The Police State Mass surveillance in the United States From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia National Security Agency surveillance Programs[show] Legislation[show] Institutions[show] Lawsuits[show] Whistleblowers[show] Publication[show] Related[show] Concepts[show] Collaboration[show] v t e Main article: Mass surveillance The practice of mass surveillance in the United States dates back to wartime monitoring and censorship of international communications from, to, or which passed through the United States. After the First and Second World Wars, the surveillance continued, via programs such as the Black Chamber and Project SHAMROCK. The formation and growth of federal law-enforcement and intelligence agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and NSA institutionalized surveillance, such as the COINTELPRO projects from 1956–1971, which targeted various presumably subversive organizations, including anti-war and civil rights activists. The formation of the ECHELON collaboration of five English-speaking nations in the latter half of the 1940s focused on interception of electronic communications, with substantial increases in surveillance capabilities described as necessary for thwarting terrorism following the September 11th attacks of 2001. A series of media reports in 2013 revealed more recent programs and techniques employed by the US intelligence community. Advances in computer and information technology allow the creation of huge national databases that facilitate mass surveillance in the United States.[1][2] Contents [hide] 1 History 1.1 Wartime censorship and surveillance 1.2 Black Chamber 1.3 Project SHAMROCK 1.4 National Security Agency (NSA) 1.5 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 1.6 Church committee review 1.7 ECHELON 1.8 Escalation following the September 11th attacks of 2001 1.9 Acceleration of media leaks (2010–present) 1.10 2013 mass surveillance disclosures 2 Modalities, concepts, and methods 2.1 Logging postal mail 2.2 Wiretapping 2.2.1 Legal foundations 2.2.2 Internet communications 2.2.3 Intelligence apparatus to monitor Americans 2.2.4 Telephones 2.2.5 Infiltration of smartphones 2.3 Data mining of subpoenaed records 2.4 Surveillance cameras 2.5 Surveillance drones 2.6 Infiltration of activist groups 2.7 International cooperation 3 Uses of intercepted data 4 See also 5 References 6 External links History[edit] Wartime censorship and surveillance[edit] During the world wars of the 20th century, all international mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service and international cables sent through companies such as Western Union, ITT, and RCA were reviewed by the US military.[3] During World War II, first the War Department and later the Office of Censorship monitored “communications by mail, cable, radio, or other means of transmission passing between the United States and any foreign country”.[4] In 1942 this included the 350,000 overseas cables and telegrams and 25,000 international telephone calls made each week.[5]:144 “Every letter that crossed international or U.S. territorial borders from December 1941 to August 1945 was subject to being opened and scoured for details.”[4] Black Chamber[edit] 1919: The Black Chamber, also known as the Cipher Bureau and MI-8, was the first U.S. peacetime cryptanalytic organization, jointly funded by the U.S. Army and the U.S. Department of State. It conducted peacetime decryption of material including diplomatic communications until 1929.[6][7] Project SHAMROCK[edit] 1945: The now-defunct Project SHAMROCK was created to gather all telegraphic data entering into or exiting from the United States.[6][8] Major communication companies such as Western Union, RCA Global and ITT World Communications actively aided the U.S. government in the latter’s attempt to gain access to international message traffic.[9] National Security Agency (NSA)[edit] At the request of the U.S. Army, those who protested against the Vietnam War were put on the NSA’s “watch list”.[9] 1952: Seven years later, the National Security Agency (NSA) was officially established.[6] According to The New York Times, the NSA was created in “absolute secrecy” by President Truman.[10] Six weeks after President Truman took office, he ordered wiretaps on the telephones of Thomas Gardiner Corcoran, a close advisor of Franklin D. Roosevelt.[11] The recorded conversations are currently kept at the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum, along with other sensitive documents (~233,600 pages). In addition, the FBI kept a dossier on First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who spoke out against anti-Japanese prejudice during the second world war, and was a vocal supporter of the civil rights movement. The 3,000-page FBI dossier on Eleanor Roosevelt reveals the government’s close monitoring of her activities and writings, and contains charges against her for suspected Communist activities.[12][13] Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)[edit] As the extent of the FBI’s domestic surveillance continued to grow, many celebrities were also secretly investigated by the bureau, including: Frank Sinatra – His 1,300 page FBI dossier, dating from 1943, contains allegations about Sinatra’s possible ties to the American Communist Party. The FBI spent several decades tracking Sinatra and his associates.[14][15] Marilyn Monroe – Her FBI dossier begins in 1955 and continues up until the months before her death. It focuses mostly on her travels and associations, searching for signs of leftist views and possible ties to communism.[16] Her ex-husband, Arthur Miller, was also monitored. Monroe’s FBI dossier is “heavily censored”, but a “reprocessed” version has been released by the FBI to the public.[16] John Lennon – In 1971, shortly after Lennon arrived in the United States on a visa to meet up with anti-war activists, the FBI placed Lennon under surveillance, and the U.S. government tried to deport him from the country.[17] At that time, opposition to the Vietnam War had reached a peak and Lennon often showed up at political rallies to sing his anti-war anthem “Give Peace a Chance”.[17] The U.S. government argued that Lennon’s 300 page FBI dossier was particularly sensitive because its release may “lead to foreign diplomatic, economic and military retaliation against the United States”,[18] and therefore only approved a “heavily censored” version.[19] The Beatles, which John Lennon was part of, had a separate FBI dossier. Some of the greatest historical figures of the 20th century, including several U.S. citizens, were placed under warrantless surveillance for the purpose of character assassination – a process that aims to destroy the credibility and reputation of a person, institution, or nation. Left: Albert Einstein, who supported the anti-war movement and opposed nuclear proliferation, was a member of numerous civil rights groups including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (See Albert Einstein’s political views). As a result of his political views, Einstein was subjected to telephone tapping, and his mail was searched by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as part of a secret government campaign that aimed to link him with a Soviet espionage ring in order to first discredit him, and then deport him (unsuccessfully) from the United States.[20][21][22] Center: Martin Luther King, Jr., a leader of the African-American Civil Rights Movement, was the target of an intensive campaign by the FBI to “neutralize” him as an effective civil rights activist.[23] A FBI memo recognized King to be the “most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country.”,[24] and the agency wanted to discredit him by collecting evidence to (unsuccessfully) prove that he had been influenced by communism.[24] Right: Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers to the media in 1971, experienced one of the most spectacular episodes of government surveillance and character assassination. The White House tried to steal his medical records and other possibly detrimental information by sending a special unit to break into the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.[25][26] These activities were later uncovered during the course of investigation as the Watergate scandal slowly unfolded, which eventually led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.[27] See also: The FBI kept a dossier on Albert Einstein (~1,500 pages) and Martin Luther King, Jr. (~17,000 pages). Due to a court order, however, some information has been removed and many other pages will not be released until the year 2027.[28] 1967–73: The now-defunct Project MINARET was created to spy on U.S. citizens. At the request of the U.S. Army, those who protested against the Vietnam War were put on the NSA’s “watch list”.[9] The Church Committee of the United States Senate published the final report on “Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans” in 1976 (PDF, 26.54 MB) From 1940 until his death in 1966, the American business magnate Walt Disney served as a “S.A.C. Contact” (trusted informant) for the U.S. government to weed out communists and dissidents from the entertainment industry, according to documents obtained by The New York Times.[29] See also: Hollywood blacklist Church committee review[edit] 1975: The Church Committee of the United States Senate was set up to investigate widespread intelligence abuses by the NSA, CIA and FBI.[6] Domestic surveillance, authorizied by the highest executive branch of the federal government, spanned from the FDR Administration to the Presidency of Richard Nixon. The following examples were reported by the Church Committee: President Roosevelt asked the FBI to put in its files the names of citizens sending telegrams to the White House opposing his “national defense” policy and supporting Col. Charles Lindbergh.[30] President Truman received inside information on a former Roosevelt aide’s efforts to influence his appointments, labor union negotiating plans, and the publishing plans of journalists.[30] President Eisenhower received reports on purely political and social contacts with foreign officials by Bernard Baruch, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas.[30] The Kennedy administration ordered the FBI to wiretap a congressional staff member, three executive officials, a lobbyist, and a Washington law firm. US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy received data from a FBI wire tap on Martin Luther King, Jr. and an electronic listening device targeting a congressman, both of which yielded information of a political nature.[30] President Johnson asked the FBI to conduct “name checks” of his critics and members of the staff of his 1964 opponent, Senator Barry Goldwater. He also requested purely political intelligence on his critics in the Senate, and received extensive intelligence reports on political activity at the 1964 Democratic Convention from FBI electronic surveillance.[30] President Nixon authorized a program of wiretaps which produced for the White House purely political or personal information unrelated to national security, including information about a Supreme Court justice.[30] The Final Report (Book II) of the Church Committee revealed the following statistics: Over 26,000 individuals were at one point catalogued on an FBI list of persons to be rounded up in the event of a “national emergency”.[30] Over 500,000 domestic intelligence files were kept at the FBI headquarters, of which 65,000 of were opened in 1972 alone.[30] At least 130,000 first class letters were opened and photographed by the FBI from 1940 to 1966.[30] A quarter of a million first class letters were opened and photographed by the CIA from 1953 to 1973.[30] Millions of private telegrams sent from, to, or through the United States were obtained by the National Security Agency (NSA), under a secret arrangement with U.S. telegraph companies, from 1947 to 1975.[30] Over 100,000 Americans have been indexed in U.S. Army intelligence files.[30] About 300,000 individuals were indexed in a CIA computer system during the course of Operation CHAOS.[30] Intelligence files on more than 11,000 individuals and groups were created by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), with tax investigations “done on the basis of political rather than tax criteria”.[30] In response to the committee’s findings, the FISA Court was established by the United States Congress to issue surveillance warrants.[31] Several decades later in 2013, the presiding judge of the FISA Court, Reggie Walton, told The Washington Post that the court only has a limited ability to supervise the government’s surveillance, and is therefore “forced” to rely upon the accuracy of the information that is provided by federal agents.[32] On August 17, 1975 Senator Frank Church stated on NBC’s “Meet the Press” without mentioning the name of the NSA about this agency: “ In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything — telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.[33][34][35] ” ECHELON[edit] In 1988, an article titled “Somebody’s listening” by Duncan Campbell in the New Statesman, described the signals intelligence gathering activities of a program code-named “ECHELON”.[36] The program was engaged by English-speaking World War II Allied powers Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States (collectively know as AUSCANNZUKUS). It was created to monitor the military and diplomatic communications of the Soviet Union and its Eastern Bloc allies during the Cold War in the early 1960s.[37] By the 1990s the ECHELON system was capable of intercepting satellite transmissions, public switched telephone network (PSTN) communications (including most Internet traffic), and transmissions carried by microwave. A detailed description of ECHELON was provided by New Zealand journalist Nicky Hager in his 1996 book “Secret Power”. While the existence of ECHELON was denied by some member governments, a report by a committee of the European Parliament in 2001 confirmed the program’s use and warned Europeans about its reach and effects.[38] The European Parliament stated in its report that the term “ECHELON” was used in a number of contexts, but that the evidence presented indicated it was a signals intelligence collection system capable of interception and content inspection of telephone calls, fax, e-mail and other data traffic globally.[37] The capabilities of ECHELON were further described by James Bamford in Body of Secrets about the National Security Agency.[39] Intelligence monitoring of citizens, and their communications, in the area covered by the AUSCANNZUKUS security agreement have, over the years, caused considerable public concern.[40][41] NSA key to (Microsoft) Windows: an open question Microsoft operating systems have a backdoor entrance for the National Security Agency, a cryptography expert said Friday, but the software giant denied the report and other experts differed on it. The chief scientist at an Internet security company said Microsoft built in a “key” for the nation’s most powerful intelligence agency to the cryptographic standard used in Microsoft Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows NT4 and Windows2000. – CNN, September 1999[42] Escalation following the September 11th attacks of 2001[edit] Further information: NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07) “ “We will come together to strengthen our intelligence capabilities to know the plans of terrorists before they act and to find them before they strike.” ” —President Bush speaking in Congress on September 20, 2001[43] The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center led to major reforms of U.S. intelligence agencies, and paved the way for the establishment of the Director of National Intelligence position On 1 January 2006, days after The New York Times wrote that “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts,[44] the President emphasized that “This is a limited program designed to prevent attacks on the United States of America. And I repeat, limited.”[45] In the aftermath of the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, bulk domestic spying in the United States increased dramatically. The desire to prevent future attacks of this scale led to the passage of the Patriot Act. Later acts include the Protect America Act (which removes the warrant requirement for government surveillance of foreign targets)[46] and the FISA Amendments Act (which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements). In 2002, “Total Information Awareness” was established by the U.S. government in order to “revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists”.[47] In 2005, a report about President Bush’s President’s Surveillance Program appeared in the New York Times. According to reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, the actual publication of their report was delayed for a year because “The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article”.[44] Also in 2005, the existence of STELLARWIND was revealed by Thomas Tamm. In 2006, Mark Klein revealed the existence of Room 641A that he had wired back in 2003.[48] In 2008, Babak Pasdar, a computer security expert, and CEO of Bat Blue publicly revealed the existence of the “Quantico circuit”, that he and his team found in 2003. He described it as a back door to the federal government in the systems of an unnamed wireless provider; the company was later independently identified as Verizon.[49] You Are a Suspect Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as a virtual, centralized grand database. To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver’s license and toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop’s dream: a Total Information Awareness about every U.S. citizen. This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks.”. – The New York Times, November 2002[50] Trading on the Future of Terror The war on terrorism has come to this: The Pentagon is setting up a commodity-style market to use real investors — putting down real money — to help its generals predict terrorist attacks, coups d’etat and other turmoil in the Middle East. “Two angry senators disclosed the program, called the Policy Analysis Market, in hopes of heading off the registration of investors, set to begin Friday. Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota said more than $500,000 in taxpayer funds has already been spent to develop the project, and the Pentagon has requested $8 million over the next two years. Trading would begin Oct. 1.” “Can you imagine if another country set up a betting parlor so that people could … bet on the assassination of an American political figure?” Dorgan asked. It is, he said, “unbelievably stupid.” Poindexter and other senior DARPA officials could not be reached for comment. But in a statement, DARPA said it “is exploring new ways to help analysts predict and thereby prevent terrorist attacks through the use of futures market mechanisms. Research indicates that markets are extremely efficient, effective and timely aggregators of dispersed and even hidden information.””. – The Los Angeles Times, July 2003[51] The NSA’s database of American’s phone calls was made public in 2006 by USA Today journalist Leslie Cauley in an article titled, “NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls.”[52] The article cites anonymous sources that described the program’s reach on American citizens: “…it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others. The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.” The report failed to generate discussion of privacy rights in the media and was not referenced by Greenwald or the Washington Post in any of their reporting. In 2009, The New York Times cited several anonymous intelligence officials alleging that “the N.S.A. made Americans targets in eavesdropping operations based on insufficient evidence tying them to terrorism” and “the N.S.A. tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant”.[53] Acceleration of media leaks (2010–present)[edit] On 15 March 2012, the American magazine Wired published an article with the headline “The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)”,[54] which was later mentioned by U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson during a congressional hearing. In response to Johnson’s inquiry, NSA director Keith B. Alexander testified that these allegations made by Wired magazine were untrue: NSA Director Keith Alexander’s testimony to the United States Congress on 20 March 2012[55] [show] 2013 mass surveillance disclosures[edit] Main article: 2013 mass surveillance disclosures Part of a series on Mass surveillance By location Australia China East Germany India North Korea United Kingdom United States v t e On 6 June 2013, Britain’s The Guardian newspaper began publishing a series of revelations by an as yet unknown American whistleblower, revealed several days later to be ex-CIA and ex-NSA-contracted systems analyst Edward Snowden. Snowden gave a cache of documents to two journalists: Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, Greenwald later estimated that the cache contains 15,000 – 20,000 documents, some very large and very detailed, and some very small.[56][57] This was one of the largest news leaks in the modern history of the United States.[58] In over two months of publications, it became clear that the NSA operates a complex web of spying programs which allow it to intercept internet and telephone conversations from over a billion users from dozens of countries around the world. Specific revelations have been made about China, the European Union, Latin America, Iran and Pakistan, and Australia and New Zealand, however the published documentation reveals that many of the programs indiscriminately collect bulk information directly from central servers and internet backbones, which almost invariably carry and reroute information from distant countries. Due to this central server and backbone monitoring, many of the programs overlap and interrelate among one another. These programs are often done with the assistance of US entities such as the United States Department of Justice and the FBI,[59] are sanctioned by US laws such as the FISA Amendments Act, and the necessary court orders for them are signed by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. In addition to this, many of the NSA’s programs are directly aided by national and foreign intelligence services, Britain’s GCHQ and Australia’s DSD, as well as by large private telecommunications and internet corporations, such as Verizon, Telstra,[60] Google and Facebook.[61] On 9 June 2013, Edward Snowden told The Guardian: “They (the NSA) can use the system to go back in time and scrutinize every decision you’ve ever made, every friend you’ve ever discussed something with, and attack you on that basis to sort of derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer” —Edward Snowden[62] The US government has aggressively sought to dismiss and challenge Fourth Amendment cases raised: Hepting v. AT&T, Jewel v. NSA, Clapper v. Amnesty International, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama and Center for Constitutional Rights v. Obama. The government has also granted retroactive immunity to ISPs and telecoms participating in domestic surveillance.[63][64] The US district court judge for the District of Columbia, Richard Leon, declared[65][66][67][68][69][70] on December 16, 2013 that the mass collection of metadata of Americans’ telephone records by the National Security Agency probably violates the fourth amendment prohibition unreasonable searches and seizures.[71] “Given the limited record before me at this point in the litigation – most notably, the utter lack of evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the NSA database was faster than other investigative tactics – I have serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism.”[72] “Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of showing that their privacy interests outweigh the government’s interest in collecting and analysing bulk telephony metadata and therefore the NSA’s bulk collection program is indeed an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment,” he wrote.[72] “The Fourth Amendment typically requires ‘a neutral and detached authority be interposed between the police and the public,’ and it is offended by ‘general warrants’ and laws that allow searches to be conducted ‘indiscriminately and without regard to their connections with a crime under investigation,'” he wrote.[73] He added: “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval. Surely such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware ‘the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,’ would be aghast.”[73] Leon granted the request for a preliminary injunction that blocks the collection of phone data for two private plaintiffs (Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer, and Charles Strange, father of a cryptologist killed in Afghanistan when his helicopter was shot down in 2011)[72] and ordered the government to destroy any of their records that have been gathered. But the judge stayed action on his ruling pending a government appeal, recognizing in his 68-page opinion the “significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues.”[71] Modalities, concepts, and methods[edit] Official seal of the Information Awareness Office — a U.S. agency which developed technologies for mass surveillance Logging postal mail[edit] Main article: Mail Isolation Control and Tracking Under the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program, the U.S. Postal Service photographs the exterior of every piece of paper mail that is processed in the United States — about 160 billion pieces in 2012. The U.S. Postmaster General stated that the system is primarily used for mail sorting, but the images are available for possible use by law enforcement agencies.[74] Created in 2001 following the anthrax attacks that killed five people, it is a sweeping expansion of a 100 year old program called “mail cover” which targets people suspected of crimes. Together, the two programs show that postal mail is subject to the same kind of scrutiny that the National Security Agency gives to telephone calls, e-mail, and other forms of electronic communication.[75] Mail cover surveillance requests are granted for about 30 days, and can be extended for up to 120 days. Images captured under the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program are retained for a week to 30 days and then destroyed.[74] There are two kinds of mail covers: those related to criminal activity and those requested to protect national security. Criminal activity requests average 15,000 to 20,000 per year, while the number of requests for national security mail covers has not been made public. Neither the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program nor the mail cover program require prior approval by a judge. For both programs the information gathered is metadata from the outside of the envelope or package for which courts have said there is no expectation of privacy. Opening the mail to view its contents would require a warrant approved by a judge.[75] Wiretapping[edit] Billions of dollars per year are spent, by agencies such as the Information Awareness Office, National Security Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to develop, purchase, implement, and operate systems such as Carnivore, ECHELON, and NarusInsight to intercept and analyze the immense amount of data that traverses the Internet and telephone system every day.[76] The Total Information Awareness program, of the Information Awareness Office, designed numerous technologies to be used to perform mass surveillance. Examples include advanced speech-to-text programs (so that phone conversations can be monitored en-masse by a computer, instead of requiring human operators to listen to them), social network analysis software to monitor groups of people and their interactions with each other, and “Human identification at a distance” software which allows computers to identify people on surveillance cameras by their facial features and gait (the way they walk). The program was later renamed “Terrorism Information Awareness”, after a negative public reaction. Legal foundations[edit] The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requires that all U.S. telecommunications companies modify their equipment to allow easy wiretapping of telephone, VoIP, and broadband internet traffic.[77][78][79] In 1999 two models of mandatory data retention were suggested for the US: What IP address was assigned to a customer at a specific time. In the second model, “which is closer to what Europe adopted”, telephone numbers dialed, contents of Web pages visited, and recipients of e-mail messages must be retained by the ISP for an unspecified amount of time.[80][81] In 2006 the International Association of Chiefs of Police adopted a resolution calling for a “uniform data retention mandate” for “customer subscriber information and source and destination information.”[82] The U.S. Department of Justice announced in 2011 that criminal investigations “are being frustrated” because no law currently exists to force Internet providers to keep track of what their customers are doing.[83] The Electronic Frontier Foundation has an ongoing lawsuit (Hepting v. AT&T) against the telecom giant AT&T Inc. for its assistance to the U.S. government in monitoring the communications of millions of American citizens. It has managed thus far to keep the proceedings open. Recently the documents, exposed by a whistleblower who previously worked for AT&T, showing schematics of the massive data mining system were made public.[84][85] Internet communications[edit] The FBI developed the computer programs “Magic Lantern” and CIPAV, which they can remotely install on a computer system, in order to monitor a person’s computer activity.[86] The NSA has been gathering information on financial records, internet surfing habits, and monitoring e-mails. They have also performed extensive surveillance on social networks such as Myspace.[87] Intelligence apparatus to monitor Americans[edit] Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, a vast domestic intelligence apparatus has been built to collect information using FBI, local police, state homeland security offices and military criminal investigators. The intelligence apparatus collects, analyzes and stores information about millions of (if not all) American citizens, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing. Every state and local law enforcement agency is to feed information to federal authorities to support the work of the FBI.[88] The PRISM special source operation system was enabled by the Protect America Act of 2007 under President Bush and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which legally immunized private companies that cooperated voluntarily with US intelligence collection and was renewed by Congress under President Obama in 2012 for five years until December 2017. According to The Register, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 “specifically authorizes intelligence agencies to monitor the phone, email, and other communications of U.S. citizens for up to a week without obtaining a warrant” when one of the parties is outside the U.S. PRISM was first publicly revealed on 6 June 2013, after classified documents about the program were leaked to The Washington Post and The Guardian by Edward Snowden. Telephones[edit] In early 2006, USA Today reported that several major telephone companies were cooperating illegally with the National Security Agency to monitor the phone records of U.S. citizens, and storing them in a large database known as the NSA call database. This report came on the heels of allegations that the U.S. government had been conducting electronic surveillance of domestic telephone calls without warrants.[89] Law enforcement and intelligence services in the United States possess technology to remotely activate the microphones in cell phones in order to listen to conversations that take place nearby the person who holds the phone.[90][91][92] U.S. federal agents regularly use mobile phones to collect location data. The geographical location of a mobile phone (and thus the person carrying it) can be determined easily (whether it is being used or not), using a technique known multilateration to calculate the differences in time for a signal to travel from the cell phone to each of several cell towers near the owner of the phone.[93][94] In 2013, the existence of the Hemisphere Project, through which AT&T provides call detail records to government agencies, became publicly known. Infiltration of smartphones[edit] As worldwide sales of smartphones began exceeding those of feature phones, the NSA decided to take advantage of the smartphone boom. This is particularly advantageous because the smartphone combines a myriad of data that would interest an intelligence agency, such as social contacts, user behavior, interests, location, photos and credit card numbers and passwords.[95] An internal NSA report from 2010 stated that the spread of the smartphone has been occurring “extremely rapidly”—developments that “certainly complicate traditional target analysis.”[95] According to the document, the NSA has set up task forces assigned to several smartphone manufacturers and operating systems, including Apple Inc.’s iPhone and iOS operating system, as well as Google’s Android mobile operating system.[95] Similarly, Britain’s GCHQ assigned a team to study and crack the BlackBerry.[95] Under the heading “iPhone capability”, the document notes that there are smaller NSA programs, known as “scripts”, that can perform surveillance on 38 different features of the iPhone 3 and iPhone 4 operating systems. These include the mapping feature, voicemail and photos, as well as Google Earth, Facebook and Yahoo! Messenger.[95] In July 2013, Google confirmed that it had inserted NSA’s Security Enhancements for Android (containing NSA’s Security-Enhanced Linux[96] that is “generally accepted as being [a great addition that makes] a secure operating system even more safe”[97]) source code into its Android 4.2 operating system.[98] Newer devices such as the Sony Xperia Z, HTC One, and Samsung Galaxy S4, all contain it “buried in Google’s latest release”.