Did US Government Agencies spend over 20 million USD on Bogus Software for Counter-Terrorism?

Eric Lichtblau and James Risen of the New York Times report that various US agencies spent a total exceeding 20 million USD between 2002 and 2009 for phony counter-terrorism technologies linked to a California computer programmer. Among the things which the programmer allegedly claimed to be able to do were "find terrorist plots hidden in broadcasts of the Arab network Al Jazeera; identify terrorists from Predator drone videos; and detect noise from hostile submarines." Reportedly, the technology provided the basis for the diversion and grounding of several US-bound flights in 2003. The story is available here in the Sydney Morning Herald. The news follows on charges from Senator Bernie Sanders that, between 2007 and 2009, the US Defense Department awarded hundreds of billions of US dollars to companies involved in fraud. Sen. Sanders’ assertion was based on a Pentagon report released in January.

Increasing Controversy with Introduction of New Pat-Down Procedures for US Airline Travel

When the US deployed backscatter x-ray and millimeter wave scanners, travellers were given the choice to opt for a physical pat-down instead of going through the scanner. Now, the TSA has introduced new, more invasive pat-down procedures that involve exploring around breasts and genitals and between the buttocks (See for instance this particularly graphic account as well as this account reportedly from author Erin Chase). Some early reports speculated that the new measures were introduced in order to intimidate those who would otherwise choose the pat-down into deciding that maybe the scanners aren’t that bad. Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic has stated that TSA personnel explicitly admitted that that was the reason behind the new policy. John Pistole, Administrator of the TSA, who was called before the US Senate Commerce Committee this week, suggested that the new procedures are in response to covert testing of the old pat-down method which indicated it wasn’t “thorough” enough.

Meanwhile, concerns about the health effects of the scanners continue. Four scientists affiliated with the University of California at San Francisco drafted an open letter last spring to President Obama’s Assistant for Science and Technology outlining their concerns with the backscatter scanners. They argue that official assessments of the health impact from backscatter radiation may underestimate the potential effects of the low-levels of dosage that the scanners emit since they are based on whole body exposure, whereas the scanners would concentrate all radiation in the skin. Additionally, they express concern that certain groups or individuals may be particularly vulnerable to the increased radiation exposure, and they decry the failure to publish key data that would permit independent assessment of the health risks. Both the Allied Pilots Association and the US Airline Pilots Association have advised their members not to go through the scanners. The US Airline Pilots Association further notes that experiences with the new “enhanced” pat-down procedures have involved “a wide range of possibilities … and the results can be devastating.” Others have more general objections to both the scanner/ pat-down procedures. Two commercial pilots have even filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security citing Fourth Amendment violations. A number of State legislators in New Jersey have objected to the current screening regime and have introduced resolutions calling on the TSA to reconsider its procedures. Additionally, one private individual is calling for a national “opt-out” day to stage a protest.

News of the World Phone Hacking Update

As police interview a former News of the World journalist who claimed Andy Coulson asked him to hack phones, the last week has seen the pressure increase on both the newspaper and David Cameron's Director of Communications. On Thursday the 9th of September House of Commons debate was the site of a series of robust attacks on press intrusion - for example see Tom Watson MP's forthright (but on the whole characteristic) contribution below:




The claim that MPs have so far refrained from coming down on press intrusion with too much vigour for fear of becoming victims themselves is replicated elsewhere, for example in a Guardian article reporting the claim of former Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price:

Price told Channel 4 News last night that four members of the committee had considered asking the serjeant at arms to issue a warrant forcing Brooks to attend. He said: "We could have used the nuclear option. We decided not to, I think to some extent because of what I was told at the time by a senior Conservative member of the committee, who I know was in direct contact with executives at News International, that if we went for her, called her back, subpoenaed her, they would go for us. [This] meant effectively that they would delve into our personal lives in order to punish them and I think that's part of the reason we didn't do it." Watson told Channel 4 News that News International had further interfered by asking Downing Street to persuade him to tone down his questioning. "A [former Labour] cabinet minister has confirmed to me this week that News International talked to my former colleagues in No 10 Downing Street to ask them whether I would withdraw my aggressive line of questioning … I felt very frightened and intimidated." Watson added that he was told that Brooks vowed to destroy him after he led the Labour coup that persuaded Tony Blair to resign. "A very senior News International journalist told me at the Labour party conference in 2006, in the early hours of the morning, that his editor would never forgive me for resigning as a minister in Tony Blair's government and that she would pursue me for the rest of my political career until I was destroyed."

News: Metropolitan Police to Look at new Evidence in News of the World Phone Tapping Case

From BBC News: The London Metropolitan Police have confirmed that they will look at new evidence which has come to light recently in relation to the News of the World phone hacking case in which stories were obtained by hacking the phones of the Royal Family, celebrities and politicians.

