GCHQ’s bulk surveillance of electronic communications has scooped up emails to and from journalists working for some of the US and UK’s largest media organisations, analysis of documents released by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.
Emails from the BBC, Reuters, the Guardian, the New York Times, Le Monde, the Sun, NBC and the Washington Post were saved by GCHQ and shared on the agency’s intranet as part of a test exercise by the signals intelligence agency.
The disclosure comes as the British government faces intense pressure to protect the confidential communications of reporters, MPs and lawyers from snooping.
The journalists’ communications were among 70,000 emails harvested in the space of less than 10 minutes on one day in November 2008 by one of GCHQ’s numerous taps on the fibre-optic cables that make up the backbone of the internet.
The communications, which were sometimes simple mass-PR emails sent to dozens of journalists but also included correspondence between reporters and editors discussing stories, were retained by GCHQ and were available to all cleared staff on the agency intranet. There is nothing to indicate whether or not the journalists were intentionally targeted.
The mails appeared to have been captured and stored as the output of a then-new tool being used to strip irrelevant data out of the agency’s tapping process.
New evidence from other UK intelligence documents revealed by Snowden also shows that a GCHQ information security assessment listed “investigative journalists” as a threat in a hierarchy alongside terrorists or hackers.
Senior editors and lawyers in the UK have called for the urgent introduction of a freedom of expression law amid growing concern over safeguards proposed by ministers to meet concerns over the police use of surveillance powers linked to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa).
More than 100 editors, including those from all the national newspapers, have signed a letter, coordinated by the Society of Editors and Press Gazette, to the UK prime minister, David Cameron, protesting at snooping on journalists’ communications.
In the wake of terror attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices and a Jewish grocer in Paris, Cameron has renewed calls for further bulk-surveillance powers, such as those which netted these journalistic communications.
Ripa has been used to access journalists’ communications without a warrrant, with recent cases including police accessing the phone records of Tom Newton-Dunn, the Sun’s political editor, over the Plebgate investigation. The call records of Mail on Sunday reporters involved in the paper’s coverage of Chris Huhne’s speeding row were also accessed in this fashion.
Under Ripa, neither the police nor the security services need to seek the permission of a judge to investigate any UK national’s phone records – instead, they must obtain permission from an appointed staff member from the same organisation, not involved in their investigation.
However, there are some suggestions in the documents that the collection of billing data by GCHQ under Ripa goes wider – and that it may not be confined to specific target individuals.
A top secret document discussing Ripa initially explains the fact that billing records captured under Ripa are available to any government agency is “unclassified” provided that there is “no mention of bulk”.
The GCHQ document goes on to warn that the fact that billing records “kept under Ripa are not limited to warranted targets” must be kept as one of the agency’s most tightly guarded secrets, at a classification known as “Top secret strap 2”.
That is two levels higher than a normal top secret classification – as it refers to “HMG [Her Majesty’s government] relationships with industry that have areas of extreme sensitivity”.
Internal security advice shared among the intelligence agencies was often as preoccupied with the activities of journalists as with more conventional threats such as foreign intelligence, hackers or criminals.
One restricted document intended for those in army intelligence warned that “journalists and reporters representing all types of news media represent a potential threat to security”.
It continued: “Of specific concern are ‘investigative journalists’ who specialise in defence-related exposés either for profit or what they deem to be of the public interest.
“All classes of journalists and reporters may try either a formal approach or an informal approach, possibly with off-duty personnel, in their attempts to gain official information to which they are not entitled.”
It goes on to caution “such approaches pose a real threat”, and tells staff they must be “immediately reported” to the chain-of-command.
GCHQ information security assessments, meanwhile, routinely list journalists between “terrorism” and “hackers” as “influencing threat sources”, with one matrix scoring journalists as having a “capability” score of two out of five, and a “priority” of three out of five, scoring an overall “low” information security risk.
Terrorists, listed immediately above investigative journalists on the document, were given a much higher “capability” score of four out of five, but a lower “priority” of two. The matrix concluded terrorists were therefore a “moderate” information security risk.
A spokesman for GCHQ said: “It is longstanding policy that we do not comment on intelligence matters. Furthermore, all of GCHQ’s work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework, which ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the secretary of state, the interception and intelligence services commissioners and the parliamentary intelligence and security committee.
