Many thanks, as always, to Terry Hanstock for contributions. Comments and contributions welcome. My email is
‘War on Terrorism’: Repercussions of 11 Sept. 2001
The Sept 11 2001 attacks on the US and subsequent ‘war against terrorism’ have provided law enforcement/intelligence agencies with an opportunity to push for sweeping new powers, plus fast-tracking of legislation already on the agenda, to curb civil liberties and electronic privacy. Far-reaching anti-terrorist legislation has been rushed through in the US, and is currently proceeding through the UK Parliament.
USA Patriot Act
www.eff.org/sc/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR:
‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act’ This Act, hurried through the US Congress in record time and signed by President Bush on 26 Oct. 2001, greatly expands the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to tap phones, monitor email and internet traffic and conduct other forms of surveillance in pursuit of terrorists. A key feature is its provisons requiring increased sharing of information among law enforcement and national security personnel at all levels of government. Articles on this legislation: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47814-2001Oct24.html www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33340-2001Nov3.html
UK: Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200102/cmbills/049/2002049.htm
or
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmbills/049/2002049.htm
This Bill, revealed 13 Nov., is expected to have received the Royal Assent in the UK by the end of 2001. It includes broad-ranging anti-terrorism measures, including the power to require comms service providers to retain comms data (eg email addresses); extended police powers, also for MOD, nuclear and transport police; allowing govt. agencies to share information and, most contentiously, powers to detain asylum seekers suspected of terrorist acts. These powers required the UK to derogate from Article 5 of the ECHR, which protects people from arbitrary detention and imprisonment. Under Article 15 ECHR, derogation from the Convention can be carried out ‘in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation..’. Home Sec. Blunkett declared a state of emergency on 13 Nov. 2001, prior to the introduction of the anti-terrorist bill. Article on data retention and the Bill: see ‘The Net’s eyes are watching’, S. A. Mathieson, Guardian 15 Nov. 2001 www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/o,4273,4298 984,00.html Clause 102 of the Bill allows Hom Sec. to force traffic data retention if he feels voluntary code is failing to work.
Notes on the Bill: http://cryptome.org/atcsb-notes.htm
Info on the Bill: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/antiterrorism/index.htm
Two critical reports on the Bill see: Joint Lords/Commons C’ttee on Human Rights 16 Nov. www.publications.parliament. uk/pa/jt200102/jtselect/jtrights/037/3702.htm and Home Affairs Select C’ttee 19 Nov. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/351/35102.htm See also House of Commons Research Paper on data retention and disclosure, 19 Nov. 2001 www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-098.pdf
Terrorism – background and threat assessment
www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror.htm
Federation of American Scientists website: resources on the terrorism threat in the wake of 11 Sept. Including 11 Sept. and the aftermath; Middle East terror; State Dept’s foreign terrorist organisations designation; docs, articles and papers on chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorism.
Electronic Frontier Foundation’s archive on censorship, privacy, terrorism and militias:
/www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/
Info and analysis of recent anti-terrorism developments in the US.
Electronic Privacy Information Center’s webpage on Counter-Terrorism Proposals
www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism
For developments in the UK and Europe, see Statewatch and Cyber-rights and Cyber-liberties:
Statewatch: www.statewatch.org/observatory2.htm
New laws and practices affecting civil liberties and rights after 11 Sept. in the EU, UK and US. This ‘observatory’ will track anti-terrorist measures proposed since 11 Sept. and provide analysis and documentation. Planned EU anti-terrorist measures are mainly a fast-tracking of law enforcement legislation already planned – eg European arrest warrant to replace extradition procedures; EU mechanism for freezing assets; EU public prosecution agency – and the only new ‘anti-terrorist’ measure is to examine immigration and asylum legislation with reference to the terrorist threat www.statewatch.org/news/2001/oct/13analy6.htm)
For latest information see www.statewatch.org/news
Cyber-rights and cyber-liberties www.cyber-rights.org/911.htm
Internet-related policy issues and developments following September 11
Global Security.org
www.globalsecurity.org
Launched by John Pike, an expert on defence, space and security policy, who developed FAS’s award-winning website, Globalsecurity.org is ‘focused on innovative approaches to the emerging security challenges of the new millenium and will provide analysis/commentary on weapons proliferation; military; intelligence and space policy.’ ‘Attack on America’ section provides news of latest developments, ‘hot documents’, plus links related to the war on terrorism.
Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism
www.fas.org/irp/threat/commission.html
Report of the National Commission on Terrorism. The Commission’s Congressionally-mandated evaluation of US counter-terrorism laws, policies and practices, concludes ‘significant aspects of implementation are seriously deficient’.
This report, published June 2000, which went largely unnoticed until the recent attacks, says international terrorism poses an increasingly dangerous and difficult threat to America.
US Dept. of State: Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000 Report
www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/
Released April 2001 by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. Reviews terrorism in various parts of the world and background info on terrorist groups, including Usama Bin Laden. Says, prophetically: ‘The year 2000 showed that terrorism continues to present a clear and present danger to the international community’.
Evidence against Osama Bin Laden
http://cryptome.org/uk-bin-laden.htm
Presented by the FCO 4 Oct. 2001. Claims to provide evidence for OBL and Al Qaida connection with the Sept 11 attacks. More evidence published 14 Nov. 2001 http://emergencynews.ukonline.gov.uk/evidence.htm
Terrorism and US Policy
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB55/index1.html
National Security Archive 11 Sept. sourcebook Volume 1 Edited by Jeffery Richelson and Michael L. Evans, it includes documents relating to terrorism and Usama Bin Laden; assessments of terrorist threat; CIA profile of UBL; Congressional Research Service Reports; GAO reports, including 20 Sept. 2001 report on combatting terrorism; Presidential Directives and Executive Orders.
Network Against the Terrorism Act
http://go.to/ta2000
www.blagged.freeserve.co.uk/ta2000/index.htm – Oppose the Terrorism Act. The Terrorism Act came into force in Feb. 2001 and could be used to target protestors of all kinds who could fall under the new broader definition of terrorism, defined in Section One of the Act: viz ‘The use or threat of action where it is designed to influence the govt. or intimidate the public or a section of the public, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, and where the action involves serious violence against a person, serious damage to property, endangers a person’s life, creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or is designed seriously to interfere with or disrupt an electronic system.’
Site shows how the Act could affect direct action in the UK and those involved internationally in social, political and environmental campaigns. Includes Activist’s Guide to the Terrorism Act 2000, regional contacts for NATTA (Network Against the Terrorism Act); international law and useful links, eg to Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (www.cacc.org.uk) campaigns against the Act’s banning order on 21 named organisations said to be concerned in terrorism against overseas govts.
WHO Report: Health Aspects of Biological and Chemical Weapons
www.who.int/emc/pdfs/BIOWEAPONS_FULL_TEXT2.pdf
Unofficial draft. August 2001, to be finalised Dec 2001
Report, drafted before the 11 Sept. terrorist attacks, includes an assessment of threat to public health; characteristics and consequences of biological and chemical agents; public health readiness for biological or chemical incidents.
Rollback of South Africa’s Biological Warfare program
www.usafa.af.mil/inss/ocp37.htm
Feb. 2001, by Stephen Burgess and Helen Purkitt; USAF Inst for National Security Studies. This monograph analyses the origins and development of the sophisticated CBW program, ‘Project Coast’ developed by S. Africa’s apartheid regime, as well as it’s rollback. Military and police units used chemical and biological agents for counter-insurgence warfare, assassination and execution of war prisoners.
Terrorism and Encryption
The encryption/steganography debate is important because the claim that such methods are used by terrorists is being used to justify calls for further restrictions, such as key escrow; on 28 Sept. former Home Sec Jack Straw blamed the civil liberties lobby for weakening the powers to monitor encrypted messages in the RIP Bill (‘Straw takes swipe at Liberals’, Guardian Sept 29 2001 www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4266914,00.html).
‘How the Plotters slipped US Net’ by Duncan Campbell, Guardian 27 Sept. 2001 www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,558371,00.html
‘The potential use by terrorists of the net and encryption have for years been a major target of intelligence agencies and politicians. They have demanded curbs on privacy and the banning of encryption.’
