Tag Archives: National Security Agency

Arts, Business, Consumer Affairs, Economic, Government, Society, Technology

Internet privacy and the need for firms to profit…

BIG DATA

The next phase of the internet revolution will concern Big Data. Coupled with that will be a ‘Big Debate’ about privacy.

Big Data, a Californian gold rush for the internet age, is all about the potential of the vast quantities of data generated online. It is only now that the brainboxes of Silicon Valley are beginning to harvest, store, transfer and analyse in ways that could prove extremely valuable to companies and governments among others.

Silicon Valley is well known for its liberal sprinkling of fledging firms whose business models are built around Big Data. AdParlour, for instance, set up in 2008 by young entrepreneur Hussain Fazal, is designed to build an advertising network for Facebook.

Whereas traditional advertising is transmitted to those who are not remotely interested as well as to prime potential customers, the new generation and streams of ads can be targeted at people based on personal data gleaned from their online activities.

As Fazal says: ‘Almost everywhere you go on the web, you are being tracked.’

The difficulty for companies such as Facebook, which styles itself as a trendy firm in tune with users, is that increasing numbers of people are uncomfortable with having their every online move observed and used for commercial gain.

Last week, the Wall Street Journal ran a prominent article headlined ‘Give Me Back My Online Privacy’, which highlighted findings by the Pew Research Centre suggesting more than half of Americans are concerned about the amount of personal data online. Potentially there is big money in all that minutiae about our lifestyles and shopping habits.

The anecdotal evidence is important to note. The annual value to Facebook of an American woman who is a light user of the site is just over $12. This doesn’t sound a lot until you multiply this by the millions of users and factor in those online advertising techniques – many of which are still in their infancy – and are likely to become more sophisticated and effective over time.

The public mood among Americans about being watched online is more sensitive than it is in the UK following the revelations about the National Security Agency. Many Britons, though, do feel a sense of unease at the snooping of their personal data, and how the information may be exploited.

From the corporate point of view, probing into customer lifestyles and behaviours is not a novelty. Firms have always, and quite legitimately, wanted to know as much as they can about consumers, so they can target their products and prices to best advantage.

Loyalty cards have been tracking people’s purchases and giving stores information on shopping habits for years. Credit scoring for loans and plastic cards, which monitors behaviour in terms of how, when and whether people repay their debts, has also been a feature of the commercial landscape for some time.

At the moment, the use of Big Data to target ads is relatively crude, which is why those spawned by your previous purchases often miss the mark.

At this point in time, however, it is only scratching the surface. Once the so-called ‘internet of things’, where everyday objects are connected to the internet, takes hold, even your fridge will be tracking your habits, making known all about your clandestine food intake. Privacy is not an absolute, but a concept that changes according to time and place.

The internet is redefining some existing social norms: the generation that grew up with the internet and those that come after may be comfortable sharing information their parents and grandparents would have considered wholly personal.

At the moment, it would seem that many users either do not know or do not care that they might be giving away valuable information about themselves online. The online economy has unarguably brought significant consumer benefits.

Shoppers can easily compare prices and obtain the best deals, and can buy goods from anywhere in the world. Users value their experiences on Facebook and Twitter and may feel the surrender of some personal data is a price worth paying.

Set against that is the reality that the details of our day to day lives, hobbies, friendships, work and interests, is being mined by companies as if it were just another commodity.

Yet, it is an exchange in which the terms of the deal are not clear – we have no way of knowing how valuable our personal information might be to companies, and whether the benefits we receive in return are a fair deal.

The debate about privacy and commercial profit will become more pressing as the online world becomes smarter.

Standard
Britain, Government, Intelligence, National Security, United States

What amount of time does GCHQ and the intelligence services have for snooping?

CONFRONTING THREATS

In recent days and weeks, GCHQ – the British Government’s eavesdropping and listening centre – has been the subject of a number of startling revelations, most recently that it received funding over the last three years from America’s National Security Agency (NSA) in return for access and influence to its work.

For many people, a distinct impression has been given – the emergence of an all-powerful Orwellian state, in which government vetted employees in Cheltenham and Fort Meade can access and read the personal emails of everyone without anything but the most cursory regard for law or conscience.