“All our operational processes rigorously support this position. In addition, the UK’s interception regime is entirely compatible with the European convention on human rights.”
View all comments >
comments (687)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
This discussion is closed for comments.
We’re doing some maintenance right now. You can still read comments, but please come back later to add your own.
Commenting has been disabled for this account (why?)
I can't see why they would need to do this. They are just taking liberties. All of this surveillance failed to spot the Hebdo murderers, maybe because they are looking in the wrong inboxes.
I suspect there is foul play here and we find ourselves in a very bad place right now.
George Orwell really has been proved right. This spooks me a bit.
well just a little bit of actual terrorism keeps the budgets up. the real enemies are journalists, environmentalists and anti-capitalists, because they are a real threat to the status quo
You're not the only one who thinks the whole Hebdo thing was a bit 'off'. http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/01/19/terrorism-islam-and-the-need-to-keep-the-western-world-in-fear/
We do not know who masterminded the Ch attack, do we? We only know what we are told.
Utterly despicable for a supposed free democracy.
Thanks once again to Edward Snowden and all those involved in making this public. The irony is Dave & Co want even more powers given to these incompetents
Dave serves The 1% and they are the ones in control and God forbid that the plebs really get to know what's going on.
Nothing terrifies the tories and spooks more than Britain becoming a democracy.
RIPA was passed as an act of parliament in 2000, under the guidance of Blair, who I'm pretty sure also serves the 1%. If "Red Ed" gets in he'll keep the surveillance ball rolling just as much as Cameron would. That's just what people do once they get into power...
All of it, every Snowdon fact, it all disgusts me. What do we have a democracy for?
What political party can I support that will eliminate GCHQ?
What do we have a democracy for?
We don't.
What political party can I support that will eliminate GCHQ?
see above
"What political party can I support that will eliminate GCHQ?"
The nearest are the Greens, who would have a very serious look at the issue. LibLabConKip are worse than useless on this issue.
I don't think you want to eliminate it, but it needs to be dealt with.
It is very telling they were happy for people to know their call information could be intercepted but regarded it as Top Secret that they were doing this to everybody.
In effect they are hiding what they are doing, not because it is a security risk to publish, but because they know it is wrong.
Here is my view on what needs to happen.
1. EU privacy law should be applied to all the work of GCHQ.
2. A special constitutional protection organisation should be set up to protect UK citizens with a remit of auditing GCHQ. Members to be chosen from the judiciary and also security cleared IT professionals.
3. Any violation of rights by GCHQ staff should carry a mandatory 10 year jail term.
4. Bulk interception without a warrant to be outlawed.
5. All warrants to be approved by the constitutions protection organisation.
6. Compromising commercial or open source crypto to be illegal carrying a 20 year term.
7. Failing to notify organisation of cryptographic weaknesses to be illegal carrying a 10 year term.
The illusion of democracy is what they want really, and have got, Snowden hasn't saved us, he's only told us. What I don't get about these freaks in politics, Heseltine and the Conservatives, and Blair and New Labour is they think our perception is everything whilst our reality nothing as long as we believe (their lies in particular). Once people work out in sufficient number that they're in the matrix there will be a revolution far bloodier than the French one.
Everyone keeps voting them in. Democracy implies real choices. We don't have real choices. Extreme wealth buys extreme influence.
They think, as long we have our iPhones, our jobs, and our bank debt, we will be too enmeshed to think or act outside the system.
They are probably right. It is lack of food which will cause a revolution, not lack of privacy. I would love to be wrong on this point.
It's not going to happen the media will always close the debate.
For a few years now there has been a movement against the 1%. In todays Guardian it clearly highlights that anyone in the western world earning more than £26,000 a year is a member of the 1%.
Irrespective of who or what the '1%' was originally aimed at, it's now been ended, peacefully with no revolution and a slight after taste of awkwardness for the middle classes.
The UK powers that be have been intercepting communications since the time of William the Conqueror. It's how to stay in control. Why not worry about The Bomb, extra judicial drone assassinations, childhood poverty/obesity and your health service and civil liberties. This is just a load of old horseshit.
Wharaboutery par exerlance.
You sound like you work them? Or at least want to? Or do you like just telling people what they should think?
In other words: “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!” ?
I would be very surprised if they are not reading the guardian mails on a daily basis.
