NSA Whistleblower Tells UK Parliament: "Snooper's Charter" Is Deadly
'Britain should not go further down this road and risk making the same mistakes as my country did, or they will end up perpetuating loss of life.'
New surveillance laws set to be approved in the UK are "totalitarian" and could cost British lives, security whistleblower William Binney told members of Parliament (MPs) on Wednesday.
Lawmakers are debating the controversial Investigatory Powers Bill, introduced by Home Secretary Theresa May and dubbed the "Snooper's Charter" by opponents. It is expected to pass later this year and would, among other things, require telecommunications companies to store records of websites visited by every UK citizen for 12 months for access by law enforcement agencies.
That kind of sweeping, invasive surveillance strategy "costs lives, and has cost lives in Britain because it inundates analysts with too much data," said Binney, who worked for the National Security Agency (NSA) for 30 years before exposing the ineffectiveness of its various intelligence programs.
Binney also criticized a UK government surveillance program known as Black Hole, launched in 2008 and made public in 2013 by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, which lists everyone in the world who has ever visited a website.
"It is 99 percent useless," Binney said. "Who wants to know everyone who has ever looked at Google or the BBC? We have known for decades that that swamps analysts."
In fact, Binney charged, those kinds of expansive measures prevented intelligence agents from uncovering the September 11 plot, as the deluge of information strained resources within the NSA and impeded its ability to investigate leads.
"Sixteen months before the attacks on America, our organization [Signit Automation Research Center, or SARC] was running a new method of finding terrorist networks that worked on focusing on 'smart collection'. Their plan was rejected in favor of a... plan to collect all communications from everyone," Binney told a committee of MPs scrutinizing the draft bill. "The US large-scale surveillance plan failed. It had to be abandoned in 2005. Checks afterwards showed that communications from the terrorists had been collected, but not looked at in time."
"Britain should not go further down this road and risk making the same mistakes as my country did, or they will end up perpetuating loss of life," he said.
Rather than vacuuming up bulk data and sifting through it for valuable intel, Binney urged Parliament to focus on a more targeted collection technique, which he said would streamline the process and make it more effective at uncovering and thwarting plans for attacks. It would also safeguard against violating private communications of legally protected groups like lawyers, journalists, and MPs.
"This approach reduces the burden on analysts required to review extremely large quantities of irrelevant material with consequent improvement to operational effectiveness," he said. "At the same time, it reduces the privacy burden affecting the large number of innocent and suspicion-free persons whose communications are accessible to our systems."
In an interview with Wired UK ahead of his testimony, Binney explained, "Fundamentally, bulk acquisition is a major impediment to success by analysts and law enforcement."
"Retroactively analyzing people, anybody you want, any time you want, that's certainly possible with bulk acquisition of data but that's certainly not what democracies are built on. That's what totalitarian states are built on," he continued. "It doesn't give people security, it makes them more vulnerable; we're more vulnerable than we've ever been because of this."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
New surveillance laws set to be approved in the UK are "totalitarian" and could cost British lives, security whistleblower William Binney told members of Parliament (MPs) on Wednesday.
Lawmakers are debating the controversial Investigatory Powers Bill, introduced by Home Secretary Theresa May and dubbed the "Snooper's Charter" by opponents. It is expected to pass later this year and would, among other things, require telecommunications companies to store records of websites visited by every UK citizen for 12 months for access by law enforcement agencies.
That kind of sweeping, invasive surveillance strategy "costs lives, and has cost lives in Britain because it inundates analysts with too much data," said Binney, who worked for the National Security Agency (NSA) for 30 years before exposing the ineffectiveness of its various intelligence programs.
Binney also criticized a UK government surveillance program known as Black Hole, launched in 2008 and made public in 2013 by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, which lists everyone in the world who has ever visited a website.
"It is 99 percent useless," Binney said. "Who wants to know everyone who has ever looked at Google or the BBC? We have known for decades that that swamps analysts."
In fact, Binney charged, those kinds of expansive measures prevented intelligence agents from uncovering the September 11 plot, as the deluge of information strained resources within the NSA and impeded its ability to investigate leads.
