-has-been-accessing-intelligence-through-internet-
firms.html)

non BBC, non leftie source good enough for you?

~~~
Zenst
WHAT!

Please don't like sites that make AV flash up red with warnings (probably some
hijacked advert).

Also lacks details about context of said reports, proof said reports happened
and again, general says nothing. As said before UK and USA work together,
nothing new there, 197 seems rather low and when not measured against results
is futile in discussing.

------
SCAQTony
What astonishes me about PRISM is the motive behind it. It appears the purpose
of PRISM is to keep the government and it's politicians in operation only. It
has nothing to do with protecting the citizens of the United States or
otherwise.

For instance: if we presume PRISM is as omnipotent as described, and I do
believe it is as sinister as it was chronicled. One has to ask this: if the
"purpose" is to "protect" American/British citizens from harm then imagine how
many child molesters, child pornographers, cartel bosses, under-ground arms
dealers, etc. etc. are tacitly allowed to do business.

In other words their raison d'etre "to protect us" is bullshit for more people
are harmed from all of the above or even in car accidents then from the
sinister people they want to "protect us" from.

Perhaps they want to "protect themselves" from we the citizens?

