NSA Scandal Crosses the Pond, Cameron Says Intelligence Agencies Act Within the Law

Credit: Ministry of Defence/wikimediaCredit: Ministry of Defence/wikimediaBritish Prime Minister David Cameron has said that GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), the British data gathering agency, has been acting within the law after The Guardian reported that GCHQ has access to data obtained by the National Security Agency as part of the PRISM program. The British government has not confirmed or denied GCHQ had access to the program.

Cameron’s recent statements come after President Obama sought to reassure Americans that the NSA’s activities have plenty of oversight and political approval, saying that the programs are authorized by Congress and overseen by federal judges.

Unfortunately for Cameron and Obama many people are not going to be reassured by the fact that intelligence agencies have been obeying laws or that their behavior is repeatedly authorized or scrutinized by legislators. Many of the laws that empower intelligence agencies, such as the PATRIOT Act and the U.K.’s RIP Act of 2000, allow for these organizations to violate innocent people’s privacy. That politicians are consistently willing to reauthorize and vote for these laws is as worrying as the surveillance carried out by agencies like the NSA and GCHQ.  

Leaders like Cameron and Obama need to move on from the “it’s legal” and “it’s authorized” defense. It is the laws that authorize NSA and GCHQ surveillance that are the problem, not their oversight or lack thereof. 

Big Brother Watch, the U.K.-based pressure group that works to protect civil liberties and privacy, has published an article on what the NSA scandal means for the U.K. and the dangerous precedent the U.S. is setting:

Given only a few weeks ago the Obama administration accessed records about many Associated Press journalists, far beyond national security concerns, it is important that we know if British citizens have been caught up in the NSA’s operations without proper legal basis, or if GCHQ has made specific requests about British citizens to be placed under surveillance.

It should also be of concern to Governments around the world that the US seems to have no qualms hoovering up data from the rest of the world, even if doing the same to its own citizens would be illegal. At a time of international tension about how the internet is policed, several far from democratic states looking to introduce their own monitoring and global unease about cyberwarfare, it seems the US’s actions risk setting a dangerous precedent.

The Foreign Secretary has led the debate on internet freedom around the world, and he deserves much praise for this work. However, the US risks undermining this entire agenda with blanket, indiscriminate surveillance of the world’s internet use.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague today the following, “It has been suggested that GCHQ uses our partnership with the United States to get around U.K. law, obtaining information that they cannot legally obtain in the United Kingdom. I wish to be absolutely clear that this accusation is baseless."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Sevo||

    "Leaders like Cameron and Obama need to move on from the “it’s legal” and “it’s authorized” defense."

    They'll move only when their butts get kicked.

  • some guy||

    So often people don't realize what is legal or illegal until it hits them in the face.

    "What do you mean I can't carry an unloaded firearm in the trunk of my car through this state? Wait, what's with the handcuffs?"

  • Rich||

    Leaders like Cameron and Obama need to move on from the “it’s legal” and “it’s authorized” defense. It is the laws that authorize NSA and GCHQ surveillance that are the problem, not their oversight or lack thereof.

    How can it be that laws are the problem? Laws are just words -- words that write, enact, and enforce themselves.

  • Raston Bot||

    I wish to be absolutely clear that this accusation is baseless.

    Hague having a Clapper moment with that denial bullshit.

  • Rich||

    That is great example of Obamaese.

    I wish to be living in a world where all this bullshit is a bad dream.

  • ant1sthenes||

    No, it seems like Clapper just lied while imagining he pulled off some rhetorical jujitsu. Hague simply said the accusation was not well-sourced, not that it was false.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    The RIP Act? You can't make this stuff up.

  • Rich||

    GCHQ?

    Gesundheit!

  • PapayaSF||

    But does the United States use their partnership with GCHQ to get around U.S. law, obtaining information that they cannot legally obtain in the U.S.?

  • LynchPin1477||

    It seems like the default assumption going forward should be that if they are capable of doing it, they are doing it. Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me if they just willfully broke U.S. law instead of going through the Brits.

  • ChrisO||

    Indeed. It's not like there's any way to challenge it in court.

  • Juice||

    This is how Project ECHELON work(s)(ed).

  • ChrisO||

    It's like the Pentagon, only round.

  • Loki||

    It kind of looks like a sphincter.

  • Adam.||

    Cameron Says Intelligence Agencies Act Within the Law

    "We made a law authorizing right before we started doing it, promise!"

  • Loki||

    Leaders like Cameron and Obama need to move on from the “it’s legal” and “it’s authorized” defense.

    I'm sure they'll be moving on to the "Fuck You, That's Why" defense soon.

  • WomSom||

    lol, Welvcome to the United States of Surveillance!

    www.AnonStuff.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement