UK Wants Authority To Serve Warrants In U.S. (usatoday.com) 144
schwit1 writes with this news, as reported by USA Today: British and U.S. officials have been negotiating a plan that could allow British authorities to directly serve wiretap orders on U.S. communications companies in criminal and national security inquiries, U.S. officials confirmed Thursday. The talks are aimed at allowing British authorities access to a range of data, from interceptions of live communications to archived emails involving British suspects, according to the officials, who are not authorized to comment publicly. ... Under the proposed plan, British authorities would not have access to records of U.S. citizens if they emerged in the British investigations. Congressional approval would be required of any deal negotiated by the two countries.
Re:So it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I remember reading somewhere we had this little disagreement in the 1770's with the State of Great Britain. Part of it had something to do with their overreach in legal processes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but this time, WE are agreeing to it.
*Slight* difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
And, of course, we get to do it over there.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a small payoff for allowing any extradition request to go through on the nod.
(Thecase of the aspie UFO hunter nutbag who looked like a startled Patrick Swayze being notable precisely because it was exceptional)
Re:So it begins (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, but you got uppity around 1812 and tried to take the remains of our North American empire away, so we sailed down the Hudson river and burned down the Whitehouse.
We settled on the original borders because we decided you were a lost cause to civilisation.
Wrong. Brittan decided to start attacking US merchant ships trading with France and Africa, and embargoed the US trading with the West Indies, They kidnapped enslaved US citizens by impressing them in to the British navy against their will. They occupied forts inside sovereign US territory in a violation the Jay treaty. Refused compensation for seized US merchant ships, and the British were funding attacks on US outpost in the west by natives. As for the invading Canada the US wasn't really interested in taking territory they sent a militia regiment the idea being that if they could take it they could trade it back to Brittin in exchange for backing down on everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll get a very different picture from studying other sources. For example, were those impressed people US or British citizens? There may have been a bit of confusion over who belonged to whom in that period. I know just enough to know that (a) it's complicated, (b) there are various differing accounts, and (c) I really don't know what was going on.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, we didn't even need to stop shooting them for invading our country until January, 1815.
But we're good friends, now.
Anyhow, this only applies to UK citizens who are physically in the US. It seems reasonable, but of course the details of whatever the actual proposed bill in Congress is is what will matter. If the actual bill is what is described in the summary, it won't be scary or even controversial outside of tin-hat circles.
I'm very suspicious of those people claiming that it is bad for there to be cle
Re: (Score:3)
People who follow their own rules are rare.
Governments that follow their own laws are unknown.
Weren't you paying attention when Snowden showed you what was behind the curtains ?
Re: (Score:2)
Behind the curtain was, "all your data is belong to us." The proposal here is, "process to get a warrant for something that is already happening behind the curtain, but in secret without process."
Yes, I was paying attention. I still am, and it seems most of the people here are more interesting in keeping it behind the curtain than shining light on it.
Yeah, right... (Score:5, Informative)
British authorities would not have access to records of U.S. citizens if they emerged in the British investigations.
Riiiiight. They would never do that and hand it over to its Five Eyes brethren in the NSA. That's just crazy talk!
Re:Yeah, right... (Score:5, Insightful)
NSA can't "legally" wiretap everyone in the US? That's ok, let the GCHQ do it and turn the results over to the NSA through a 'cooperative' agreement. GCHQ can't "legally" wiretap British citizens? Why look at that nice cooperative agreement just sitting there!
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to equality before the law? What happened to blind justice? You know, that famous statue at the Supreme Court?
What happened to the concept of inalienable rights, inherent in you by fact of being human, not by being a US citizen. Our constitutional theory declares these rights preceed the formation of any constitution or government.
Re: (Score:2)
Awww, how quaint ... you still think all of that applies in the modern world.
Governments have been trampling on that shit with increasing brazenness.
They don't give a crap about what you think your rights are, they've given themselves exemptions to those, lied to us and said they'd be used for limited things, and then started using them for everything else.
Every single government on the planet has decided it is far more important they be able to see everything we do than adhere to any laws which limit what
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry Mr Nutcase, but you seem to have gotten that backwards. The UK authorities will apply directly for the US warrant, and if it is approved then the data will be collected by the US and handed over to them. When they say that US citizens data won't be given even when they "emerged" in the investigation, that is what they mean. The way you read it it would contradict itself, but actually it doesn't. This is data that is already stored by the NSA, but requires a warrant to view. This is not a warrant that
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the whole thing is backwards misinformation. What is really happening is that US authorities want the right to wiretap anyone in the five eyes group upon the flimsiest of excuses and extend that out into typical aggressive US search warrants, violent arrests, persecution via prosecution and fuck justice, they just want to fuck people up because they annoyed them. This is just the bullshit roundabout way of getting there. So everything about being a reciprocal arrangement and then forcing it upon o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is silly, because the existing state of things is that if the US Government wants to arrest somebody who is in the UK, they get arrested and handed over. If they want to handcuff them roughly, they can just do it at the airport during the handoff.
