Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Government Crime United Kingdom United States Politics Your Rights Online

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Wants Authority To Serve Warrants In U.S.

Comments Filter:
  • Yeah, right... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lunix Nutcase ( 1092239 ) on Friday February 05, 2016 @11:09AM (#51446057)

    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!

    • 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

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        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

        • They (5 eyes countries) already have the ability to tap phones in each others countries, via access to the NSA database where everything is kept. This is just making it legal so they can use it in court.
        • 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

          • 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.

          • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            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

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They already do: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/gchq-cables-secret-world-communications-nsa

    • 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.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        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.

  • by PvtVoid ( 1252388 ) on Friday February 05, 2016 @11:13AM (#51446083)

    ... the British also want to issue tax stamps on tea.

    • So long as we remain their sole provider of major armaments, that's fine.

  • by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Friday February 05, 2016 @11:17AM (#51446101)

    >> 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...

    • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Friday February 05, 2016 @11:43AM (#51446305) Homepage

      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.

    • Because if you RTFA, it actually specifically excludes US citizens.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I guess this isn't the Hope and Change you voted for.

    • by Kobun ( 668169 )
      Hillary claims to be Obama's natural successor. Just something to keep in mind as they weigh her against Sanders...
      • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

        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

        • 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:Thanks, Obama (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Kobun ( 668169 ) on Friday February 05, 2016 @12:36PM (#51446783)
          I absolutely agree with you, for what it's worth. I'd like to add the handful of points below:
          • * - The Republican frontrunners are all awful. Bigoted and racist, bought off, stupid-religious pandering turds.
          • * - Mind you, there's nothing wrong with religion by itself. You know how the Founding Fathers were pretty much all Diests? Why can't we get back to that, instead of today's superficial Cracker-Jesus?
          • * - Bush followed by Bush the 2nd should have taught us that anything resembling family dynasties are a terrible mistake. The Clintons had their time. I would avoid voting for Hillary on that basis alone, even if she wasn't an awful liar and generally horrible person.
          • * - On a personal level, my policy for the last 16 years has been to vote for the strongest third party candidate that emerges. I'd love to see an end to the two-party system, however impossible that actually is.
          • * - It really doesn't matter, because the state I live in votes so strongly for whoever the Democrat candidate is that there's no hope of it changing.

          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.

          • When John McAfee looks like the best candidate in the race, the Nation is truly in shambles.

        • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

          ". 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

          • by Kobun ( 668169 )

            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.

          • 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

            • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

              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

              • 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?

        • Why do people who hate the overreach of the government keep voting for more government?

          Perhaps it's not like a simple knob that you can turn this way for up or that way for down?

          • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

            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

            • That's the problem with the Republican side. They sort of try to shrink it,

              Except they don't.

              Clearly you didn't get the single knob analogy. Try thinking of a graphic equalizer.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    bit by bit. convergence amongst western powers first. asia next. the rest later. not so alex jonesy anymore.

  • by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Friday February 05, 2016 @11:53AM (#51446385)
    I thought our forefathers fought Britain to be free of them? WTF happened?
    • by ledow ( 319597 )

      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.

    • They knew the Brits would be back, hence the 2nd Amendment: aim for the remaining teeth. ;)
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The UK wants its stolen land returned and back tax. It took them a while and they did it politically but they are back. Welcome into the Commonwealth.
      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.
    • by nhat11 ( 1608159 )

      You know we don't hate the brits anymore right?

  • by ComputerGeek01 ( 1182793 ) on Friday February 05, 2016 @12:03PM (#51446471)

    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.

    • The government made a similar argument in the Microsoft case. They argued that the process for obtaining a warrant over Irish jurisdiction was burdensome and thus shouldn't need to be followed, but the judge pointed out that the administration itself designed the process and could change it in cooperation with the Irish authorities if it so desired. This is probably related to that whole mess.
  • If they are going to do that, then why not have the United States apply to join the Commonwealth? We were part of the British Empire ... once.
  • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Friday February 05, 2016 @12:15PM (#51446571)

    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?

  • Because we only elect spineless old farts that care about their pockets more than the people they are elected to SERVE.

  • 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?

  • UK has been playing the wannabe EU version of America lately, wanting to close borders, wanting to revoke immigrant rights, remove welfare rights and whatnot. They have imposed several new laws to monitor their citizens, and they're becoming more and more like an closed-border socialist version of America every passing month. Now they also want rights in the U.S.A. LOL, I can't stop laughing at this, but this is so pitiful.
    • 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.

  • Something something revolution something.
  • I'm a Brit but this makes me just as uncomfortable as the US government watching me.
  • by gavron ( 1300111 ) on Friday February 05, 2016 @03:00PM (#51448349)

    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

    • 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

  • Just ship all dissidents in Oceania to Airstrip One Ministry of Love for processing

  • Did we forget Bunker HIll?
  • Given that the details of the program would be classified, I'm not sure what "Congressional approval" actually means. Does that mean Congress has to pass a bill, or does that mean that someone on the Intelligence Oversight Committee says "uh huh" and shakes a hand?

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...