Wanderlust

Tag: uk security and counter-terrorism

  • Edward Snowden surveillance powers ruled unlawful

    Computer screen with code Image copyright European Photopress Agency

    The UK’s bulk interception powers, exposed by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, have been found to be illegal by the European Court of Human Rights.

    In a landmark judgement, the court ruled agencies had violated rights as there were no proper safeguards.

    The court crucially said bulk interception was legitimate and it had seen no evidence it had been abused.

    Parliament reformed surveillance powers in 2016 and introduced a new watchdog. Critics say the system is still flawed.

    What were the powers being challenged in court?

    In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed that GCHQ – the UK’s eavesdropping agency – had been secretly collecting communications sent over the internet on an industrial scale.

    Image copyright AFP/Getty Images Image caption The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

    The court also criticised powers to ask internet companies to hand over “communications data” – the basic technical facts of how people have exchanged information.

    It said: “The content of an electronic communication might be encrypted and, even if it were decrypted, might not reveal anything of note about the sender or recipient.

    “The related communications data, on the other hand, could reveal the identities and geographic location of the sender and recipient and the equipment through which the communication was transmitted.

    “In bulk, the degree of intrusion is magnified, since the patterns that will emerge could be capable of painting an intimate picture of a person through the mapping of social networks, location tracking, internet browsing tracking, mapping of communication patterns, and insight into who a person interacted with.”

    Is this system still in force?

    In 2016, Parliament passed the Investigatory Powers Act in a massive overhaul of surveillance law.

    A government spokeswoman said it would give “careful consideration” to the judgement – but added that new safeguards were already in place.

    “The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 replaced large parts of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) which was the subject of this challenge,” she said.

    “This includes the introduction of a ‘double lock’ which requires warrants for the use of these powers to be authorised by a secretary of state and approved by a judge.

    “An Investigatory Powers Commissioner has also been created to ensure robust independent oversight of how these powers are used.”

    UK surveillance powers explained

    But Jim Killock of Open Rights Group – one of the bodies behind the challenge – said: “Viewers of the BBC drama, Bodyguard, may be shocked to know that the UK actually has the most extreme surveillance powers in a democracy.

    “Since we brought this case in 2013, the UK has actually increased its powers to indiscriminately surveil our communications whether or not we are suspected of any criminal activity.

    “In light of today’s judgment, it is even clearer that these powers do not meet the criteria for proportionate surveillance and that the UK government is continuing to breach our right to privacy.”

    Silkie Carlo, of Big Brother Watch, added: “This landmark judgment confirming that the UK’s mass spying breached fundamental rights vindicates Mr Snowden’s courageous whistleblowing.”

    Lord David Anderson QC, the former independent terror laws watchdog, said that judgement was “enormously important” because the court had backed the use of bulk interception powers that had so worried Edward Snowden.

    “That should come as a relief – not only to the agencies who do this work, but the rest of us who they are trying to keep safe,” he told BBC Radio 4’s The World At One.

    “I have looked pretty carefully at this over a number of years and there is no doubt in my mind that these powers are very useful – not just in counter-terrorism, but in cyber defence and at a much more everyday level they are useful for the police in fighting online sex crime, county lines and in a missing persons investigation.

    “What they [the judges] are doing are holding the feet of our new super regulator to the fire, and saying if you are going to give government these powers, then you have to look really closely at how they are authorised, how they are used and what happens to the data after it’s been collected.”

  • Skripal suspects interview: Key excerpts

    Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov Image copyright Reuters Image caption Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov said they were tourists visiting Salisbury

    The two men named as suspects in the poisoning of a Russian ex-spy in the UK – Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov – have been speaking to RT, Russia’s state-run international broadcaster. They claim they were merely tourists visiting the English town of Salisbury at the time the poisoning happened. Here are key excerpts of their interview.

    “Well, we came there [to the UK] on 2 March, then went to a railway station to see the timetable. We arrived in Salisbury on 3 March and tried to walk through the town, but we lasted for only half an hour because it was covered in snow,” Mr Petrov said.

    “Of course, we went there to see Stonehenge, Old Sarum, but we couldn’t do it because there was muddy slush everywhere. The town was covered by this slush. We got wet, took the nearest train and came back [to London].”

    “We spent no more than an hour in Salisbury, mainly because of the lags between trains,” Mr Boshirov said. “Maybe we did [approach] Skripal’s house, but we don’t know where is it located.”

    When the interviewer asked them whether they had Novichok or any poison with them, they emphatically said no.

    What happened to the Skripals? The new Russian disinformation game Russian spy poisoning: What we know so far What is the GRU?

    Then she asked whether they had the Nina Ricci perfume bottle that had been shown as evidence.

    “Is it silly for decent lads to have women’s perfume? The customs are checking everything, they would have questions as to why men have women’s perfume in their luggage. We didn’t have it,” Mr Boshirov said.

    Both men sounded distressed as they spoke about how their lives had changed since they were named in the UK as Russian intelligence agents who attempted to poison the Skripals.

    “When your life [is] turned upside down, you don’t know what to do and where to go. We’re afraid of going out, we fear for ourselves, our lives and the lives of our loved ones,” Mr Boshirov said. 

    Asked whether they had recently been to any European state, the two said they had.

    “Sure… In Switzerland, we were a couple of times… We spent New Year in Switzerland.”

    The journey was part of their holiday, they said, though they had also been in Europe to do business related to sports nutrition.

    “We examine the market, look if there is something new – some biologically active additives, amino acids, vitamins, microelements. We pick up the most necessary, come here and decide how to deliver the new products from this market here.”

  • Javid caution to Russian undercover agent poisoning suspects

    Image copyright Metropolitan Police Symbol caption The Home secretary says the suspects will “most probably” by no means go back to the uk Russian undercover agent poisoning: What we all know up to now May suspects be again to the united kingdom?

    Mr Javid mentioned the GRU operated on a “very quick leash from the Kremlin”.

    He defined it as a “really well-disciplined enterprise” which might “simplest act with orders from the highest level of the Russian government”.

    Mr Javid stopped in need of naming President Vladimir Putin as being behind the orders but stated “we all recognise what’s at the best of the Russian executive”.

    He went directly to say that the united kingdom had “considerable powers” to respond to Russia.

    “we can bring all the ones powers, each overt and covert, to bear on Russia and what it represents these days.”

    (more…)

  • Paramedic says Nikolai Glushkov believed he used to be poisoned

    Nikolai Glushkov Image copyright PA Image caption Nikolai Glushkov used to be found murdered in his London home in March of this 12 months

    A Russian who used to be murdered in Britain last March believed two males from Moscow had tried to poison him five years earlier, it has been stated.

    Nikolai Glushkov used to be found it appears strangled in his house in south-west London a week after the Novichok poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury.

    The Mother Or Father has now found out he was once allegedly poisoned in 2013 after he shared champagne with Russians.

    The paper says the police are reinvestigating the incident.

    Mr Glushkov – a outstanding Russian businessman and previous deputy director of state airline Aeroflot – used to be jailed for 5 years in his house u . s . in 1999 after being charged with cash laundering and fraud.

    After being given a suspended sentence for one more rely of fraud in 2006, he used to be granted political asylum in the UK in 2010 and have become a critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Counter-terror police look at dying Murder inquiry over Russian’s London demise Who used to be Nikolai Glushkov?

    Paramedic Keith Carr instructed the Mother Or Father that he handled Mr Glushkov in November 2013 for suspected poisoning after the businessman had shared beverages with males from Moscow in Bristol’s Grand Hotel.

    Mr Carr, who used to be working for the South Western Ambulance Provider, mentioned he spoke back to a record that Mr Glushkov had collapsed at the carpet the morning after the beverages.

    He told the paper: “i discovered Nikolai at the floor of his hotel room. He was once able to rise up with lend a hand. He regarded a bit tottery. We sat him at the bed.

    “I requested him what had came about. He advised me that he and the 2 Russians have been ingesting the champagne together the previous night time. He went off to the loo and whilst he came again he drank more champagne.

    “the following factor he remembered was once waking up on the carpet the following morning. He had carpet burns on his face and on his chest.”

    No charges

    Mr Glushkov told Mr Carr that he believed the Russians had poisoned him and that he was a probable objective as a result of his close friendship with fellow Russian businessman Boris Berezovsky, who came to the uk in 1999 after falling out with Mr Putin.

    Mr Berezovsky was once found hanged within the bathroom of his Berkshire home in 2013, six months prior to the incident with Mr Glushkov.

    Mr Carr mentioned two law enforcement officials were in the room even as he treated Mr Glushkov for an peculiar center rhythm and other signs, however, he introduced: “at the time i don’t think any one gave any credibility to what he was once saying.”

    Avon and Somerset Police has showed the incident used to be investigated on the time and no fees were brought.

    The Mum Or Dad reported that the officials are now reinvestigating the incident as a part of their homicide inquiry.

    Skripal suspects

    The information comes days after Scotland Yard and the Crown Prosecution Provider named Russian nationals as suspects in the attempted murder of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.

    Prime Minister Theresa May stated the lads, the use of the names Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, are thought to be officials from Russia’s army intelligence carrier.

    Media playback is unsupported to your device

    Media captionPolice are interesting for info on Alexander Petrov (left) and Ruslan Boshirov

    Mr Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, have been poisoned with the nerve agent Novichok in March.

    Det Sgt Nick Bailey additionally fell ill after responding to the incident in Salisbury.

    Police are linking the assault to a separate Novichok poisoning on 30 June, when First Light Sturgess and Charlie Rowley turned into unwell at a house in Amesbury, about 8 miles from Salisbury.

    Ms Sturgess died in hospital on EIGHT July. Mr Rowley was discharged from sanatorium on 20 July.

    (more…)

  • Salisbury poisoning: Will Russian suspects face UK trial?

    Yulia Skripal Symbol copyright Reuters Symbol caption Yulia Skripal and her father, Sergei, have been poisoned in March

    It’s turning into clear, without any reputable policing sources confirming it, that important growth has been made in the Salisbury spy poisoning investigation.

    Detectives from the South East Counter-Terrorism Unit seem to have gotten to the stage where they’ve isolated two folks from CCTV images as their top suspects in the suspected nerve agent poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in March.

    The attack led, three months later, to the subsequent death of Break Of Day Sturgess, and the unintentional illness of her partner Charlie Rowley.

    At this degree no-one has showed formally that the two suspects had been absolutely known by their actual names, but a discussion has begun between counter-terrorism officials, the Crown Prosecution Carrier, the Foreign Administrative Center, The Home Place Of Business and the intelligence businesses as to what is the most efficient means forward.

    The key query in the ones discussions is whether or not the uk must make a proper request to Russia for the 2 people suspected of carrying out the Novichok assault to be despatched to the united kingdom for trial.

    Image caption Daniel Sandford (l) met Andrei Lugovoi (r) on a fishing commute in jap Russia in 2011

    So, making an extradition request will produce a firm “nyet” from Moscow, however would a minimum of permit the united kingdom to turn that it has known two suspects.

    it would now not assist relations between the uk and Russia despite the fact that these are at an all-time low besides for the reason that holiday-up of the Soviet Union.

    However, not creating a request would depart Russia guessing and mean that the 2 suspects wouldn’t realize in the event that they were totally identified and would go away them permanently involved about leaving Russia.

    this will seem like somewhat a ravishing possibility, but could allow Russia to continue to say that the preliminary British govt accusations were baseless, and never supported by any proof.

    A third option is to do what in the long run came about within the Litvinenko case, and cling a public inquiry in which as so much as possible of the proof is laid out for everybody to peer.

    after all, this 3rd choice doesn’t rule out making an extradition request first of all, after which proceeding to a public inquiry whilst the request is refused.

    Whitehall officers proceed to say that this is a police investigation, but in the end some political decisions will have to be made approximately easy methods to continue.