With good reason.
SAME I WOULD ALSO BE SURPRISED IF THEY ARENT WATCHING RIGHT NOW. HI NSA, CIA, MI6, GCHQ, AND GOD KNOWS HOW MANY MORE :D
Never a good reason to spy against the public interest.
Why do they need to spy on us? why do they need to monitor the press? What are they up to?
Spies (don't) like us.
Gathering material for blackmail purposes of course.
For power. Information is power, and they want they power over everyone. To blackmail, to manipulate, to get their ways. To be able to blackmail a journalist into not publishing a controversial article in the fear his pictures will be leaked, to be able to manipulate a politician into getting a law they wish even though it's not in the civilians favor. That's why they are monitoring the press and us and everyone. We are no better than China, except than we monitor more covertly while china does it outright and bans things that defy the government. We just invade their privacy.
Well, that's a frightening paragraph.
They are using RIPA to go after TV License evaders ffs.
Anti-Terrorism Law
Spying on the population for government control and corporate interest.
Lets not for get Mi5 are recruiting agents to monitor our high streets.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915420/Are-James-Bond-Try-online-game-MI5-s-recruit-Just-ability-blend-tattoo-free-skin-clean-ish-driving-licence-required.html
I'm sorry guys, but you have such a fake democracy that it is laughable :)
the security agencies pulling the string, probably controlling most of the politicians (after all they know all of their little secrets).
Did you wonder why no MP really wants the agencies under real control?
We need an URGENT review of GCHQ snooping now. Love them or hate them we still rely on journalists to present us with some sort of alternative narrative and to hold power to account.
Having a frightened press unable to protect sources due to government snooping is unacceptable in a democracy. Simple as that.
Worse still they are spying on politicians, presumably to gain leverage.
GCHQ needs cleaning up. That means replacing its entire management team.
Reviews of GCHQ will do nothing. This group is totally beyond all control, and that's a fact we need to live with.
There are 2 things we can do:
1). Encrypt *everything*. At rest and in transit. Re-design internet protocols so that encryption is built in as the lowest level, most basic part of everything. This is now underway.
2). Make encrypted protocols *EASY TO USE*. This is maybe more important than number 1. If it's not transparant to non-technical people then they just won't use it.
3). (and this is a more personal activity). Shun the people from GCHQ. Don't hire them, don't have any social interactions with them. Let them know their behavior is outside the realm of acceptible human conduct. Make it personal for GCHQ employees. I now refuse to interview or hire anyone who has GCHQ/NSA on their resume on the grounds they are unfit for employment anywhere else.
Of course that should have been 'there are *3*' things we can do :-). Why do I feel like a monty-python character now :-).
is there anybody that GCHQ doesn't consider to be a terrorist threat?
Stephen Hawking?
What makes you think they're only interested in terrorists.
LOL probably not, that 2 month baby looks suspicious :D
That guy has surely hacked his way into many a system before. The guy hacks physics for fun, after all. Hawking is probably up there as "keep an eye on that one", "he's too smart to be left unwatched".
The danger with these ongoing revelations from The Guardian is that they are serving to normalise the issue. We read another article and our reaction, over time, reduces from outrage to the most British of responses - the "tut".
The problem is how to maintain the rage, and how to direct it productive against those that are inexorably taking away our freedoms without giving us anything positive in return.
Yes my rage lasts for 30 minutes then turns into utter frustration. They won.
Too late now, I'm pretty indifferent. Haven't they been scooping up things for years, decades?
There is the other point to consider and that's some of these "revelations" are now psych-ops, i.e. announce via Snowden some capabilities that they don't actually have, or only use to a very limited extent. That way they still get the upper hand and control that they desire.
and the Guardian.
And like every other employee, journalists are now included being f#cked over by their shareholding employers.
Well if you consider The Guardian below par - which papers do you consider to be in the "top"? The Telegraph, Spectator?
Has someone forgotten which UK paper was first with Snowden?
Or maybe someone doesn't want to be reminded?
I must confess to being a little confused.
Journalists spy and gather information by illegal means, as the courts have shown us, but they get upset if someone does it to them?
Perhaps there should be investigations into how everybody gathers and stores information.... umm, thought not.
Because journalists occasionally need to hold powerful people to account and if those people are able to utilise the vast power of GCHQ legally, to expose sources, then corruption will become even more rife as journalists will become nothing more than government mouth-pieces.
Just an example btw. Try looking up the concept of 'public interest'.
Try comprehending The Pentagon papers for example. Not all press people are out to illegally get voice messages for the populist press.
Try recalling the downfall of Nixon. Investigative journalism.
You are saying it's OK for journalists to spy illegally because its in the public interest, but not for the government in the interest of the State.
Well, would you believe it! After all, GOD does exist: Global Orbiting Detection!
How long before He can read my thoughts?
No thank you.
This story from Blastr has now disappeared so we'll just have to guess -
DARPA wants to create cheap, mass-produced mind-reading device
But they're working on system that reads a soldier's 'mind' to help him assess threats -
DARPA links human brainwaves, improved sensors, cognitive algorithms to improve target detection
Even if they may not be able to read your mind it's not going to stop them implanting thoughts into it. Lots of 'crazy conspiracy theorists' (TM) believe they've been subjected to this, to, er, drive them crazy -
a neuro-electromagnetic device which uses microwave transmission of sound into the skull of persons or animals by way of pulse-modulated microwave radiation
Also planned are sniper bullets that can change direction and giving soldiers Wolverine-style healing capabilities.
Things have clearly gone too far, but I can hear them still saying 'Not far enough goddamnit!' I wonder what their limit is. How far will a group of psychopaths go to achieve their goals I guess. At least they're crazy people so they're deluded enough to actually believe some of this will work. Reminds me of a top general trying to walk through his office wall because new research had suggested you can order your molecules to do it. It didn't work, so he obviously wasn't trying hard enough.
Following the Charlie Hebdo assassinations, Boris Cyrulnik (French Neuro-Psychiatrist and well known author) said "we militarily beat Fascism in 1945, but as an ideology it lives on under another name". I think that we need to debate what is here: is the UK a vassal of the USA? Are we already a Fascist regime?
Has there been any doubt that this has been the case since the 70's if not the end of WWII.
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." -- Sinclair Lewis
GCHQ - Much as Mandy Rice-Davies said; "They would, wouldn't they?"
Forget the rights of privacy for journalists, lawyers, doctors, MPs and priests who handle privileged, confidential information.
We want our rights for the same.
The privacy of information given to lawyers, doctors, MPs, was proved to be compromised long before RIPA. That was just a smokescreen, maybe so with the others, certainly with the symbiosis of the Mail.
We need it made illegal for anyone, or Pariah governments, to gather our data, without our specific fully ‘informed consent’.
As has been pointed out by many, we all have our personal details to hide: Bank details; Passwords, etc; Personal life correspondence; Love letters; Letters exposing state institutional abuse; Case preparation ‘privileged correspondence’; Correspondence to HR groups; Pro democracy groups; Political parties; Votes; Thoughts; etc; Books we are writing; Patent Designs; Songs; Art; Intellectual Property; Industrial designs; Research; Mineral deposit locations; etc. Phone calls on the previous subjects. Maybe, even affairs.
This is our privacy. Our personal lives. Our network of family & friends. Our thoughts; Our future recompense for years of hard work. Our HUMAN RIGHTS!
State scrutiny of our inner lives is not democracy:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
Has the State got things to hide? They don’t allow us to monitor, behind their walls, by camera, microphone, or in person, their cover ups, ill treatment of prisoners, or what they conspire to do against the public. Yet they should be accountable to the public.
Without such protection, we wouldn’t have ‘a representative ‘form of’ democracy’ at all. We would have a set of lip service MPs that can be encouraged to stray by a state; monitored; then that stray temporarily covered up, until they needed the MP’s vote to be ‘right’, in a ‘Human Resources’ program. Whether it be expenses, affairs, abuse, speeding, non executive directorships, payoff’s, or fraud.
He is not only open to blackmail from his own state, he is open to blackmail from foreign powers. Foreign powers that could blackmail our state to do their bidding; Fight their wars; Abolish all Human Rights, and privacy, for it’s people, so that they could monitor more of the worlds people from its territory, instead of their own; Increase their power over the world. Rule!
Human Rights, and their data protection, are absolutely linked.
Can we have blanket surveillance of GCHQ please? Throw the politicians in there while we're at it.
Pretty sure politicians are already watched, then when they don't play ball they get a gentle reminder.
With a good sound establishment apologist like Malcolm Rifkind exercising oversight what could there possibly be to worry about?
Sorry, - I meant Sir Malcolm Leslie Rifkind, KCMG (Kindly Call me God) QC, MP, Chairman of the Intelligence and security Committee ...
Just watch , he'll be popping up any time soon like Mr Punch in a Punch & Judy show to make some lily-liveried excuse for GCHC and to announce yet another ' enquiry ' .
Now you know who is really in charge. They know where all the skeletons are hidden and can blackmail anyone in power or in the media.
Can? We of course are not certain that it is not been happening already.
Will is a better word than can.
I think the journalist should pretend to be onto something like a new Snowden leak or something and send the little geeky spies on as wide goose chase
What do you expect.
Look at the treatment of DSK when he was going to challenge the IMF and put the people before big finance. Then there is the treatment of Snowden.
This is why there is no real investigative journalism anymore just political party press releases. They'll just pull the advertisement revenues.
Then Holywood steps in and frames perspectives and re writes history.
"Under Ripa, neither the police nor the security services need to seek the permission of a judge to investigate any UK national’s phone records – instead, they must obtain permission from an appointed staff member from the same organisation, not involved in their investigation.
However, there are some suggestions in the documents that the collection of billing data by GCHQ under Ripa goes wider – and that it may not be confined to specific target individuals.
A top secret document discussing Ripa initially explains the fact that billing records captured under Ripa are available to any government agency is “unclassified” provided that there is “no mention of bulk”.
The GCHQ document goes on to warn that the fact that billing records “kept under Ripa are not limited to warranted targets” must be kept as one of the agency’s most tightly guarded secrets, at a classification known as “Top secret strap 2”.
That is two levels higher than a normal top secret classification – as it refers to “HMG [Her Majesty’s government] relationships with industry that have areas of extreme sensitivity”."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/gchq-intercepted-emails-journalists-ny-times-bbc-guardian-le-monde-reuters-nbc-washington-post
RIPA bulk, unwarranted phone records of UK nationals include HMG's "extremely sensitive" relationships with industry. Asymmetric information is rarely secure for long. Now, why are wealth and income inequalities accelerating?
Naughty GCHQ. Very very naughty. Who are we fighting again? And to what end?
Aren't we supposed to be fighting because "they hate our freedoms"?
That would be a pretty logical assessment in light of the slaughter of a dozen cartoonists
I think RichWoods is taking the piss
That would be a pretty logical assessment in light of the slaughter of a dozen cartoonists
So why spy on journalists? Or do you think The Guardian journalists are plotting to attack The Daily Mail and hence GCHQ require access to their emails?
Welcome to germany's ww2. There should be a clean sweep not just for journalists. All recods of ordinary people they suspect as a risk should be protected against this beast 666. Don't include staff from these favilities as your friends or the politicians who organised this dark monster. Free speech what was that how does it work? These kinds of monsters can onky end on their demise. In other words it destroys itself.
What more is there to say?
I think our entire approach to intelligence is just plain wrong, from councils and the BBC using anti-terror legislation, to police spies entrapping and impregnating people groups that are wholly unacceptable to even spy on let alone do those two too (which they should never do anyway), to GCHQ, that bunch of cyber voyeurs who seem to spend most of their days reading other peoples e-mails, normally the same groups those police target, not actual, you know, terrorists..
It reeks of the exact things we would use during the cold war to decry the evils of communism.
Are we the baddies now?
That still doesn't make it right.
No, and it is a lie. RIPA does not permit bulk surveillance of all UK internet traffic, which is what they are doing.
You would think, wouldn't you. Absolutely shocking anti-terrorism law. Apparently RIPA allows the BBC to surveil people who haven't got a TV license. It's being used for everything.
The people are not safe from "authority" anymore. Any dick in authority can get your emails, have your metadata scraped and have you followed on their whim.
RIPA is not an anti-terrorism law. Unless terrorists are out there not picking their dog's shit up. Yep, one of the reasons they used RIPA for. Dog shit on pavement... is now a terrorist attack.
More to the point, simply claiming that their activities are necessary and proportionate doesn't make it true. A great many people think many of these activities are grossly disproportionate and there's plenty of evidence that they aren't necessary.