Der BND wisse seit Jahren von der nahezu totalen Datenerfassung
Der Auslandsgeheimdienst BND und das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz nutzen laut eines Medienberichts eine Spähsoftware des US-amerikanischen Geheimdienstes NSA. Es gilt als eines der ergiebigsten Spionage-Programme und ermöglicht nahezu digitale Totalüberwachung.
Was wissen Angela Merkel und ihre Minister in der Abhör-Affäre? Laut einem Bericht des Nachirchtenmagazins „Spiegel“ nutzen der Auslandsgeheimdienst BND und das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz eine Spähsoftware des US-amerikanischen Geheimdienstes NSA. Das berichtet das Magazin am Samstag auf seiner Internetseite. Das gehe aus geheimen Unterlagen der NSA hervor, die dem Magazin vorlägen. Demnach habe sich der BND um die Schulung des Verfassungsschutzes mit dem Umgang des Programms gekümmert. Der Verfassungsschutz, so das Magazin weiter, habe die NSA bei der Terrorbekämpfung unterstützt.

Das System „XKeyscore“, um das es sich handele, sei ein ergiebiges Spionagewerkzeug, so der „Spiegel“ weiter. Es ermögliche die digitale Totalüberwachung und könne beispielsweise sichtbar machen, nach welchen Begriffen Zielpersonen im Internet gesucht haben. Von rund 500 Millionen Datensätzen aus Deutschland, auf die die NSA monatlich Zugriff habe, seien im Dezember 2012 etwa 180 Millionen von „Xkeyscore“ erfasst worden.

Verantwortungslose Heuchelei
In der Meldung des „Spiegel“ heißt es außerdem, dass sich die „Zusammenarbeit deutscher Dienste mit der NSA zuletzt intensiviert“ hätte. Weiterhin hätten die Amerikaner die deutschen Kollegen und den BND-Präsidenten Gerhard Schindler für ihren Eifer gelobt. In Afghanistan, so zitiert das Magazin aus einem internen Papier, sei der BND der „fleißigste Partner“ in Sachen Informationsbeschaffung. BND und Verfassungsschutz hätten sich auf Anfragen des „Spiegels“ aber nicht zum Einsatz des Spionagewerkzeugs geäußert.

Die Hinweise auf eine Einbindung europäischer Nachrichtendienste in die Ausspähprogramme des US-Geheimdienstes NSA verdichten sich also. Nach Darstellung des früheren NSA-Chefs Michael Hayden im ZDF hatten die USA ihre Kooperation mit den Europäern nach den Anschlägen vom 11. September 2001 massiv ausgeweitet – und dabei keinen Zweifel an den Zielen gelassen: „Wir waren sehr offen zu unseren Freunden.“ Zu dieser Zeit regierten in Deutschland SPD und Grüne. Sie dringen nun auf rasche Aufklärung. Die CDU warf der Opposition deshalb „verantwortungslose Heuchelei“ vor.

Samstag, 20.07.2013, 18:46
dpa / Paul Zinken

Find this story at 20 July 2013

© FOCUS Online 1996-2013

The German government Wednesday denied a report claiming that the nation’s military knew for years about the US surveillance programme PRISM revealed by fugitive former intelligence analyst Edward Snowden.

Germany’s foreign intelligence service BND said that a separate programme with the same name existed for NATO forces in Afghanistan to share intelligence.

The spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel, who faces elections on September 22, said he had no reason to doubt the BND statement.

The issue is sensitive for Merkel, who said last week she only learnt about the scope of the US National Security Agency (NSA) snooping through media reports.

Many Germans are angry that their emails, phone calls, web searches and other data have been captured and stored under the NSA programme.

Any suggestion that the government failed to stop it or was complicit in it
would spell political danger for Merkel, whose chancellery oversees Germany’s
secret services.

The mass-circulation daily Bild reported earlier that the German military
command for northern Afghanistan had been informed of PRISM in September 2011

in a letter from the Kabul command of the NATO-led International Security
Assistance Force.

According to Bild the letter mentioned that the programme was for phone
and email surveillance and run by the NSA.

However, the BND later said in a brief statement: “The programme referred
to as PRISM in today’s Bild newspaper is a NATO/ISAF programme that is not
identical to the PRISM programme of the NSA. It is also not classified as
secret.”

The BND also stressed that it “had no knowledge of the name, scope and extent of the NSA programme”.

Merkel has testily told Washington that “we are not in the Cold War anymore” but also defended the role of secret services in keeping citizens safe and preventing terrorist attacks.

Snowden, on the run from the US government, has been marooned at a Moscow
airport since June 23 and on Tuesday filed an application for temporary asylum
in Russia. Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua have said they would be open to
offering refuge to Snowden.

Published: 17 Jul 2013 17:00 CET | Print version

Find this story at 17 July 2013

© The Local Europe GmbH

Der NSA-Skandal geht in Woche sechs, doch die Aufklärung läuft schleppend. Die Spähaffäre wirft ein Schlaglicht auf das Geflecht von Bundesregierung, Parlament und Agenten-Apparat. Kann man Geheimdienste überhaupt kontrollieren?

Berlin – Die Bundesregierung gerät im Skandal um amerikanische Spähaktivitäten zunehmend unter Druck – und zieht sich auf drei Formeln zurück. Erstens: Deutsche und ausländische Nachrichtendienste arbeiten zusammen. Zweitens: Von der Dimension der Spähprogramme habe man erst durch den Whistleblower Edward Snowden erfahren. Drittens: Details über die Arbeit deutscher Geheimdienste werden nicht öffentlich, sondern in Gremien beraten.

In einem dieser Gremien ging die Debatte um die Spionageaffäre am Dienstag in die nächste Runde: Innenminister Hans-Peter Friedrich (CSU) war im Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremium zu Gast – eine vertraulich tagende Gruppe, die die deutschen Geheimdienste überwachen soll. Dreimal tagte das Gremium in den vergangenen Wochen. Viel klüger ist man allerdings noch immer nicht.

Der NSA-Skandal wirft ein Licht auf das undurchsichtige Geflecht von Bundesregierung, Parlament und Geheimdiensten: Wer informiert wen? Kann man Nachrichtendienste überhaupt kontrollieren? Wie geht es jetzt weiter?

Die wichtigsten Fragen und Antworten:

1. Warum tagt das Gremium geheim?

Die elf Mitglieder des Parlamentarischen Kontrollgremiums (PKG) setzen sich aus Innen- und Sicherheitsexperten aller Bundestagsfraktionen zusammen. Sie treffen sich in einem abhörsicheren, fensterlosen Raum in einem Nebengebäude des Reichstags, unweit der Kantine. Da die Arbeit der Geheimdienste naturgemäß geheim bleiben soll, ist die Gruppe zur Verschwiegenheit verpflichtet, auch gegenüber anderen Abgeordneten.

Innenminister Friedrich berichtete am Dienstag dem PKG, was er während seines Besuchs in Washington an Informationen bekam. Ähnlich wie beim Bundessicherheitsrat, der über Rüstungsexporte entscheidet, dringen aber nur selten Details nach draußen, so auch dieses Mal.

Bei der letzten Sitzung war Kanzleramtsminister Ronald Pofalla geladen, der unter anderem für die Koordinierung der Geheimdienste zuständig ist. Dazu die Chefs der drei Geheimdienste: Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Militärischer Abschirmdienst (MAD), Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV). Die Grünen fordern, die Kanzlerin selbst müsse vor dem Gremium erscheinen. Das soll in absehbarer Zeit allerdings nicht passieren.

Die Regierung muss das Gremium über die Arbeit der Geheimdienste und besondere Vorgänge unterrichten. Die Gruppe darf Geheimakten einsehen und Mitarbeiter der Dienste befragen.

So weit die Theorie. In der Praxis kann die Arbeit frustrierend sein, denn was Bundesregierung und Geheimdienste für berichtenswert halten, entscheiden sie zunächst einmal selbst. Die Folge: Von wirklich heiklen Vorfällen oder möglichen Skandalen erfahren die Bundestagskontrolleure oft erst aus den Medien.

2. Kann man Geheimdienste überhaupt kontrollieren?

Zwar mag die Kontrolle hierzulande besser sein als anderswo. Doch eine echte Überwachung der Geheimdienste ist kaum möglich. Wie sollen elf Parlamentarier auch überblicken, was Zehntausende Agenten im In- und Ausland treiben?

Der Grünen-Abgeordnete Hans-Christian Ströbele, Dienstältester im PKG, sagte einmal: “Wie sollen wir die Geheimdienste kontrollieren, wenn wir keine Informationen bekommen?” Der Abgeordnete Wolfgang Neskovic, der für die Linken bis 2012 im PKG saß, nannte das Kontrollniveau “erbärmlich”, das Gremium einen “Wachhund ohne Gebiss”. Geheimdienstler würden die Sitzungen als “Märchenstunde” verspotten.

Neben dem PKG ist aber auch noch die beim Bundestag angesiedelte sogenannte G-10-Kommission für die Kontrolle der Geheimdienste zuständig. Der Name bezieht sich auf das “Gesetz zur Beschränkung des Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnisses” (Artikel-10-Gesetz). Auch dieses Gremium tagt geheim. Es hat vier Mitglieder, die vom PKG bestellt werden. Sie müssen keine Bundestagsabgeordneten sein. Derzeit sitzt dem Gremium der SPD-Politiker Hans de With vor, der einst Parlamentarischer Staatssekretär im Justizministerium war.

Die G-10-Kommission muss ihre Genehmigung erteilen, wenn Geheimdienste Computer oder Telefone anzapfen wollen, um deutsche Staatsbürger auszuspähen. Auch die Durchsuchung von Kommunikationsdaten nach bestimmten verdächtigen Schlagworten muss die Kommission genehmigen.

2011 soll das Gremium den Inlandsgeheimdiensten insgesamt 156 Abhörmaßnahmen bewilligt haben. Die Gründe dafür sind im Gesetz festgelegt, unter anderem geht es um Terrorabwehr, Waffen- und Drogenschmuggel sowie organisierte Geldwäsche.

Allerdings kann auch der Auslandsgeheimdienst BND bei der G-10-Kommission beantragen, im großen Stil Daten an den internationalen Internetknotenpunkten abzufischen. Eine flächendeckende Überwachung ist verboten, das Gesetz sieht eine Grenze von 20 Prozent vor. Die wird angeblich nicht ausgeschöpft, sondern “pendelt bei etwa fünf Prozent”, sagte jüngst Kommissionschef de With.

3. Was wussten deutsche Agenten vom US-Lauschangriff?

Darauf gibt es bislang keine abschließende Antwort. Die hiesigen Geheimdienstler sagen, sie hätten keine Hinweise darauf, dass an deutschen Kommunikationsknotenpunkten Daten abgesaugt wurden. Es gebe zwar eine Zusammenarbeit mit den US-Behörden. Über massenhafte Lauscheinsätze gegen deutsche Bürger sei man aber nicht informiert gewesen.

Der Whistleblower Snowden hatte im SPIEGEL angegeben, deutsche und amerikanische Geheimdienste steckten in Sachen Internetüberwachung “unter einer Decke”. Auch ein Bericht der “Bild”-Zeitung wirft neue Fragen auf. Demnach wusste der BND angeblich seit Jahren von der nahezu kompletten Datenerfassung durch die Amerikaner und griff in Gefahrenlagen aktiv darauf zu.

Derzeit kann nichts nachgewiesen, aber Zweifel können auch nicht ausgeräumt werden. Wenn deutsche Geheimdienste von den Aktionen der US-Dienste gewusst und diese möglicherweise unterstützt haben, wäre das nach deutschem Recht strafbar.

4. Wie geht es jetzt weiter?

Die Kanzlerin telefonierte mit US-Präsident Barack Obama, mehrere Fragenkataloge wurden verfasst, zwei Delegationen nach Washington geschickt. Zur Zeit wird gewartet: Darauf, dass die USA einige als geheim eingeordnete Dokumente deklassifizieren, also aus der Geheimhaltungsstufe herausheben. Von diesem Schritt verspricht sich Berlin Aufschluss über das Ausmaß der NSA-Aktivitäten. Weitere Besuche und Gespräche sind geplant.

Teile der Opposition fordern einen parlamentarischen Untersuchungsausschuss. Schnelle Antworten gäbe es durch den aber auch nicht. Im EU-Parlament beschäftigt sich der Innenausschuss mit der Materie und will bis Ende des Jahres einen Bericht vorlegen. Zu einem Sonderausschuss konnte man sich in Straßburg nicht durchringen. Sechs Wochen nach den Enthüllungen sind also wichtige Fragen noch immer offen. Gut möglich, dass das Thema den Wahlkampf mitbestimmen wird – vor allem, wenn noch weitere Details herauskommen sollten.

16. Juli 2013, 14:25 Uhr
Von Annett Meiritz und Philipp Wittrock

Find this story at 16 July 2013

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

Noch immer behauptet die Bundesregierung eisern, sie habe von den US-Schnüffelprogrammen erst kürzlich erfahren. Nun wird klar, dass der BND schon vor Jahren gezielt in den USA nach gespeicherten Daten von entführten Deutschen fragte – und sie auch bekam.

Berlin – Der Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) hat in den vergangenen Jahren immer wieder von der Sammelwut der US-Geheimdienste im Internet profitiert und offenkundig von der kompletten Speicherung auch deutscher Daten gewusst. Unter Berufung auf US-Geheimdienstler berichtete die “Bild”-Zeitung am Montag, der deutsche Dienst habe bei Geiselnahmen im Jemen und Afghanistan in den vergangenen Jahren mehrfach gezielt um die von der NSA gespeicherten Internetdaten der Entführten gebeten. So sollten die letzten Kontakte der Gekidnappten und mögliche Hintergründe des Verschwindens recherchiert werden.

Was sich wie eine selbstverständliche Amtshilfe unter befreundeten Diensten anhört, hat weitreichende Implikationen. Da der BND sich direkt wegen der gespeicherten Daten an die US-Kollegen wandte, müssen die Deutschen von dem Speicherprogramm der Amerikaner gewusst haben. Ebenso muss dem Geheimdienst klar gewesen sein, dass die USA auch deutsche Kommunikation standardmäßig speichern.

Die neuen Fakten passen nicht zur angeblichen Ahnungslosigkeit der deutschen Regierung bis hoch ins Kanzleramt. Diesem ist der BND direkt unterstellt. Von dort ließ Kanzlerin Merkel noch in der vergangenen Woche mitteilen, sie habe erst aus der Presse vom Abhörprogramm Prism erfahren. Seit Anfang Juni enthüllt der Ex-Geheimdienstmitarbeiter Edward Snowden immer wieder Details über die Praktiken der internationalen Geheimdienste (eine Chronik der Affäre finden Sie hier).

Für den BND waren die US-Daten sicherlich hilfreich. Bei Entführungen sind vor allem die letzten E-Mails und Telefongespräche wichtig. An ihnen kann man ablesen, ob die Opfer bedroht wurden, es geschäftliche Probleme im Vorfeld gab oder ob gar das Umfeld der Gekidnappten an der Verschleppung beteiligt sein könnte.

Die Daten der NSA flossen laut “Bild”-Zeitung mehrfach in die Arbeit deutscher Krisenstäbe ein, um entführte Deutsche zu befreien. US-Regierungs- und Geheimdienstkreise betonen laut der Zeitung ebenfalls, dass der BND seit Jahren von der nahezu totalen Datenerfassung weiß, in Gefahrenlagen darauf zugreifen konnte – und dies auch aktiv tat.

Auch in Zukunft sollen die Daten fließen

Die Bundesregierung reagierte ausweichend auf diese Enthüllungen. Ein Regierungssprecher sagte lediglich, es sei “bekannt, dass es zwischen den deutschen Nachrichtendiensten und US-Diensten eine langjährige Kooperation gibt”.

Tatsächlich aber bangen die Dienste derzeit um diese Kooperation. So bat Innenminister Hans-Peter Friedrich bei seiner US-Reise hinter verschlossenen Türen eindringlich, dass die USA trotz der Affäre auch in Zukunft NSA-Informationen weitergeben. Dies verlautete aus seinem Ministerium. Aus Friedrichs Sicht sind die US-Daten – ganz gleich wo sie herkommen – für die Gefahrenabwehr in Deutschland extrem wichtig. Öffentlich erwähnt hat er seine Bitte an die USA jedoch in keinem der vielen Statements während und nach der Reise.

15. Juli 2013, 11:16 Uhr

Find this story at 15 July 2013

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

German authorities insist they knew nothing of the NSA’s Internet spying operations. But SPIEGEL research shows how closely US and German agencies work together. The German opposition is asking uncomfortable questions 11 weeks ahead of a general election.

Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government faces uncomfortable questions about German involvement in American and British Internet and telephone surveillance after whistleblower Edward Snowden told SPIEGEL that German agencies and the NSA are “in bed together.”

With a general election due in 11 weeks, the controversy has opened up a new battleground in the campaign, and the opposition center-left Social Democrats (SPD) and the Green Party are charging onto it.

SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel said it could be that Merkel “knows more than has become known so far.”

Thomas Oppermann, a senior member of the SPD, called on the government to cancel surveillance cooperation agreements with the United States. Hans-Christian Ströbele, a lawmaker with the Greens, said he didn’t believe the government’s statements that it didn’t know about the spying.

“For me it’s just a matter of time before the government admits something,” he told SPIEGEL ONLINE. Petra Pau of the Left Party said Merkel should stop “pretending she knew nothing.”

For the last four weeks, the German government has been insisting that it didn’t know that the United States has spent years monitoring vast quantities of Internet traffic, emails and telephone calls.

The parliament’s oversight committee monitoring German intelligence activities has met three times since the revelations came to light, and each time senior government representatives who had been called to testify shrugged their shoulders.

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution — Germany’s domestic intelligence agency — the BND foreign intelligence agency, and Merkel’s Chancellery were all apparently unaware of what has been going on. Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich said he knew nothing but made clear that the data fishing by Germany’s American friends was bound to be OK. Criticism of it, he said, amounted to “anti-Americanism.”

Germany Cooperates Closely With NSA

But Snowden told SPIEGEL that the BND knew more about the activities of the NSA in Germany than previously known.

SPIEGEL reporting also indicates that cooperation between the NSA and Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the BND, is more intensive than previously known.

A lot is at stake for Europe and the US. This week talks will begin on the planned trans-Atlantic free trade agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Invesment Partnership (TTIP). The Americans’ snooping could endanger the project.

The Snowden case is entering its next round. At first he revealed how the NSA spes on data networks. Last week SPIEGEL reported that the US was also spying on its allies including Germany. Now the controversy has broadened to include whether the allies themselves are involved in the snooping.

There are times when the inner workings of the world suddenly come to light. Veils fall to the ground and the world suddenly looks different. These are such times.

A man does something that represents the best traditions of the West — he enlightens people, points out wrongdoing and opens eyes. That’s what Edward Snowden has done. And what’s happening to him? The West’s leading nation, the US, is hunting him down, and almost every country is going along with it, especially the rest of the West.

Western Nations Kow-Towing to US

Fear is governing the world, fear of the wrath of the US, fear of President Barack Obama who was once hailed as a global savior. Few seem ready to dare to take on the political and economic superpower.

The West is making itself look ridiculous through submissiveness, by failing to live up to its own values. Meanwhile, states like China or Russia, the constant focus of Western moral finger-wagging, were the first where Snowden sought shelter.

Last Wednesday, Merkel and Obama had a telephone conversation in which both tried to play down the row. There would be “opportunities for an intense exchange about these questions,” officials said afterwards. That wasn’t the tough talking that 78 percent of Germans are demanding of Merkel in her dealings with the US on the issue, according to a recent opinion poll by Infratest Dimap.

This week a German government delegation will travel to Washington for talks with the Department of Homeland Security, the NSA and the US administration. They hope to glean information on what has been going on. When German opposition parties complained that the delegation only consisted of second-tier officials, Interior Minister Friedrich hastily decided to join them.

9/11 Silenced Criticism of ‘Echelon’ Spying System

Foreign data snooping has caused outrage in Germany and Europe before. Twelve years ago, a European Parliament committee criticized “Echelon,” which it described as a “global surveillance system for private and business communcations.” In a 200-page report, the committee said that within Europe, all communications via email, telephone and fax were regularly monitored by the intelligence services of the US, Britain, Canada and Australia.

The European lawmakers recommended a series of rules and agreements to curb the snooping. But two months later, terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center and it quickly emerged that some of them had lived in Germany. All criticism of “Echelon” fell abruptly silent.

But the German government, despite all its current protestations of ignorance and innocence, cannot be unaware that US surveillance specialists remain active on German soil. At present the NSA is expanding its presence in Germany considerably.

The best-known monitoring facility is in the Bavarian town of Bad Aibling, extensively described in the “Echelon” report. Officially, the Americans gave up the listening post in 2004. But the white domes of the “Echelon” system, known as radomes, are still there. When the site was officially turned over to civilian use, that didn’t apply to the area with the snooping technology. A connecting cable now transmits the captured signals to the site of the Mangfall army base a few hundred meters away. This is officially a German army communications base — but in truth it belongs to the BND. Cooperating closely with a handful of NSA surveillance specialists, the German foreign intelligence service analyzes telephone calls, faxes and everything else transmitted via satellite.

BND Admits Monitoring Cooperation With NSA

Officially, the BND post in Bad Aibling doesn’t exist, and neither does the local cooperation with the Americans. But in a confidential meeting with the parliament’s intelligence oversight committee, BND head Gerhard Schindler last Wednesday confirmed the cooperation with the US service,

There are other locations in Germany where the Americans engage in data monitoring. The US army runs a top secret lstening post in the town of Griesheim near Darmstadt, in western Germany. Five radomes stand on the edge of the August-Euler airfield, hidden behind a little forest. If you drive past “Dagger Complex” you get suspicious looks from security guards. It’s forbidden to take photos. Inside, soldiers analyze information for the armed forces in Europe. The NSA supports the analysts.

The need for data appears to be so great that the US army is building a new Consolidated Intelligence Center in the nearby city of Wiesbaden. The $124 million building will house bug-proof offices and a high-tech control center. As soon as it’s completed, “Dagger Complex” will be shut down. Only US construction firms are being used. Even the building materials are being brought in from the US and closely guarded along the way.

Is it really conceivable that the German government knows nothing of what the NSA is doing on its own doorstep? Last month Interior Minister Friedrich said in a parliamentary debate on the NSA snooping: “Germany has fortunately been spared big attacks in recent years. We owe that in part to the information provided by our American friends.” Sentences like that reveal a pragmatic view of the US surveillance apparatus: What the NSA gets up to in detail is secondary — what counts is what its snooping reveals. And that information, intelligence officials admit, is indispensable.

Without the tip-offs provided by the Americans, authorities would be partly blind in the fight against terrorism. While the BND and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution are bound by strict rules, foreign intelligence agencies operating in Germany are largely uncontrolled in what they do, as long as it serves the war on terror.

Frankfurt’s Role as East-West Data Crossroads

The example of Frankfurt, Germany’s financial center, illustrates that. Frankfurt is a major crossroads for digital data. This where fiber-optic cables from Eastern Europe and Central Asia meet data lines from Western Europe. Emails, photos, telepone calls and tweets from crisis-hit countries in the Middle East also pass through Frankfurt. This is where international providers — companies like Deutsche Telekom or US firm Level 3, which claims to transmit a third of the world’s Internet traffic — operate digital hubs.

For agencies like the NSA or BND, Frankfurt is an inexhaustible source of information. Documents provided by Snowden show that the NSA accesses half a billion pieces of communication each month. The BND also helps itself to data here. It is allowed to tap up to 20 percent of it. The service feeds data from five hubs in Germany for analysis to its headquarters in Pullach near Munich. Its analysts comb through the data for phone calls, emails or Internet messages that might uncover a nuclear smuggling deal or an al-Qaida plot.

The BND uses the NSA’s help to analyze Internet traffic from the Middle East. The Americans provide the Germans with special tools that work with Arabic search terms. Does the US agency get access to the data in return? The BND denies this. All cooperation is in the form of assessing “finished intelligence,” or completed intelligence reports, it insists.

But relations between the BND and NSA are closer than publicly admitted. They work together on clearly defined individual joint operations abroad when it comes to fighting terrorism or monitoring weapons shipments. At the Bad Aibling listening post, an NSA team works closely with BND agents. The BND uses Bad Aibling mainly to monitor Thuraya satellite phones used in remote regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Americans help the Germans in this work. Is it really conceivable that with such close cooperation the one partner didn’t know what the other was doing?