But there is so far no evidence that encryption or steganography (a technique whereby a message is hidden inside a picture or music file transmitted over the internet) were used in planning the 11 Sept. attacks: ‘According to the FBI, the conspirators had not used encryption or concealment methods.’
More articles by Duncan Campbell on this debate at Telepolis:
‘How the terror trail went unseen’ www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/9751/1.html
‘Are terrorists using hidden messages?’ www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/11004/1.html and www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/11027/1.html
See UK Crypto mailing list for current debate on govt. crypto policy www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ukcrypto
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto (archives)
See ‘Emergency Powers allow mass surveillance for non-terrorist investigations’, FIPR press release, 16 Oct. 2001:
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2001-October/017752.html
Freedom of information
Public Record Office document releases
www.pro.gov.uk/releases/
Documents created by govt. departments are usually closed for 30 years. Under the Open Govt. initiative, files can now be opened early with approval from the Lord Chancellor. Features selected highlights of the monthly releases. For a full list of recently opened records, visit the PRO catalogue and search by open date.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU
www.europarl.eu.int/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights sets out the whole range of civil, political, economic and social rights of European citizens and all persons resident in the EU. Signed and proclaimed by the Presidents of the European Parliament, Council and Commission at Euro Council meeting 7 Dec. 2000 in Nice.
Freedom of Information Act
www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000036.htm
The Act received Royal Assent 30 Nov. 2000 and was expected to start coming into force in 2002 for central govt. departments, then being rolled out in stages to include other authorities over a period of 5 years. The gov. has postponed implementation until January 2005. See ‘Straw deals first information veto to Ombudsman’, Guardian 14 Nov. 2001, www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/o,4273,4298660,00.html
Campaign for Freedom of Information
www.cfoi.org.uk
‘Campaigns against unnecessary secrecy’. Press release on the delayed implementation of the FOI Act, Nov 13 2001 www.cfoi.org.uk/doubleblow131101pr.html: the Campaign condemns as ‘totally unjustifiable the delay until January 2005 for public right of access to information from all public authorities’. Includes info on the Scottish FOI Bill, expected to receive Royal Assent in Spring 2002; it will provide a legal right of access to info held by Scottish public bodies. The ‘substantial prejudice’ test, which applies to many exemptions in the draft Scotttish FOI Bill, is a tougher test than the ‘prejudice’ test in the FOI Act, and will require Scottish authorities to operate more openly than similar bodies elsewhere in the UK.
Electronic Privacy
ECHELON Report
Final report of the European Parliament’s Temporary C’tee on the ECHELON interception system, July 11 2001. www.europarl.eu.int/tempcom/echelon/pdf/rapport_echelon_en.pdf
Also at http://cryptome.org/echelon-ep-fin.htm
The ECHELON C’tee’s homepage, with details of its mandate, working document, links to STOA documents and Draft Report on ECHELON is at www.europarl.eu.int/committees/echelon _home.htm The report establishes that ECHELON does exist, it’s primary purpose being the interception of private and commercial communications; expresses the belief that ECHELON is a violation of the fundamental right to privacy as defined under Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; and calls for the development and widespread use of encryption technology as a means of protecting privacy. The report questions the compatibility of ECHELON with existing EU law; there is a specific warning to the UK, which participates in the ECHELON system, along with the US, Canada, Australia and NZ:
‘If ……the system is misused for the purposes of gathering competitive intelligence, such action is at odds with the Member States’ duty of loyalty and with the concept of a common market based on free competition. If a Member State participates in such a system, it violates EC law.’
On industrial espionage, the US has denied that they engage in commercial espionage, and the C’tee failed to prove conclusively that ECHELON had been used for commercial spying on European competitors, but the report warns businesses and individuals that they are being spied on and users should encrypt emails.
‘…the situation becomes intolerable when intelligence services allow themselves to be used for the purposes of gathering competitive intelligence by spying on foreign firms with the aim of securing a competitive advantage for firms in the home country.’