"Sixteen months before the attacks on America, our organization [Signit Automation Research Center, or SARC] was running a new method of finding terrorist networks that worked on focusing on 'smart collection'. Their plan was rejected in favor of a... plan to collect all communications from everyone," Binney told a committee of MPs scrutinizing the draft bill. "The US large-scale surveillance plan failed. It had to be abandoned in 2005. Checks afterwards showed that communications from the terrorists had been collected, but not looked at in time."
"Britain should not go further down this road and risk making the same mistakes as my country did, or they will end up perpetuating loss of life," he said.
Rather than vacuuming up bulk data and sifting through it for valuable intel, Binney urged Parliament to focus on a more targeted collection technique, which he said would streamline the process and make it more effective at uncovering and thwarting plans for attacks. It would also safeguard against violating private communications of legally protected groups like lawyers, journalists, and MPs.
"This approach reduces the burden on analysts required to review extremely large quantities of irrelevant material with consequent improvement to operational effectiveness," he said. "At the same time, it reduces the privacy burden affecting the large number of innocent and suspicion-free persons whose communications are accessible to our systems."
In an interview with Wired UK ahead of his testimony, Binney explained, "Fundamentally, bulk acquisition is a major impediment to success by analysts and law enforcement."
"Retroactively analyzing people, anybody you want, any time you want, that's certainly possible with bulk acquisition of data but that's certainly not what democracies are built on. That's what totalitarian states are built on," he continued. "It doesn't give people security, it makes them more vulnerable; we're more vulnerable than we've ever been because of this."
New surveillance laws set to be approved in the UK are "totalitarian" and could cost British lives, security whistleblower William Binney told members of Parliament (MPs) on Wednesday.
Lawmakers are debating the controversial Investigatory Powers Bill, introduced by Home Secretary Theresa May and dubbed the "Snooper's Charter" by opponents. It is expected to pass later this year and would, among other things, require telecommunications companies to store records of websites visited by every UK citizen for 12 months for access by law enforcement agencies.
That kind of sweeping, invasive surveillance strategy "costs lives, and has cost lives in Britain because it inundates analysts with too much data," said Binney, who worked for the National Security Agency (NSA) for 30 years before exposing the ineffectiveness of its various intelligence programs.
Binney also criticized a UK government surveillance program known as Black Hole, launched in 2008 and made public in 2013 by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, which lists everyone in the world who has ever visited a website.
"It is 99 percent useless," Binney said. "Who wants to know everyone who has ever looked at Google or the BBC? We have known for decades that that swamps analysts."
In fact, Binney charged, those kinds of expansive measures prevented intelligence agents from uncovering the September 11 plot, as the deluge of information strained resources within the NSA and impeded its ability to investigate leads.
"Sixteen months before the attacks on America, our organization [Signit Automation Research Center, or SARC] was running a new method of finding terrorist networks that worked on focusing on 'smart collection'. Their plan was rejected in favor of a... plan to collect all communications from everyone," Binney told a committee of MPs scrutinizing the draft bill. "The US large-scale surveillance plan failed. It had to be abandoned in 2005. Checks afterwards showed that communications from the terrorists had been collected, but not looked at in time."
"Britain should not go further down this road and risk making the same mistakes as my country did, or they will end up perpetuating loss of life," he said.
Rather than vacuuming up bulk data and sifting through it for valuable intel, Binney urged Parliament to focus on a more targeted collection technique, which he said would streamline the process and make it more effective at uncovering and thwarting plans for attacks. It would also safeguard against violating private communications of legally protected groups like lawyers, journalists, and MPs.
"This approach reduces the burden on analysts required to review extremely large quantities of irrelevant material with consequent improvement to operational effectiveness," he said. "At the same time, it reduces the privacy burden affecting the large number of innocent and suspicion-free persons whose communications are accessible to our systems."
In an interview with Wired UK ahead of his testimony, Binney explained, "Fundamentally, bulk acquisition is a major impediment to success by analysts and law enforcement."
"Retroactively analyzing people, anybody you want, any time you want, that's certainly possible with bulk acquisition of data but that's certainly not what democracies are built on. That's what totalitarian states are built on," he continued. "It doesn't give people security, it makes them more vulnerable; we're more vulnerable than we've ever been because of this."