Exclusive: Snowden leaks reveal UK’s secret Middle-East web surveillance base - UPDATED
Last edited Fri Aug 23, 2013, 11:27 AM - Edit history (2)
Source: Independent UK
Exclusive: Edward Snowden leaks reveal UKs secret Middle-East web surveillance base
Data-gathering operation is part of a £1bn internet project still being assembled by GCHQ
Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies, The Independent has learnt.
The station is able to tap into and extract data from the underwater fibre-optic cables passing through the region.
The information is then processed for intelligence and passed to GCHQ in Cheltenham and shared with the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States. The Government claims the station is a key element in the Wests war on terror and provides a vital early warning system for potential attacks around the world.
The Independent is not revealing the precise location of the station but information on its activities was contained in the leaked documents obtained from the NSA by Edward Snowden. The Guardian newspapers reporting on these documents in recent months has sparked a dispute with the Government, with GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives containing the data.
Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-edward-snowden-leaks-reveal-uks-secret-middleeast-web-surveillance-base-8781082.html
UPDATED!!!
Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald Challenge Independent Story
That leads to the obvious question: who is the source for this disclosure? Snowden this morning said he wants it to be clear that he was not the source for the Independent, stating:
I have never spoken with, worked with, or provided any journalistic materials to the Independent. The journalists I have worked with have, at my request, been judicious and careful in ensuring that the only things disclosed are what the public should know but that does not place any person in danger. People at all levels of society up to and including the President of the United States have recognized the contribution of these careful disclosures to a necessary public debate, and we are proud of this record.
"It appears that the UK government is now seeking to create an appearance that the Guardian and Washington Post's disclosures are harmful, and they are doing so by intentionally leaking harmful information to The Independent and attributing it to others. The UK government should explain the reasoning behind this decision to disclose information that, were it released by a private citizen, they would argue is a criminal act."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base
The Middle East station was set up under a warrant signed by the then Foreign Secretary David Miliband, authorising GCHQ to monitor and store for analysis data passing through the network of fibre-optic cables that link up the internet around the world
The certificate authorised GCHQ to collect information about the political intentions of foreign powers, terrorism, proliferation, mercenaries and private military companies, and serious financial fraud.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-edward-snowden-leaks-reveal-uks-secret-middleeast-web-surveillance-base-8781082.html
CincyDem
(6,281 posts)The Guardian may have agreed not to publish but that doesn't mean it didn't share the Snowden documents with another British paper...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-edward-snowden-leaks-reveal-uks-secret-middleeast-web-surveillance-base-8781082.html
CincyDem
(6,281 posts)In fact, maybe we need a new regulation. It's required in manufacturing plants to have eyewash stations in case of accident. Depending on the process and materials, they might even be required to have full emergency showers.
Newspapers should be required to have hard drive smashing rooms in the basement in case any real information starts to leak out. Much easier for the governments if all the drive smashing stuff is already on site. That way they don't have to carry it around with them.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)This story doesn't even seem right. "The Independent has learnt." Has learnt from whom? From Scotland Yard? Where are the classified slides that the Brazilian papers, the Guardian, WaPo, LeMonde, Der Spiegel always provide along with the other usual details?
And this story is so bland it puts you to sleep which I think is the whole point.
Phase I of nothing to see here, move along didn't work so now it's criminal charges against Miranda and Phase II nothing to see here, move along.
When was this? And what happened to the D-Notice gag the UK government put on the Independent? It's suddenly been lifted for this piece of milquetoast?
The people pushing this story on twitter appeared out of nowhere and a bunch of them are screaming "This is an irresponsible disclosure by Snowden" Irresponsible? There's nothing there.
This is bullshit theater. From respectable newspapers to quasi-tabloid level. And being pushed by people whose twitter mannerism is suspect to say the least. Not buying it.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I thought Paul Revere warned the rebels of the British invasion.
I missed the part where he published the locations of the rebel arsenals.
karynnj
(59,474 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,144 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)All the seemingly un-random cable mishaps and outages.
I believe the term CT was thrown around quite liberally.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)bunnies
(15,859 posts)This is not going to go over well.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Guess the detention of Miranda is related to UK security after all. Hey, we know this group does not hold everything to themselves, just waiting to see who will claim responsibility for all their crap.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Let the sun shine in.