However, reports of European business losses resulting from interception activities were published by the US press – before Europe became concerned about the ECHELON system. See: ‘Germany, UK breaching human rights with NSA spy link-up’, Duncan Campbell, 27 May 2001, www.heise.de/tp/english/special/ech/7753/1.html; and Campbell’s reports to the ECHELON C’tee: ‘ECHELON and its role in COMINT’, Jan. 2001, www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/7747/1.html which summarises evidence for the existence of ECHELON, and ‘COMINT Impact on International Trade’ May 2001, which traces the shift in US intelligence gathering priorities after the end of the Cold War towards economic intelligence, and the likely financial losses sustained by Europe during the 1990s as a result of this policy www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/7752/1.html and ‘COMINT, privacy and human rights’ May 2001, www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/7748/1.html
Other Reports
The ECHELON Committee were given three key articles about US intelligence and economic activity:
‘Why we spy on our Allies’ by James Woolsey, former CIA Director, WSJ 17/3/00 http://cryptome.org/echelon-cia2.htm
‘US spying pays off for business’ by Robert Windrem, NBC News Online, 14/4/00 http://eden.dei.uc.pt/majordomo/sociedade/msg01132.html
‘US steps up commercial spying – Washington gives companies an advantage in information’ by Robert Windrem, NBC News Online, 7/5/00, www.gn.apc.org/cndyorks/caab/articles/spying. htm
Documents, all published during the Clinton administration, appear to confirm reports that America’s electronic eavesdropping apparatus was involved in commercial espionage. See table at www.heise.de/tp/deutsch/special/ech/7796/1.html (Background Documents of the US Govt. Advocacy Center, June 2001)
The European Parliament accepted the ECHELON report and voted to adopt 44 recommendations on September 5 2001. http://cryptome.org/echelon-090501.htm These included the need for national legislative measures to protect citizens and companies; measures to combat industrial espionage; and measures to encourage citizens and firms to protect themselves, especially by the use of encryption.
Council of Europe Cybercrime Treaty
http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/projets/FinalCybercrime.htm Final text of this controversial treaty, 23 Nov. 2001. This is the first international convention on cybercrime, which sets a common policy on misuse of computer networks and electronic info for illegal or terrorist activity. There are still substantial concerns on privacy grounds. The treaty would grant govt. investigators broad powers to track online activities of suspects, and specifies how police in one country can request their counterparts abroad to collect data traffic on a system intruder, have him arrested and extradited. It provides for international cooperation to fight against distributors of child pornography, copyright violators and other online offenders. The convention will come into force when 5 states have ratified it. More info at www.coe.int/T/E/Communication_and_ Research/Press/Themes_Files/Cybercrime
Statewatch: www.statewatch.org/news/2001/may/06cybercrime.html
Draft Code of Practice on Accessing Communications Data [Part 1 Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act] http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/pcdcpc.htm
Consultation on this finished 2 Nov. 2001. (www.homeoffice. gov.uk/ripa/consultintro.htm) See ‘Privacy Experts Slam Snooping Code of Practice’ (news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2093177,00.html) 15 Aug. 2001,
‘Cyber liberty experts are frustrated that the Home Office consultation paper offers no guidelines on the legitimate interception of communications …..The draft Code of Practice addresses the most controversial part of RIPA, which is expected to come into force later this year [2001] It regulates monitoring of electronic communications such as email messages. At the centre of the controversy is the power that RIPA gives to law enforcement officers to monitor email communications.’
On 10 August 2001, SI 2001 No 2727 brought into force sections 71 and 72 RIPA for the purposes of Chapter II Part I of the Act (Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data)
National Security
D-Notice Homepage
www.dnotice.org.uk
Includes: Introduction to the DA (Defence Advisory) notices; the 5 standing DA notices; how the DA notice system works; the Committee – current members of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory C’tee; Nick Wilkinson, DA Notice Secretary since Nov 1999, including contact details; FAQs and history of the D-notice system; date and agenda for next meeting of DPBAC; records of past meetings; related media articles and speeches. Website reflects increased openness of the D-notice system under Wilkinson.
MI5 Data Protection Act Exemption Certificate
http://cryptome.org/MI5-straw-gag.htm
This certificate, signed by Jack Straw (then Home Secretary) on 22 July 2000, exempts MI5 from the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 on the grounds of safeguarding national security. Similar certificates were signed (by Robin Cook, then Foreign Secretary) on behalf of MI6 and GCHQ.