[98] Data mining of subpoenaed records[edit] See also: Data mining, Information extraction and Predictive analytics The FBI collected nearly all hotel, airline, rental car, gift shop, and casino records in Las Vegas during the last two weeks of 2003. The FBI requested all electronic data of hundreds of thousands of people based on a very general lead for the Las Vegas New Year’s celebration. The Senior VP of The Mirage went on record with PBS’ Frontline describing the first time they were requested to help in the mass collection of personal information.[99] Surveillance cameras[edit] Traffic cameras, which were meant to help enforce traffic laws at intersections, have also sparked some controversy, due to their use by law enforcement agencies for purposes unrelated to traffic violations.[100] These cameras also work as transit choke-points that allow individuals inside the vehicle to be positively identified and license plate data to be collected and time stamped for cross reference with airborne Wide Area Persistent Surveillance Systems such as ARGUS and HAWKEYE used by police.[101] Wide Area Persistent Surveillance using Wide Area Motion Imagery is capable of live viewing and recording a 68 square mile area with enough detail to view pedestrians and vehicles.[102] These gigapixel cameras, such as Gorgon Stare, Angelfire, Hawkeye and ARGUS,[103] create airborne video so detailed that pedestrians can be followed across the city through forensic analysis. This allows investigators to rewind and playback the movements of anyone within this 68 square mile area. PeSEAS[104] and PerMIATE[105] software automate and record the movement observed in the WAMI video.[106] This technology uses software to track and record the movements of pedestrians and vehicles using automatic object recognition software across the entire frame, generating “tracklets” or chronographs of every car and pedestrian movements. 24/7 deployment of this technology has been suggested by the DHS on spy blimps such as the recently killed Blue Devil Airship.[107] The Department of Homeland Security is funding networks of surveillance cameras in cities and towns as part of its efforts to combat terrorism.[108] In February 2009, Cambridge, MA rejected the cameras due to privacy concerns.[109] Surveillance drones[edit] On 19 June 2013, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary that the federal government had been employing surveillance drones on U.S. soil in “particular incidents”.[110] According to Mueller, the FBI is currently in the initial stage of developing drone policies.[110] Earlier in 2012, Congress passed a US$63 billion bill that will grant four years of additional funding to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Under the bill, the FAA is required to provide military and commercial drones with expanded access to U.S. airspace by October 2015.[111] In February 2013, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Police Department explained that these drones would initially be deployed in large public gatherings, including major protests. Over time, tiny drones would be used to fly inside buildings to track down suspects and assist in investigations.[112] According to The Los Angeles Times, the main advantage of using drones is that they offer “unblinking eye-in-the-sky coverage”. They can be modified to carry high-resolution video cameras, infrared sensors, license plate readers, listening devices, and be disguised as sea gulls or other birds to mask themselves.[112] By 2020, about 30,000 unmanned drones are expected to be deployed in the United States for the purpose of surveillance and law enforcement.[113] Infiltration of activist groups[edit] In 2003, consent decrees against surveillance around the country were lifted, with the assistance of the Justice Department.[114] The New York City Police Department infiltrated and compiled dossiers on protest groups before the 2004 Republican National Convention, leading to over 1,800 arrests and subsequent fingerprinting.[115] In 2008, Maryland State Police infiltrated local peace groups.[116] In 2013, a Washington, D.C. undercover cop infiltrated peace groups.[117] International cooperation[edit] The “five eyes” of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States During World War II, the BRUSA Agreement was signed by the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom for the purpose of intelligence sharing. This was later formalized in the UKUSA Agreement of 1946 as a secret treaty. The full text of the agreement was released to the public on 25 June 2010.[118] Although the treaty was later revised to include other countries such as Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Turkey, and the Philippines,[118] most of the information sharing is performed by the so-called “Five Eyes”,[119] a term referring to the following English-speaking western democracies and their respective intelligence agencies: – The Defence Signals Directorate of Australia[119] – The Communications Security Establishment of Canada[119] – The Government Communications Security Bureau of New Zealand[119] – The Government Communications Headquarters of the United Kingdom, which is widely considered to be a leader in traditional spying due to its influence on countries that were once part of the British Empire.[119] – The National Security Agency of the United States, which has the biggest budget and the most advanced technical abilities among the “five eyes”.[119] In 2013, media disclosures revealed how other government agencies have cooperated extensively with the “Five Eyes”: – The Politiets Efterretningstjeneste (PET) of Denmark, a domestic intelligence agency, exchanges data with the NSA on a regular basis, as part of a secret agreement with the United States.[120] – The Bundesnachrichtendienst (Federal Intelligence Service) of Germany systematically transfers metadata from German intelligence sources to the NSA. In December 2012 alone, Germany provided the NSA with 500 million metadata records.[121] The NSA granted the Bundesnachrichtendienst access to X-Keyscore,[122] in exchange for Mira4 and Veras.[121] In early 2013, Hans-Georg Maaßen, President of the German domestic security agency BfV, made several visits to the headquarters of the NSA. According to classified documents of the German government, Maaßen had agreed to transfer all data collected by the BfV via XKeyscore to the NSA.[123] In addition, the BfV has been working very closely with eight other U.S. government agencies, including the CIA.[124] – The SIGINT National Unit of Israel routinely receives raw intelligence data (including those of U.S. citizens) from the NSA.[125] (See also: Memorandum of understanding between the NSA and Israel) – The Algemene Inlichtingen en Veiligheidsdienst (General Intelligence and Security Service) of the Netherlands has been receiving and storing user information gathered by U.S. intelligence sources such as PRISM.[126] – The Defence Ministry of Singapore and its Security and Intelligence Division have been secretly intercepting much of the fibre optic cable traffic passing through the Asian continent. Information gathered by the Government of Singapore is transferred to the Government of Australia as part of an intelligence sharing agreement. This allows the “Five Eyes” to maintain a “stranglehold on communications across the Eastern Hemisphere”.[127] – The National Defence Radio Establishment of Sweden (codenamed Sardines)[128] has been working extensively with the NSA, and it has granted the “five eyes” access to underwater cables in the Baltic Sea.[128] – The Federal Intelligence Service (FSI) of Switzerland regularly exchanges information with the NSA, based on a secret agreement.[120][129] In addition, the NSA has been granted access to Swiss monitoring facilities in Leuk (canton of Valais) and Herrenschwanden (canton of Bern).[120] Top secret documents leaked by Edward Snowden revealed that the “Five Eyes” have gained access to the majority of internet and telephone communications flowing throughout Europe, the United States, and other parts of the world. Left: SEA-ME-WE 3, which runs across the Afro-Eurasian supercontinent from Japan to Northern Germany, is one of the most important submarine cables accessed by the “Five Eyes”. Singapore, a former British colony in the Asia-Pacific region (blue dot), plays a vital role in intercepting internet and telecommunications traffic heading from Australia/Japan to Europe, and vice versa. An intelligence sharing agreement between Singapore and Australia allows the rest of the “Five Eyes” to gain access to SEA-ME-WE 3.[127] Right:TAT-14, a telecommunications cable linking Europe with the United States, was identified as one of few assets of “Critical Infrastructure and Key Resources” of the USA on foreign territory. In 2013, it was revealed that British officials “pressured a handful of telecommunications and internet companies” to allow the British government to gain access to TAT-14.[130] Aside from the “Five Eyes”, most other Western countries are also participating in the NSA surveillance system and sharing information with each other.[131] However, being a partner of the NSA does not automatically exempt a country from being targeted by the NSA. According to an internal NSA document leaked by Snowden, “We (the NSA) can, and often do, target the signals of most 3rd party foreign partners.”[132] Examples of members of the “Five Eyes” spying for each other: On behalf of the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the Security Intelligence Service of Canada spied on two British cabinet ministers in 1983.[133] The U.S. National Security Agency spied on and intercepted the phone calls of Princess Diana right until she died in a Paris car crash with Dodi Fayed in 1997. The NSA currently holds 1,056 pages of classified information about Princess Diana, which cannot be released to public because their disclosure is be expected to cause “exceptionally grave damage” to the national security of the United States.[134] Uses of intercepted data[edit] Other than to combat terrorism, these surveillance programs have been employed to assess the foreign policy and economic stability of other countries,[135] and to gather “commercial secrets”.[136] In a statement addressed to the National Congress of Brazil, journalist Glenn Greenwald testified that the U.S. government uses counter-terrorism as a “pretext” for clandestine surveillance in order to compete with other countries in the “business, industrial and economic fields”.[137][138][139] In an interview with Der Spiegel published on 12 August 2013, former NSA Director Michael Hayden admitted that “We [the NSA] steal secrets. We’re number one in it”. Hayden also added that “We steal stuff to make you safe, not to make you rich”.[135] According to documents seen by the news agency Reuters, these “secrets” are subsequently funnelled to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.[140] Federal agents are then instructed to “recreate” the investigative trail in order to “cover up” where the information originated.[140] Employees of the NSA spied on love interests using surveillance technology of the agency, according to the NSA Chief Compliance Officer John DeLong.[141] See also[edit] Censorship in the United States Freedom of speech in the United States Internet censorship in the United States List of Americans under surveillance List of government surveillance projects Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom References[edit] Jump up ^ Glenn Greenwald. (31 July 2013). “XKeyscore: NSA tool collects ‘nearly everything a user does on the internet'”. The Guardian. Retrieved 2 August 2013. Jump up ^ Mui, Ylan (29 July 2013). “Growing use of FBI screens raises concerns about accuracy, racial bias”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2 August 2013. Jump up ^ James Bamford, The Shadow Factory, 2008, Doubleday, Chapter ‘Shamrock’, especially pg. 163 ^ Jump up to: a b “Return to Sender: U.S. Censorship of Enemy Alien Mail in World War II”, Louis Fiset, Prologue Magazine, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Spring 2001). Retrieved 5 October 2013. Jump up ^ Kennett, Lee (1985). For the duration… : the United States goes to war, Pearl Harbor-1942. New York: Scribner. ISBN 0-684-18239-4. ^ Jump up to: a b c d “Factbox: History of mass surveillance in the United States”. Reuters. 7 June 2013. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Hall of Honor 1999 Inductee – Herbert O. Yardley”. NSA. Jump up ^ The Center for Cryptologic History. “The Origins of NSA (”. Archived from the original on 18 March 2004. ^ Jump up to: a b c Epsley-Jones, Katelyn; Frenzel, Christina. “The Church Committee Hearings & the FISA Court”. PBS. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ Bamford, James (25 December 2005). “The Agency That Could Be Big Brother”. The New York Times. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ DAVID BURNHAM (1 February 1986). “TRUMAN WIRETAPS ON EX-NEW DEAL AIDE CITED”. The New York Times. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Question: Why is Eleanor Roosevelt’s FBI file so large?”. George Washington University. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Eleanor Roosevelt”. History (TV channel). Retrieved 18 September 2013. “J. Edgar Hoover (1895-1972), the longtime director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, considered Eleanor Roosevelt’s liberal views dangerous and believed she might be involved in communist activities. He ordered his agents to monitor Roosevelt and keep what became an extensive file on her.” Jump up ^ RONALD J. OSTROW and LISA GETTER (9 December 1998). “FBI Files on Sinatra Detail Links to JFK, Mob Figures”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Jump up ^ MOLOTSKY, IRVIN (9 December 1998). “F.B.I. Releases Its Sinatra File, With Tidbits Old and New”. The New York Times. Retrieved 18 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b “FBI removes many redactions in Marilyn Monroe file”. Associated Press. Retrieved 18 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b Cohen, Adam (21 September 2006). “While Nixon Campaigned, the F.B.I. Watched John Lennon”. The New York Times. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Jump up ^ Gumbel, Andrew. “The Lennon Files: The FBI and the Beatle”. London: The Independent. Retrieved 18 September 2013.[dead link] Jump up ^ Laurent Belsie. “US hoped to deport John Lennon”. The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Jump up ^ Overbye, Dennis (7 May 2002). “New Details Emerge From the Einstein Files; How the F.B.I. Tracked His Phone Calls and His Trash”. The New York Times. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ “FBI campaign against Einstein revealed”. BBC. 8 June 2002. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Albert Einstein: Fact or Fiction?”. History (TV channel). Retrieved 17 September 2013. “Because of his controversial political beliefs-his support for socialism, civil rights, and nuclear disarmament, for example-many anti-Communist crusaders believed that Einstein was a dangerous subversive. Some, like FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, even thought he was a spy. For 22 years, Hoover’s agents tapped Einstein’s phones, opened his mail, rifled through his trash and even bugged his secretary’s nephew’s house, all to prove that he was more radical (as his 1,500-page FBI dossier noted) than “even Stalin himself.”” Jump up ^ Church, Frank (April 23, 1976), “Church Committee Book III”, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Case Study (Church Committee) ^ Jump up to: a b “FBI tracked King’s every move”. CNN. 29 December 2008. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ “‘Life Lessons’ From a White House Plumber”. NPR. “When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in 1971, the Nixon White House tried to discredit him. Among other things, Nixon loyalists burglarized the office of Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.” Jump up ^ “The Watergate Story”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 September 2013. “The White House “plumbers” unit – named for their orders to plug leaks in the administration – burglarizes a psychiatrist’s office to find files on Daniel Ellsberg, the former defense analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers.” Jump up ^ “Watergate and the Constitution”. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Martin Luther King, Jr. FBI File”. Pickler Memorial Library (Truman State University). Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ MITGANG, HERBERT (6 May 1993). “Disney Link To the F.B.I. And Hoover Is Disclosed”. The New York Times. Retrieved 19 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (“Church Committee”). Book II, Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans (Final Report, S. Rep. No. 94-755 (1976) ed.). United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Jump up ^ “FISA Court Has Approved Majority of Surveillance Warrants”. NPR. 10 June 2013. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ Leonnig, Carol D. (16 August 2013). “Court: Ability to police U.S. spying program limited”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 16 August 2013. Jump up ^ Popkey, Dan (5 August 2013). “Idaho’s Frank Church has posthumous TV debate with Rick Santorum”. Idaho Statesman. Retrieved 21 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Sen. Frank Church Warns of How Easily Government Can Abuse Expanding Surveillance Capabilities”. Grabien – The Multimedia Marketplace. Grabien – The Multimedia Marketplace. 17 August 1975. Retrieved 21 September 2013. Jump up ^ Bamford, James (13 September 2011). “Post-September 11, NSA ‘enemies’ include us”. Politico. Retrieved 21 September 2013. Jump up ^ Campbell, Duncan (12 August 1988). “Somebody’s Listening”. New Statesman. Archived from the original on 2007-01-03. Retrieved 16 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b Schmid, Gerhard (11 July 2001). “On the existence of a global system for the interception of private and commercial communications (ECHELON interception system), (2001/2098(INI))” (pdf). European Parliament: Temporary Committee on the ECHELON Interception System. p. 194. Retrieved 16 September 2013. Jump up ^ Fiddler, Stephen (1 July 2013). Echoes of Echelon in Charges of NSA Spying in Europe. The Washington Post. Jump up ^ Bamford, James; Body of Secrets, Anchor, ISBN 0-385-49908-6; 2002 Jump up ^ American Civil Liberties (1 May 2000). Privacy Advocates Concerned About Echelon. Jump up ^ Kettmann, Steve (7 June 2000). U.S. Eyes Europe’s Echelon Probe. Wired. Jump up ^ “NSA key to Windows: an open question”. CNN. September 4, 1999. Jump up ^ “Text: President Bush Addresses the Nation”. The Washington Post. Sep 20, 2001. ^ Jump up to: a b Risen, James; Lichtblau, Eric (16 December 2005). “Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts”. The New York Times. Retrieved 14 August 2013. “The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article” Jump up ^ “President Visits Troops at Brooke Army Medical Center”. White House. 1 January 2006. Retrieved 15 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Warrantless Surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: The Role of Checks and Balances in Protecting Americans’ Privacy Rights (Part II): Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. 13–30 (statement of J.M. McConnell, Director of National Intelligence)”. 18 September 2007. Jump up ^ Rosen, Jeffrey (15 December 2002). “Total Information Awareness”. The New York Times. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ “AT&T Whistle-Blower’s Evidence”. Wired. 17 May 2006. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ Poulsen, Kevin (6 March 2008). “Whistle-Blower: Feds Have a Backdoor Into Wireless Carrier — Congress Reacts”. Wired. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ WILLIAM SAFIRE (November 14, 2002). “You Are a Suspect”. The New York Times. Retrieved 20 September 2013. Jump up ^ Josh Meyer (July 29, 2003). “Trading on the Future of Terror”. The Los Angeles Times. Jump up ^ Cauley, Leslie (11 May 2006). “NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls”. “USA Today”. Jump up ^ Lichtblau, Eric; Risen, James (16 April 2009). “Officials Say U.S. Wiretaps Exceeded Law”. The New York Times. Retrieved 16 August 2013. Jump up ^ Bamford, James (15 March 2012). “The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)”. Wired. Retrieved 14 August 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b Greenberg, Andy. “NSA Chief Denies Wired’s Domestic Spying Story (Fourteen Times) In Congressional Hearing”. Forbes. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ Duran-Sanchez, Mabel (10 August 2013). “Greenwald Testifies to Brazilian Senate about NSA Espionage Targeting Brazil and Latin America”. Retrieved 13 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Glenn Greenwald afirma que documentos dizem respeito à interesses comerciais do governo americano”. 6 August 2013. Retrieved 13 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Ex-CIA employee source of leak on PRISM program”. France 24. Retrieved 17 September 2013. “Snowden’s decision to reveal his identity and whereabouts lifts the lid on one of the biggest security leaks in US history and escalates a story that has placed a bright light on Obama’s extensive use of secret surveillance.” Jump up ^ How Microsoft handed the NSA access to encrypted messages, The Guardian, 12 July 2013. Retrieved 13 July 2013. Jump up ^ Bridie Jabour in Sydney (12 July 2013). “Telstra signed deal that would have allowed US spying”. The Guardian (London). Jump up ^ The first three days of revelations were: the FISC court order that Verizon provide bulk metadata on its customers to the NSA; presentation slides explaining the cooperation of nine US internet giants through the PRISM program; and the bulk collection of Chinese users’ text messages, which coincided with Xi Jinping’s visit to California to meet Barack Obama. Jump up ^ “NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: ‘I don’t want to live in a society that does these sort of things’ – video”. The Guardian. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Senate caves, votes to give telecoms retroactive immunity”. Ars Technica. 13 February 2008. Retrieved 16 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Forget Retroactive Immunity, FISA Bill is also about Prospective Immunity”. The Progressive. 10 July 2008. Retrieved 16 September 2013. Jump up ^ Leon, Richard (16 December 2013). “Federal judge rules NSA program is likely unconstitutional a.k.a. Klayman et al. v. Obama et al. Memorandum and Opinion from December 16, 2013 in Civil Action 13-0851 in United Case District Court for the District of Columbia”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 December 2013. Jump up ^ Savage, Charlie (16 December 2013). “Judge Questions Legality of N.S.A. Phone Records”. The New York Times. Retrieved 18 December 2013. Jump up ^ Bill Mears and Evan Perez, CNN (17 December 2013). “Judge: NSA domestic phone data-mining unconstitutional”. cnn. Retrieved 18 December 2013. Jump up ^ Kravets, David (16 December 2013). “Court Says NSA Bulk Telephone Spying Is Unconstitutional”. Wired. Retrieved 18 December 2013. Jump up ^ Kevin Johnson and Richard Wolf (16 December 2013). “Federal judge rules against NSA spying”. USA Today. Retrieved 18 December 2013. Jump up ^ Gerstein, Josh (16 December 2013). “Judge: NSA phone program likely unconstitutional”. Politico. Retrieved 18 December 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b Ellen Nakashima and Ann E. Marimow (16 December 2013). “Judge: NSA’s collecting of phone records is probably unconstitutional”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 17 December 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b c Spencer Ackerman and Dan Roberts (16 December 2013). “NSA phone surveillance program likely unconstitutional, federal judge rules”. The Guardian. Retrieved 18 December 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b Jake Gibson (17 December 2013). “Judge deals blow to NSA phone data program”. Fox News. Retrieved 18 December 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b “AP Interview: USPS takes photos of all mail”, Associated Press (AP), 2 August 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b “U.S. Postal Service Logging All Mail for Law Enforcement”, Ron Nixon, New York Times, July 3, 2013. Retrieved 25 September 2013. Jump up ^ McCullagh, Declan (30 January 2007). “FBI turns to broad new wiretap method”. ZDNet News. Retrieved 2009-03-13. Jump up ^ “CALEA Archive”. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 14 March 2009. Jump up ^ “CALEA: The Perils of Wiretapping the Internet”. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 14 March 2009. Jump up ^ “FAQ on the CALEA Expansion by the FCC”. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 14 March 2009. Jump up ^ Declan McCullagh (14 April 2006). “ISP snooping gaining support”. CNET (CBS Interactive). Retrieved 17 March 2009. Jump up ^ Declan McCullagh (23 April 2008). “FBI, politicos renew push for ISP data retention laws”. CNET (CBS Interactive). Retrieved 17 March 2009. “Based on the statements at Wednesday’s hearing and previous calls for new laws in this area, the scope of a mandatory data retention law remains fuzzy. It could mean forcing companies to store data for two years about what Internet addresses are assigned to which customers (Comcast said in 2006 that it would be retaining those records for six months).” Jump up ^ Declan McCullagh (24 January 2011). “GOP pushing for ISPs to record user data”. CNET (CBS Interactive). Retrieved 27 January 2011. Jump up ^ Declan McCullagh (24 January 2011). “Justice Department seeks mandatory data retention”. CNET (CBS Interactive). Retrieved 27 January 2011. Jump up ^ “Hepting v. AT&T: Unsealed Klein exhibits”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Secret Surveillance Evidence Unsealed in AT&T Spying Case”, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 12 June 2007. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ Kevin Poulsen (18 July 2007). “FBI’s Secret Spyware Tracks Down Teen Who Made Bomb Threats”. Wired Magazine (Condé Nast). Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Is the NSA reading your MySpace profile?”, Dawn Kawamoto, CNET News, 9 June 2006. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ Data Priest and William M. Arkin (20 December 2010). “Monitoring America”. Top Secret America, A Washington Post Investigation (Washington Post). Retrieved 27 January 2011. Jump up ^ Cauley, Leslie (11 May 2006). “NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls”. USA Today. Retrieved 12 May 2010. Jump up ^ “FBI using cell phone microphones to eavesdrop”, Eric Bangeman, Ars Technica, 4 December 2006. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Jump up ^ McCullagh, Declan; Anne Broache (1 December 2006). “FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool”. CNet News (CBS Interactive). Retrieved 14 March 2009. Jump up ^ “Researchers Find Clues in Malware”, Nicole Perlroth, New York Times, 30 May 2012. Retrieved 20 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Tracking a suspect by mobile phone”. BBC News. 3 August 2005. Retrieved 14 March 2009. Jump up ^ Miller, Joshua (18 March 2009). “Cell Phone Tracking Can Locate Terrorists – But Only Where It’s Legal”. FOX News. Retrieved 14 March 2009. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Laura Poitras, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark. “iSpy: How the NSA Accesses Smartphone Data”. Der Spiegel. Retrieved 9 September 2013. Jump up ^ “SELinux Related Work”. NSA. Retrieved 10 September 2013. “Security Enhancements for Android provides a reference implementation of how to enable and apply SELinux in Android.” Jump up ^ Hildenbrand, Jerry. “NSA contributes to Android, but there is no secret backdoor”. Android Central. Retrieved 10 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b Milian, Mark. “Security-Enhanced Android: NSA Edition”. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 9 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Spying on the home front”, transcript, FRONTLINE (WGBH Boston), 15 May 2007. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ Erin Mahoney and Joanne Helperin (3 July 2009). “Caught! Big Brother May Be Watching You With Traffic Cameras”. Edmunds. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Law Enforcement Operations”, Persistent Surveillance Systems. Retrieved 9 September 2013. Jump up ^ link] Jump up ^ “Autonomous Real-time Ground Ubiquitous Surveillance – Imaging System (ARGUS-IS)” at the Wayback Machine (archived January 31, 2010), Information Processing Processing Techniques Office, U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ “DARPA-BAA-09-55: Persistent Stare Exploitation and Analysis System (PerSEAS)”, U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), 18 September 2009. Retrieved 18 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Kitware to develop advanced video analysis workstation as part of DARPA persistent surveillance program”, John Keller (ed), Military and Aerospace Electronics, 5 July 2010. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Wide Area Airborn Surveillance: Opportunities and Challenges” on YouTube, Gerard Medioni, University of Southern California, YouTube video, 15 August 2011. Retrieved 9 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Here’s the Plan to Fly Missile-Packed Blimps Over Your Home”, David Axe, Wired, 3 May 2012. Retrieved 9 September 2013. Jump up ^ Savage, Charlie (12 August 2007). “US doles out millions for street cameras”. The Boston Globe. Retrieved 19 September 2013. Jump up ^ “Cambridge rejects surveillance cameras”. The Boston Globe. 3 February 2009. Retrieved 19 September 2013.[dead link] ^ Jump up to: a b “Mueller: FBI uses drones for surveillance over US soil”. BBC. 19 June 2013. Retrieved 24 September 2013. Jump up ^ Kashmir Hill (7 February 2012). “Congress Welcomes The Drones”. Forbes. Retrieved 24 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b rian Bennett and Joel Rubin (15 February 2013). “Drones are taking to the skies in the U.S.”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 24 September 2013. Jump up ^ MICHAEL KIRKLAND. “Drones over America”. United Press International. Retrieved 24 September 2013. Jump up ^ Cosgrove-Mather, Bootie (April 6, 2003). “U.S. Police Surveillance Questioned”. CBS News. Retrieved 31 January 2014. Jump up ^ McFadden, Robert D. (7 August 2007). “City Is Rebuffed on the Release of ’04 Records – New York Times”. New York Times. Retrieved 5 April 2010. Jump up ^ “Maryland State Police Surveillance of Advocacy Groups Exposed”. Center for Effective Government. Jump up ^ Peter Hermann (August 7, 2013). “Protesters out undercover officer, accuses her of infiltrating group”. The Washington Post. ^ Jump up to: a b Norton-Taylor, Richard (25 June 2010). “Not so secret: deal at the heart of UK-US intelligence”. The Guardian (London). Retrieved 25 June 2010. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f “5-nation spy alliance too vital for leaks to harm”. Associated Press. Retrieved 29 August 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b c “NDB und NSA kooperieren enger als bisher bekannt” (in German). Handelszeitung. Retrieved 18 September 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b unlisted (3 August 2013). “Überwachung: BND leitet massenhaft Metadaten an die NSA weiter”. Der Spiegel (in German). Retrieved 3 August 2013. Jump up ^ ‘Prolific Partner’: German Intelligence Used NSA Spy Program, Der Spiegel. Retrieved 21 July 2013. Jump up ^ “Verfassungsschutz beliefert NSA” (in German). Süddeutsche Zeitung. Retrieved 14 September 2013. “Seit Juli 2013 testet der Verfassungsschutz die Späh- und Analysesoftware XKeyscore. Sollte der Geheimdienst das Programm im Regelbetrieb nutzen, hat sich das BfV verpflichtet, alle Erkenntnisse mit der NSA zu teilen. Das hatte der Präsident des Bundesamtes, Hans-Georg Maaßen, dem US-Dienst zugesichert. Im Januar und Mai war Maaßen zu Besuchen bei der NSA.” Jump up ^ “Verfassungsschutz beliefert NSA” (in German). Süddeutsche Zeitung. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Jump up ^ Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ewen MacAskill (11 September 2013). “NSA shares raw intelligence including Americans’ data with Israel”. The Guardian. Retrieved 14 September 2013. Jump up ^ Olmer, Bart. “Ook AIVD bespiedt internetter” (in Dutch). De Telegraaf. Retrieved 10 September 2013. “Niet alleen Amerikaanse inlichtingendiensten monitoren internetters wereldwijd. Ook Nederlandse geheime diensten krijgen informatie uit het omstreden surveillanceprogramma ’Prism’.” ^ Jump up to: a b Dorling, Philip. “Australian spies in global deal to tap undersea cables”. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 29 August 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b “Sverige deltog i NSA-övervakning” (in Swedish). Svenska Dagbladet. Retrieved 10 September 2013. Jump up ^ Christof Moser and Alan Cassidy. “Geheimdienst-Aufsicht will Kooperation des NDB mit der NSA prüfen” (in German). Schweiz am Sonntag. Retrieved 18 September 2013. “Die NSA hat sowohl mit der Schweiz wie Dänemark eine geheime Vereinbarung abgeschlossen, die den Austausch von Geheimdienstinformationen regelt. Die Vereinbarung berechtigt die NSA, eigene Schlüsselbegriffe in die Abhörsysteme beider Staaten einspeisen zu lassen. Im Tausch für damit gewonnene Erkenntnisse der schweizerischen und dänischen Auslandaufklärung erhalten der NDB und der dänische Geheimdienst PET von der NSA Informationen, die sie im eigenen Land aufgrund gesetzlicher Schranken nicht selber sammeln dürfen. Das geheime Abkommen macht auch die Schweiz zu einem NSA-Horchposten.” Jump up ^ John Goetz, Hans Leyendecker and Frederik Obermaier (28 August 2013). “British Officials Have Far-Reaching Access To Internet And Telephone Communications”. Retrieved 28 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Edward Snowden Interview: The NSA and Its Willing Helpers”. Der Spiegel. Retrieved 29 August 2013. “Snowden: Yes, of course. We’re (the NSA) in bed together with the Germans the same as with most other Western countries.” Jump up ^ Laura Poitras, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark. “Ally and Target: US Intelligence Watches Germany Closely”. Der Spiegel. Retrieved 29 August 2013. “The NSA classifies about 30 other countries as “3rd parties,” with whom it cooperates, though with reservations. Germany is one of them. “We can, and often do, target the signals of most 3rd party foreign partners,” the secret NSA document reads.” Jump up ^ “Thatcher ‘spied on ministers'”. BBC. 25 February 2000. Jump up ^ Vernon Loeb (December 12, 1998). “NSA Admits to Spying on Princess Diana”. The Washington Post. ^ Jump up to: a b Laura Poitras, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark. “Ally and Target: US Intelligence Watches Germany Closely”. Der Spiegel. Retrieved 13 August 2013. Jump up ^ DeYoung, Karen (12 August 2013). “Colombia asks Kerry to explain NSA spying”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 13 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Greenwald diz que espionagem dá vantagens comerciais e industriais aos Estados Unidos” (in Portuguese). Federal Senate of Brazil. Retrieved 13 August 2013. Jump up ^ “Greenwald diz que EUA espionam para obter vantagens comerciais” (in Portuguese). Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 13 August 2013. Jump up ^ “NSA’s activity in Latin America is ‘collection of data on oil and military purchases from Venezuela, energy and narcotics from Mexico’ – Greenwald”. Voice of Russia. Retrieved 13 August 2013. ^ Jump up to: a b “Exclusive: U.S. directs agents to cover up program used to investigate Americans”. Reuters. 5 August 2013. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Jump up ^ Kelley, Michael (August 27, 2013). “Most NSA Abuses Are Self-Reported”. Business Insider. External links[edit] “The NSA Files (Dozens of articles about the U.S. National Security Agency and its spying and surveillance programs)”. The Guardian (London). 8 June 2013. “CriMNet Evaluation Report” by the Office of the Legislative Auditor of a Minnesota program to improve sharing of criminal justice information, March 2004. [hide] v t e Intelligence agencies and organizations of the United States Intelligence Community Department of Defense Defense Intelligence Agency (Defense Clandestine Service • Defense Attaché System • National Intelligence University) National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency National Reconnaissance Office National Security Agency (Central Security Service) Armed Forces Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency Army Military Intelligence Marine Corps Intelligence Activity Office of Naval Intelligence Civilian Bureau of Intelligence and Research (State) Central Intelligence Agency (National Clandestine Service • Special Activities Division • Open Source Center) Drug Enforcement Administration (Justice) Federal Bureau of Investigation (Justice) Office of Intelligence and Analysis (Homeland Security) Coast Guard Intelligence (Homeland Security) Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (Treasury) Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence (Energy) Other Director of National Intelligence (National Counterterrorism Center • National Counterproliferation Center • Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive • National Intelligence Council • Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity) National Security Council President’s Intelligence Advisory Board Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Intelligence Support Activity Defunct Counterintelligence Field Activity Military Intelligence Service Office of Strategic Services Office of Special Plans Strategic Support Branch Categories: Mass surveillanceMass surveillance by country It was at the urging of a friend over drinks at a U Street bar when Lacy MacAuley first checked out the Twitter account @snufftastic, the wry musings of someone describing herself as a motorcycle enthusiast who lives in the District and happens to be a cop. MacAuley, who works for an advocacy group, said she immediately recognized the picture attached to the cryptic user name as a woman with spiked hair who called herself Missy and for years had taken part in protests around Washington on issues as varied as a proposed oil pipeline and abusive labor conditions. “Missy,” according to a lawsuit filed this week in D.C. Superior Court, is an undercover police officer who illegally infiltrated a student group that stages demonstrations at stores where products produced in sweatshops are sold. The lawsuit offers no concrete evidence that the officer did not attend the demonstrations on her own time as a protester. But to leaders of some of the District’s many protest groups, the allegations offer proof of a long and deeply held suspicion: that police are running a domestic spying operation a decade after a law took effect restricting such activities. Advocates fear authorities are violating their free speech and assembly rights by collecting intelligence under the false guise of maintaining public order. “These are nonviolent, civil-disobedience protests,” said MacAuley, a spokeswoman for the Institute for Policy Studies, an advocacy group that has joined the anti-sweatshop protesters at demonstrations. “I believe the police spy on us to chill dissent.” “Missy,” at left with her face showing above a sign, is an undercover D.C. police officer who illegally infiltrated a student group that stages demonstrations at stores that sell products produced in sweatshops, a lawsuit alleges. (Courtesy of D.C. Superior Court) The D.C. attorney general’s office, which defends the city in civil litigation, declined to comment on the case, saying the city had not yet been served with the lawsuit. “I feel confident that we have adhered to all laws pertaining to the First Amendment Rights and Police Standards Act of 2004,” D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said in a brief statement. In its lawsuit filed Monday, United Students Against Sweatshops identified the undercover officer as Nicole Rizzi. The group also included pictures, videos and tweets described as coming from Rizzi’s now-deleted Internet accounts. The suit alleges that @snufftastic on Twitter was Rizzi. It also does not seek damages but asks for a judgment barring police from continuing to infiltrate the group. It names the mayor, attorney general and Rizzi as defendants. The officer could not be reached for comment; payroll records show she joined the force in 2003. Rizzi apparently posted voluminously on blogs and in other social media, according to some examples cited in the lawsuit and others available online. Most of the messages are personal, but the officer appears to have dropped surprisingly obvious clues to her day job in some of her tweets. She wrote at one point that she had been a police officer for seven years; another time, she urged people to “please bedazzle my uniform.” The lawsuit alleges that D.C. police assigned Rizzi to “work undercover at protests throughout the District of Columbia,” where she “made herself appear to be one of the protesters by carrying banners, handing out flyers, chanting.” The D.C. Council passed a law in 2004 after mass arrests in 2000 and 2002 led to civil rights complaints and lawsuits that eventually cost the District more than $21 million. The Partnership for Civil Justice said it uncovered a D.C. officer who lawyers said at the time not only infiltrated a peaceful protest group but urged them to commit violent acts. D.C. police are now prohibited from infiltrating advocacy groups without top police officials’ permission, which can be granted only as a last resort and with a proven threat of violence. Last year, the District’s auditor criticized police for not complying with the law. Lanier vehemently denied the auditor’s findings. Jeffrey Light, who represents the anti-sweatshop group, said no arrests were made at any of the protests that Rizzi allegedly attended. “I cannot think of any legitimate reason for the police to be sending an undercover officer to those,” Light said. “She was handing out fliers, asking to be put on e-mail and asking about future events. If the police wanted to know that, they could’ve checked the Web site. “ MacAuley, whose story about the officer first appeared in the magazine In These Times, said she thinks she first saw Rizzi at protests in 2009. It wasn’t until November when her friends pointed out the officer’s Twitter account and made the connection to the police. MacAuley said she researched the Twitter user name and other social media sites. “She didn’t make it as hard as she should have,” MacAuley said. “She had been showing up at even small protests that you wouldn’t think anyone had heard about. I had a strange feeling about her, but I didn’t want to get paranoid.” But when she saw the picture in the bar, she said, “I absolutely know who that is.” Light said he pulled public payroll records and extensively researched Internet postings and studied video clips of protests. The lawsuit places Rizzi at United Students Against Sweatshops protests on May 11 on Connecticut Avenue and on May 15 in Columbia Heights. A short video filed in court shows a woman the lawsuit identified as Rizzi dressed in jeans and a white T-shirt, her hair short and spiked, handing out fliers outside a store in Columbia Heights in June. Light, whose lawsuit dubs Rizzi an “agent provocateur,” said he found tweets about how she dresses in civilian clothes to “blend in” and about having to work outside on a day when there was also a protest of the Keystone pipeline. Light said protesters marching on one store found doors locked, preventing a sit-in — a secretly planned event for which Rizzi had been provided advanced notice, the attorney said. Rizzi has posted extensively on the Internet, including two popular blogs — a fan fiction journal for the police show “Rizzoli & Isles” and a blog that recounts personal stories such as working out at the police academy. She has tweeted more than 8,000 times. On July 30, she tweeted, “[expletive} kill me, job. Seriously, This is not worth any amount of money.” “In retrospect, Shishido Strain believes that Rizzi had notified DC police about the group’s plans. “One of the steps we usually take at our protest is to deliver a letter detailing the human rights abuses in their supply chain to the store/business being protested,” says Shishido Strain. “We do not break any laws and if we are asked to leave the store after delivering the letter, we do. After ‘Missy’ began participating in our events, we were twice blocked from delivering letters by the Metropolitan Police Department, who presumably had been tipped off about the time and location of our events. This occurred at the May 15 Children’s Place demonstration and the June 29 demonstration.” ” Rumors have flown for many years that DC police routinely infiltrate and spy on the frequent protests in the nation’s Capitol. But until now, activists have never been able to identify a specific undercover cop at a protest. Now, after months of piecing together evidence, attorneys Jeffrey Light and Sean Canavan working with United Students Against Sweatshop (USAS) have confirmed that under an assumed name, Metro police officer Nicole Rizzi has participated in USAS protests against companies doing business in Bangladesh who refuse to sign the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh following the death of as many as 1,129 workers in the Rana Plaza factory collapse. USAS and its lawyers have numerous pieces of evidence placing Rizzi at protests under a pseudonym. District of Columbia Public Employee Information List records obtained by In These Times confirm that Rizzi has been on the DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) force since December of 2003. USAS filed suit on Monday against the District of Columbia seeking an injunction to stop police from spying on the group’s activities. The story of how Rizzi was uncovered reads like a mix of “Gossip Girl” and “The Wire.” Activists pieced her identity together from her obsessive posting to social media sites, including Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, Facebook, WordPress and Yfrog. Lacy MacAuley, an activist and media manager for the Institute for Policy Studies, has suspected for the past several years that a protester named “Missy” was an undercover cop. “Missy” seemed to be at every protest, but no one knew her. However, MacAuley had no way of proving her suspicions. Then, in November of 2012, MacAuley was at a bar on U Street when a friend recommended that she follow a Twitter account of a funny person with the handle @snufftastic. MacAuley immediately identified the user in the photographs as the person she knew as “Missy.” The user Tweeted frequently about the daily grind of being a police officer in DC. MacAuley says she then spotted Rizzi as “Missy” at an anti-Keystone pipeline protest at the Canadian Embassy on March 21, 2013. That was when MacAuley decided to approach Jeffrey Light, an attorney who works on police misconduct issues, with her suspicions. Light and his law partner Sean Canavan began searching for evidence to peg Rizzi as an undercover police officer. The trickiest part was establishing Rizzi’s real name. But on @snufftastic, she let clues drop. On August 2, 2012, she Tweeted, “They used to call me No Sweat Nico because no matter how hot it was at academy, I never sweat.” Light and Canavan did a public database search of all police officers in D.C. and found only two named Nicole; one was Rizzi. Photos on “Nicole Rizzi”’s Facebook account matched those on the @snufftastic Twitter and Instagram. Moreover, a post on Rizzi’s since-deleted Tumblr account seemed to indicate that Rizzi worked undercover. In response to a post from a reader asking her how flexible her dress code was as a police officer, Rizzi said she wore “ordinary clothes,” but made a distinction between her position and that of a “plainclothes” patrol cop: “In the position I’m in, it’s beneficial to wear ordinary clothes. Plainclothes assignments too, you wear what would blend in.” On April 20, MacAuley spotted “Missy” at a protest outside of the World Bank and snapped a photograph of her (above left). Meanwhile, Light and Canavan dug up evidence that Rizzi was a police officer, including a photograph posted on yfrog of Rizzi pointing out a typo on a piece of mail addressed to the “DC Metropolation [sic] Police Department.” Rizzi’s finger partially covers up the address line, but it appears to read “Director, Intelligence Branch.” Light then began searching for a plaintiff who would have standing to file a complaint against Rizzi for spying. On May 15, Light happened to be walking by a USAS protest outside a Children’s Place clothing store in the Columbia Heights neighborhood of D.C. when he spotted Rizzi handing out protest flyers. Light flagged down USAS organizer Garrett Shishido Strain and alerted him to Missy’s presence. Shishido Strain knew just how “Missy” had wound up at the protest: He had met her four days earlier at a USAS protest outside of a Gap. Rizzi identified herself as “Missy Thompson,” gave Shishido Strain her email and phone number, and asked to be informed of future actions so that she could attend. On May 14, Shishido Strain emailed her about a last-minute protest at the Children’s Place in Columbia Heights the next day. Having been alerted by Light, Shishido Strain and other activists filmed Rizzi handing out flyers at the May 15 like a normal protester. Later, Shishido Strain would spot Rizzi once more, at a June 29 protest against the Gap. In retrospect, Shishido Strain believes that Rizzi had notified DC police about the group’s plans. “One of the steps we usually take at our protest is to deliver a letter detailing the human rights abuses in their supply chain to the store/business being protested,” says Shishido Strain. “We do not break any laws and if we are asked to leave the store after delivering the letter, we do. After ‘Missy’ began participating in our events, we were twice blocked from delivering letters by the Metropolitan Police Department, who presumably had been tipped off about the time and location of our events. This occurred at the May 15 Children’s Place demonstration and the June 29 demonstration.” A law enacted by the D.C. Council in 2004 imposes strict guidelines on police when they investigate or attempt to infiltrate First Amendment-protected groups. The Police Investigations Concerning First Amendment Activities Act of 2004 specifies that the MPD departments can only investigate free speech activities if they can prove sufficient cause that protestors are engaged in crime and they have the authorization of the Executive Director of the DC MPD Intelligence Fusion Divisions (or an appropriate supervisor of similar rank). To send in undercover officers, they have to go through the same authorization process again. But USAS attorneys Sean Canavan and Jeffrey Light say the MPD rarely follows this law. To wit, a 2012 investigation of the department by the Office of the District of Columbia Auditor concluded that the DC police failed to obtain authorization for 16 of 20 investigations into protest groups between January of 2005 and November 21, 2011. (Another seven cases were open during this period, but the files were destroyed before the review.) The report also found that the MPD never obtained official permission to send in undercover officers to protests, but did so in 17 cases. The DC Metropolitan Police Department did not return request for comment. However, in response to the audit in 2012, DC MPD Chief Cathy L. Lainer wrote, the “MPD contends that the Intelligence Branch has consistently gone far beyond what is required by the Act.” Light, who filed the case on behalf of USAS, says that undercover surveillance sows suspicion among activists and hinders collective action. “If they are putting an undercover [cop] there, then they are putting undercover [police] everywhere. That is a big problem for a lot of these groups,” says Light. “You are trying to get people to come out and protest knowing that there is a undercover cop there—it’s a huge problem.” Shishido Strain says his run-ins with Rizzi have already made him wary of strangers who want to get involved in fights for workers’ rights. “I have personally become much more cautious with people who express support for us at actions and others who express an interest in joining our actions, if I do not know them already,” he says. Behold a new legal threshold: let’s call it the 007 standard. Apparently the law now allows secret agents to get up to all manner of mayhem, just so long as it’s something James Bond might have done. Threatening to strangle a woman with her own bikini top? Powering a speedboat, both on and besides the Thames, destroying everything in your wake? Forcing a shark-gun pellet into a man’s mouth, so he blows up like a balloon. All fully lawful, m’lud: can I refer the court to Diamonds Are Forever, The World Is Not Enough and Live and Let Die? This new principle of jurisprudence was unveiled at the high court this week by Mr Justice Tugendhat, as he ruled on whether a case brought by 10 women and one man duped into fraudulent relationships by undercover police officers should be heard in open court or in a secret tribunal. The decision hinged on whether the law governing agents of the state allows them to form sexual relationships with those they spy upon. The good judge believes that when MPs wrote the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) in 2000, permitting undercover police to form “personal or other” relationships, they must have meant it to include sexual relationships. After all, the legislators were bound to have had one particular secret agent in mind. “James Bond is the most famous fictional example of a member of the intelligence services who used relationships with women,” Tugendhat declared, lending “credence to the view that the intelligence and police services have for many years deployed both men and women officers to form personal relationships of an intimate sexual nature”. That came as a shock to the women involved in the case, and not only them. The former director of public prosecutions, Ken, now Lord, Macdonald, thought the judge’s mention of 007 “ludicrous”. Ripa, he told me, is an extremely serious piece of legislation, “one that determines the extent to which our private lives can be intruded upon by the state. It’s undermining of parliament’s reputation as a serious body to suggest it took into account the mad escapades of a fictional spy”. Talk of Bond only highlights one of the absurdities at the heart of this sad, strange saga that first came to light two years ago, when the Guardian revealed how a police officer named Mark Kennedy had infiltrated the environmental protest movement and become intimate with the activists he was monitoring. The absurdity in question is that of proportionality. At least Bond was confronting mighty adversaries with demonic ambitions to destroy the world: no wonder he had to cut the odd ethical corner. But Kennedy and the other cops were, mostly, targeting domestic groups that posed no such threat. It’s true that one undercover policeman caught the Animal Liberation Front activists who had planted incendiary devices in fur-selling department stores (at night, with no one around) – a policeman who has himself been accused in parliament of detonating one of the devices – but the target was usually more Citizen Smith than Dr No. In one case, the police infiltrated an anti-war group called the Clown Army whose existential threat to national security consisted of running around Leeds city centre brandishing feather dusters. Blofeld, it wasn’t. But that the judge thought to mention Bond is perhaps revealing. For even those who would defend Ian Fleming’s character from charges of misogyny would concede that he often regards women as disposable. And that is the crux of this case, brought by a group of women who believe their innermost lives were regarded as so valueless they could be used by covert police as mere props, devices to shore up agents’ cover stories and prove they were good-faith activists rather than frauds. Some may question how much the women involved really suffered: they were with a man long ago who was not what he claimed to be – OK, not nice, but move on. Such an attitude was hinted at in the remarks by a male activist who slept with an undercover policewoman in a tent at a “climate camp” and who told the Guardian he did not want to sue the police because the one-night stand was “nothing meaningful”. But for the others these were not one-night stands, they were relationships of long standing – six years in one case, five in another – that were enormously meaningful. Those involved tell of deep and genuine attachments, the men integrated into their lives as partners, living together, travelling together, attending family gatherings, sitting at a parent’s bedside, even attending a funeral. There are at least four children from these relationships, some of whom have only now, decades later, discovered who their father really was – and that they were born of a great act of deception. The greatest pain seems to have come afterwards. Uncannily, most of the relationships all seem to have ended the same way: a sudden departure, a postcard from abroad, and then silence. Some women spent months or even years trying to work out what had gone wrong, travelling far in search of answers. Others found that their ability to trust had been shattered. If the man they had loved turned out to be an agent of the state, what else should they be suspicious of? Could they trust their colleagues, their friends? And the question that nags above all others: was it all a fake, did he not love me at all? One woman tells friends simply: “Five years of my life was built on a lie.” There was rightly an outcry about the News of the World’s hacking of people’s voicemail messages. But this was the hacking of people’s lives, burrowing into the most intimate spaces of the heart in order to do a job, all authorised by the police. It is state-sanctioned emotional abuse. The present tense is appropriate because there is no reason to believe this kind of police activity, begun in 1968 when Scotland Yard started to infiltrate groups opposed to the Vietnam war, has stopped. The police have not apologised or vowed to give up the practice. Instead, they simply refuse to confirm or deny that the men involved worked as agents at all. A dozen people are taking legal action in total, but those who have followed the case closest – the Guardian’s Paul Lewis and Rob Evans – are convinced there are many more victims, including some who still don’t know that a past partner conned them. Almost every undercover cop so far identified found himself a lover in the group under surveillance: it was the norm, a standard part of their tradecraft. This is a question for the police, whose view of women as so dispensable surely suggests a kind of institutional sexism, but also for the state itself. Either it knew or it didn’t know what these men were up to, apparently in the service of the crown: both possibilities are indefensible. There is no licence to kill, and there can be no licence to break human hearts, to inflict lasting psychological trauma. The James Bond stories are thrillers, not an instruction manual for an unaccountable state. An official body has called into question the criminal conviction of a political campaigner after allegations that an undercover spy gave false evidence under oath during his prosecution. The Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates miscarriages of justice, has decided that environmental campaigner John Jordan will be tried again in a fresh hearing. The CCRC has found that there is a “real possibility” that his conviction is unsafe. However, it has decided not to disclose to Jordan the reasons for accepting his appeal , arguing that some aspects of the case are too sensitive to be made public. The challenge follows the publication of evidence by the Guardian and BBC Newsnight that an undercover police officer concealed his true identity from a court when he was prosecuted alongside Jordan and others campaigners for occupying a government office during a demonstration. The spy, whose real name is Jim Boyling, is alleged to have given a false name and occupation throughout the prosecution, from the moment he was arrested to the end of the hearing. A total of 56 convictions or attempted prosecutions of environmental campaigners have either been overturned, abandoned or called into question over the past two years after disclosures surrounding the activities of undercover police officers. The CCRC’s decision follows sustained criticism of the conduct of undercover spies who have infiltrated political groups since 1968. A two-year investigation by the Guardian has revealed how the spies routinely slept with women they had been sent to spy on, carried out surveillance on groups campaigning for a proper investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and stole the identities of dead children to create fake identities. The CCRC’s decision focuses attention on another technique used by the undercover officers. Police spymasters are also alleged to have authorised the spies to give evidence in court in the names of their alter egos, rather than their real names, as a tactic to bolster and maintain their cover. The ploy came to light in 2011 when documents suggested that it was used by Boyling, who infiltrated environmental and animal rights campaigners between 1995 and 2000 posing as a cleaner called Jim Sutton. In August 1996, while pretending to be a committed campaigner in a group known as Reclaim the Streets, he was among a group of protesters who occupied the office of the chairman of London Transport and were arrested for disorderly behaviour. During a series of court appearances and a three-day trial at Horseferry Road magistrates court in London, he maintained that he was Sutton and gave evidence as a defendant, according to the documents. He and the others were cleared. Jordan was convicted of assaulting a police officer and unlawfully possessing a police helmet, and was given a conditional discharge for a year.Former undercover officer Peter Francis, a former undercover officer who worked alongside Boyling in a covert Scotland Yard unit and has now become a whistleblower, told the Guardian two years ago that, from time to time, police chiefs allowed the prosecutions of spies to proceed as this helped to boost their credibility with the activists they were infiltrating.Another spy, Bob Lambert who infiltrated environmentalists and animal rights campaigners in the 1980s, has admitted that on at least one occasion, he appeared in court under his fake name to “maintain cover”. Boyling’s covert deployment remained secret until he was unmasked by activists in 2011. Jordan’s lawyer, Mike Schwarz, then lodged an appeal with the CCRC. The CCRC said : “Some of the material on which the referral is based is of a sensitive nature.” Full details were therefore only given in a confidential document to the appeal court and the Crown Prosecution Service, but not Jordan or his lawyer. Instead Jordan and his lawyer were given a summary of the reasons. Schwarz said that the situation was “Kafkaesque” and called on Keir Starmer, the head of the CPS, to share all the documents with Jordan and himself. Boyling has previously stated that he did not commit “any criminal misconduct” while carrying out his police duties. “My actions whilst deployed on SDS duties were with the approval of the Metropolitan Police,” he has said. The other convictions and attempted prosecutions of environmental campaigners were quashed or thrown into doubt after evidence gathered by the police spy Mark Kennedy was withheld from them by prosecutors or police. Jordan said :”Given that these cases come from two officers, yet over 100 undercover officers have targeted political campaigners, the likely number of miscarriages of justice relating to the actions of undercover police officers will run into the hundreds, perhaps thousands. “A public inquiry is needed to flush out and correct these miscarriages of justice.” WHAT WE DO RESOURCES IN-DEPTH ARTICLES BLOG PRESS ROOM ABOUT US TAKE ACTION Maryland State Police Surveillance of Advocacy Groups Exposed by Kay Guinane, 8/5/2008 Government Spying on Nonprofits, Nonprofit Organizations and Counterterrorism Measures, Right to Dissent, Government Matters On July 17, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland disclosed documents revealing that state police engaged in covert surveillance of local peace and anti-death penalty groups for over a year during the administration of former Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich (R). In response, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said he might support a Justice Department investigation into why this surveillance occurred. Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, wrote to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff requesting a full account of the surveillance actions and further information regarding the funds used. The ACLU of Maryland was concerned that the Maryland State Police were hiding information on the surveillance of local peace activists. On June 12, it filed a lawsuit against the state police for refusing to disclose records in response to a public information request. Plaintiffs include the American Friends Service Committee, Jonah House, Baltimore Pledge of Resistance, Baltimore Emergency Response Network, and several individuals. A June ACLU press release states, “Documents disclosed during a prosecution for disorderly conduct and trespass against two individuals arrested at a protest at the National Security Agency (NSA) in October 2003 indicated that a ‘Baltimore Intel Unit’ had been monitoring protestors from these groups as they assembled and traveled to the NSA for a protest in July 2004. In order to discover the identity of this ‘intel unit,’ and why the unit was monitoring their peaceful protest activities, the groups filed requests under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) with several federal agencies, including the NSA, in August of 2006.” The press release describes the 43 pages of summaries and computer logs. Maryland State Police’s Homeland Security and Intelligence Division sent agents to infiltrate the Baltimore Pledge of Resistance, a peace group, the Coalition to End the Death Penalty (CEDP), and the Committee to Save Vernon Evans. The surveillance continued even though there were no reports of illegal activity and consistently indicated that no violent protests were being planned. Reports of the surveillance were also sent to at least seven federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The press release went on to say, “Agents from the Division monitored private organizing meetings, public forums and events held in several churches, as well as anti-death penalty rallies outside the state’s SuperMax facility in Baltimore and in Lawyer’s Mall in Annapolis.” The ACLU of Maryland will be filing additional requests under the Maryland Public Information Act. It called on activists across the state to find out if their organizations have been spied on. The ACLU will work with groups that are willing to provide the names of key individuals who could be listed in surveillance records to document the full extent of any surveillance and will ensure that the targets have an opportunity to review the files that relate to them and have those files purged. The Washington Post reported, “Then-state police superintendent Tim Hutchins acknowledged in an interview yesterday that the surveillance took place on his watch, adding that it was done legally.” Reaction to news of the surveillance was swift and negative. Hoyer’s statement said, “While it is the job of law enforcement to protect the public and keep the peace, it is difficult to understand how non-violent peace activists and opponents of the death penalty constituted a threat to public safety. We need to understand why the monitoring of these and other citizens took place — and whether any federal funds were used in support of this program.” Thompson said, “The politically motivated surveillance of dissident domestic groups that have neither a link to terrorism nor promote violence is … a deplorable use of taxpayer funds.” In addition, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) announced an investigation to be led by civil rights attorney Stephen H. Sachs, working with State Attorney General Douglas Gansler and state police chief Col. Terrence Sheridan. The 30-60 day review is aimed at developing new intelligence gui

Stephen Lawrence (13 September 1974 – 22 April 1993) was a Black British man from Eltham, south east London, who was murdered in a racially motivated attack while waiting for a bus on the evening of 22 April 1993.[2] The case became a cause célèbre and one of the highest profile racial killings in UK history; its fallout included profound cultural changes to attitudes on racism and the police, and to the law and police practice, and the partial revocation of double jeopardy laws, before two of the perpetrators were convicted almost 20 years later in 2012.[3]

After the initial investigation, five suspects were arrested but not convicted.[4] It was suggested during the course of that investigation that the murder was racially motivated and that Lawrence was killed because he was black, and that the handling of the case by the police and Crown Prosecution Service was affected by issues of race. A public inquiry was held in 1998,[5] headed by Sir William Macpherson, that examined the original Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) investigation and concluded that the force was “institutionally racist”. It also recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be abrogated in murder cases to allow a retrial upon new and compelling evidence; this became law in 2005 with the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The publication in 1999 of the resulting Macpherson Report has been called ‘one of the most important moments in the modern history of criminal justice in Britain’.[6] Jack Straw, Home Secretary from 1997 to 2001, commented in 2012 that ordering the inquiry was “the single most important decision I made as Home Secretary”.[7] In 2010 the case was described as being “one of the highest-profile unsolved racially-motivated murders”.[8]

On 18 May 2011, following a cold case review,[9] it was announced that two of the original suspects, Gary Dobson and David Norris, were to stand trial for the murder in the light of “new and substantial evidence” becoming available.[10] At the same time it was disclosed that Dobson’s original acquittal had been quashed by the Court of Appeal, allowing a retrial to take place.[11] Such an appeal had only become possible following the 2005 change in the law, although Dobson was not the first person to be retried for murder as a result.[12] On 3 January 2012, Dobson and Norris were found guilty of Lawrence’s murder,[13] the pair were juveniles at the time of the crime and were sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, equivalent to a life sentence for an adult,[14] with minimum terms of 15 years 2 months and 14 years 3 months respectively[15] for what the judge described as a “terrible and evil crime”.[16]

In the years after Dobson and Norris were sentenced, the case again regained prominence when concerns of corrupt police conduct during the original case handling surfaced in the media. Such claims had surfaced before, and been investigated in 2006, but were reignited in 2013 when a former undercover police officer stated in an interview that at the time, he had been pressured to find ways to “smear” and discredit the victim’s family, to mute and deter public campaigning for better police responses to the case. Although further inquiries in 2012 by both Scotland Yard and the Independent Police Complaints Commission had ruled that there was no basis for further investigation, Home Secretary Theresa May ordered an independent inquiry into undercover policing and corruption by a prominent QC, which was described as “devastating” when published in 2014.

Contents [hide]
1 Stephen Lawrence
2 Murder
3 Trials
3.1 Witnesses
3.2 Initial investigations, arrests and prosecutions
3.3 Private prosecution
3.4 Subsequent events (1994–2010)
3.5 Cold case review and new evidence
3.6 2011–2012 trial
3.7 Immediate aftermath of trial
3.8 Appeals
4 Other inquiries and investigations
4.1 The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
4.2 Public complaints about mishandling of case
4.3 Concerns and inquiries of alleged police corruption and undercover officer conduct
4.3.1 Investigation into police corruption (2006)
4.3.2 Revelations about undercover police conduct (2013)
4.3.3 The Stephen Lawrence Independent Review (2014)
5 Legacy and recognition
6 In the media
7 See also
8 References
9 Bibliography
10 External links
Stephen Lawrence[edit]
Stephen Lawrence was born on 13 September 1974 to Jamaican parents who had emigrated to the UK in the 1960s. His father was Neville Lawrence, a carpenter, and his mother was Doreen, a special needs teacher.[1] Brought up in Plumstead, South-East London, he was the eldest of three children, Stuart (b. 1976) and Georgina (b. 1982).[17][18] During his teenage years, Lawrence excelled in running, competing for the local Cambridge Harriers athletics club, and appeared as an extra in Denzel Washington’s film For Queen and Country.[19] At the time of his death he was studying technology and physics at the Blackheath Bluecoat School and English language and literature at Woolwich College, and was hoping to become an architect.[20]

Lawrence had spent the day of Thursday 22 April 1993 at Blackheath Bluecoat School.[21] After school, he went to Lewisham to look around shops. After this, he travelled by bus to an uncle’s house in Plumstead. He was joined there by Duwayne Brooks, and they played video games until leaving in the late evening.[21] After realising that the bus 286 on which they were travelling would get them home late, they decided to change for either buses 161 or 122 on Well Hall Road.[21] Lawrence walked along Well Hall Road to the junction of Dickson Road to see if he could see a bus coming and then went back towards the bus stop.[22] Brooks was still on Well Hall Road, part way between Dickson Road and the roundabout with Rochester Way and Westhorne Avenue.[22] At this point, Brooks saw a group of five or six white youths coming from Rochester Way on the opposite side of the street near the area of the zebra crossing moving towards them.[22] At 10:35 pm, he called out to ask whether Lawrence saw the bus coming. Brooks claimed that he heard one of Lawrence’s assailants saying: “What, what, nigger?”[22] as they all quickly crossed the road and ‘engulfed’ Lawrence, who was forced down and then received two stab wounds to a depth of about 5 inches (13 cm) on both sides of the front of his body, in the right collarbone and left shoulder. Both of the stab wounds severed axillary arteries before penetrating a lung. As a result, Lawrence lost all feeling in his right arm and his breathing was constricted, while he was losing blood from four major blood vessels. Brooks began running, and shouted for Lawrence to run to escape with him. While the attackers disappeared down Dickson Road, they both ran in the direction of Shooters Hill, though Lawrence collapsed and bled to death after running 130 yards (120 m).[22][23][24]

It is surprising that he managed to get 130 yards with all the injuries he had, but also the fact that the deep penetrating wound of the right side caused the upper lobe to partially collapse his lung. It is therefore a testimony to Stephen’s physical fitness that he was able to run the distance he did before collapsing.[22]

—Richard Shepherd (pathologist), Macpherson Report
Brooks ran to call an ambulance while an off-duty police officer stopped his car and covered Lawrence with a blanket. Lawrence was taken to hospital by 11:05 pm, but he was already dead.[22] Lawrence was murdered only nine months after another victim, an Asian boy, Rohit Duggal, was stabbed to death in Eltham in an unprovoked racial attack.[25]

All three witnesses at the bus stop at the time of the attack said in statements that the attack was sudden and short; none was later able to identify any of the suspects.[21] In the days following Lawrence’s murder, several residents came forward to provide names of suspects and an anonymous note was also left on a police car windscreen and in a telephone box naming a local gang[26] as the five main suspects.[27] The suspects were Gary Dobson, brothers Neil and Jamie Acourt, Luke Knight and David Norris.[27] In February 1999, officers investigating the handling of the initial inquiry revealed that a woman who might have been a vital witness had telephoned detectives three times within the first few days after the killing, and appealed for her to contact them again.[28] The five suspects were previously involved in racist knife attacks around the Eltham area.[29] Four weeks before Lawrence’s death, Dobson and Neil Acourt were involved in the racist attack of a black teenager, Kevin London, who they verbally abused and attempted to stab.[30] Neil’s brother Jamie was accused of stabbing teenagers Darren Witham in May 1992 and Darren Giles in 1994, causing Giles to have a heart attack.[31] The stabbing attacks of Gurdeep Bhangal and Stacey Benefield, which both occurred in March 1993, in Eltham, were also linked to Neil and Jamie Acourt, David Norris and Gary Dobson.[32][33]

Initial investigations, arrests and prosecutions[edit]
Within three days of the crime, prime suspects had been identified. No arrests were made, however, until over two weeks after the killing. The officer who had been leading the murder investigation from its third day, and who would ultimately lead the murder squad for 14 months, explained to an incredulous public inquiry in 1998 that part of the reason no arrests had taken place by the fourth day after the killing (Monday 26 April) was that he had not known the law allowed arrest upon reasonable suspicion – a basic point of criminal law.[34][35]

On 7 May 1993, the Acourt brothers and Dobson were arrested. Norris turned himself in to police and was likewise arrested three days later. Knight was arrested on 3 June. Neil Acourt, picked out at an identity parade, and Luke Knight were charged with murder on 13 May and 23 June 1993 respectively, but the charges were dropped on 29 July 1993, the Crown Prosecution Service citing insufficient evidence.[36]

An internal review was opened in August 1993 by the Metropolitan Police. On 16 April 1994, the Crown Prosecution Service stated they did not have sufficient evidence for murder charges against anyone else, despite a belief by the Lawrence family that new evidence had been found.[34]

Private prosecution[edit]
In April 1994,[35] Lawrence’s family initiated a private prosecution against the initial two suspects and three others: Jamie Acourt, Gary Dobson and David Norris. The family were not entitled to legal aid and a fighting fund was established to pay for the analysis of forensic evidence and the cost of tracing and re-interviewing witnesses. The family were represented by counsel Michael Mansfield QC, Martin Soorjoo and Margo Boye who worked pro bono.[37] The charges against Jamie Acourt and David Norris were dropped before the trial due to lack of evidence. On 23 April 1996, the three remaining suspects were acquitted of murder by a jury at the Central Criminal Court, after the trial judge, the Honourable Mr Justice Curtis, ruled that the identification evidence given by Duwayne Brooks was unreliable.[6] The Macpherson report endorsed the judgement, stating that “Mr Justice Curtis could [have] properly reach[ed] only one conclusion” and that “[t]here simply was no satisfactory evidence available”.[5]

Subsequent events (1994–2010)[edit]
An inquest into the death of Lawrence was held in February 1997. The five suspects refused to answer any questions, claiming privilege against self-incrimination.[38] The inquest concluded on 13 February 1997, with the jury returning a verdict after 30 minutes’ deliberation of unlawful killing “in a completely unprovoked racist attack by five white youths”; this finding went beyond the bounds of their instructions.[39] On 14 February 1997, the Daily Mail newspaper labelled all five suspects “murderers”. The headline read, “Murderers: The Mail accuses these men of killing. If we are wrong, let them sue us.” Underneath this headline appeared pictures of the five suspects: Dobson, Neil and Jamie Acourt, Knight, and Norris.[40][41] None of the men ever sued for defamation and strong public opinions rose against the accused and the police who handled the case.[42]

In 2002, David Norris and Neil Acourt were convicted and jailed for racially aggravated harassment after an incident involving a plain-clothes black police officer.[43] In 2005 the law changed. As part of the findings on the Lawrence case, the Macpherson Report recommended that double jeopardy (the ancient common law that once acquitted an accused person could not be tried for the same crime a second time) should be abrogated in murder cases, and that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial if “fresh and viable” new evidence later came to light. The Law Commission later added its support to this in its report “Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals” (2001). A parallel report into the criminal justice system by Lord Justice Auld, a past senior presiding judge for England and Wales, had also commenced in 1999 and was published as the Auld Report 6 months after the Law Commission report. It opined that the Law Commission had been unduly cautious by limiting the scope to murder and that “the exceptions should […] extend to other grave offences punishable with life and/or long terms of imprisonment as Parliament might specify.”[44]

These recommendations were implemented within the Criminal Justice Act 2003,[45] and this provision came into force in April 2005.[46] It opened murder and certain other serious crimes (including manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and some drug crimes) to a second prosecution, regardless of when committed, with two conditions – the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to new and compelling evidence.[47]

Between the Lawrence murder and early 2010 Dobson was arrested or charged a number of times for offences such as theft and burglary. Some of these charges were dropped, at least one resulted in a small fine. None led to imprisonment.[48] On 27 July 2006, the Daily Mail repeated its famous “Murderers” front page. In July 2010, Gary Dobson was jailed for five years for possessing and supplying 49 kg of class B drugs with a street value of around £350,000[48] (approximately US $540,000[49]). At the time of Dobson’s sentencing for drug dealing, The Independent described the Lawrence killing – despite it having happened more than 17 years previously – as “one of the highest-profile unsolved racially motivated murders”.[8]

Cold case review and new evidence[edit]

Forensic scientist Angela Gallop discusses fibres and blood found in the case
from the BBC programme The Life Scientific, 27 March 2012[50]
Problems playing this file? See media help.
In June 2006, a cold case review commenced, involving a full re-examination of the forensic evidence.[9][10] Initially this was held in secrecy and not publicised;[51] however, in November 2007, police confirmed they were investigating new scientific evidence.[51]

The most important of the new evidence comprised:[52][53]

A microscopic (0.5 x 0.25 mm) stain of Lawrence’s blood in Dobson’s jacket.[54] It had dried into the fibres and its tiny size implied this had happened very quickly. The forensic analysis concluded it had not been transferred there from elsewhere as dried blood or later soaked into the fabric, but was deposited fresh, and would have dried almost immediately after being deposited due to its microscopic size.
Fibres from Lawrence’s clothing, and hairs with a 99.9% chance[55] of coming from Lawrence, found on the two men’s clothes from the time or in the evidence bag holding them.[54] (The defence later argued unsuccessfully at trial that these were present due to contamination or lack of care of evidence[52]).
The police unit manager involved in the matter commented that the new evidence was only found because of scientific developments and developments in forensic approaches that had taken place since 1996 which allowed microscopic blood stains and hair fragments to be analysed for DNA and other microscopic evidence to be found and used forensically.[54]

2011–2012 trial[edit]
Gary Dobson and David Norris were arrested and charged without publicity on 8 September 2010[10] and on 23 October 2010 the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, applied to the Court of Appeal for Dobson’s original acquittal to be quashed.[11] Dobson was in prison at the time for drug dealing.[48] Norris had not been previously acquitted, so no application was necessary in his case. For legal reasons – to protect the investigation and ensure a fair hearing – reporting restrictions were put in place at the commencement of these proceedings; the arrests and subsequent developments were not publicly reported at the time.[11]

Dobson’s acquittal was quashed following a two-day hearing on 11 and 12 April 2011, enabling his retrial.[56] On 18 May 2011, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment and the reporting restrictions were partially lifted.[11] It was announced by the Crown Prosecution Service that the two would face trial for Lawrence’s murder in light of “new and substantial evidence”.[10] The judgment of the court stated that “[i]f reliable, the new scientific evidence would place Dobson in very close proximity indeed to Stephen Lawrence at the moment of and in the immediate aftermath of the attack, proximity, moreover, for which no innocent explanation can be discerned”.[56] The ruling also emphasised that this was to be “a new trial of a defendant who, we repeat, is presumed in law to be innocent,” and suggested a cautious and fact-based reporting style to avoid contempt of court or risk of prejudice to the future trial.[56]

A jury was selected on 14 November 2011,[57] and the trial, presided over by Mr Justice Treacy, began the next day at the Central Criminal Court.[58][59] With the prosecution led by Mark Ellison QC, the case centred on the new forensic evidence and whether it demonstrated the defendant’s involvement in the murder, or was the result of later contamination due to police handling.[52][53] On 3 January 2012, Dobson and Norris were found guilty of Lawrence’s murder.[13] The two were sentenced on 4 January 2012 to detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, equivalent to a life sentence for an adult,[14] with minimum terms of 15 years and 2 months for Dobson and 14 years and 3 months for Norris.[16][60] Time spent on remand by Dobson was not deducted from his minimum term to ensure his existing sentence for drug-related offences was served.[14] The judge’s sentencing remarks were later published in full online.[14]

The judge stated that the sentences reflected the fact that Dobson and Norris were juveniles at the time of the offence, which took place before the Criminal Justice Act 2003; the starting point for the minimum term was therefore 12 years. The judge acknowledged this was “lower than some might expect”.[14][61] A similar crime committed in 2011 as an adult would have justified a sentence with a starting point of 30 years for the minimum term.[14][62] (This is occasionally misreported as 25 years, the starting point for “bringing and using a weapon”;[62][63] murder with racial motive incurs a higher 30-year starting point.[62])

Immediate aftermath of trial[edit]
Following the 2012 convictions, Paul Dacre, Daily Mail editor since 1992, issued a comment on his 1997 headline decision.[64][65]

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that if it hadn’t been for the Mail’s headline in 1997 —’Murderers: The Mail accuses these men of killing’—and our years of campaigning, none of this would have happened. Britain’s police might not have undergone the huge internal reform that was so necessary. Race relations might not have taken the significant step forward that they have. And an 18-year-old A-Level student who dreamed of being an architect would have been denied justice. The Daily Mail took a monumental risk with that headline. In many ways, it was an outrageous, unprecedented step.

On 5 January 2012, it was reported that the Attorney General was reviewing the minimum terms at the request of a member of the public, to determine whether he believed them to be “unduly lenient”, and if so whether to apply to the Court of Appeal for an increase in the minimum terms.[66] Juvenile minimum life sentences in a 2000 review (i.e. before the 2003 act passed into law) varied from a “most common” minimum of 10 years to a maximum of 20, placing Dobson and Norris in the middle of that range.[66] On 1 February 2012, the Attorney General announced that he would not be referring the sentences to the Court of Appeal, as he believed that “the minimum terms [were] … within the appropriate range of sentences”.[67]

On 30 January 2012, it emerged that Norris and Dobson were seeking leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal against their convictions.[68]

On 23 August 2012, it was reported that Norris and Dobson had lost the first round of their appeal.[69] On 15 March 2013, it was announced that Gary Dobson had dropped his Appeal against his murder conviction.[70]

Other inquiries and investigations[edit]
The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry[edit]
On 31 July 1997, the Home Secretary Jack Straw ordered a public inquiry, to be conducted by Sir William Macpherson and officially titled “The Inquiry Into The Matters Arising From The Death of Stephen Lawrence”.[71] Its report, produced in February 1999, estimated that it had taken “more than 100,000 pages of reports, statements, and other written or printed documents”[72] and concluded that the original Metropolitan Police Service investigation had been incompetent and that officers had committed fundamental errors, including: failing to give first aid when they reached the scene; failing to follow obvious leads during their investigation; and failing to arrest suspects. The report found that there had been a failure of leadership by senior MPS officers and that recommendations of the 1981 Scarman Report, compiled following race-related riots in Brixton and Toxteth, had been ignored.[5]

Detective Superintendent Brian Weeden said during the inquiry that mistakes had been made in the murder investigation, including his own ignorance that he could have arrested the suspects four days after the killing simply on reasonable suspicion, a basic point of criminal law.[34][35]

The report also found that the Metropolitan Police was institutionally racist. A total of 70 recommendations for reform were made. These proposals included abolishing the double jeopardy rule and criminalising racist statements made in private. Macpherson also called for reform in the British Civil Service, local governments, the National Health Service, schools, and the judicial system, to address issues of institutional racism.[73]

The report was criticised at the time by Michael Gove (later Secretary of State for Education) in The Times, who said, “The tendentious reasoning and illiberal recommendations of that document have been brilliantly anatomised by the ethical socialists Norman Dennis and George Erdos and the Kurdish academic Ahmed al-Shahi in the Civitas pamphlet Racist Murder and Pressure Group Politics.”[74]

Public complaints about mishandling of case[edit]
In 1997, Lawrence’s family registered a formal complaint with the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), which in 1999 exonerated the officers who had worked on the case of allegations of racism. Only one officer, Detective Inspector Ben Bullock, was ordered to face disciplinary charges for neglect of duty. Bullock, who was second in command of the investigation, was later found guilty of failure to properly brief officers and failure to fully investigate an anonymous letter sent to police, but he was acquitted of 11 other charges. Four other officers who would have been charged as a result of the inquiry retired before it concluded.

Bullock retired the day after his punishment was announced, so that it amounted to a mere caution. Neville Lawrence, Stephen’s father, criticised the punishment, saying that Bullock was “guilty on all counts.” However, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police Federation stated that Bullock had been “largely vindicated” in the proceedings.[75]

On 10 March 2006, the Metropolitan Police Service announced that it would pay Duwayne Brooks £100,000 as compensation for the manner in which police had handled his complaints about their actions toward him after the murder.[76][77][clarification needed]

Concerns and inquiries of alleged police corruption and undercover officer conduct[edit]
Investigation into police corruption (2006)[edit]
On 25 July 2006, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) announced that it had asked the Metropolitan Police to look into alleged claims of police corruption that may have helped hide the killers of Lawrence.

A BBC investigation alleged that the murder inquiry’s Det. Sgt. John Davidson had taken money from known drug smuggler Clifford Norris, the father of David Norris, a chief suspect in the investigation.[78] Neil Putnam, a former corrupt police detective turned whistleblower, told a BBC investigation that Clifford Norris was paying Mr Davidson to obstruct the case and to protect the suspects. “Davidson told me that he was looking after Norris and that to me meant that he was protecting him, protecting his family against arrest and any conviction,” Putnam said.[78] Davidson denied any such corruption.

The Metropolitan Police Service announced that it was to open up a special incident room to field calls from the public, following the BBC documentary The Boys Who Killed Stephen Lawrence. The Independent Police Complaints Commission later stated that the claims made in the programme were unfounded.[79]

The need to re-establish trust between minority ethnic communities and the police is paramount… seeking to achieve trust and confidence through a demonstration of fairness will not in itself be sufficient. It must be accompanied by a vigorous pursuit of openness and accountability.[80][81]

—Sir William Macpherson, Macpherson Report
On 17 December 2009, Independent Police Complaints Commission investigators and officers from the Metropolitan Police’s directorate of professional standards arrested a former police constable and a serving member of Metropolitan Police staff on suspicion of attempting to pervert the course of justice by allegedly withholding evidence from the original murder inquiry, the Kent investigation and the Macpherson inquiry. Dr Richard Stone, who sat on the Macpherson inquiry, commented that the panel had felt that there was “a large amount of information that the police were either not processing or were suppressing” and “a strong smell of corruption”. Baroness Ros Howells, patron of the Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust, agreed: “Lots of people said they gave the police evidence which was never produced.”[82] On 1 March 2010 the IPCC announced that “No further action will be taken against the two men arrested following concerns identified by the internal Metropolitan police service (MPS) review of the murder of Stephen Lawrence” and the two were released from bail.[83]

Revelations about undercover police conduct (2013)[edit]
On 23 June 2013, an interview with Peter Francis, a former under-cover police officer, was published in The Guardian. In the interview Francis disclosed that while he was working undercover within an anti-racist campaign group in the mid-1990s, he was constantly pressured by superiors to “smear” the credibilities of the family of Lawrence so as to put an end to campaigns for a better investigation into Lawrence’s death.[84] After the revelation, Theresa May, the UK’s home secretary pledged to be “ruthless about purging corruption from the police”, and Prime Minister David Cameron ordered Police to investigate the allegations, saying of them that he was “deeply worried about the reports”.[85] Chief Constable Mick Creedon, who is leading Operation Herne, an ongoing inquiry into Metropolitan police undercover operations against protest groups, said he would investigate the allegations as part of the inquiry.[86]

The Stephen Lawrence Independent Review (2014)[edit]
Following the 2012 convictions, further inquiries by both Scotland Yard and the Independent Police Complaints Commission ruled that there was no new evidence to warrant further investigation. After discussions with Doreen Lawrence, Home Secretary Theresa May commissioned Mark Ellison QC to review Scotland Yard’s investigations into alleged police corruption.[87]

The report, titled “The Stephen Lawrence Independent Review”,[88] was presented to Parliament on 6 March 2014. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police said the report, which prompted an inquiry into undercover policing, was “devastating”.[89] Ellison’s report also showed that there was substantial evidence linking an alleged corrupt police officer with involvement in the murder of private investigator Daniel Morgan.[90]

Legacy and recognition[edit]
An annual architectural award, the Stephen Lawrence Prize, was established by the Royal Institute of British Architects in Lawrence’s memory.

His mother, Doreen Lawrence, said, “I would like Stephen to be remembered as a young man who had a future. He was well loved, and had he been given the chance to survive maybe he would have been the one to bridge the gap between black and white because he didn’t distinguish between black or white. He saw people as people.”[60]

In 1995 a memorial plaque was set into the pavement at the spot where he was killed on Well Hall Road. The plaque has been vandalised several times since then.[91]

In 1999, Nicolas Kent designed a documentary play based on the trial, called The Colour of Justice. It was staged at the Tricycle Theatre and was later filmed by the BBC.[92] It was also performed at the Guildford School of Acting for the 20th anniversary of the murder.

On 7 February 2008, the Stephen Lawrence Centre, designed by architect David Adjaye, opened in Deptford, south-east London.[93] A week later, it was vandalised in an attack that was initially believed to be racially motivated. However, doubt was cast on that assumption when CCTV evidence appeared to show one of the suspects to be mixed-race.[94]

The Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust is a national educational charity committed to the advancement of social justice. The Trust provides educational and employability workshops and mentoring schemes. It also awards architectural and landscape bursaries.[95] In 2008 the Trust, with architects RMJM, created the initiative Architecture for Everyone to help promote architecture and the creative industries to young people from ethnic minorities.[96]

In October 2012, Doreen Lawrence received a Lifetime Achievement Award at the 14th Pride of Britain Awards.[97]

On 31 July 2013 it was announced that Doreen Lawrence was being made a baroness and given a seat in the House of Lords, where she will sit on the Labour benches as a working peer specialising in race and diversity.[98]

In the media[edit]
Daily Mail journalist Stephen Wright has written about the Lawrence case, both before and subsequent to the prosecution. He was awarded a Special Campaign Award as part of the 2012 Paul Foot Award for his work in the Lawrence case.[99]

See also[edit]
London portal
Criminal justice portal
Discrimination portal
Race and crime in the United Kingdom
Murder of Kelso Cochrane
Murder of Kriss Donald
Murder of Ross Parker
Murder of Anthony Walker

^ Jump up to: a b c BBC News (3 January 2012). “Stephen Lawrence murder: Dobson and Norris found guilty”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b BBC News (1997). “Straw Announces Inquiry into Lawrence Murder”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
Jump up ^ “Stephen Lawrence murder: A timeline of how the story unfolded”. BBC, 6 March 2014. Retrieved 4 May 2014.
Jump up ^ BBC News (31 July 2006). “Lawrence detective denies claim”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
^ Jump up to: a b c “Sir William Macpherson’s Inquiry Into The Matters Arising From the Death of Stephen Lawrence”. Official Documents Archive. 24 February 1999. Retrieved 21 June 2009.
(see also summary: “Lawrence: Key recommendations”. BBC News. 24 March 1999. Retrieved 5 January 2012.)
^ Jump up to: a b BBC News (5 May 2004). “Q&A: Stephen Lawrence murder”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
Jump up ^ “Justice at last for Stephen Lawrence”. The Times. 4 January 2012. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b “Lawrence murder suspect jailed for dealing”. The Independent / Press Association. 9 July 2010. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b “Lawrence: Killers Face Jail As Parents Speak”. 4 January 2012. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c d BBC News (18 May 2011). “Stephen Lawrence pair face murder trial”. BBC News. Retrieved 18 May 2011.
^ Jump up to: a b c d “Joint CPS and MPS statement on Stephen Lawrence case”. Crown Prosecution Service. 18 May 2011. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
Jump up ^ Double jeopardy man is given life, BBC News. 6 October 2006.
^ Jump up to: a b Dodd, Vikram; Laville, Sandra (3 January 2012). “Stephen Lawrence verdict: Dobson and Norris guilty of racist murder”. The Guardian. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f “R v DOBSON & NORRIS, Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Treacy, 4 January 2012”. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
Jump up ^ Sandra Laville and Vikram Dodd (4 January 2012). “Stephen Lawrence murder: Norris and Dobson get 14 and 15 years”. The Guardian. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b Richards, David (4 January 2012). “Gary Dobson jailed for minimum of 15 years and 2 months and David Norris to 14 years and 3 months for ‘terrible and evil crime'”. Daily Mail. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
Jump up ^ “Stephen’s Story”. Stephen Lawrence Charitable Trust. Retrieved 9 August 2013.
Jump up ^ Wilkins, Verna Alette (2001). The Life of Stephen Lawrence. Tamarind Limited. p. p1. ISBN 1-870516-58-3.
Jump up ^ Bingham, John (1 June 2012). “Stephen Lawrence profile: the ambitious teenager with a fun-loving streak”. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 25 July 2014.
Jump up ^ Cathcart, Brian (8 January 2012). “The life and legacy of Stephen Lawrence”. The Independent. Retrieved 3 May 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Sutcliffe, Roger. “The murder of Stephen Lawrence [Archived]”. February 1999. Newswise. Archived from the original on 2007-11-16. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Macpherson, William (24 February 1999). “THE MURDER OF STEPHEN LAWRENCE, Chapter 1”. Official Documents Archive. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
Jump up ^ Laville, Sandra; Dodd, Vikram (16 November 2011). “Stephen Lawrence killed because of ‘the colour of his skin'”. The Guardian. Retrieved 25 July 2014.
Jump up ^ Cathcart, Brian (7 March 2012). The Case of Stephen Lawrence. Penguin Books. pp. 25–. ISBN 978-0-241-96324-1. Retrieved 25 July 2014.
Jump up ^ “And the racist killings go on”. The Guardian. 24 February 1999. Retrieved 27 July 2014.
Jump up ^ Evans, Martin (3 January 2012). “Interactive graphic: Stephen Lawrence murder timeline”. Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b Holohan, Siobhan. The search for justice in a media age: reading Stephen Lawrence and Louise Woodward. Ashgate Publishing. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-7546-4380-7. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
Jump up ^ BBC News (13 February 1999). “Police appeal for witness in Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
Jump up ^ “Stephen Lawrence murder – David Norris: profile”. The Daily Telegraph. 3 January 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2014.
Jump up ^ “Stephen Lawrence murder – Gary Dobson: profile”. The Daily Telegraph. 3 January 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2014.
Jump up ^ “Stephen Lawrence murder – Jamie Acourt, Neil Acourt and Luke Knight: profiles”. The Daily Telegraph. 3 January 2012. Retrieved 26 July 2014.
Jump up ^ “Spate of racist stabbings in Eltham had gone unpunished”. The Independent. 4 January 2012. Retrieved 27 July 2014.
Jump up ^ “‘I was stabbed by Lawrence gang outside Wimpy weeks before Stephen was killed'”. London Evening Standard. 9 January 2012. Retrieved 27 July 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b c Pallister, David (18 July 1998). “Police bungling that betrayed Stephen Lawrence”. The Guardian. Retrieved 5 January 2012. – stated in the text to be “now, on the 49th day of the inquiry”.
^ Jump up to: a b c BBC News (2 December 1999). “Stephen Lawrence – timeline of events”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
Jump up ^ BBC News (14 February 1997). “1997: Lawrence ‘killed by racists'”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
Jump up ^ “The Lawyer” (5 February 1995). “Funds pour in for Lawrence action”. The Lawyer. Retrieved 10 June 2009.
Jump up ^ “Wall of silence from white youths at Lawrence inquest”. The Independent. 12 February 1997. Retrieved 6 January 2012.
Jump up ^ Ailsen Daniels, Duncan Campbell, “‘Unlawfully killed in an unprovoked racist attack by five white youths'”, The Guardian, 14 February 1997, p. 1.
Jump up ^ Wright, Stephen (3 January 2012). “The Mail’s victory: How Stephen Lawrence’s killers were finally brought to justice years after our front page sensationally branded the evil pair murderers”. Daily Mail. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
Jump up ^ British Library (1997). “Stephen Lawrence murder”. British Library. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
Jump up ^ Taylor, Adam (3 January 2012). “This Daily Mail Headline May Have Been Crucial in Putting Racist Murderers Behind Bars”. Business Insider. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
Jump up ^ BBC News (6 September 2002). “Lawrence pair jailed for race attack”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
Jump up ^ “A Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales by The Right Honourable Lord Justice Auld”. September 2001. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
Jump up ^ Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44). (23 December 2011). Retrieved on 2 January 2012.
Jump up ^ Double jeopardy law ushered out, BBC News. 3 April 2005
Jump up ^ Retrial of Serious Offences at the Wayback Machine (archived September 15, 2008). The CPS. Retrieved on 2 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c Daily Mail (8 July 2010). “Justice at last: Thug accused of murdering Stephen Lawrence gets five years for drug dealing”. Daily Mail. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
Jump up ^ GBP:USD exchange rate on 23 February 2010, the time of the attempted drug deal: £1 = $1.5449, therefore £350,000 = approx. US $540,000
Jump up ^ “Angela Gallop”. The Life Scientific. 27 March 2012. BBC Radio 4. Retrieved 2014-01-18.
^ Jump up to: a b Dodd, Vikram; Hodgson, Martin (8 September 2007). “Lawrence murder: new forensic clue”. Guardian Online. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
^ Jump up to: a b c “Lawrence murder trial: the forensic evidence”. Channel 4 News. 3 January 2012. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b “Stephen Lawrence murder: Dobson and Norris found guilty”. BBC News. 3 January 2012. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c “Stephen Lawrence murder: Tiny forensic evidence proved key”. Metro. 3 January 2012. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
Jump up ^ “Stephen Lawrence murder: Dobson and Norris found guilty”. BBC News. 3 January 2012. Retrieved 5 January 2012. “A geneticist examined MtDNA databases and told the court the chance of it not coming from Stephen was one in 1,000”
^ Jump up to: a b c “R. v. Dobson, [2011] EWCA Crim 1256”. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
Jump up ^ BBC News (22 December 2011). “Lawrence trial: Not jury’s job to right racism – defence”. BBC News. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
Jump up ^ BBC News (14 November 2011). “Stephen Lawrence: New evidence to be ‘centre stage'”. BBC News. Retrieved 14 November 2011.
Jump up ^ BBC News (15 November 2011). “Stephen Lawrence DNA ‘found on defendants’ clothes'”. BBC News. Retrieved 16 November 2011.
^ Jump up to: a b BBC News (3 January 2012). “Stephen Lawrence murder: Dobson and Norris found guilty”. BBC News. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
Jump up ^ Wagner, Adam (4 January 2012). “Why Stephen Lawrence’s killers were sentenced as juveniles”. The Guardian. Retrieved 4 January 2012. – article explaining sentencing considerations where the crime took place many years previously.
^ Jump up to: a b c “CPS sentencing manual: Murder: Sentencing Legislation and Guidelines (24 February 2010 edition, current at 5 January 2012)”. Crown Prosecution Service. Retrieved 5 January 2012.
Jump up ^ Laville, Sandra (4 January 2012). “Stephen Lawrence murder: Gary Dobson and David Norris await sentencing”. The Guardian. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
Jump up ^ Halliday, Josh (4 January 2012). “Stephen Lawrence front page ‘was a monumental risk’ says Daily Mail editor”. The Guardian. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
Jump up ^ Dacre, Paul (4 January 2012). “Paul Dacre, Daily Mail Editor, on the risks he and the Mail ran to secure justice for Stephen Lawrence: Paul Dacre’s Statement in full”. Daily Mail. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b “Stephen Lawrence: Attorney General to review sentences”. BBC News. 5 January 2012. Retrieved 6 January 2012.
Jump up ^ “Stephen Lawrence killers’ sentences will not be reviewed”. BBC News. 1 February 2012. Retrieved 1 February 2012.
Jump up ^ Wright, Stephen (30 January 2012). “Murderers pile on agony for the Lawrence parents: Norris and Dobson will use legal aid to appeal against convictions”. The Daily Mail. Retrieved 30 January 2012.
Jump up ^ “Lawrence murder pair lose appeal”. BBC News. 23 August 2012. Retrieved 23 August 2012.
Jump up ^ “Gary Dobson drops Stephen Lawrence murder appeal”. The Daily Telegraph. 15 March 2013. Retrieved 16 March 2013.
Jump up ^ Cover letter upon completion of inquiry
Jump up ^ Report, ch.2, para 2.9
Jump up ^ Holdaway, Simon; O’Neill, Megan (2006). “Institutional Racism after Macpherson: An Analysis of Police Views”. Policing and Society 16 (4): 349–369. doi:10.1080/10439460600967885.
Jump up ^ Gove, Michael (10 October 2000). “Be politically astute, not politically correct”. The Times (UK). Retrieved 2 May 2010.
Jump up ^ BBC News (13 July 1999). “Lawrence hearing a “whitewash””. BBC News. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
Jump up ^ BBC News (23 August 1999). “Lawrence friend sues police”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
Jump up ^ BBC News (10 March 2006). “Police payout for Lawrence friend”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
^ Jump up to: a b BBC News (26 July 2006). “Lawrence case ‘corruption’ probe”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
Jump up ^ BBC News (13 November 2007). “‘No corruption’ in Lawrence case”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
Jump up ^ Macpherson, William (24 February 1999). “THE MURDER OF STEPHEN LAWRENCE, Chapter 46”. Official Documents Archive. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
Jump up ^ Raghavan, R.K. (2004). “Dealing with police misconduct”. Frontline. Retrieved 4 January 2008.
Jump up ^ Laville, Sandra; Muir, Hugh (18 December 2009). “Stephen Lawrence case pair arrested over evidence ‘withheld’ since murder”. The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 2 May 2010.
Jump up ^ Davies, Caroline (1 March 2010). “No action over ‘hidden evidence’ claims in Stephen Lawrence murder case”. The Guardian (UK). Retrieved 10 January 2011.
Jump up ^ Evans, Rob; Lewis, Paul (23 June 2013). “Stephen Lawrence family and friends targeted by police ‘smear’ campaign”. The Guardian. Retrieved 23 June 2013.
Jump up ^ Mason, Rowena (24 June 2013). “Home Secretary pledges to ‘purge corruption’ from police after Stephen Lawrence family smear allegations”. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
Jump up ^ Lewis, Paul; Evans, Rob (24 June 2013). “Dozens of undercover officers could face prosecution, says police chief”. The Guardian. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
Jump up ^ Andrew Grice & Paul Peachey (2 June 2012). “May defies Met to order inquiry after Independent campaign”. The Independent. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
Jump up ^ “Stephen Lawrence independent review”. Government of the United Kingdom. 6 March 2014. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
Jump up ^ “Hogan-Howe vows to restore trust in Met after new Lawrence row”. BBC News. 7 March 2014. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
Jump up ^ “Daniel Morgan murder case ‘corruption link’ with Lawrence investigation”. BBC Wales. 7 March 2014. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
Jump up ^ “Smashed glass bottle on Stephen Lawrence plaque in Eltham”. BBC. 3 October 2011. Retrieved 7 June 2013.
Jump up ^ IMDB. “The Colour of Justice”. IMDB. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
Jump up ^ BBC News (7 February 2008). “Stephen Lawrence building opens”. BBC News. Retrieved 4 June 2010.
Jump up ^ This Is Local London (15 February 2008). “Lawrence centre vandalism suspects”. thisislocallondon. Retrieved 4 June 2010.
Jump up ^ Stephen Lawrence trust. “The Trust”. Stephen Lawrence Trust. Retrieved 9 August 2011.
Jump up ^ Stuart, Dan (9 December 2008). “Gordon Brown lends support to architecture campaign”. Building Design. Retrieved 14 November 2011.
Jump up ^ “Doreen Lawrence honoured”. ITV News. 30 October 2012. Retrieved 31 October 2012.
Jump up ^ “Baroness Doreen: Stephen Lawrence’s mother gets a peerage, 20 years after racist murder of her son”. The Daily Mail. 31 July 2013. Retrieved 1 August 2013.
Jump up ^ “The Paul Foot Award”. Private Eye. Retrieved 23 March 2013.

Environmental campaigners had been invited to the meeting at the Cock Tavern pub in Euston in June 1999. They were members of Reclaim the Streets, a group that had days earlier brought the City of London to a standstill. By chance, two strangers sat next to each other: Jim Sutton, an articulate, if at times moody, 34-year-old fitness fanatic who relished his role as the group’s driver, a function that earned him the sobriquet “Jim the Van”; and Laura, 28, an idealistic activist. Laura (not her real name) did not know that this new acquaintance, a man she would go on to marry and have children with, was in fact Jim Boyling, a police officer living undercover among eco-activists.

Laura has told her story to the Guardian in the hope that it will serve as a warning to police chiefs that their surveillance operation “wrecks lives”.

Her account of how she came to know and love someone who turned out to be a police spy – which is substantiated by official documentation and has not been denied by police – will almost certainly lend weight to calls for a public inquiry, chaired by a judge, into the surveillance of protesters.

“I was reading stories that this was happening to so many other women who were at risk of falling for their lies,” says Laura, who was divorced from Boyling two years ago. “Having got through what I got through with my children I felt I had knowledge that could help other people and that I needed to do that.”

She adds: “The impression in the press was that this was an isolated incident, that it was a really ‘unusual thing’ – but this is not true. I know of multiple cases. We’re talking about a repeated pattern of long-term relationships and, for me at least, the deepest love I thought I’d ever known.”

Her story suggests the collateral damage from a decade-long operation to infiltrate the protest movement is wider than police chiefs had expected. She says the deception that predated their marriage in 2005, with profound consequences for her wellbeing and that of their children, made her feel “like a prostitute; just an unknowing and unpaid one”.

Already, three separate inquiries have been launched following the controversy surrounding Mark Kennedy, a Metropolitan police officer who spent seven years working undercover before turning against his seniors.

In its ongoing investigation into the surveillance operation, the Guardian has identified two other police officers who lived for years in the protest movement.

Boyling, a serving Met officer at the SO15, the force’s counter-terrorism unit, is the fourth. His ex-wife alleges he encouraged her to change her name by deed poll in an unsuccessful attempt to conceal their relationship from senior officers.

Until recently, she says, she was still devastated by what had happened. “I’d been suffering post traumatic stress for a long time,” she says. “I wasn’t even able to recognise my face in the mirror.”

When Laura met the man she assumed was a fellow activist, Boyling had already spent around four years in the protest movement.

Pulling the strings

Andrew James Boyling had adopted the alias “Jim Sutton” around 1995, and initially joined hunt saboteur groups and, according to friends, took part in anti-GM crop protests in Ireland and a “food summit” in Rome in 1996.

According to Laura, who says she had lengthy discussions with Boyling about his deployment during their nine-year relationship – once he had come clean to her, at least – the purpose of his police work was to infiltrate the closed ranks of those figures pulling the strings of Reclaim the Streets.

An environmental group counting anarchists and anti-capitalists among its ranks, Reclaim the Streets was a colourful collective opposed to cars. During its protests, members would block roads and start impromptu street parties. One notorious technique involved either crashing or parking “sacrificial cars” in the middle of traffic, sealing off the road. For police, they clearly constituted a potentially dangerous group of anarchists whose demonstrations had a record of descending into disorder.

Boyling’s operation would prove to be so successful that he played a central organising role behind the so-called Carnival Against Capitalism in 1999, one of the major anti-capitalist demonstrations of the past two decades. Those involved in organising the protest recall that he was “navigator” in a car that had been intended to block Upper Thames Street, in central London, kickstarting a day in which thousands of activists would clash with police.

The woman who was driving the car – purchased for £200 – recalls how Boyling made what at the time appeared to be a stupid error. He left the window open, enabling police to open the door, take off the handbrake, and push the car away.

Confronted over his error, Boyling was said to have replied: “Oh, I forgot.” The protest went ahead anyway, but it was a setback for the activists.

It seems that Boyling’s deployment started around the time of the birth of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit, which took over the running of police agents embedded in the protest movement in 1999.

Three years later, having returned to uniformed duties, Boyling would receive a letter of commendation from an assistant commissioner at the Met.

The signed certificate noted his “outstanding devotion to duty and determination over an extended period in the investigation of serious crimes”.

It was four months after the Carnival Against Capitalism, in June 1999, after a night in another pub, that Laura says she began to have a meaningful relationship with Boyling. “For the most part while he was undercover we had a blissfully in-love relationship,” she says. “In the beginning I nearly broke it off because it almost felt too strong; he was a perfect blueprint for something I didn’t even know I was looking for.”

By February 2000, Laura says, the pair moved into a flat in East Dulwich, which they adorned with Celtic and African patterned throws. Laura says she became aware Boyling was “under-developed ideologically”. “The thing about Jim is that he never really says much. He seemed to be bright but there seemed to be holes in his political development,” she says.

“He didn’t seem to like putting himself out there and making an effort, which is weird for someone who works in community-based groups.”

Jim the Van was also known as “Grumpy Jim”, and Laura says her boyfriend also raised eyebrows by a seeming reluctance to get involved in a sustainable activist culture, once refusing to help pick up rubbish at a campsite. “He was interested in disrupting, not building, it surprised me but I put down to immaturity.” Despite a slight sense that he did not fit in, Laura never suspected her boyfriend was a police informant – except for on one occasion.

“It’s such a cliche – but it was the way he was cleaning his walking boots,” she said. “I suddenly thought, ‘Who is this intruder?’ – and then I came to and suddenly he was Jim again. It was such a brief moment and it made such little sense that I blanked it.”

But despite their loving relationship, Laura says Boyling’s moods grew increasingly erratic until, in September 2000, he said he was leaving for Turkey, from where he planned to hitchhike to South Africa. He then vanished.

‘He no longer existed’

Confused, Laura says she spent more than a year trying to track him down. She tried to locate his family members – people who, it transpired, did not exist – and then travelled to South Africa. “He no longer existed in physical presence or on paper,” she says. “I didn’t know what to think or what to do.”

Tipped off that Boyling had returned to England and was living in Kingston, Surrey, Laura moved there hoping to find him, she says. But it was a chance encounter, in the bookshop where she was working, that saw them reunited.

“He said: ‘Don’t be angry,’ and I said I wasn’t,” she says. “He asked for a hug and he smelt the same, which was weird. We went for a coffee by Kingston Bridge and he said: “This can’t be, I’m a police officer.” At the time she was “very vulnerable”, she says, as she had used “all my savings trying to find him, and I was very thin, down to 6 stone 12lb”.

She said he refused to leave the police. “He said they would hound him. And I said that if he believed in leaving them, we could run away together and live a normal life anywhere in the world. He agreed.”

Two weeks later, Laura says, she was pregnant. What ensued were, according to Laura, several painful and difficult years in which the pair maintained a relationship while living apart. They would eventually have two children.

“He said he would tell the police what he could get away with and nothing else. He promised me he was no longer working undercover and that there were no more agents in her movement because police had lost interest.”

But Laura said she came to have reason to believe her husband was not being honest. He appeared determined that no one should know about their relationship.

She said he encouraged her to change her name by deed poll, saying that if she did not, there was a danger their address would be discovered and their child – then unborn – put at risk.

The Guardian has seen the deed certificate that confirms the change in name, and lists Boyling, who gave the occupation “police officer”, as a witness.

Laura now believes that Boyling was desperate to hide their relationship from police, and alleges he gave false information to his seniors about their marriage to conceal her activist past.

She also says he encouraged her to cut ties with the activist community and wanted to “train” her in the art of deception. “He said the trick was to have a whole and detailed story but not tell too much of it,” she says.

Boyling, however, may have struggled to balance his two lives.

“He said he missed that [activist] life – he said it was great because it was like being God. He knew everyone’s secrets on both sides and got to decide what to tell who and decide upon people’s fate.”

According to Laura, the classified information Boyling said he had access to included wiretaps of one of her friends in the protest movement and “details of the private lives of activists”, including, she said, information about what was contained in their luggage after they were stopped at passport control.

“Initially he promised me that he was the last officer in my movement and he was pulled out because the police no longer had any interests or concerns there, but that was a lie,” she says.

“I found this out when he insisted we hide on our first visit to Kingston Green Fair [a sustainability event], because he had seen another undercover agent who knew us both and that this man would take it straight back to his superior.”

After their two children were born, the couple married under Laura’s new name in 2005. But it was not until two years later, in 2007, that Laura recalls two of Boyling’s police colleagues visiting their home.

Laura said her then husband told her that he had only recently told one of the men about their relationship. The other, his long-time boss, had only known since 2005. She was told that both officers, to whom she was introduced by name, had worked as undercover agents.

Boyling later named one other supposed activist as a undercover police officer, and gave identifying descriptions of several others, according to Laura. If true, the suggestion that, as well as marrying an activist, Boyling had identified fellow undercover operatives could prove highly damaging for police chiefs, who say the actions of Kennedy are a rare example of “Stockholm syndrome”.

Warning to others

Laura and Boyling’s marriage was officially brought to an end around two years ago, when the pair divorced. Looking back, she believes their relationship should cause serious alarm. Senior police officers tasked with managing the fallout from the Kennedy controversy maintain that sexual relationships with activists are strictly prohibited, and rarely occur. However out of the four undercover police officers identified by the Guardian, three, all men, stand accused of having sex with activists. Two, Kennedy and Boyling, are known to have maintained long-term, meaningful relationships lasting several years.

“Jim complained one day that his superiors said there was to be no more sexual relations with activists anymore – the implicit suggestion was that they were fully aware of this before and that it hadn’t been restricted in the past,” Laura says.

“He was scoffing at it saying that it was impossible not to expect people to have sexual relations. He said people going in had ‘needs’ and I felt really insulted. He also claimed it was a necessary tool in maintaining cover.”

Despite fearing the consequences of speaking out, Laura said she hoped her story would be a warning.

“Everybody knows there are people in the movement who aren’t who they say they are. Being too paranoid would hinder everything. But you don’t expect the one person you trust most in the world not to exist. It wrecks lives. You don’t expect it, especially when you really are not important. I don’t think the Met consider us at all … I find it shocking that so much public money is being spent on that to put members of the public under surveillance.”

Boyling and the Met have been asked to respond to all the allegations about his undercover deployment and subsequent marriage to Laura, but neither has offered comment.

The National Security Agency monitored the phone conversations of 35 world leaders after being given the numbers by an official in another US government department, according to a classified document provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The confidential memo reveals that the NSA encourages senior officials in its “customer” departments, such as the White House, State and the Pentagon, to share their “Rolodexes” so the agency can add the phone numbers of leading foreign politicians to their surveillance systems.

The document notes that one unnamed US official handed over 200 numbers, including those of the 35 world leaders, none of whom is named. These were immediately “tasked” for monitoring by the NSA.

The revelation is set to add to mounting diplomatic tensions between the US and its allies, after the German chancellor Angela Merkel on Wednesday accused the US of tapping her mobile phone.

After Merkel’s allegations became public, White House press secretary Jay Carney issued a statement that said the US “is not monitoring and will not monitor” the German chancellor’s communications. But that failed to quell the row, as officials in Berlin quickly pointed out that the US did not deny monitoring the phone in the past.

Arriving in Brussels for an EU summit Merkel accused the US of a breach of trust. “We need to have trust in our allies and partners, and this must now be established once again. I repeat that spying among friends is not at all acceptable against anyone, and that goes for every citizen in Germany.”

The NSA memo obtained by the Guardian suggests that such surveillance was not isolated, as the agency routinely monitors the phone numbers of world leaders – and even asks for the assistance of other US officials to do so.

The memo, dated October 2006 and which was issued to staff in the agency’s Signals Intelligence Directorate (SID), was titled “Customers Can Help SID Obtain Targetable Phone Numbers”.

It begins by setting out an example of how US officials who mixed with world leaders and politicians could help agency surveillance.

“In one recent case,” the memo notes, “a US official provided NSA with 200 phone numbers to 35 world leaders … Despite the fact that the majority is probably available via open source, the PCs [intelligence production centers] have noted 43 previously unknown phone numbers. These numbers plus several others have been tasked.”

The document continues by saying the new phone numbers had helped the agency discover still more new contact details to add to their monitoring: “These numbers have provided lead information to other numbers that have subsequently been tasked.”

But the memo acknowledges that eavesdropping on the numbers had produced “little reportable intelligence”. In the wake of the Merkel row, the US is facing growing international criticism that any intelligence benefit from spying on friendly governments is far outweighed by the potential diplomatic damage.

The memo then asks analysts to think about any customers they currently serve who might similarly be happy to turn over details of their contacts.

“This success leads S2 [signals intelligence] to wonder if there are NSA liaisons whose supported customers may be willing to share their ‘Rolodexes’ or phone lists with NSA as potential sources of intelligence,” it states. “S2 welcomes such information!”

The document suggests that sometimes these offers come unsolicited, with US “customers” spontaneously offering the agency access to their overseas networks.

“From time to time, SID is offered access to the personal contact databases of US officials,” it states. “Such ‘Rolodexes’ may contain contact information for foreign political or military leaders, to include direct line, fax, residence and cellular numbers.”

The Guardian approached the Obama administration for comment on the latest document. Officials declined to respond directly to the new material, instead referring to comments delivered by Carney at Thursday’s daily briefing.

Carney told reporters: “The [NSA] revelations have clearly caused tension in our relationships with some countries, and we are dealing with that through diplomatic channels.

“These are very important relations both economically and for our security, and we will work to maintain the closest possible ties.”

The public accusation of spying on Merkel adds to mounting political tensions in Europe about the scope of US surveillance on the governments of its allies, after a cascade of backlashes and apologetic phone calls with leaders across the continent over the course of the week.

Asked on Wednesday evening if the NSA had in the past tracked the German chancellor’s communications, Caitlin Hayden, the White House’s National Security Council spokeswoman, said: “The United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of Chancellor Merkel. Beyond that, I’m not in a position to comment publicly on every specific alleged intelligence activity.”

At the daily briefing on Thursday, Carney again refused to answer repeated questions about whether the US had spied on Merkel’s calls in the past.

The NSA memo seen by the Guardian was written halfway through George W Bush’s second term, when Condoleezza Rice was secretary of state and Donald Rumsfeld was in his final months as defence secretary.

Merkel, who, according to Reuters, suspected the surveillance after finding her mobile phone number written on a US document, is said to have called for US surveillance to be placed on a new legal footing during a phone call to President Obama.

“The [German] federal government, as a close ally and partner of the US, expects in the future a clear contractual basis for the activity of the services and their co-operation,” she told the president.

The leader of Germany’s Green party, Katrin Goring-Eckhart, called the alleged spying an “unprecedented breach of trust” between the two countries.

Earlier in the week, Obama called the French president François Hollande in response to reports in Le Monde that the NSA accessed more than 70m phone records of French citizens in a single 30-day period, while earlier reports in Der Spiegel uncovered NSA activity against the offices and communications of senior officials of the European Union.

The European Commission, the executive body of the EU, this week backed proposals that could require US tech companies to seek permission before handing over EU citizens’ data to US intelligence agencies, while the European parliament voted in favour of suspending a transatlantic bank data sharing agreement after Der Spiegel revealed the agency was monitoring the international bank transfer system Swift.

The UK intelligence agency GCHQ has repeatedly warned it fears a “damaging public debate” on the scale of its activities because it could lead to legal challenges against its mass-surveillance programmes, classified internal documents reveal.

Memos contained in the cache disclosed by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden detail the agency’s long fight against making intercept evidence admissible as evidence in criminal trials – a policy supported by all three major political parties, but ultimately defeated by the UK’s intelligence community.

Foremost among the reasons was a desire to minimise the potential for challenges against the agency’s large-scale interception programmes, rather than any intrinsic threat to security, the documents show.

The papers also reveal that:

• GCHQ lobbied furiously to keep secret the fact that telecoms firms had gone “well beyond” what they were legally required to do to help intelligence agencies’ mass interception of communications, both in the UK and overseas.

• GCHQ feared a legal challenge under the right to privacy in the Human Rights Act if evidence of its surveillance methods became admissible in court.

• GCHQ assisted the Home Office in lining up sympathetic people to help with “press handling”, including the Liberal Democrat peer and former intelligence services commissioner Lord Carlile, who this week criticised the Guardian for its coverage of mass surveillance by GCHQ and America’s National Security Agency.

The most recent attempt to make intelligence gathered from intercepts admissible in court, proposed by the last Labour government, was finally stymied by GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 in 2009.

A briefing memo prepared for the board of GCHQ shortly before the decision was made public revealed that one reason the agency was keen to quash the proposals was the fear that even passing references to its wide-reaching surveillance powers could start a “damaging” public debate.

Referring to the decision to publish the report on intercept as evidence without classification, it noted: “Our main concern is that references to agency practices (ie the scale of interception and deletion) could lead to damaging public debate which might lead to legal challenges against the current regime.” A later update, from May 2012, set out further perceived “risks” of making intercepts admissible, including “the damage to partner relationships if sensitive information were accidentally released in open court”. It also noted that the “scale of interception and retention required would be fairly likely to be challenged on Article 8 (Right to Privacy) grounds”.

The GCHQ briefings showed the agency provided the Home Office with support in winning the PR battle on the proposed reforms by lining up people to talk to the media – including Lord Carlile, who on Wednesday gave a public lecture condemning the Guardian’s decision to publish stories based on the leaked material from Snowden.

Referring to the public debate on intercept evidence, the document notes: “Sir Ken McDonald [sic] (former DPP [director of public prosecutions]), Lord Goldsmith (former AG [attorney general]) and David Davis (former Shadow HSec [home secretary) [have been] reiterating their previous calls for IaE [intercept as evidence].

“We are working closely with HO [Home Office] on their plans for press handling when the final report is published, e.g. lining up talking heads (such as Lord Carlisle [sic], Lord Stevens, Sir Stephen Lander, Sir Swinton Thomas).”

Carlile was the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation in 2001-11, and was awarded a CBE in 2012 for his services to national security.

Another top GCHQ priority in resisting the admission of intercepts as evidence was keeping secret the extent of the agency’s co-operative relationships with telephone companies – including being granted access to communications networks overseas.

In June, the Guardian disclosed the existence of GCHQ’s Tempora internet surveillance programme. It uses intercepts on the fibre-optic cables that make up the backbone of the internet to gain access to vast swaths of internet users’ personal data. The intercepts are placed in the UK and overseas, with the knowledge of companies owning either the cables or landing stations.

