US, UK Struck Secret Deal to Allow NSA to 'Unmask' Britons' Personal Data

[Hissyspit]

Source: The Guardian

@BreakingNews: US, UK reportedly struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data - @GuardianUS http://t.co/KWwmHJzotx

US and UK struck secret deal to allow NSA to 'unmask' Britons' personal data

• 2007 deal allows NSA to store previously restricted material
• UK citizens not suspected of wrongdoing caught up in dragnet
• Separate draft memo proposes US spying on 'Five-Eyes' allies
Wednesday 20 November 2013 14.00 EST 2 comments

James Ball

The phone, internet and email records of UK citizens not suspected of any wrongdoing have been analysed and stored by America's National Security Agency under a secret deal that was approved by British intelligence officials, according to documents from the whistleblower Edward Snowden.

In the first explicit confirmation that UK citizens have been caught up in US mass surveillance programs, an NSA memo describes how in 2007 an agreement was reached that allowed the agency to "unmask" and hold on to personal data about Britons that had previously been off limits.

The memo, published in a joint investigation by the Guardian and Britain's Channel 4 News, says the material is being put in databases where it can be made available to other members of the US intelligence and military community.
Britain and the US are the main two partners in the 'Five-Eyes' intelligence-sharing alliance, which also includes Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Until now, it had been generally understood that the citizens of each country were protected from surveillance by any of the others.

But the Snowden material reveals that:

• In 2007, the rules were changed to allow the NSA to analyse and retain any British citizens' mobile phone and fax numbers, emails and IP addresses swept up by its dragnet. Previously, this data had been stripped out of NSA databases – "minimized", in intelligence agency parlance – under rules agreed between the two countries.
• These communications were "incidentally collected" by the NSA, meaning the individuals were not the initial targets of surveillance operations and therefore were not suspected of wrongdoing.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-surveillance-personal-data

[randome]

1. Dredging up 2007 memos now, Guardian? Hit the bottom of the barrel, have we?

It might be prudent to find out if this policy is still in effect. Until then...meh.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hissyspit]

2. Keep the denial spin up.

Eventually you will fall over.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014652166

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Jeez....people are allowed to voice an opinion and be skeptical of this latest "report"

which clearly digs up a memo from 2007.

Please stop with the personal attack and discuss the issues.

[Hissyspit]

4. It's not a personal attack. It's an attack on the argument and the strategy.

There is a clear pattern of posts of certain types.

[randome]

6. It's still an old memo designed to scare us.

My 'pattern' is to be worried about things that are...um, worrisome.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of
this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Cali_Democrat]

7. "Eventually you will fall over"

Seems directed to randome personally.

"There is a clear pattern of posts of certain types"

Another line which is aimed directly at some DUers you disagree with. You are not board nanny. Believe it or not, people will disagree with you on the issues from time to time.

Please stick to the issues. If that poster mentioned the fact that the memo is from 2007, why don't you address that instead of directly going after the poster?

This shows that your argument is weak and you've already lost.

[Hissyspit]

12. Nonsense.

"You" can refer to anyone using the strategy generally. Arguing that the memos were "dredged up" from 2007 is denial spin in the larger context of all this. Which is what I said. Nothing "nanny board" about it all (which according to your apparent definition is a personal attack on me, ironically enough).

[Fumesucker]

5. Indeed, we've known about this since 2006

[randome]

8. Ah-ha! Time travel technology. That would explain how the NSA blackmails the world.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of
this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Hissyspit]

10. That's how we knew about about a 2007 deal in 2006.

[Fumesucker]

11. The NSA will obviously finally isolate pure thiotimoline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiotimoline

[randome]

13. Badass Agent Cameron will want to know about that!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

14. Here's something else even better from 2006:

Like fine wine, the TRUTH doesn't expire.

You tell 'em, Joe.
"Don't count me in on that" either!

[randome]

15. Since this is about data being retained on foreign citizens...

...I don't think Biden's remarks are terribly relevant. Granted, I'm at work and can't listen to the video, which I've seen posted before but don't recall exactly what it says.

If we think the NSA is monitoring too many foreign citizens, pull them back. But that's not going to generate the type of outrage the Guardian implies we should all entertain.

This article should primarily be directed at the U.K. for allowing its own citizens to be monitored.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

17. Well, after you get home and listen to the audio,

.....let us know if you agree or disagree with Joe Biden.

We'll wait.

[randome]

20. He's right. You CAN get a lot of information from phone metadata.

But this information is owned by the telecom companies. They can do with it what they wish. The NSA having copies of this data simply makes it much easier for them when they have a legitimate need to investigate someone.

If you want to use public figures to make a point, Carl Bernstein said it appears to him that the NSA has solid procedures in place that prevent abuse. It's not like the telecom records are sitting on someone's desk. They're kept in a 'locked box' system that requires 4 levels of approval in order to view.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[BelgianMadCow]

19. "Until then, meh" - it would be interesting to see you go post that at The Guardian

The britons, you know, the people whose rights were trampled, seem to disagree. Rather vehemently.

DU meh-ing about violating the privacy of the entire world is really ugly. Even if those following real closely did know a lot of the shit that was going on. It's still egregious.

[randome]

21. It's not up to me to tell Britons what to be outraged about.

I'm not at all saying everything the NSA does is legit. If enough Britons think this is something to be up in arms about, then they should take their politicians to task for it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[BelgianMadCow]

22. Nope it isn't. But it could be "up to you" to care about privacy rights beyond your borders

which was the point I was trying to make, maybe too subtly.

But you are entitled to let the britons sort out their own mess. Thanks for explaining your viewpoint.

Personally, I've been thinking the whole legal setup that we've come to know since Bush*'s illegal wiretapping pointed in the direction of the US doing the spying on the UK, and vice versa, and then sharing data.

It was the "don't worry, we only to this to furriners" line. And a stance like yours makes it possible.

[novano]

16. Indeed, we've known about this since 2006

[Pholus]

18. So the question is begged: What was the OTHER end of the deal?

It's called a deal, so what did THEY get in return for selling their own citizens down the pike?

I figure it likely has to do with this right?

The document does not reveal whether such operations had been authorized in the past, nor whether the NSA believes its Five-Eyes partners conduct operations against US citizens."

My translation: "We'll gladly sell our own people down the river so we can do the same to yours!"

Given the NSA's behavior I think we should call in the DEA for an intervention, it appears that being up in other people's business is every bit as addictive as crystal meth....and as destructive to your relationships.

[blkmusclmachine]

23. One World Government, anyone?

[dipsydoodle]

24. They wouldn't have all the UK's stuff

without having ALL of the USA's too.

[BelgianMadCow]

25. makes sense. I think we will soon find out.

Guardian is implying there is another shoe to drop, soon.

[Nihil]

26. Doesn't matter ...

The people who are (predictably) defending this spying on the UK (et al)
will (predictably) be defending this spying on the US too ... that's on the
next page of their briefing notes ... they're "just following orders" ...