However, the very same leaked documents from the former NSA employee, Edward Snowden, who has now been granted 12-months asylum status in Russia, also remind us of something else. Intelligence officials at GCHQ point out that Britain and its computer systems are under severe and sustained attack from foreign powers, especially from Russia and China, to a far greater extent than Whitehall have yet admitted. Implicit, then, should be an understanding that our cyber-spies and counter-electronic espionage staff are on a war footing, against a ruthless and determined enemy.

With the need to confront such inventive and external threats, as well as British intelligence services monitoring suspected terrorists and other internal and external dangers, suggests they will have very little time to snoop and trail through people’s private lives to the extent which has been reported.

GCHQ and the intelligence agencies are accountable to Parliament with ministerial oversight over their activities and methods of working. Given this oversight, it is assumed that they are acting within the law, and are monitored scrupulously. With threats that are evolving and intensifying by the day, public discourse risks restricting their ability to respond to threats in a timely manner.

Standard
Britain, Intelligence, National Security, United States

US bankrolling of GCHQ in return for influence…

INTELLIGENCE GATHERING

It has been claimed that Washington gave Britain’s spying and intelligence gathering centre at GCHQ more than £100 million over the last three years, raising questions over how much the U.S. has been influencing the work of British intelligence.

According to documents released into the public domain by whistleblower Edward Snowden, the British eavesdropping agency was expected to ‘pull its weight’.

One document states that weaker regulation for British spies than American agents is one of the intelligence services’ ‘selling points’ for the U.S.

Such leaks will raise yet more questions for GCHQ and government ministers who oversee it operationally, particularly in relation to the extent to which the United States makes pressing demands of Britain in its intelligence-gathering activities.

In a document from 2010, GCHQ said the US National Security Agency had ‘raised a number of issues with regards to meeting (its) minimum expectations’, and GCHQ ‘remains short of the full NSA ask’.

A classified cache leaked to The Guardian reveals the UK’s biggest fear is that… ‘US perceptions of the […] partnership diminish, leading to loss of access, and/or reduction in investment to the UK’.

A copy of a temporary document to allow US fugitive and whistleblower Edward Snowden to cross the border into Russia.

A copy of a temporary document to allow US fugitive and whistleblower Edward Snowden to cross the border into Russia.

These latest revelations leaked by Mr Snowden, a former NSA contractor, and who has been charged with espionage in the U.S., left Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport yesterday were he has been since June after exposing PRISM, a U.S. intelligence gathering project that snoops on private individuals accounts, emails and telephone calls. Snowden has now been granted refugee status in Russia amid Western concerns he is now in the embrace of Moscow’s secret services. The granting of refugee status pending his application for temporary political asylum is certain to spark fury in Washington which had urged President Putin to deport him to the US to face espionage charges.

Previously, GCHQ was criticised after Mr Snowden claimed British intelligence agents used the PRISM system to bypass UK laws.

Last week Parliament’s spy watchdog called for an investigation into the laws on intelligence eavesdropping, saying they ‘may not be fit for purpose’.

The latest documents reveal the NSA gave GCHQ £22.9million in 2009, £39.9million in 2010, and at least another £34.7m in 2011-12.

The 2010 payment included £4million to support GCHQ’s work for NATO forces in Afghanistan, and £17.2million to fund the agency’s Mastering the Internet project, which gathers and stores vast amounts of ‘raw’ information ready for analysis.

Also funded by the NSA was redevelopment of GCHQ’s sister site in Bude, Cornwall, to the tune of £15.5million. The site intercepts transatlantic cables that carry internet traffic.

In return, the documents suggest GCHQ has to take the American view into account when deciding what to prioritise.

The money has been an important source of income for the British agency as it has been forced to cut costs and has shed more than 300 of its 6,000 staff.

Documents show GCHQ is heavily investing in harvesting personal information from mobile phones and apps, and wants to be able to ‘exploit any phone, anywhere, anytime’.

Some GCHQ staff have expressed concern about ‘the morality and ethics of their operational work, particularly given the level of deception involved’.

Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander MP said…

… The vital work of the intelligence agencies requires effective and thorough oversight by the Intelligence and Security Committee on behalf of Parliament, and by ministers, and in the case of GCHQ, by the Foreign Secretary.

… The latest reports in the Guardian only underline the importance of the Foreign Secretary and the Intelligence and Security Committee being able to assure the public that the legal framework within which our intelligence agencies operate is both being adhered to and is fit for purpose.

Standard