In October 2001, Norman Baker MP won a Data Protection Tribunal appeal; the National Security Appeals Panel of the Tribunal ruled that a blanket ban on the release of such files by MI5 is unlawful under the DPA. The Tribunal decision in the Baker appeal is at www.lcd.gov.uk/foi/bakerfin.pdf See also ‘Test case allows “right to know” on MI5 files’, Guardian 2 October 01
www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4268111,00, html
What Price National Security?
http://cryptome.org/price-natsec.htm
Transcript of Nov. 2000 conference on national security hosted by the Freedom Forum, the speakers including John Wadham, David Shayler, Stephen Dorril, Nick Wilkinson, Andrew Puddephat, Tony Geraghty, Nigel Wylde, Duncan Campbell (report in Lobster 40). The Freedom Forum’s European Centre in London closed in October 2001.
Intelligence and Security Committee Reports
The ISC monitors the intelligence and security agencies. Its annual reports to the PM are published, (with deletions and asterisks): 1999-2000 www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm48/4897/4897.htm Interim Report 2000-01:
www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm51/5126/5126.htm For previous ISC reports, go to www.official-documents.co.uk/menu/bytitle.htm and scroll down to letter I..
Judgments in Shayler Case
High Court judgment of Mr Justice Moses May 15 2001 www.xs4all.nl/~mprofaca/shayler15052001.html
The OSA does not allow a public interest defence to disclosures of info by members of security and intelligence agencies, even where serious crime is exposed; and OSA is compatible with HRA. See Guardian 17 May 01
Court of Appeal Judgment, 28 September 2001
Judgment at http://cryptome.org/shayler-v-coa.htm;
Times Report www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,12-2001351823,00. html This ruling establishes a defence of necessity in OSA cases, but Shayler could not rely on this because his disclosures did not involve ‘imminent threats to the life and limb of members of the general public’. Guardian article 29 Sept. 2001 ‘BlanketBan of Secrets Act Ruled Unlawful’ www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4266903,00.html The case will go to the House of Lords over the non-availability of a public interest defence in the OSA, and that the defence of necessity is not available to Shayler. This will delay further an OSA trial.
Gaddafi plot
http://cryptome.org/shayler-gaddafi.htm
The Metropolitan Police confirm their investigation of the Gaddafi plot. ‘This is the first ever police investigation into an allegation made against MI6 and directly contradicts former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook’s claim that the Gaddafi plot has “no basis in fact” and is “pure fantasy”‘.
Misc
Pat Finucane Centre
www.serve.com/pfc/index.html
Pat Finucane, a human rights lawyer in N. Ireland, was murdered in 1989 by the UDA ‘One of those involved with his murder, Brian Nelson, was working for the Force Research Unit, an undercover unit of British Military Intelligence.’ Includes info on the Finucane case; the FRU and their alleged involvement in other murders (www.serve.com/pfc/fru/fruindex.html); links to articles and reports.
Globalisation
Corporate Europe Observatory
www.xs4all.nl/~ceo
The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a trade agreement administered and enforced by the WTO. The mandate of GATS is the liberalisation of trade in services and the phasing out of govt. barriers to international competition in the services sector. The CEO website includes recently uncovered papers of meetings of the UK-corporate state alliance known as the LOTIS C’tee, which provides a private forum where govt. and business discuss strategies for ongoing WTO negotiations on liberalisation of trade in services. The minutes show how this C’tee is pushing aggressively for further liberalisation of trade in services through the GATS 2000 negotiations. See also GATS Watch (www.gatswatch.org) for info on GATS and campaign for a moratorium on the GATS 2000 negotiations.
Injustice
www.injusticefilm.co.uk
This powerful film by Ken Fero and Tariq Mehmood documents the struggle for justice and wall of secrecy met by the families of those who have died in police custody. Venues wanting to show the film have been forced to cancel viewings after receiving threats to take legal action from the Police Federation. Includes screening dates and places.
Copwatcher
www.copwatcher.org
Covers policing in the UK from a critical standpoint: latest news; complaints against the police; policing and racist crime; deaths in police custody; Lawrence Inquiry; Stop and Search; use of less-lethal weapons. Links to useful info and organisations.