It is a weak argument. The government over here already has all the powers. You seem to actually think they care about if the documents have a fancy wax seal from the UK or not, for stuff they can do anyways? LOL
OTOH, the UK government doesn't have the data in
Re: Yeah, right... (Score:2)
Will this agreement be in addition to our supersede the UK USA information sharing agreement drawn up shortly after WWII that already stays all intelligence between the 5 eyes and divides the world and specifies which of the five eyes is responsible for spying on which parts. I'm sorry to tell you guys this, but all this is doing is pretending to be more open about it to please a few politicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, not simply the policy, it is flaws in the policy that allow, say psychopathic individuals in those agencies to exploit those flaws. This demands plenty of checks, balancers and hurdles, to slow up those individuals and trap them, when they seek to exploit those flaws for their own criminal advantage. This includes exploiting those flaws for promotional advantage. Until the US justice system heals itself, it can no longer be trusted. Failure to properly prosecute torture, prison abuses, abusive
Would the UK allow the US to do the same there? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They already do: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa
Re: (Score:2)
A separate official said that any agreement also would be designed to provide equal benefits for U.S. law enforcement and national security authorities in U.S. investigations.
"Such an agreement would ensure U.S. access to data stored in the United Kingdom in support of law enforcement, terrorism, and other transnational threat investigations and support our partners’ ability to investigate serious crime, as well as terrorism and other transnational threats on a reciprocal basis,'' that official said.
Re: (Score:1)
From TFA:
A separate official said that any agreement also would be designed to provide equal benefits for U.S. law enforcement and national security authorities in U.S. investigations.
"Such an agreement would ensure U.S. access to data stored in the United Kingdom in support of law enforcement, terrorism, and other transnational threat investigations and support our partners’ ability to investigate serious crime, as well as terrorism and other transnational threats on a reciprocal basis,'' that official said.
Sorry I feel off my chair and banged my head on the floor. I thought you said " ability to investigate serious crime, as well as terrorism." But we know how ineffective these so-called national security measures have been proven. You want my papers? Sure I have them wrapped in this stick of dyno-mite which is about to be shoved up your ass officer.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
... the British also want to issue tax stamps on tea.
Re: (Score:2)
So long as we remain their sole provider of major armaments, that's fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh, if they did that to the tea it would probably inflame the passions of the English-born so drastically that they might even throw it into the sea in protest.
Why isn't headline "Obama willing to bend over..." (Score:3, Interesting)
>> British and U.S. officials have been negotiating a plan...Congressional approval would be required of any deal negotiated
Do these US officials report to the executive branch? Then why isn't the headline something like, "Obama happy to bend over for British wiretapping of US citizens" or some-such? This stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum...
Re:Why isn't headline "Obama willing to bend over. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, please, the US has been demanding this same kind of crap around the world since 2001.
This security stuff is now the keys to the kingdom, you can undermine sovereignty and violate laws in secret if you put on your fucking puppy dog face and says "because, security".
The US government is actively involved in doing the shit to the rest of the world, so don't look to us for any sympathy. Because an awful lot of Americans seem to think it's just fine when you do it to the rest of the world.
You're damned right this doesn't happen in a vacuum.
But if you think the US hasn't been demanding the ability to wiretap others, or just going ahead and doing it, you've been willfully ignorant to the last bunch of years.
Only now that it's happening to you, you're suddenly outraged.
Re: (Score:2)
1940s, Echelon was originally a deal between the USA, the UK and Australia.
They all have inconvenient laws banning their spooks from spying on their own citizens. So they all spy on each others citizens and exchange information. Formally agreed sense 1945, no doubt it was happening during the war (but mostly the laws were just ignored).
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to bring that up too.
I guess the difference now is that they can go directly to a provider and demand information rather than try to catch a glimpse of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because if you RTFA, it actually specifically excludes US citizens.
Thanks, Obama (Score:2)
I guess this isn't the Hope and Change you voted for.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Please. Sanders will do the same shit, he's just going to throw in some socialism to shut people up. One of the biggest reasons to *not* vote for Sanders is that the free health care giveaway is just going to make people more dependent on the central government. You know, the same one who pulls *this* shit.