The revelations of voluntary co-operation with some telecoms companies appear to contrast markedly with statements made by large telecoms firms in the wake of the first Tempora stories. They stressed that they were simply complying with the law of the countries in which they operated.

In reality, numerous telecoms companies were doing much more than that, as disclosed in a secret document prepared in 2009 by a joint working group of GCHQ, MI5 and MI6.

Their report contended that allowing intercepts as evidence could damage relationships with “Communications Service Providers” (CSPs).

In an extended excerpt of “the classified version” of a review prepared for the Privy Council, a formal body of advisers made up of current and former cabinet ministers, the document sets out the real nature of the relationship between telecoms firms and the UK government.

“Under RIPA [the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000], CSPs in the UK may be required to provide, at public expense, an adequate interception capability on their networks,” it states. “In practice all significant providers do provide such a capability. But in many cases their assistance – while in conformity with the law – goes well beyond what it requires.”

GCHQ’s internet surveillance programme is the subject of a challenge in the European court of human rights, mounted by three privacy advocacy groups. The Open Rights Group, English PEN and Big Brother Watch argue the “unchecked surveillance” of Tempora is a challenge to the right to privacy, as set out in the European convention on human rights.

That the Tempora programme appears to rely at least in part on voluntary co-operation of telecoms firms could become a major factor in that ongoing case. The revelation could also reignite the long-running debate over allowing intercept evidence in court.

GCHQ’s submission goes on to set out why its relationships with telecoms companies go further than what can be legally compelled under current law. It says that in the internet era, companies wishing to avoid being legally mandated to assist UK intelligence agencies would often be able to do so “at little cost or risk to their operations” by moving “some or all” of their communications services overseas.

As a result, “it has been necessary to enter into agreements with both UK-based and offshore providers for them to afford the UK agencies access, with appropriate legal authorisation, to the communications they carry outside the UK”.

The submission to ministers does not set out which overseas firms have entered into voluntary relationships with the UK, or even in which countries they operate, though documents detailing the Tempora programme made it clear the UK’s interception capabilities relied on taps located both on UK soil and overseas.

There is no indication as to whether the governments of the countries in which deals with companies have been struck would be aware of the GCHQ cable taps.

Evidence that telecoms firms and GCHQ are engaging in mass interception overseas could stoke an ongoing diplomatic row over surveillance ignited this week after the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, accused the NSA of monitoring her phone calls, and the subsequent revelation that the agency monitored communications of at least 35 other world leaders.

On Friday, Merkel and the French president, François Hollande, agreed to spearhead efforts to make the NSA sign a new code of conduct on how it carried out intelligence operations within the European Union, after EU leaders warned that the international fight against terrorism was being jeopardised by the perception that mass US surveillance was out of control.

Fear of diplomatic repercussions were one of the prime reasons given for GCHQ’s insistence that its relationships with telecoms firms must be kept private .

Telecoms companies “feared damage to their brands internationally, if the extent of their co-operation with HMG [Her Majesty’s government] became apparent”, the GCHQ document warned. It added that if intercepts became admissible as evidence in UK courts “many CSPs asserted that they would withdraw their voluntary support”.

The report stressed that while companies are going beyond what they are required to do under UK law, they are not being asked to violate it.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty and Anthony Romero Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union issued a joint statement stating:

“The Guardian’s publication of information from Edward Snowden has uncovered a breach of trust by the US and UK Governments on the grandest scale. The newspaper’s principled and selective revelations demonstrate our rulers’ contempt for personal rights, freedoms and the rule of law.

“Across the globe, these disclosures continue to raise fundamental questions about the lack of effective legal protection against the interception of all our communications.

“Yet in Britain, that conversation is in danger of being lost beneath self-serving spin and scaremongering, with journalists who dare to question the secret state accused of aiding the enemy.

“A balance must of course be struck between security and transparency, but that cannot be achieved whilst the intelligence services and their political masters seek to avoid any scrutiny of, or debate about, their actions.

“The Guardian’s decision to expose the extent to which our privacy is being violated should be applauded and not condemned.”

Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy. And then there’s Edward Snowden, who was a spy and then became something else. Nobody’s neutral about him. The other day I heard a senior military officer describe him unambiguously as “a thief”. In Washington he seems to be universally regarded as a traitor. Many people in Europe regard him as, at worst, a principled whistleblower and, at best, a hero in the Daniel Ellsberg mould.

Whatever you think about him, though, one thing is clear: Snowden is a pretty astute geek. The evidence for this is in the way he approached his whistleblowing task. Having concluded (as several other distinguished National Security Agency employees before him had) that the NSA had misinterpreted or overstepped its brief, he then identified prominent instances of agency overreach and for each category downloaded evidence that supported his conjecture.

We’re now getting to the point where we can begin to assess the bigger picture. What do the Snowden revelations tell us about what’s wrong with the NSA – and its leading overseas franchise, our own dear GCHQ?

The first, and most glaring, realisation is that the so-called democratic “oversight” of these intelligence agencies is so inadequate as to be effectively non-existent. And before Sir Malcolm Rifkind chokes on his muesli I should add that this is not because he and his kind – all those legislators and officials involved in this “oversight” – are lazy, corrupt or incompetent. The likelihood is that most of the stout parties involved in the oversight charade are conscientiously implementing the rules as they see them.

The problem is that the system of rules for ensuring that networked intelligence agencies stay on the right side of the line are ludicrously obsolete in relation to the technologies and the geeks that they are supposed to regulate. With computing power doubling every two years, bandwidth tripling and storage capacity quadrupling every year, any set of rules formulated in any given year is going to be looking out of date within three and laughable in five.

The second thing that emerges from the Snowden revelations is how catastrophic the concept of the “war on terror” has been. Normally, when a country declares war, a set of accepted legal conventions comes into force, and the populace simply has to put up with them. In 1939, for example, HMG became effectively omnipotent within the borders of the UK. The government could do whatever it deemed necessary, right down to requisitioning any piece or item of private property for a military purpose. Civil liberties were suspended. Censorship was comprehensive. It was, of course, draconian, but people knew where they stood. And they knew who the enemy was.

Bush’s (and Blair’s) “war” on terror was not a war in that sense. It was, and remains, a purely rhetorical device, and it has no constitutional standing compared with what happens in real wars. But it has provided the security services with a rationale for claiming warlike freedoms of action. We see that particularly in the NSA as unveiled by Snowden. As the security expert Bruce Schneier (who has seen many if not all of the Snowden documents) puts it, the agency has “commandeered the internet” in much the same way that wartime administrations commandeered cargo vessels, country estates and railway networks. In other words, it has treated the internet as though it owned it.

The starkest aspect of this is the way the NSA infiltrated (and therefore weakened) the encryption systems routinely employed to enable – and protect – online commerce and other legitimate online processes. Inserting back doors into these systems and undermining them in other ways are the kinds of actions that governments undertake in wartime, but which would be totally unacceptable otherwise. And of course in this case the actions have had the side effect of undermining trust in US companies, which dominate the internet. So the wartime mindset of the NSA may in the long run turn out to have been a colossal own goal.

As far as the NSA’s geeks are concerned, some of the PowerPoint slides detailing what the agency and its UK franchise have been up to strike a chord. Anyone who works with programmers knows how they delight in pulling off clever stunts – showing how they have been able to do something difficult or exotic by writing ingenious code. In the business, such feats are known as “neat hacks”, and they are widely esteemed by coders’ peers.

Recently, Ed Snowden published a slide from an NSA PowerPoint deck that detailed one such wheeze. It showed how the NSA had managed to tap into the (encrypted) data traffic flowing between Google’s server farms. The slide shows – using a dotted line – the point at which the NSA has found a way of tapping into this supposedly protected traffic. “SSL added and removed here!” reads a scrawled note, followed by a smiley face, indicating that the authors saw it as a really neat hack. And these are the guys whom Rifkind and his American counterparts think they can control. Dream on.

Britain’s spy agency GCHQ has secretly gained access to the network of cables which carry the world’s phone calls and internet traffic and has started to process vast streams of sensitive personal information which it is sharing with its American partner, the National Security Agency (NSA).

The sheer scale of the agency’s ambition is reflected in the titles of its two principal components: Mastering the Internet and Global Telecoms Exploitation, aimed at scooping up as much online and telephone traffic as possible. This is all being carried out without any form of public acknowledgement or debate.

One key innovation has been GCHQ’s ability to tap into and store huge volumes of data drawn from fibre-optic cables for up to 30 days so that it can be sifted and analysed. That operation, codenamed Tempora, has been running for some 18 months.

GCHQ and the NSA are consequently able to access and process vast quantities of communications between entirely innocent people, as well as targeted suspects.

This includes recordings of phone calls, the content of email messages, entries on Facebook and the history of any internet user’s access to websites – all of which is deemed legal, even though the warrant system was supposed to limit interception to a specified range of targets.

The existence of the programme has been disclosed in documents shown to the Guardian by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as part of his attempt to expose what he has called “the largest programme of suspicionless surveillance in human history”.

“It’s not just a US problem. The UK has a huge dog in this fight,” Snowden told the Guardian. “They [GCHQ] are worse than the US.”

However, on Friday a source with knowledge of intelligence argued that the data was collected legally under a system of safeguards, and had provided material that had led to significant breakthroughs in detecting and preventing serious crime.

Britain’s technical capacity to tap into the cables that carry the world’s communications – referred to in the documents as special source exploitation – has made GCHQ an intelligence superpower.

By 2010, two years after the project was first trialled, it was able to boast it had the “biggest internet access” of any member of the Five Eyes electronic eavesdropping alliance, comprising the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

UK officials could also claim GCHQ “produces larger amounts of metadata than NSA”. (Metadata describes basic information on who has been contacting whom, without detailing the content.)

By May last year 300 analysts from GCHQ, and 250 from the NSA, had been assigned to sift through the flood of data.

The Americans were given guidelines for its use, but were told in legal briefings by GCHQ lawyers: “We have a light oversight regime compared with the US”.

When it came to judging the necessity and proportionality of what they were allowed to look for, would-be American users were told it was “your call”.

The Guardian understands that a total of 850,000 NSA employees and US private contractors with top secret clearance had access to GCHQ databases.

The documents reveal that by last year GCHQ was handling 600m “telephone events” each day, had tapped more than 200 fibre-optic cables and was able to process data from at least 46 of them at a time.

Each of the cables carries data at a rate of 10 gigabits per second, so the tapped cables had the capacity, in theory, to deliver more than 21 petabytes a day – equivalent to sending all the information in all the books in the British Library 192 times every 24 hours.

And the scale of the programme is constantly increasing as more cables are tapped and GCHQ data storage facilities in the UK and abroad are expanded with the aim of processing terabits (thousands of gigabits) of data at a time.

For the 2 billion users of the world wide web, Tempora represents a window on to their everyday lives, sucking up every form of communication from the fibre-optic cables that ring the world.

The NSA has meanwhile opened a second window, in the form of the Prism operation, revealed earlier this month by the Guardian, from which it secured access to the internal systems of global companies that service the internet.

The GCHQ mass tapping operation has been built up over five years by attaching intercept probes to transatlantic fibre-optic cables where they land on British shores carrying data to western Europe from telephone exchanges and internet servers in north America.

This was done under secret agreements with commercial companies, described in one document as “intercept partners”.

The papers seen by the Guardian suggest some companies have been paid for the cost of their co-operation and GCHQ went to great lengths to keep their names secret. They were assigned “sensitive relationship teams” and staff were urged in one internal guidance paper to disguise the origin of “special source” material in their reports for fear that the role of the companies as intercept partners would cause “high-level political fallout”.

The source with knowledge of intelligence said on Friday the companies were obliged to co-operate in this operation. They are forbidden from revealing the existence of warrants compelling them to allow GCHQ access to the cables.

“There’s an overarching condition of the licensing of the companies that they have to co-operate in this. Should they decline, we can compel them to do so. They have no choice.”

The source said that although GCHQ was collecting a “vast haystack of data” what they were looking for was “needles”.

“Essentially, we have a process that allows us to select a small number of needles in a haystack. We are not looking at every piece of straw. There are certain triggers that allow you to discard or not examine a lot of data so you are just looking at needles. If you had the impression we are reading millions of emails, we are not. There is no intention in this whole programme to use it for looking at UK domestic traffic – British people talking to each other,” the source said.

He explained that when such “needles” were found a log was made and the interception commissioner could see that log.

“The criteria are security, terror, organised crime. And economic well-being. There’s an auditing process to go back through the logs and see if it was justified or not. The vast majority of the data is discarded without being looked at … we simply don’t have the resources.”

However, the legitimacy of the operation is in doubt. According to GCHQ’s legal advice, it was given the go-ahead by applying old law to new technology. The 2000 Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) requires the tapping of defined targets to be authorised by a warrant signed by the home secretary or foreign secretary.

However, an obscure clause allows the foreign secretary to sign a certificate for the interception of broad categories of material, as long as one end of the monitored communications is abroad. But the nature of modern fibre-optic communications means that a proportion of internal UK traffic is relayed abroad and then returns through the cables.

Parliament passed the Ripa law to allow GCHQ to trawl for information, but it did so 13 years ago with no inkling of the scale on which GCHQ would attempt to exploit the certificates, enabling it to gather and process data regardless of whether it belongs to identified targets.

The categories of material have included fraud, drug trafficking and terrorism, but the criteria at any one time are secret and are not subject to any public debate. GCHQ’s compliance with the certificates is audited by the agency itself, but the results of those audits are also secret.

An indication of how broad the dragnet can be was laid bare in advice from GCHQ’s lawyers, who said it would be impossible to list the total number of people targeted because “this would be an infinite list which we couldn’t manage”.

There is an investigatory powers tribunal to look into complaints that the data gathered by GCHQ has been improperly used, but the agency reassured NSA analysts in the early days of the programme, in 2009: “So far they have always found in our favour”.

Historically, the spy agencies have intercepted international communications by focusing on microwave towers and satellites. The NSA’s intercept station at Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire played a leading role in this. One internal document quotes the head of the NSA, Lieutenant General Keith Alexander, on a visit to Menwith Hill in June 2008, asking: “Why can’t we collect all the signals all the time? Sounds like a good summer project for Menwith.”

By then, however, satellite interception accounted for only a small part of the network traffic. Most of it now travels on fibre-optic cables, and the UK’s position on the western edge of Europe gave it natural access to cables emerging from the Atlantic.

The data collected provides a powerful tool in the hands of the security agencies, enabling them to sift for evidence of serious crime. According to the source, it has allowed them to discover new techniques used by terrorists to avoid security checks and to identify terrorists planning atrocities. It has also been used against child exploitation networks and in the field of cyberdefence.

It was claimed on Friday that it directly led to the arrest and imprisonment of a cell in the Midlands who were planning co-ordinated attacks; to the arrest of five Luton-based individuals preparing acts of terror, and to the arrest of three London-based people planning attacks prior to the Olympics.

As the probes began to generate data, GCHQ set up a three-year trial at the GCHQ station in Bude, Cornwall. By the summer of 2011, GCHQ had probes attached to more than 200 internet links, each carrying data at 10 gigabits a second. “This is a massive amount of data!” as one internal slideshow put it. That summer, it brought NSA analysts into the Bude trials. In the autumn of 2011, it launched Tempora as a mainstream programme, shared with the Americans.

The intercept probes on the transatlantic cables gave GCHQ access to its special source exploitation. Tempora allowed the agency to set up internet buffers so it could not simply watch the data live but also store it – for three days in the case of content and 30 days for metadata.

“Internet buffers represent an exciting opportunity to get direct access to enormous amounts of GCHQ’s special source data,” one document explained.

The processing centres apply a series of sophisticated computer programmes in order to filter the material through what is known as MVR – massive volume reduction. The first filter immediately rejects high-volume, low-value traffic, such as peer-to-peer downloads, which reduces the volume by about 30%. Others pull out packets of information relating to “selectors” – search terms including subjects, phone numbers and email addresses of interest. Some 40,000 of these were chosen by GCHQ and 31,000 by the NSA. Most of the information extracted is “content”, such as recordings of phone calls or the substance of email messages. The rest is metadata.

The GCHQ documents that the Guardian has seen illustrate a constant effort to build up storage capacity at the stations at Cheltenham, Bude and at one overseas location, as well a search for ways to maintain the agency’s comparative advantage as the world’s leading communications companies increasingly route their cables through Asia to cut costs. Meanwhile, technical work is ongoing to expand GCHQ’s capacity to ingest data from new super cables carrying data at 100 gigabits a second. As one training slide told new users: “You are in an enviable position – have fun and make the most of it.”

And a great alternative search engine for EU citizens that is EU-based, has no cookies, never tracks your IP, and has received EU privacy awards is:
The sister site for the States is as listed in SimplySimon’s link as Otherwise, everything recommended on prism-break is awesome.

Skype, the web-based communications company, reportedly set up a secret programme to make it easier for US surveillance agencies to access customers’ information.

The programme, called Project Chess and first revealed by the New York Times on Thursday, was said to have been established before Skype was bought by Microsoft in 2011. Microsoft’s links with US security are under intense scrutiny following the Guardian’s revelation of Prism, a surveillance program run by the National Security Agency (NSA), that claimed “direct” access to its servers and those of rivals including Apple, Facebook and Google.

Project Chess was set up to explore the legal and technical issues involved in making Skype’s communications more readily available to law enforcement and security officials, according to the Times. Only a handful of executives were aware of the plan. The company did not immediately return a call for comment.

Last year Skype denied reports that it had changed its software following the Microsoft acquisition in order to allow law enforcement easier access to communications. “Nothing could be more contrary to the Skype philosophy,” Mark Gillett, vice president of Microsoft’s Skype division, said in a blog post.

According to the Prism documents, Skype had been co-operating with the NSA’s scheme since February 2011, eight months before the software giant took it over. The document gives little detail on the technical nature of that cooperation. Microsoft declined to comment.

The news comes as the tech firms are attempting to distance themselves from the Prism revelations. All the firm’s listed as participating in the Prism scheme have denied that they give the NSA “direct” access to their servers, as claimed by the slide presentation, and said that they only comply with legal requests made through the courts.

But since the story broke a more nuanced picture of how the tech firms work with the surveillance authorities has emerged. The US authorities have become increasingly interested in tech firms and its employees after initially struggling to keep up with the shift to digital communications. NSA officials have held high level talks with executives in the tech firms and are actively recruiting in the tech community.

‘That information is how they make their money’

Shane Harris, author of The Watchers: The Rise of America’s Surveillance State, said the NSA had a crisis in the late 1990s when it realised communication was increasingly digital and it was falling behind in its powers to track that data. “You can not overstate that without this data the NSA would be blind,” he said.

The NSA employs former valley executives, including Max Kelly, the former chief security officer for Facebook, and has increasingly sought to hire people in the hacker community. Former NSA director lieutenant general Kenneth Minihan has taken the opposite tack and is helping create the next generation of tech security firms. Minihan is managing director of Paladin Capital, a private equity firm that has a fund dedicated to investing in homeland security. Paladin also employs Dr Alf Andreassen, a former technical adviser for naval warfare who was also for classified national programmes at AT&T and Bell Laboratories.

Harris said the ties were only likely to deepen as technology moves ever more of our communications on line. He warned the move was likely to present more problems for the tech firms as their consumers worry about their privacy. “It’s been fascinating for me listening to the push back from the tech companies,” said Harris.

Christopher Soghoian, a senior policy analyst studying technological surveillance at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the relationship between the tech giants and the NSA has a fundamental – and ironic – flaw that guarantees the Prism scandal is unlikely to be the last time tensions surface between the two.

The US spying apparatus and Silicon Valley’s top tech firms are basically in the same business, collecting information on people, he said. “It’s a weird symbiotic relationship. It’s not that Facebook and Google are trying to build a surveillance system but they effectively have,” he said. “If they wanted to, Google and Facebook could use technology to tackle the issue, anonymizing and deleting their customers’ information. But that information is how they make their money, so that is never going to happen.”