GCHQ's surveillance hasn't proved itself to be worth the cost to human rights

October 5, 2015 by Fiona De Londras, The Conversation
Credit: defenceimages, CC BY-SA

The release of yet more of Edward Snowden's leaked files reveals the still-astonishing scale and breadth of government surveillance after more than a year of revelations. These recent papers revealed by Wikileaks discuss a programme within Britain's GCHQ known as "Karma Police", in which the intelligence agency gathered more than 1.1 trillion pieces of information on UK citizens between August 2007 and March 2009.

Spurred on by the expansion of intercept warrants under the Terrorism Act 2006, this information is users' internet metadata – details of phone calls, email messages and browser connections that includes passwords, contacts, phone numbers, email addresses, and folders used to organise emails, but not the actual content of messages or emails.

Metadata can help identify people of interest, build profiles, and assist with decisions to start or escalate surveillance of individuals. All this information can be collected often at a fraction of the cost of doing this through traditional methods. In other words, metadata is not insignificant – and this is precisely why governments are so committed to collecting and processing it. However, bulk metadata collection – where information is collected from everyone whether a "person of interest" or not – is rightly a source of deep anxiety from both security and perspectives.

Does it make us safer?

It's not at all clear that bulk collection of metadata makes society "safer". While such data may be (and often is) useful in investigating crime, its use in helping anticipate terrorist incidents is hotly disputed. This doesn't mean that security services cannot point to situations in which they have disrupted possible attacks through information gleaned from such activities, but it does mean that the justification for bulk, rather than targeted, data collection has not been made.

In fact the question as to whether of metadata, and the sheer volume of data it generates, may actually hinder effective identification of terrorist suspects and other serious crime hasn't been satisfactorily addressed. Nor is it clear whether a bulk data collection approach, rather than one that emphasises directing more resources towards traditional police and human intelligence techniques, is any more efficient, especially in the domestic sphere where GCHQ and MI5 share information.

Bulk metadata collection relies on algorithmic computer analysis followed by human judgement. It's not clear how much is missed, or how many false positives are generated, by adopting a machine-centric approach over one that involves more human experience. Furthermore, we don't know to what extent resources are diverted away from funding the human expertise of policing, relationship building and developing professional investigative instincts as a result of such programmes of data collection and processing.

At the very least, intrusive operations such as this one should work; if they are to be accepted at all, they should be justified by their effectiveness, something that remains more a matter of rhetoric than of established fact.

Is it justified?

Even if bulk data collection does work, is this justification in itself? The answer, it seems to me, must be determined by oversight and the importance we ascribe to our civil rights.

No agency that collects and processes this volume of information should be without effective oversight. Yet we have seen that, despite GCHQ being subject to oversight from the Intelligence Services Commissioner for its intelligence function, and to the secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs for its overseas-related work, its culture of secrecy and non-disclosure nevertheless means that we're left to rely on leaks and whistleblowers to get a clear picture of what is happening. The Wikileaks documents demonstrate this all too well, showing internal discussions that reveal GCHQ bosses felt their oversight bodies were "on side".


This is a matter of real concern from a human rights and civil liberties perspective. The growth of bulk data collection and computerised processing by government agencies is fundamentally shifting political, operational and potentially even popular conceptions of what "privacy" really entails. What are we entitled to keep to ourselves? When are we entitled to expect the state to have to justify its intrusions into that private space? The fact that this is metadata rather than content doesn't remove the privacy implications of such surveillance.

As the Court of Justice of the European Union said in April 2014, metadata "may allow very precise conclusions to be drawn concerning … private lives". In order for any retention regime to be proportionate – and so stay within the requirements of human rights law – proper safeguards and limitations must be built in. Otherwise the effects of surveillance could be corrosive, creating a chilling sense that "one is being watched permanently".

As GCHQ continues to amass data on internet users, it is time for political leaders to answer two vital questions: does bulk data work? And, if so, is it worth the cost?

Explore further: NSA to stop using bulk US phone data in November

Related Stories

NSA to stop using bulk US phone data in November

July 28, 2015

The National Security Agency will cease its access to most bulk data collected under a controversial surveillance program in November, but retain records for litigation purposes, officials said Monday.

US intel program targets email addresses, not keywords

March 19, 2014

The US government's clandestine PRISM Internet program exposed by Edward Snowden targets suspect email addresses and phone numbers but does not search for keywords like terrorism, officials said Wednesday.

It's too late to debate metadata

March 20, 2015

What has been so frustrating throughout the metadata "debate" is that we have been kept in ignorance as to what it was that the law enforcement agencies actually wanted to retain.

UK surveillance programmes challenged at tribunal

July 14, 2014

Civil liberties campaigners began a legal challenge Monday against the alleged use of mass surveillance programmes by the British intelligence services, in what they said were historic public hearings sparked by the Snowden ...

Post-Snowden, UK watchdog issues online spying report

June 11, 2015

The man responsible for reviewing Britain's anti-terrorism laws called Thursday for more judicial oversight over data interception as ministers prepare legislation firming up the powers of security services following leaks ...

Recommended for you

Pushing lithium ion batteries to the next performance level

December 13, 2018

Conventional lithium ion batteries, such as those widely used in smartphones and notebooks, have reached performance limits. Materials chemist Freddy Kleitz from the Faculty of Chemistry of the University of Vienna and international ...

Uber filed paperwork for IPO: report

December 8, 2018

Ride-share company Uber quietly filed paperwork this week for its initial public offering, the Wall Street Journal reported late Friday.

4 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Returners
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2015
GCHQ's surveillance hasn't proved itself to be worth the cost to human rights


Doing nothing sure as hell doesn't make anybody safer either, and neither does trying to guess who is a terrorist: that leads to counter-charges of "racial profiling" and other such issues.

If "Big Brother" is such a big concern right now, then why are you even allowed to write this?

Wouldn't "Big Brother" hide your concerns from the public, etc?

Snowden is a traitor.

So there's some spying going on by the west. Big deal, it's been that way for centuries.

"oooooh." spooky stuff. We have an intelligence agency, and watching Mission Impossible scares people.

In fact, the U.S. needs more spy programs, and we need constitutional amendments to make them more effective, and we need another constitutional amendment to make rational gun laws both possible and enforceable.

"Big Brother" is a heck of a lot better than "Big Islam".
Roderick
5 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2015
You would be right at home in Stalin's police state.
Roderick
5 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2015
You are advocating measures that undermine what it is purportedly protecting - democracy and the associated human rights.

Did it not ever occur that this surveillance machinery could be used by a democratically elected government to target its political opponents and tilt the political playing field in its favor? Is that so hard for to understand after the last several thousands of human history?

Returners
1 / 5 (1) Oct 05, 2015
You are advocating measures that undermine what it is purportedly protecting - democracy and the associated human rights.

Did it not ever occur that this surveillance machinery could be used by a democratically elected government to target its political opponents and tilt the political playing field in its favor? Is that so hard for to understand after the last several thousands of human history?



Given a 2/3rds majority and a consenting Supreme Court, an elected majority can pretty well do whatever they want right now.

Given enough votes, Congress could actually make an amendment that abolishes the Supreme Court.

Hey, who said majority rule was right? I didn't.

Unfortunately, we live in a democracy, and unfortunately democracy is so far the most successful form of government.

The existing constitution is inadequate to face the threats of the modern criminal and the modern terrorist, however it makes provision for AMENDMENTS...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.