I've said it many times before. Why do people who hate the overreach of the government keep voting for more government? Do they have the naive expectation that there's any way that information or pow
Re: (Score:2)
No, Sanders likely loses the general. Leaving no gridlock, hence we'd be fucked.
Always remember to vote 'gridlock'. This year that's Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure she's batshit, no dispute.
But she doesn't have control of the Senate or House. So her batshit is relatively harmless, this cycle.
Ted Cruz has the same problem. Only he has batshit weasel eyes (vs batshit harpy eyes). But he has partners, so he's a relative threat.
They all want to increase government, just in different places.
No way an evangelical is a good choice. Rs need to lose a few election cycles to cleanse themselves of the church ladies. I can accept a little harmless humoring them, but
Re: (Score:2)
A Trump/Hillary election would be almost no lose. Unless she somehow turned the senate and house around.
That's a worry for later years.
Still there is the Sup Court. Who's next to die?
Re:Thanks, Obama (Score:4, Insightful)
Lastly, for my single point of contention with you I offer this. The USA's current Healthcare system is already awful, expensive, and sub-standard. The situation exists that SOMETHING will be done about it, unfortunately the something will likely be worse. The "Free Health Care Giveaway" Sanders proposes is probably going to be awful. I also remember how terrible Hillary's healthcare proposal from the early 90's was (and trust me, she hasn't changed in the past 30 years). Basically, I feel that whichever Democrat wins (I really hope the Republicans can't win), we're in for another round of grab-your-ankles-without-lube.
Re: Thanks, Obama (Score:2)
When John McAfee looks like the best candidate in the race, the Nation is truly in shambles.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, vote Cthulhu!
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be suffering from the delusion that I think that there is an appreciable difference between being screwed by someone with an (R) after their name instead of a (D).
Re: (Score:3)
". One of the biggest reasons to *not* vote for Sanders is that the free health care giveaway is just going to make people more dependent on the central government"
As Opposed to the Piece of crap healthcare system designed by Mitt Romney we have now that is designed to line the pockets of Insurance companies?
"Affordable Healthcare Act" is Romneycare in every form... if it was "obamacare" I would not have to be paying $850 a month for it. Real republicans would be outraged by the shit being pulled in congr
Re: (Score:2)
How about restoring the 5th amendment? How about abiding by the fucking constitution and protecting it? You know real important shit that has been ignored for the past 14 years because of the boogymen of terrorism.. Instead you are all upset about something that will actually help people?
This is why I don't call myself republican anymore, people like you prefer to hate instead of doing what is right.
Well said.
Re: (Score:2)
It is pretty derpy of you, though.
Did you know how health care is done in Europe? Did you check if their system is a failure? You make a bunch of assertions based on speculation about things for which there are real comparisons available in the world.
You're just hand-waving about the 5th Amendment. You heard on some radio program some blowhard mad about it, so you want to say stuff. But for somebody who hasn't been fed that issue, you don't even identify the claimed problem. If you were complaining about th
Re: (Score:2)
It may be that some you'll realize that the Democractic Party is the center-right pro-business party in the US, but I won't be holding my breath. Few people can overcome the color-coding of the flags. Once a red, always a red.
You're coming from a position of a world-wide relativist. Yes, most parties in the US would be considered to be conservative compared to those in Europe. That doesn't really change the way they are arrayed in the US.
The US isn't interested in being a world centralist, it is a conservative country that doesn't care to join the rest of the world because the electorate sees the rest of the world as not being applicable to life in the US.
Europe does not have the same demographics or challenges as the US so th
Re: (Score:2)
Right, you're so worried about France you're unable to comprehend my comment in the context of the United States of America.
I'm not a relativist of any sort, you're guessing at random shit, and guessing wrong. Assume I'm an arrogant American from a western state. Now try to parse it again. Within the context of American politics, the Democratic Party is a center right business party. If you can't understand the claim, don't blame France.
What are you, some kind of freedom fry?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's not like a simple knob that you can turn this way for up or that way for down?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's not a simple knob, but let's face it, there's no way that centralized health care is turning it in a downward direction. And Sanders is a firm proponent of socialism, which asserts that it's the government's job to promote social and economic equality and well-being. I'm not saying I believe any of the Republicans are necessarily going to do better, but at least they're not actually *promising* to increase the government.
I'm not pretending that you can just dial it down from 11 to 1 (or eve
Re: (Score:2)
Except they don't.
Clearly you didn't get the single knob analogy. Try thinking of a graphic equalizer.