Ocelot
(227 posts)No sources are named, this could easily be Propaganda/Disinformation. Time will tell.
But if it actually were true it would not excuse the NSA's spying on AMERICANS, and it would highlight the fact that bloated corporations like Booz Allen are too INCOMPETENT to be in bed with our Government in these matters. If a low level Booz Allen nobody like Snowden left with these documents, then these private contractors are not secure or trustworthy with anyone's information.
Civilization2
(649 posts)Aint' it great to pay your taxes so the police state can keep an eye on you? Don't you just love that the mercenary corporate contractors can access the data surrounding anyone who opposes the corporate-military state.
You see like most of you I like to feel that I have nothing to hide. I do not encrypt my email or try to be hidden,. but some people are doing work that involves checking up on the corporations and the politicians they employ to bend the laws for the banksters and the 1% greedwhores who control things,. seems the powerful don't like this and if anyone gets to much info. or exposes too much they have to go,. dirty deeds that often look like accidents, suicides, criminal activity, whatever it takes to keep power and wealth is what the sociopathic few do, to maintain the power they enjoy.
I expanded this to a larger post; http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023516408
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)"The certificate authorised GCHQ to collect information about the political intentions of foreign powers, terrorism, proliferation, mercenaries and private military companies, and SERIOUS FINANCIAL FRAUD.
Serious financial fraud and private military companies are bad guys, even to "progressives." They are among the evil people Snowden tipped off. This time, Snowden is one protecting the 1%. For what possible benefit?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)loose enough to include just about anyone they want. Who is a terrorist, for example. Is Snowden's partner a terrorist? The Authoritarian State says yes.
Blindly trusting an Authoritarian State is not a principle of a "politically liberal" Democrat.
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)Its not where a facility to set up control of an authoritarian state would be located.
I don't believe Snowden's partner is a terrorist but he was smuggling classified information that could indirectly assist terrorists. I can't see any way they would just let him walk through customs with it.
I'm not as liberal as you. I'm a moderate. I don't trust the state. Nor do I decide they are guilty of every possible thing without evidence.
Are you analyzing this starting with your support for Snowden, or by looking at what was actually released this time? If this was about illegal spying on Americans I'd be on Snowden's side. But this time its not.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that? There is no way you can know that information.
"If this was about illegal spying on Americans I'd be on Snowden's side. But this time its not." I am always disappointed when people are so certain. Certainty is the opposite of open-mindedness. You cant know that the NSA isnt spying on millions of Americans. Just because you want to believe, doesnt make it so.
A good Democrat is skeptical of authoritarian power.
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)because it lets them know where taps are. Notice that I used the word "could" meaning I'm not unduly certain. There is a tiny chance some American conversations could be swept up in this, but that's not what this revelation is about. Its about spying on terrorists and others.
I'm a good Democrat. I haven't concluded that this power is authoritarian. I haven't concluded its not. Are you certain? Because, I'm not.
You are missing the separation between what else the NSA is accused of and this latest revelation. If you will look at the update of the OP, Snowden agrees with me that this latest revelation shouldn't have been released.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)He doesn't show up here very often, but I've noticed that when he does, he always seems to have his own take on things that involves lining the pieces up in strange ways and turning the heroes into villains and the villains into heroes. Making Snowden a protector of the 1% is just about his speed.
I suppose it's a harmless enough form of entertainment as long as nobody else takes it too seriously.
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)In response to someone who thinks this spying is a plot by the 1%.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)more bankers and mercenaries would be sitting in prison. They aren't, and they aren't.
They are looking for drone targets with these things.
They aren't about to drone or imprison their own campaign donors and lobbyists. That's not who they are looking for. Wish they were.
Nihil
(13,508 posts)>> The Middle East station was set up under a warrant signed by the then Foreign Secretary David Miliband,
>> authorising GCHQ to monitor and store for analysis data passing through the network of fibre-optic cables
>> that link up the internet around the world
>>
>> The certificate authorised GCHQ to collect information about the political intentions of foreign powers,
>> terrorism, proliferation, mercenaries and private military companies, and serious financial fraud.
>>
>> However, the certificates are reissued every six months and can be changed by ministers at will.
>> GCHQ officials are then free to target anyone who is overseas or communicating from overseas
>> without further checks or controls if they think they fall within the terms of a current certificate.