US Need Not Fear Much German Criticism

“We have no information so far that Internet hubs in Germany were spied on by the NSA,” says the president of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, Hans-Georg Maassen. He also has no information on any snooping on the German government by the US. The agency has set up a working group to investigate Snowden’s allegations.

In the end it’s relatively insignificant whether any light will be shed on the outflow of German Internet data to the US. The German authorities are unlikely to criticize the Americans too harshly. “We can be blackmailed,” said a high-ranking security official. “If the NSA shut off the tap, we’d be blind.”

The US isn’t just a friend, it’s an all-powerful force one can choose to be friends with or not. The Snowden case shows how closely intertwined friendship and submissiveness can be.

SVEN BECKER, THOMAS DARNSTÄDT, JENS GLÜSING, HUBERT GUDE, FRITZ HABEKUSS, KONSTANTIN VON HAMMERSTEIN, MARC HUJER, DIRK KURBJUWEIT, MATHIEU VON ROHR, MARCEL ROSENBACH, MATTHIAS SCHEPP, JÖRG SCHINDLER, GREGOR PETER SCHMITZ, CHRISTOPH SCHULT, HOLGER STARK
07/08/2013 05:47 PM

Find this story at 8 july 2013
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

Too much data surveillance?

Not everybody has a sense of irony. Some people simply lack the ability to read between the lines. A funny, ironical remark left online could see the police come knocking at your door.

“I’m known for my sense of irony. But even I would not have come to think of putting a statue of liberty in New York Harbor,” Irish Nobel Prize winner of Literature George Bernard Shaw once said. But, as far as we know, he got away with this sharp-tongued comment when trying to enter US territory, a comment that implicitly made fun of the US’ idea of liberty.

But maybe he was only left alone because in the early 20th century, border officials did not yet have access to the vast amount of data about people desiring to cross into their countries as they do today. Today, every visitor seems transparent; and harmless but remarks are often interpreted as evil intentions. Shaw’s fellow countryman just experienced that.

US Homeland security strike

The young Irishman was denied entry by the US homeland security agency DHS at Los Angeles airport. The reason: an ironic remark on Twitter. The sender insists he wasn’t even targeting the US. On the contrary, he wanted to tell his followers that he was going to “party to the extreme in LA,” and he described it by saying that “digging out Marilyn Monroe” and “destroying America” were part of his plan. But immigration officers didn’t care much about his sense of humor. He spent 12 hours detained in a cell.
Security comes first during border controls in the US

“I can only advise against such remarks, even if you’re sure you’re being ironic,” said Klaus Lodigkeit, a Hamburg-based IT law specialist. “Americans store almost all our phonecalls, they store a lot online, and make backup copies. And if they search for a name or a nickname online and find such posts they can link to a certain person then you represent a danger for the security of the United States. So be careful.”

Cheeky teenager

But offhand and ironic remarks online can also be misinterpreted outside of airports’ immigration zones. Just before the verdict for security guard George Zimmerman was announced, the killer of black teenager Trayvon Martin, a 15-year-old in the small town of Zion in Illinois posted a comment online. If Zimmerman was acquitted, he wrote, he would shoot dead every single person in Zion and then also be acquitted of charges.

A short while later, local police detained the teenager. After an examination, the officers were convinced he didn’t constitute a threat. “He doesn’t own any weapons and doesn’t have access to any either,” a police report said.

Crazy or just foolish?

18-year-old US citizen Justin Carter wasn’t that lucky. According to his parents, he had a fight with other users while playing a fantasy role-playing game online. When the users then wrote on Facebook that he was “a lunatic, crazy, and off his head,” Carter replied: “Yeah, sure I’m a total mess, I will go and shoot children at a school and eat their beating hearts.”

He must have instantly realized that remarks like that are often misunderstood. He quickly added a ‘LOL’ [‘Laughing out loud’] and a ‘JK’ [‘Just Kidding’]. But it didn’t help: He spent several months in prison because of that comment on Facebook. He has been released on bail.

“If you publish a concrete threat to life or physical condition online, the threat itself constitutes a criminal offence,” according to IT legal expert Lodigkeit. “It’s enough to be convicted. And you’re remanded in custody while investigations are conducted because you’re considered a flight risk.”
The Pirate party criticizes online spying and surveillance activities by governments

But does that give security agencies in Germany and the US the right to spy on private communication? “No,” said Mario Tants, spokesman for online freedom advocates the Pirate party in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein. “In the cases we’ve talked about, security authorities in the US didn’t screen private communication. Instead, what happened was that somebody who knew the respective perpetrator or potential perpetrator gave them hints. And if a real person gives a real hint, then security agencies are obliged to examine what’s going on.”

‘NSA spy protection league’

The latest case from Germany is slightly more confusing in comparison. 28-year-old Daniel Bangert invited others on facebook to join him on a “Walk to the Dagger complex.” It’s a US-American installation near Darmstadt in the German state of Hesse, where the NSA is said to have underground offices. Bangert clearly used an ironic tone, calling his group the “NSA spy protection league,” inviting others to “explore and observe.”

But the US military police in Germany apparently don’t share Bangert’s sense of humor. The Americans informed German security agencies who then visited the young man early in the morning and interrogated him. State security were also involved and asked Bangert questions about his “political leanings,” as he put it.

“That’s exactly what we’re critical of,” said Mario Tants from the Pirates’ party. “In future, any citizen writing anything anywhere has to expect a visit by the police or state protection. That’s the problem in surveillance states, and we’re actually effectively already there.”

Date 21.07.2013
Author Marcus Lütticke / nh
Editor Jessie Wingard

Find this story at 21 July 2013

© 2013 Deutsche Welle

Wegen eines angekündigten Spaziergangs zum streng geheimen Dagger Complex bekam Daniel Bangert Besuch vom Staatsschutz. Das schreckt ihn nicht ab: Jetzt lädt er zu einer zweiten Erkundungstour nach Griesheim, um “NSA-Spione” zu beobachten.

Selten hat ein Spaziergang für so viel Aufsehen gesorgt: Der Griesheimer Daniel Bangert hatte auf Facebook scherzhaft dazu eingeladen, einen Erkundungsgang zum streng geheimen Dagger Complex zu unternehmen. Vor der abgeschotteten US-Einrichtung in der Nähe von Darmstadt wolle man “gemeinsam den bedrohten Lebensraum der NSA-Spione erforschen”.

Der ironische Aufruf stieß auf Facebook zunächst nicht auf viele Interessenten, dafür aber bei der Polizei. Die US-Militärpolizei, die für die Sicherheit auf dem Dagger Complex zuständig ist, hatte die deutsche Polizei eingeschaltet – die Bangert prompt aus dem Bett klingelte. Danach kam auch noch der Staatsschutz vorbei und brachte Bangert dazu, seinen Spaziergang als Demo anzumelden, was er auch tat. Schließlich spazierten 70 Leute in Begleitung zweier Streifenwagen zu der abgeschotteten US-Einrichtung.

Trotz oder wegen des ganzen Wirbels soll es nun einen weiteren Erkundungsgang geben. “Der Vorstand des NSA-Spion-Schutzbundes lädt Sie recht herzlich zum zweiten Entdecken und Beobachten Wochenende am Dagger Complex ein”, heißt es in einer öffentlichen Einladung auf Facebook.

Ein Picknick auf der Straße

Schließlich war die letzte demonstrative Entdeckertour zwar ein großer Medienerfolg, vom “wissenschaftlichen” Standpunkt aus gesehen aber ein Reinfall: “Ein Teil der Gruppe hat mit allerlei Lockrufen versucht, die NSA-Spione aus ihrem Bau zu locken”, schreibt Bangert in einem Rückblick auf Facebook. Leider habe man aber “keine echten NSA-Spione zu sehen” bekommen. Deshalb wolle man dieses Mal “im Anschluss an den Spaziergang ein Picknick auf der Straße vor dem Dagger Complex machen”. Vielleicht ließen sich die Spione ja “durch den Duft diverser Köstlichkeiten aus ihrem Bau locken”.

Es sollen wieder viele Kameras mitgebracht werden, Papier und Stift, Verpflegung fürs Picknick und Blumen, “um den Lebensraum der NSA-Spione etwas aufzupeppen”. Verkleidungen sind erwünscht, und Theaterrequisiten, etwa in Form von Edward-Snowden-Masken, sind ausdrücklich erlaubt.