Re: (Score:2)
Warrants? Why can't the brits just hack everyone's computers like other civilized countries do?
one world government coming (Score:1)
bit by bit. convergence amongst western powers first. asia next. the rest later. not so alex jonesy anymore.
I'm sorry, I thought this was America (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/hDoGqZUHVEI [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, see it was just a laugh from a cartoon. You're probably too sophisticated to know the reference, but a stupid cartoon full of dirty jokes is right in my intellectual wheelhouse.
WTF happened? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You tried to get Microsoft EU to send all our EU-based personal data to the US courts, in pretty much the same kind of shitty outmaneuver described here, even when we told you where to go.
If you're that cut off from Britain, please remove your authority required to launch our Trident missile solutions too.
Re: WTF happened? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Leave your hard won freedoms at the door and get ready for some MI5/6 and GCHQ advisors looking deep into all US files.
A bit like what the UK asked for over the issue of US support for Ireland flowing from the US in the 1960-90's.
This time its all very legal and the UK expects the full and happy cooperation of all US bureaucrats.
Re: (Score:1)
You know we don't hate the brits anymore right?
So they want a smaller, more useless Interpol? (Score:5, Insightful)
Both nations are part of Interpol which was established for exactly this purpose. If they have a problem with the established organization then they need to reform that intermediary body for the betterment of all nations involved. That way it's not just the US you gain better cooperation with, but the other 188 countries as well. If you can't get the other member nations to agree with your proposals, then maybe your ideas aren't that great after all. This "alternative" of sidestepping established practices and micromanaging jurisdictional treaties between every god damn nation under the sun, just because you can't stand criticism from your peers, is nothing short of ridiculous.
Or maybe this has more to do with Interpol's charter forbidding their intervention in political matters #tinfoilhat.
Re: (Score:2)
Why stop there? (Score:1)
And why not.... (Score:3)
Oh, you're upset because another country is claiming the rights to come here and fuck with our shit? The nerve of them!
But why not....we get to fly drones over other people's countries and drop bombs on them, a warrant seems like a kiss on the lips compared to that, right?
Now you know how they feel.
Look, if we can send FBI agents to any country in the world to arrest people, tell me why, exactly, other countries shouldn't be allowed to do the EXACT same thing here? Yeah, it just doesn't seem "right", does it?
Don't get me wrong- I'm against it. But you can't on one hand say it's okay for us to do it but not for the UK to do, now can you?
Congress will let them (Score:2)
Because we only elect spineless old farts that care about their pockets more than the people they are elected to SERVE.
R E C I P R O C I T Y ??? (Score:2)
The norm in diplomatic relations is a tit-for-tat reciprocity: When one nation allows another the do something, almost always the first nation allows the second to do the same back.
So my question is whether US negotiators have secured the right for US police to serve warrants on UK ISPs? If not, why not? Why give it away? Just because the EU might have a cow?
Little America (Score:2)
Re: Little America (Score:2)
like an closed-border socialist
They call themselves socialist but they're about as socialist as the National Socialists. Peel back the thin veil (that fools a lot more people than it should) and you'll see that they're in fact fascist.
Didn't America fight a war about this? (Score:2)
Bad enough having your own gov. spying on you. (Score:2)
Not Ever Going To Happen (Score:3)
The first response in this thread is "So it begins..." but no, so it does not begin.
The UK wants this (and that part is true) and USATODAY ("TV in print") is happy
to tell us. It's not a proposal. It's not a treaty. It's not a draft-anything. It's as much
of a NON-STARTER as you can get. It's USATODAY Friday Filler.
However, this is not something Congress can allow, the President can sign, and
the law be born. It is against the sovereign principles of a free nation, against
international law, and against the DoI and the COTUS.
It won't happen. Continuing to cry about it maybe happening is making more
noise than the deaf "oof" the nonstory would have made.
Thanks, Timothy! Slashdot's new regime continues to show its stellar qualities
of approving utter crapola for the front page!
Ehud
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? It looks like the story is that Brits might be allowed to create and serve certain warrants. The US Constitution places requirements on warrants, and I don't see that these would be violated by that agreement. If the Brits got warrants that didn't conform with the Fourth, they'd be invalid, just like US warrants that don't conform are invalid. This doesn't violate sovereignity any more than C++'s "friend" violates encapsulation: it voluntarily allows alternatives to the current interface. I'm not
orwellian (Score:1)
Just ship all dissidents in Oceania to Airstrip One Ministry of Love for processing
Memo to MI6 (Score:2)
In not sure what "Congressional approval" means (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Leftists? [wikipedia.org]
Ignorant fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
By US standards, he is.
It's all relative.