Another nice attempt to smear progressives whilst defending free rein for authoritarians ...
(Edited to point out for non-UK folks that "the then Foreign Secretary David Miliband" held office as a part
of the Blair government 2007-2010. He had previously been part of Blair's policy unit (from the run up
to Blair's election in 1997 to 2001). He has had plenty of experience with working for American interests
and ensuring that Blair's poodle-power rule kept things nice & smooth for George W. Bush.)
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)It doesn't say they have. If it did, that would be a worthy revelation.
I'm neither attempting to smear progressives, except where its relevant to the topic, or defending free rein for authoritarians. Most of the response I've received has been personal attacks on me. Perhaps you should attack Snowden. If you read the update to the OP, Snowden is also saying this information should not have been published. Perhaps he is defending free rein for authoritarians. Isn't everybody who sees something differently than you your evil enemy?
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)This isn't exposing one thing that is in the American public interest to know. Its helpful to enemies.
Ocelot
(227 posts)It's revealed that Obama and Clapper are both liars, and that they have been spying on American citizens in violation of the Constitution.
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)Its about straight up British spying on the people they should be spying on.
Ocelot
(227 posts)Names? You have a list? You seem to be awfully in-the-know for someone named "creeksneekers".
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)The facility is somewhere in the Mideast. They aren't spying on Americans. There is a list in the article of the types of individuals they are empowered to investigate.
I'm awfully in the know because I read the article. Did you?
Ocelot
(227 posts)People with funny hats maybe? No names, that's interesting.
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)the names of people being spied on remaining secret. Of course its a secret. It was a better secret before Snowden's latest work.
Lenomsky
(340 posts)It's common knowledge that GCHQ monitor ALL internet traffic entering/leaving the UK. I think it's useful the public in general are made aware.
Underseas cables have been monitored for years I'm unsure the technology but micro bends on fibres leak enough photons to replicate the data and allow forward transmission uninterrupted with a slight loss in dBm. The other option is optical splitter or sister equipment at transmitting/receiving stations
Monitoring is most likely key word based. Sensible Governments, Agencies etc should be employing encryption to protect their SECRETS.
I think you'll find most every country is fully aware that they all spy on each other it didn't need Snowden to reveal that fact.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)The Government also demanded that the paper not publish details of how UK telecoms firms, including BT and Vodafone, were secretly collaborating with GCHQ to intercept the vast majority of all internet traffic entering the country
ALL INTERNET TRAFFIC ENTERING THE COUNTRY
all is so much easier than a list
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)release is about.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)the OP you said you read...guess you missed that part
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)but it was about previous negotiations between the British government and the Guardian newspaper. Its not from the latest Snowden release.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)but as the article shows,it is not "bad guys" it is everyone or ALL communications
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)which serves no good purpose.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The things I learn on DU...
Ocelot
(227 posts)Who are you to decide what is in the American public interest to know?
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)poster on the Internet who wishes to share an opinion. Who are you to question me? If you can explain what in the latest release is in the public interest, please do. The public interest of mercenaries or terrorists perhaps.
Ocelot
(227 posts)And today you've got an article from a newspaper owned by a shady Russian tycoon (The Independent) with no named sources. Enjoy the rest of your night shift...
creeksneakers2
(7,468 posts)What ground? I'm not at war or in a football game.
Night shift? Oh, that's right! The posters on DU are so important, so brave, such geniuses of discovering the truth, that powerful evil masterminds pay people to waste their time arguing with you. You must be some kind of hero to fight all that!
Do you think the Independent made this all up?
Ocelot
(227 posts)Yes, as I said, it's a phony bunch of BS propaganda FAIL. See below:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-government-independent-military-base
See ya!
defacto7
(13,485 posts)It brands you more than us. Careful, don't blow your anonymity due to your language habits.
Enjoy your visit.
Ocelot
(227 posts)Is that a threat? Good luck, I know the rules here.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Lots of folks above cheering this.
What law, specifically, does it violate? Or are we now going to pretend US or UK communications are transmitted to the Middle East on the way to their destination in the US or UK?
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)If it is illegal there, then yes. We don't really know at this time.