Klingt alles wie beim letzten Mal – nur dürften sich diesmal wohl ein paar mehr spazierende Demonstranten einfinden, die aus den Medien vom Wirbel um den ersten Erkundungsgang erfahren haben. Deshalb steht in der aktuellen Einladung außerdem: Der Spaziergang und das anschließende Picknick seien selbstverständlich angemeldet.

Die Teilnehmerzahl ist nicht abzuschätzen

“Wie viele Teilnehmer es werden, ist völlig unberechenbar”, sagt Initiator Daniel Bangert, “das habe ich auch der Polizei gesagt: Es können 50 werden oder auch 1000, wobei ich das nicht glaube.” Er habe diesmal Kooperationsgespräche geführt, und wieder sei der Staatsschutz dabei gewesen, erzählt er. Auch wenn das womöglich in Darmstadt so üblich sei, irritiere ihn das.

Trotzdem tut er sich den ganzen Stress gern an, angefangen bei den Formalitäten bis hin zu den Fragen der vielen Journalisten. “Ich finde einfach, dass da bei den Leuten mehr Interesse herrschen könnte”, begründet er seine Motivation. Und seine Geschichte zeige doch, “dass ein Einzelner sehr wohl etwas erreichen kann, auch ohne Mittel”.

Ansonsten hofft er auf ein bisschen Hilfe durch die anderen selbsternannten Spion-Forscher: Es stünden mehr Ordner zur Verfügung; doch es wäre gut, wenn ein paar Teilnehmer Warnwesten mitbrächten.

19. Juli 2013, 14:19 Uhr
Von Judith Horchert

Find this story at 19 July 2013

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013

A German man who called on Facebook friends concerned about American secret service operations to join him in a walk around a US army spy centre near his home, found secret service men at his door checking his political leanings.

Daniel Bangert, 28, told The Local he had joked about US spies reading what he had written – and had even told his friends he was waiting for a knock on the door – when it actually came.

“I was still very sleepy when the phone rang – it was 7.17 in the morning – and a police officer started asking questions about what I was planning,” he said.

“Then the doorbell rang and I saw out the window that a police van was parked outside. The officer on the phone said I should open the door to the others.”

He put on a “Team Edward” T-shirt with a picture of NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden, and answered scores of questions about his plans.

Bangert, a veteran of the Blockupy protests in Frankfurt, had set up a group calling itself “NSA spy protection league” (NSA Spion Schutzbund), as if the US spies were an endangered species of birds.

He wanted, he said, to take a walk with some friends to “observe them in their natural habitat” – the Dagger Complex in Griesheim near Darmstadt. This is one base where the NSA (US National Security Agency) is said to operate from. The authority stands accused of monitoring much of Germany’s internet traffic.

The uniformed police seemed satisfied with his answers about the expected number of people on the walk – 32 had shown an interest, Bangert told The Local. But despite there being no specific agenda, and no plans for a rally or speeches, he was told he had to register the event.

“I asked them why, but they could not really explain it to me. They couldn’t help me understand what the difference was between going for a walk and meeting up to play football – which you don’t have to register,” he said.

A few hours later, his phone rang again, and one of the police officers who had been at his house that morning, told him the state security wanted to talk with him.

“She said I should call them, that it was important that I did. So I did, and they asked me again about the Facebook entry, and how many people were expected and so on. Then they asked if I would go to see them or if they could come to see me for a personal conversation.”

He said a state security agent arrived with a local police officer, and asked him a load of questions about his political activities and his opinions, and whether he had any connection to activists willing to use violence. They suggested his Facebook entry could be interpreted in different ways, but he said he was really just organizing a walk.

“Then they told me I should not put the meeting on the internet, that I should not write about it,” he added.

They seemed to be concerned that the walk could get out of control if lots of people showed up – like the Facebook parties which are hijacked by hoodlums. “But I was not offering anything for free like at the parties,” he said.

“And in any case, all there is, is a fence, with nothing behind it – everything is underground. No-one is interested.”

In the end around 80 people showed up on Saturday to take a walk, have a talk and look at the US base.

The “NSA spy protection league” Facebook page says of the day: “A group of people young and old gathered at the Griesheim market square and walked to the NSA spy complex, in the most fabulous weather. On the way there, surveillance methods were discussed … and possible behaviour of the NSA spies was the subject of consideration.”

It said some of the group had tried with various calls to tempt the NSA spies from the building, but none showed themselves. “Taking part in the walk was not enough, just to know that NSA spies are there – everyone agreed they wanted to see NSA spies with their own eyes. We will see what we can do.”

Hannah Cleaver
Published: 15 Jul 2013 17:44 CET | Print version

Find this story at 15 July 2013

© The Local Europe GmbH

After revelations about Ben Zygier, ‘Prisoner X No. 2’ blamed for ‘horrible security breach’

For the second time in less than six months, the secret incarceration of a member of the Israeli secret services has been revealed.

The new case, which follows that of former Mossad agent Ben Zygier, who hanged himself in the high security Ayalon Prison in 2010, is also understood to involve someone who worked for of the Jewish state’s spy agencies. Both Zygier, and the other individual, were known only as ‘Prisoner X’ during their imprisonment. The second prisoner has not been identified.

There are still few details about the new case, which was revealed earlier today by the liberal Haaretz newspaper. However, Zygier’s lawyer, Avigdor Feldman, told Israeli radio that the allegations facing the second prisoner were much more severe.

“This affair points to far more severe failures than the ones committed by the defense [sic] establishment in Zygier’s case,” he said. “Regarding Zygier’s case, the authorities that recruited him didn’t understand who they were dealing with and weren’t aware of his conduct. Okay – that’s a failure. Prisoner X number two is an entirely different story – a horrible security breach. When I heard the story, as an Israeli citizen I was shocked, and the subject was completely silenced by lawyers who enjoy close ties with the establishment. Whoever opens this affair will be doing the country a great service.”

It is believed that Zygier – disappointed by his superior’s lack of willingness to hand him more interesting work – decided to try and impress his bosses and turn a leading member of the Lebanese group Hezbollah. He was then skilfully played to the extent that he ended blowing the cover of two double agents that had provided information to Israel.

Israeli officials have not commented on the case and like in Zygier’s case, are unlikely to offer any insight, although it is believed that unlike in Zygier’s case, the second Prisoner X had been convicted of whatever crimes he was accused of. It is not clear what has become of the second Prisoner X, but it is thought that he may still be being held at Ayalon prison.

Mr Feldman said that assumptions could be drawn from a detainee being classified as ‘prisoner X’.

“They are Israeli, they work in institutions linked to security whose activities are shrouded in secrecy,” he said. “And their detention demonstrates the failure of these organisations which are not capable of preventing offences such as those for which these agents have been arrested,” he said.

The disclosure that at least two of its spies are alleged to have committed grave crimes against their own state is a huge embarrassment to Israel and the fact that a second Prisoner X is guaranteed to raise questions about whether there yet more people being held in similar circumstances.

Alistair Dawber
Tuesday, 9 July 2013

Find this story at 9 July 2013

© independent.co.uk

In Israel, the news that a second prisoner is serving a jail sentence in top-secret conditions has triggered human rights concerns and raised questions about the transparency of the justice system.

A prominent Israeli criminal lawyer says the detainee, referred to as Prisoner X2, is a member of the nation’s covert security forces and has been held behind bars for years.

In February this year, an Australian TV report about another anonymous prisoner shook the Israeli security establishment and threatened to destabilize Israel’s relations with Australia. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation revealed that a man referred to as Prisoner X, who died in jail in December 2010, was a Jewish immigrant to Israel from Melbourne.

Ben Zygier had joined, then betrayed, the Mossad Israeli spy agency. He was arrested in February 2010 and held in a top-security cell in Israel’s Ayalon Prison. Even his guards did not know his name, and Israel’s courts imposed a media blackout on even mentioning the case. According to media reports, Zygier’s crime was revealing the identities of Mossad operatives in Lebanon. Zygier later hanged himself with a sheet in the shower of his cell. Guards who were supposed to be monitoring his cell said the camera malfunctioned and they were short staffed on the night Zygier died.

Israel’s Justice Ministry released a statement July 9 about Zygier. It included a mention of a second prisoner held in similar conditions, who has become known as Prisoner X2. Israeli criminal attorney Avigdor Feldman, who met with both detainees, told Israeli radio that, like Zygier, Prisoner X2 was also an Israeli citizen and a part of Israel’s covert security operations. However, he noted that the charges against Prisoner X2 were “more grave, more astounding and more fascinating” than those leveled against Zygier. Feldman did not detail the charges and declined to answer DW’s questions.
The Zygier case shook the Israeli establishment

Secret cells

The secret wings and blocks of Israel’s prisons are reserved for those considered to be its most dangerous criminals. Zygier’s cell was previously assigned to Yigal Amir, who assassinated late Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin.

Following the report of a second Prisoner X, legislator Miri Regev called a meeting to discuss the circumstances of his or her incarceration. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel appealed to Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein to end the prisoner’s isolation and lift a media blackout on the case.

“We cannot accept a situation in which a man is arrested, tried, and imprisoned in complete secrecy, and prevented from any possibility of contact with other persons on a daily basis,” ACRI attorney Lila Margalit said in a statement. “The ‘Prisoner X’ affairs prove again that without public scrutiny, it is impossible to safeguard the rights of suspected, accused or convicted persons.”

A senior Israeli government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the veiled arrests were necessary to safeguard important matters of national security. He noted that both secret prisoners were given access to defense lawyers and their families.

“The security services in Israel have a crucial job in protecting the citizens of Israel against the threats that are out there, but those security services work within the framework of the law,” he said.

Murky past
Israel has a history of secretive episodes

The recent Prisoner X cases recall other episodes in Israel. In 1995, an Israeli court order lifted a gag order on seven convicted spies held secretly. The most famous was Professor Avraham Marcus Klingberg, who was a senior researcher at the Israel Institute for Biological Research. He disappeared in 1983 and resurfaced a decade later in the Ashkelon prison, where he was held after being secretly sentenced to 20 years for spying for the Soviet Union. Klingberg was jailed under the false name of Avraham Greenberg. He was released in 1998 and placed under house arrest until he left the country after finishing his sentence in 2003.

Another prisoner on the list of seven was Col. Shimon Levinson, a security officer in the Prime Minister’s office. In 1991 he was found to have been spying for the Soviet Union and sentenced to 12 years in jail.

Yossi Melman, a journalist and commentator on security affairs, told DW that Israel holds far fewer secret prisoners today than in the past. Still, he doubted the method of using utter secrecy to cloak the latest cases.

“These are Israeli citizens. You don’t think Israelis have to know who is in their jails?” he said. “You don’t have to publish everything on him, but the minimum has to come out. [The government should] say someone was arrested, that he is suspected of something, that he is in prison, and has a certain sentence, and that his family is aware.”

Date 18.07.2013
Author Daniella Cheslow, Jerusalem
Editor Rob Mudge

Find this story at 18 July 2013

© 2013 Deutsche Welle

Exclusive: McDonald’s sued green activists in long-running David v Goliath legal battle, but police role only now exposed

Bob Lambert posed as a radical activist named Bob Robinson.

An undercover police officer posing for years as an environmental activist co-wrote a libellous leaflet that was highly critical of McDonald’s, and which led to the longest civil trial in English history, costing the fast-food chain millions of pounds in fees.

The true identity of one of the authors of the “McLibel leaflet” is Bob Lambert, a police officer who used the alias Bob Robinson in his five years infiltrating the London Greenpeace group, is revealed in a new book about undercover policing of protest, published next week.

McDonald’s famously sued green campaigners over the roughly typed leaflet, in a landmark three-year high court case, that was widely believed to have been a public relations disaster for the corporation. Ultimately the company won a libel battle in which it spent millions on lawyers.

Lambert was deployed by the special demonstration squad (SDS) – a top-secret Metropolitan police unit that targeted political activists between 1968 until 2008, when it was disbanded. He co-wrote the defamatory six-page leaflet in 1986 – and his role in its production has been the subject of an internal Scotland Yard investigation for several months.

At no stage during the civil legal proceedings brought by McDonald’s in the 1990s was it disclosed that a police infiltrator helped author the leaflet.
The McLibel two: Helen Steel and David Morris, outside a branch of McDonald’s in London in 2005 after winning their case in the European court of human rights. Photograph: Martin Argles for the Guardian

A spokesman for the Met said the force “recognises the seriousness of the allegations of inappropriate behaviour and practices involving past undercover deployments”. He added that a number of allegations surrounding the undercover officers were currently being investigated by a team overseen by the chief constable of Derbyshire police, Mick Creedon.

And in remarks that come closest to acknowledging the scale of the scandal surrounding police spies, the spokesman said: “At some point it will fall upon this generation of police leaders to account for the activities of our predecessors, but for the moment we must focus on getting to the truth.”

Lambert declined to comment about his role in the production of the McLibel leaflet. However, he previously offered a general apology for deceiving “law abiding members of London Greenpeace”, which he said was a peaceful campaign group.

Lambert, who rose through the ranks to become a spymaster in the SDS, is also under investigation for sexual relationships he had with four women while undercover, one of whom he fathered a child with before vanishing from their lives. The woman and her son only discovered that Lambert was a police spy last year.

The internal police inquiry is also investigating claims raised in parliament that Lambert ignited an incendiary device at a branch of Debenhams when infiltrating animal rights campaigners. The incident occurred in 1987 and the explosion inflicted £300,000 worth of damage to the branch in Harrow, north London. Lambert has previously strongly denied he planted the incendiary device in the Debenhams store.
While McDonald’s won the initial legal battle, at great expense, it was seen as a PR disaster. Photograph: Image Broker/Rex Features

Lambert’s role in helping compose the McLibel leaflet is revealed in ‘Undercover: The True Story of Britain’s Secret Police’, which is published next week. An extract from the book will be published in the Guardian Weekend magazine. A joint Guardian/Channel 4 investigation into undercover policing will be broadcast on Dispatches on Monday evening.

Lambert was one of two SDS officers who infiltrated London Greenpeace; the second, John Dines, had a two-year relationship with Helen Steel, who later became the co-defendant in the McLibel case. The book reveals how Steel became the focus of police surveillance operations. She had a sexual relationship with Dines, before he also disappeared without a trace.

Dines gained access to the confidential legal advice given to Steel and her co-defendant that was written by Keir Starmer, then a barrister known for championing radical causes. The lawyer was advising the activists on how to defend themselves against McDonald’s. He is now the director of public prosecutions in England and Wales.

Lambert was lauded by colleagues in the covert unit for his skilful infiltration of animal rights campaigners and environmentalists in the 1980s. He succeeded in transforming himself from a special branch detective into a long-haired radical activist who worked as a cash-in-hand gardener. He became a prominent member of London Greenpeace, around the time it began campaigning against McDonald’s in 1985. The leaflet he helped write made wide-ranging criticisms of the company, accusing it of destroying the environment, exploiting workers and selling junk food.

Four sources who were either close to Lambert at the time, or involved in the production of the leaflet, have confirmed his role in composing the libellous text. Lambert confided in one of his girlfriends from the era, although he appeared keen to keep his participation hidden. “He did not want people to know he had co-written it,” Belinda Harvey said.

Paul Gravett, a London Greenpeace campaigner, said the spy was one of a small group of around five activists who drew up the leaflet over several months. Another close friend from the time recalls Lambert was really proud of the leaflet. “It was like his baby, he carried it around with him,” the friend said.

When Lambert’s undercover deployment ended in 1989, he vanished, claiming that he had to flee abroad because he was being pursued by special branch. None of his friends or girlfriends suspected that special branch was his employer.

It was only later that the leaflet Lambert helped to produce became the centre of the huge trial. Even though the activists could only afford to distribute a few hundred copies of the leaflet, McDonald’s decided to throw all of its legal might at the case, suing two London Greenpeace activists for libel.

Two campaigners – Steel, who was then a part-time bartender, and an unemployed postal worker, Dave Morris – unexpectedly stood their ground and refused to apologise.
Steel and Morris outside the high court at the start of the first proceedings in the McLibel trial in 1990. Photograph: Photofusion/UIG/ Getty Images

Over 313 days in the high court, the pair defended themselves, with pro bono assistance from Starmer, as they could not afford to hire any solicitors or barristers. In contrast, McDonald’s hired some of the best legal minds at an estimated cost of £10m. During the trial, legal argument largely ignored the question of who wrote the McLibel leaflet, focusing instead on its distribution to members of the public.

In 1997, a high court judge ruled that much of the leaflet was libellous and ordered the two activists to pay McDonald’s £60,000 in damages. This sum was reduced on appeal to £40,000 – but McDonald’s never enforced payment.

It was a hollow victory for the company; the long-running trial had exposed damaging stories about its business and the quality of the food it was selling to millions of customers around the world. The legal action, taking advantage of Britain’s much-criticised libel laws, was seen as a heavy handed and intimidating way of crushing criticism. However, the role of undercover police in the story remained, until now, largely unknown.

On Friday, Morris said the campaign against the burger chain was successful “despite the odds overwhelmingly stacked against us in the legal system and up against McDonald’s massive and relentless advertising and propaganda machine.

“We now know that other shadowy forces were also trying to undermine our efforts in the most disgusting, but ultimately futile ways. All over the world police and secret agents infiltrate opposition movements in order to protect the rich and powerful but as we have seen in so many countries recently people power and the pursuit of truth and justice is unstoppable, even faced with the most repressive and unacceptable Stasi-like tactics.”

Sign up for the Guardian Today

Our editors’ picks for the day’s top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Sign up for the daily email

What’s this?
More from the Guardian
The six types of atheist 15 Jul 2013
Judy Murray doesn’t deserve this sniping 14 Jul 2013
Tyson Gay ban: what is oxilofrine? 15 Jul 2013
California wildfire burns seven homes and leads to evacuations 17 Jul 2013
As police arrest British fugitives in Spain, are the days of the Costa del Crime numbered? 14 Jul 2013
Related information
Business
Food & drink industry · McDonald’s ·
UK news
Police ·
Environment
Activism ·
Law

Why my little community is saying no to McDonald’s

18 Jul 2013

Garry Muratore: Tecoma residents have made it clear: we do not want McDonald’s in our small community. Our ongoing fight has brought the best out of all of us

17 Jul 2013

McDonald’s 34,492 restaurants: where are they?

17 Jul 2013

McDonald’s opens first branch in Vietnam

17 Jul 2013

McDonald’s seeks injunction against Victorian protesters

Burgers and nuggets still dominate UK restaurant children’s menus – report

17 Jul 2013

Little fresh fruit or veg on offer in major high street eateries, research by Soil Association and Organix finds

Paul Lewis and Rob Evans
The Guardian, Friday 21 June 2013 14.54 BST

Find this story at 21 June 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Former undercover officer Peter Francis says department helped spies by providing false passports in dead children’s names

Peter Francis, the former undercover police officer turned whistleblower. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian

A second police spy has said the Home Office was aware that undercover police officers stole the identities of dead children to infiltrate political groups.

Peter Francis, a former undercover officer turned whistleblower, said the Home Office helped the spies by providing false passports in the names of the dead children.

His claim comes as Britain’s most senior police officer, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, is due to publish a report on Tuesday about the secret use of dead children’s identities.

It will be released on the same day that MPs on the home affairs select committee are due to question Mick Creedon, the chief constable who is leading the police investigation into the deployment of undercover officers in protest groups over a 40-year period.

Creedon has already conceded that the theft of the children’s identities was “common practice” within a covert special branch unit which operated between 1968 and 2008.

Earlier this month, Bob Lambert, one of the leading spies of the unit, claimed that the technique was “well known at the highest levels of the Home Office”.

In a practice criticised by MPs as “ghoulish” and “heartless”, undercover spies in the unit, the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), searched through birth and death certificates to find children who had died at an early age. They then assumed the identity of the child and developed a persona based on that identity when they went undercover for five years or longer.

The spies were issued with fake documents such as passports, driving licences and national insurance numbers in the child’s name to further bolster their credibility.

Francis, who infiltrated anti-racist groups from 1993 to 1997, discussed the technique with the head of the SDS because he had reservations about stealing the identity of a four-year-old boy who had died. He did not disclose the name of the SDS head.

“We bounced it around – what were his thoughts, what were my thoughts. It was evident that it was standard practice,” Francis said.

The head of the SDS told him the Home Office knew the undercover spies “were using the children”, he said, as it gave fake passports to the spies knowing that they were in the names of the dead children.

The SDS was directly funded by the government, which received an annual report on its work for much of its existence.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We expect the highest standards of professionalism in all aspects of policing. That is why Chief Constable Mick Creedon is leading an IPCC-supervised investigation which will ensure any criminality or misconduct is properly dealt with.”

Francis was an important source for the Guardian when the newspaper detailed the technique, dubbed the “jackal run” after Frederick Forsyth’s novel The Day of the Jackal, in February.

Speaking then as Pete Black, one of his undercover identities, Francis said he felt he was “stomping on the grave” of the boy whose identity he stole. “A part of me was thinking about how I would feel if someone was taking the names and details of my dead son for something like this,” he said at the time.

Last month, he said his superiors had asked him to find “dirt” that could be used to smear the family of Stephen Lawrence, the black teenager who was stabbed to death in a racist attack in 1993.

Lambert went undercover for four years in the 1980s to infiltrate environmental and animal rights groups. He adopted the persona of Bob Robinson, a seven-year-old boy who had died of a congenital heart defect.

Interviewed by Channel Four News this month, Lambert said that at the time he did not “really give pause for thought on the ethical considerations. It was, that’s what was done. Let’s be under no illusions about the extent to which that was an accepted practice that was well known at the highest levels of the Home Office.” Lambert fathered a child with a campaigner while he was undercover.

On Tuesday, Creedon is expected to be questioned by the select committee about whether the police will apologise to the parents whose children’s identities were taken. Creedon has said he has taken legal advice on whether the spies who stole the children’s identities could be put on trial.

Rob Evans
The Guardian, Monday 15 July 2013 18.35 BST

Find this story at 15 July 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

Executive Summary

History
The Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) was an undercover unit formed by the
Metropolitan Police’s Special Branch. It operated between 1968 and 2008, during
which time it infiltrated and reported on groups concerned in violent protest.

Operation Herne
Operation Herne (formerly Soisson) was formed in October 2011 in response to
allegations made by the Guardian newspaper about alleged misconduct and criminality
engaged in by members of the SDS. Similar matters had been previously aired as early
as 2002 in a BBC documentary.

Operation Riverwood
On 4th February 2013 the Metropolitan Police received a public complaint from the
family of Rod Richardson, a young boy who had died in the 1970s. It is alleged that an
undercover officer working for the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU) had
used this child’s details as his covert identity. This matter was referred to the IPCC. The
matter was returned to the force and is currently subject of a ‘local investigation’.

National Public Order Intelligence Unit
The NPOIU was formed within the MPS in 1999 to gather and coordinate intelligence.
In 2006 the governance responsibility for NPOIU was moved to the Association of
Chief Police Officers, after a decision was taken that the forces where the majority of
activity was taking place should be responsible for authorising future deployments. In
January 2011 the NPOIU was subsumed within other units under the National Domestic
Extremism Units within the MPS.
In January 1995 large numbers of police from London, Kent and Hampshire were
drafted to the West Sussex harbour of Shoreham in response to protests surrounding
the export of live animals to Europe. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and another
animal extremist group named ‘Justice Department’ had a strong base in the
community there. This led to a number of protests and in October 1995 there was a
further demonstration in Brightlingsea, Essex. This resulted in a record number of police
being deployed to prevent widespread public disorder. Ad-hoc protest groups emerged
and the need for first hand high quality intelligence was evident. This led to undercover
operatives being required to infiltrate these animal extremist organisations.

The purpose of the NPOIU was:
1 To provide the police service with the ability to develop a national threat assessment
and profile for domestic extremism.
2 Support the police service to reduce crime and disorder from domestic extremism.
3 Support a proportionate police response to protest activity.
4 Help the police service manage concerns of communities and businesses to
minimise conflict and disorder.

Control of the NPOIU moved to ACPO in 2006 under the direction of the ACPO National
Co-ordinator for Domestic Extremism, Assistant Chief Constable Anton Setchell. He
was replaced by Detective Chief Superintendent Adrian Tudway in 2010. The NPOIU
worked with the National Extremism Tactical Co-ordination Unit (NETCU) and the
National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET).
The NPOIU now exists as part of the National Domestic Extremism Unit (NDEU) under
the Metropolitan Police Service Specialist Operations and is run by Detective Chief
Superintendent Chris Greaney.

Deceased identities
On 5th February 2013 the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) questioned Deputy
Assistant Commissioner Gallan about the alleged practice that SDS officers had used
the details of dead children, as part of a cover identity for undercover police officers. At
the time DAC Gallan was based in the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards and
was in overall command of Operation Herne. Her appearance before the HASC led to
considerable media coverage and some negative commentary. As a result of the media
coverage, Operation Herne has now received enquiries from fourteen (14) families
regarding seventeen (17) children.

Operation Herne review
One hundred and forty-seven (147) named individuals are believed to have served as
police officers within the SDS at all ranks from Chief Superintendent down. This covers
the forty (40) years that the unit was in existence and not all the police officers were
deployed in undercover roles.
At this stage one hundred and six (106) covert identities have been identified as having
been used by the SDS between 1968 and 2008.
Forty-two (42) of these identities are either confirmed or highly likely to have used the
details of a deceased child.
Forty-five (45) of these identities have been established as fictitious. Work continues to
identify the provenance of the remaining identities.

Neither Confirm Nor Deny (NCND)
The policy of ‘neither confirming nor denying’ the use of or identity of an undercover
police officer is a long established one used by UK policing. It is essential so as to
provide for the necessary operational security and to ensure undercover officers are
clear that their identity will never be disclosed by the organisation that asked them to
carry out the covert activity. The duty of care owed to such officers is an absolute one
and applies during their deployments, throughout their service and continues when they
are retired.
Please note that this is an interim report specifically about the use of the identities of
deceased children and infants. It does not seek to cover either all of the activities of
the SDS nor has it been able to completely provide all the answers regarding the use
of covert identities. The report clearly explains the use of the tactic and is submitted
early given the need to deal with the public concerns and is provided in agreement with
the Home Office who sought to have this matter concluded before the parliamentary
summer recess.

Find this report at July 2013

The identities of 42 dead children whose names were assumed by undercover police officers will not be revealed to their relatives, according to a report.

The Metropolitan Police offered a general apology for the “shock and offence” the practice had caused.

But Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said revealing the identities used would endanger the officers concerned.

The senior officer who wrote the report on the 1980s practice told MPs it would not be used as a tactic today.

The report’s author, Derbyshire Chief Constable Mick Creedon, was asked to investigate in 2011 after the Guardian newspaper published allegations about the conduct of undercover officers.

He told the Home Affairs Select Committee ministers did not authorise the practice but refused to condemn the officers’ actions.

“It’s irrelevant what I think,” he said. “It is not a tactic we would use these days.

“It would feel very strange for me to criticise the actions of people 20, 30, 40-years-ago without knowing what they faced at the time.”

Earlier this year, the Guardian reported that officers had stolen the identities of about 80 children who died at an early age.
Anonymity ‘vital’

Mr Creedon’s report concluded that at least 42 children’s identities had, either definitely or very probably, been used by the Metropolitan Police’s Special Demonstration Squad (SDS) and its National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU).

The earliest known use of the tactic occurred between 1976 and 1981 and it was phased out from 1994 in the SDS, the report added.

But it also found that the practice might have been used by the NPOIU as recently as 2003, and that it was “highly possible” that its use was more widespread than currently understood.

The report said: “A range of officers at different ranks and roles have been interviewed by the investigation team. The information provided corroborates totally the belief that, for the majority of the existence of the SDS, the use of deceased children’s identities was accepted as standard practice.”

Sir Bernard said 14 families had contacted the Met to ask whether the identities of their relatives had been used by undercover officers.

The Met had apologised to them, and to another family that had heard separately that it might be affected by the revelations, he said.

“Undercover officers are brave men and women” and maintaining their anonymity is “vital”, Sir Bernard said.

He explained: “There are criminals behind bars and at large today who would have no qualms in doing serious harm if they discovered a former close confidant had been working for the police.

“That’s why undercover officers spent so much time building up their ‘legend’ or false identity, and why that identity must be protected forever.”
‘Rot’

Sir Bernard added: “I believe the public do understand the necessity for police and others to do things like this to protect against a much greater harm. It was never intended or foreseen that any of the identities used would become public, or that any family would suffer hurt as a result.

“At the time this method of creating identities was in use, officers felt this was the safest option.”

But Jules Carey, a solicitor acting for Barbara Shaw, who is concerned that her son Rod Richardson’s identity was used, said: “What we heard this morning was not an apology but a PR exercise.

“The families of the dead children whose identities have been stolen by the undercover officers deserve better than this.

“They deserve an explanation, a personal apology and, if appropriate, a warning of the potential risk they face, in the exceptional circumstances, that their dead child’s identity was used to infiltrate serious criminal organisations.

“The harvesting of dead children’s identities was only one manifestation of the rot at the heart of these undercover units which had officers lie on oath, conduct smear campaigns and use sexual relationships as an evidence-gathering tool.”

He added: “Ms Shaw has told me that she feels her complaint has been ‘swept under the carpet” and she has instructed me to appeal this outcome.”

UK
16 July 2013 Last updated at 16:29 GMT

Find this story at 16 July 2013

BBC © 2013 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe releases report on surveillance used since 1970s but refuses to inform any affected families

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said families of dead children whose identities were used would not be approached, as that could put undercover officers in danger. Photograph: John Stillwell/PA

Britain’s most senior police officer has offered a general apology for the “morally repugnant” theft of dead children’s identities by undercover spies who infiltrated political groups.

But Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan police commissioner, has refused to tell any families if the identities of their children were stolen by the undercover officers. He said he wanted to protect the spies from being exposed.

In a report published on Tuesday, he admitted that at least 42 police spies stole the identity of children who had died before they were 14 years old.

But the total number of such spies could be far higher as he conceded that the technique could have been more widespread than initially believed.

Hogan-Howe said he “should apologise for the shock and offence the use of this tactic has caused” among the public, after the Guardian revealed details of the policing method in February.

The commissioner argued that the families could not be informed as it could lead to the exposure of the undercover officers sent to infiltrate the political groups.

“It was never intended or foreseen that any of the identities used would become public, or that any family would suffer hurt as a result. At the time this method of creating identities was in use, officers felt this was the safest option” he added.

His decision drew immediate criticism. Jenny Jones, a Green party member of the London Assembly, said: “This falls short of coming clean to all the families whose children’s identities were harvested. In giving a blanket apology they have avoided the difficult task of apologising to real people.”

The Met has sent letters of apology to 15 families whose children died young, but has neither confirmed nor denied whether identities were stolen.

One case concerned a suspected spy, deployed between 1999 and 2003, who allegedly stole the identity of Rod Richardson, who died two days after being born in 1973.

The family’s lawyer, Jules Carey, said that Barbara Shaw, the mother of the dead boy, was taking legal action as she felt her complaint had been “swept under the carpet”.

Carey said Hogan-Howe’s apology was a PR exercise. He added: “The families of the dead children whose identities have been stolen by the undercover officers deserve better than this. They deserve an explanation, a personal apology. The harvesting of dead children’s identities was only one manifestation of the rot at the heart of these undercover units.”

Peter Francis, one of the spies who originally blew the whistle on the tactic, said the police should offer a personal apology to the families in the cases of spies whose identity had already been exposed. He agreed that the spies whose work remained secret should be protected.

The report, on Tuesday, was produced by Mick Creedon, the Derbyshire chief constable who is conducting an investigation into the activities of the undercover spies over 40 years.

Creedon revealed that the technique was used extensively as far back as 1976 and was authorised by senior police. He reported that the tactic became “an established practice that new officers were taught” within a covert special branch unit known as the special demonstration squad (SDS), which spied on political groups.

“This was not done by the officers in any underhand or salacious manner – it was what they were told to do,” Creedon added.

One senior spy is quoted as saying the undercover officers “spent hours and hours … leafing through death registers in search of a name [they] could call his own”.

“The genuine identities of the deceased children were blended with the officer’s own biographical details,” Creedon said.

The spies were issued with fake documents, such as passports and driving licences, to make their alter egos appear genuine in case suspicious activists started to investigate them.

The last time the tactic was used, according to Creedon, was 2003, by a spy working for a second covert unit – the national public order intelligence unit (NPOIU) – which infiltrated political campaigns.

Creedon said it was highly possible that the tactic was used by undercover officers in other units which infiltrated serious criminal gangs. “It would be a mistake to assume that the use of identities of dead children was solely within the SDS and the NPOIU.”

He said that the use of the technique “however morally repugnant, should not detract from the [spies’] bravery”.

Rob Evans and Paul Lewis
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 July 2013 12.22 BST

Find this story at 16 July 2013

© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.