Brit spies can legally hack PCs and phones, say Brit spies' overseers
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/12/uk_rules_gchq_hacking_legal/ Brit spies can legally hack PCs and phones, say Brit spies' overseers
On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:27:48 +0200 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/12/uk_rules_gchq_hacking_legal/
Brit spies can legally hack PCs and phones, say Brit spies' overseers
by definition, done_by_the_government == legal
On 2/13/16, Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/12/uk_rules_gchq_hacking_legal/
Brit spies can legally hack PCs and phones, say Brit spies' overseers
I'm wondering how well it's going to go over with the USG that Brit spies can legally hack US computers. Not that I don't trust The Reg or anything, but I wanted to see how well their story matched up with the ruling. Guess what? The PDF of the ruling has gone missing :) http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=8 The Tribunal is required by law (RIPA section 69(6)(b)) not to disclose material provided to it which would threaten the national interest, national security, operations against serious crime or any functions of the intelligence agencies. However, it has concluded that publication of a ruling on a point of law or on the basis of assumed facts does not compromise these areas or the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ principle by which the intelligence agencies operate. It seeks where possible to publish its judgments. I guess somebody decided it was best not to publish that particular ruling. Lee
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/13/2016 12:45 PM, Lee wrote:
On 2/13/16, Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/12/uk_rules_gchq_hacking_leg al/
Brit spies can legally hack PCs and phones, say Brit spies' overseer s
I'm wondering how well it's going to go over with the USG that Brit spies can legally hack US computers. Not that I don't trust The Reg or anything, but I wanted to see how well their story matched up with the ruling. Guess what? The PDF of the ruling has gone missing :)
http://www.ipt-uk.com/section.aspx?pageid=8 The Tribunal is required by law (RIPA section 69(6)(b)) not to disclose material provided to it which would threaten the national interest, national security, operations against serious crime or any functions of the intelligence agencies. However, it has concluded that publication of a ruling on a point of law or on the basis of assumed facts does not compromise these areas or the ‘neither confirm nor deny’ principle by which the intelligence agencies operate. It seeks where possible to publish its judgments.
I guess somebody decided it was best not to publish that particular ruling.
I don't recall just now where I saw this, so I can not be sure of its accuracy, but I am under the impression that existing policy reciprocally allows Brits and Yanks to spy on each other's peasantry, as long as they share back the intelligence gained. Maybe a bit less so with the rest of the EU, but with US/UK a certain historical and technological unity of 'security interests' shapes public policy on issues related to all aspects of espionage.. . Oh, wait, that was easy: I was more or less right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA#Controversy :o/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWv5iXAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LsCcP/iFf6WyNpSwCn3xqrE7gy0F6 R1Dw4G6GC17G2zQkQBc2CcBaGidtMUd27/nS/ZIgkE7OA1WIMajJKq9NTBiFncXM 4H4RTUdqf3Cz59cJENBe1ofmG309ydSQTgd97wFE1Y33XhqPNinME/sYDJbBTuFr SX18IAhOle61DzEW/aXoelYDx5cZh0tiMRHvWDuND6LmTM+iJr860fEVwdPWIEm0 hMMEbi9rsOJ2jng+aUJnaHoKvhz9H6AFUPqx/Nf95Hg+gQfqW44zGUNiIsMzWfA1 W0JZsULztAQdDJr0OR0SWzuvy/qiWBgAm13QQFiV8RipmmQr9bcJawIwn7ARkkzh lrpDjDMQEF7kAAiTUVc4I0O9QjBXY6IPq3QVgBTbkA2vKDt5lyic+U52EpCusD2M ysAfWHz+a2bt9s4YOFoy7dyJt+cOQn0pcXjlPmqjB1FgAhohXv5otcbA+f/5xj+u 9TilDx1Uw1MGedIuNRspPde99XlDQajEzVI1IQJ22shoA2msNbObOsFjuqk8DMOj 9s7L+G9czl6jhoMR2weTBohfN2H0/wKbR/G3WmfBUHRgE3LN2Vpa88DWASapBece dd8yiqlqrmGK5Pc9ZT14cXvjKmriEWMzpQZ5FddMZlYi30y72zrfNTkv+FlhvTav ikrkGo7u0HRCBNVd5hD+ =TqjX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lee <ler762@gmail.com> writes:
I guess somebody decided it was best not to publish that particular ruling.
"It is responsible discretion exercised in the national interest to prevent unnecessary disclosure of eminently justifiable procedures in which untimely revelation could severely impair public confidence". Peter.
participants (5)
-
Georgi Guninski
-
juan
-
Lee
-
Peter Gutmann
-
Steve Kinney