But we do know the US and UK have broken treaties before. For example they broke a UN treaty when they spied on UN offices during the push for the Iraq war. And more recently when they broke their espionage cooperation treaty with Germany.
askeptic
(478 posts)I realize the Empire has no ethics but I expect a little less "me" on DU.
So I guess as long as big brother is just watching every move of millions of "other" people then it's OK. Did you ever consider that maybe that "your" feed runs through a country that watches -your - every move? Although I'm sure it'd be OK since you have nothing to hide, and you don't mind being made subject to the laws and rules of a foreign country.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Are these docs that the Guardian released prior?
All I know is it sure looks like the GCHQ is an agent of the US. Is this my tax dollars funding this operation?
Don't I have a right to know?
bunnies
(15,859 posts)the owner of the newspaper is Russian man named Alexander Lebedev. A former member of the Russian intelligence community (KGB). Probably just a coincidence but this is such a clusterfuck... who knows anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lebedev
Could be that Greenwald gave the Independent the info for them to publish so it doesnt look like payback for his spouse being detained in the UK.
Its all speculation on my part, of course.
adding:
JI7
(89,172 posts)i think they probably got the info from Putin/russian government.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)involved (especially if one runs the Russian Federation and the other is a super-rich tycoon who owns British newspapers) is that nothing, I mean nothing, can be taken at face value.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Should the designs be published?
dkf
(37,305 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)You are seriously going to say that you had no idea we intercept electronic communications in foreign countries, and that you need to know the details of that?
The 4th Amendment does not apply in relation to anything going through an optical fiber off the coast of Egypt.
railsback
(1,881 posts)No secrets but there should be some secrets kept from us.. determined by the government we don't trust..
dkf
(37,305 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)The pertinent sentences:
Nowhere does it say that Snowden is the Independent's source.
There is no doubt that the NSA is aware of much of the content of Snowden's materials so they pass that info on to GCHQ which in turn leaks it the the Independent.
dkf
(37,305 posts)starroute
(12,977 posts)Surely if the UK was spying on Israeli communications on behalf of the US that might help answer the riddle of why the US is quite as freaked out as it is about Snowden's potential revelations.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)It's designed to justify the use of terrorism laws against those possessing the documents. Nowhere in the article does it say they have the documents, only that snowden does and that those documents could aid terrorists. The detention of the greenwald associate was therefore not an abuse of the terror laws (the subtext)
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...bit by bit, story by story, this HUGE LIE is coming down!
- K&R
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)UKs secret Middle-East web surveillance base is there to spy on dangerous foreigners in foreign lands. It does not involve spying on Americans in America. Why would Snowden leak info on the UKs secret Middle-East web surveillance base?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)The pertinent sentences:
Nowhere does it say that Snowden is the Independent's source.
There is no doubt that the NSA is aware of much of the content of Snowden's materials so they pass that info on to GCHQ which in turn leaks it the the Independent.
Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #61)
GliderGuider This message was self-deleted by its author.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)Whether or not they got them directly from Snowden, no one at this point is denying this UK mideast surveillance info was in the documents Snowden took.
So, why would Snowden steal these docs?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Perhaps they are part of his "insurance" docs.
Why no criticism for the Independent who published the info?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,144 posts)His statement denies that. Perhaps he could have tried reading every single document thoroughly before taking a copy, and sat down and carefully decided which ones to go back and take a copy of; he probably would have been caught before publishing a thing if he did that, because it would have take weeks or months. And then, we wouldn't be having this discussion about the US government spying on its citizens and allies. But he and the journalists have been careful in what they publish, now that they have the time to do so.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)It is a very carefully worded statement; reads like it was written by a lawyer.
And he did have months to review the docs; Snowden had these docs for months before he took them to Russia (who no doubt hoovered his laptops and may be the Independent's source).
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
Nancy Waterman
(6,407 posts)These disclosures are trouble except for a narrow few.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)There's a psyops fake Snowden passing disinfo?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It smells like ... bullshit.
Sounds to me like GCHQ is using the Independent to set the stage for a crackdown on the Guardian. Either that, or it's a Cass Sunstein-style "cognitive infiltration" into the public-perception arena, with the intention of hardening opinions against Snowden/Greenwald.
Either way, it smells like TPTB circling the wagons.
SunSeeker
(51,367 posts)Russia is not exactly the US's/UK's ally in the middle east, and has motive to do this.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)But hey, colour me cynical...