This announcement follows claims in the New York Times at the weekend that the practice of phone hacking at the newspaper was far more widespread than so far recognised. Furthermore the detail that the then editor Andy Coulson apparantly knew about, condoned and even requested phone hacking is likely to continue to be a focal point to the story due to his current role as a close advisor to David Cameron and Director of Communications - the News of the World continue to maintain that only one employee is ever known to have been hacking people's phones and that he did so without the knowledge of his employers. The NYT story presents a very different picture:

But interviews with more than a dozen former reporters and editors at News of the World present a different picture of the newsroom. They described a frantic, sometimes degrading atmosphere in which some reporters openly pursued hacking or other improper tactics to satisfy demanding editors. Andy Coulson, the top editor at the time, had imposed a hypercompetitive ethos, even by tabloid standards. One former reporter called it a “do whatever it takes” mentality. The reporter was one of two people who said Coulson was present during discussions about phone hacking. Coulson ultimately resigned but denied any knowledge of hacking.

News of the World was hardly alone in accessing messages to obtain salacious gossip. “It was an industrywide thing,” said Sharon Marshall, who witnessed hacking while working at News of the World and other tabloids. “Talk to any tabloid journalist in the United Kingdom, and they can tell you each phone company’s four-digit codes. Every hack on every newspaper knew this was done.”

Detecter Deliverable: Border Control and Internal Security in the European Union

Deliverable D14.1 was written by Audelina Ahumada as part of Work Package 05. You can read the whole thing here.

Executive summary

1. Since the New York terrorist attacks in September 2001, border control is increasingly shaped by security considerations. This paper concentrates on the implications of this trend for the enjoyment of human rights protection by third-country nationals that seek to enter or have already gained access to European Union territory. The integration in the common border policy of threat assessments and risk analyses together with information gathering and sharing through the use of advanced technology has contributed to the perception that cross-border movements, and, in particular (potential)irregular immigration are closely related to serious criminality, including terrorism.
2. In the development of a common border policy, the EU, together with its Member States, should ensure that control and surveillance over the external frontiers are implemented in full compliance with legally binding international and European human rights standards. This should include operations aimed at diverting “illegal immigration” when conducted beyond EU external borders and when carried out in cooperation with third countries.
3. The legal mandate of the EU Border Control Agency, Frontex, should be clearly defined, in particular as regards the Agency’s competencies and corresponding responsibilities. Any coordination of or other involvement in border control operations by Frontex should be governed by clear guidelines which ensure respect for the principle of non-refoulement, including chain-refoulement, and the right to a fair and effective asylum procedure for any person claiming an international protection need.
4. The integration of internal security aspects in EU border policy also affects the processing of personal data on third-country nationals. Such data are stored in centralised EU-operated databases and were originally collected for primarily immigration-related purposes. Promotion of access to sensitive personal immigration data, including fingerprints, by law enforcement authorities for purposes including the prevention of and fight against terrorism implies that non-EU citizens form a suspect category in itself. This raises serious questions concerning the legitimacy, including necessity and proportionality of the measure under data protection principles inherent in the right to privacy. It may, in addition, have serious implications for the principle of non-discrimination.
5. Trends towards “interoperability” between EU-operated databases should be accompanied by the establishment of a comprehensive, specific and legally binding data protection framework with adequate safeguards to cover risks related to the large scale storage and use of personal data. The more authorities have access to sensitive personal information, the greater the risks of abuse, misuse, leaks and loss of data. This may have serious consequences, including with regard to the prohibition of torture and the principle of non-refoulement, if data on refugees and asylum-seekers reach authorities in their countries of origin.
6. Applying systematically EU carrier sanctions regime on international carriers may obstruct refugees and asylum-seekers in seeking protection in the EU. Trends toward the extension of the carrier sanctions regime to include the transfer of passenger data to national authorities, including for counter-terrorism purposes, raise serious questions from the perspective of data protection principles. Refugee protection is further marginalilzed, while adding to the perception that cross-border movements are closely linked with criminality.
   

Detecter Deliverable: Unilateral Exceptions to International Law

Deliverable D06.1 was written by Mathias Vermeulen and Martin Scheinin as part of Work Package 04. You can read the whole thing here.

Executive Summary

This paper on unilateral exceptions to human rights and international law in the fight against terrorism prepares the ground for two further deliverables under the DETECTER project, namely a policy-oriented paper summarizing the results and applying them in respect of EU law and policies, and a study specifically addressing detection technologies. It is well known that many governments have resorted to a wide range of constructions to justify, under international law, their unilateral exceptions to human rights in the name of countering terrorism. This paper seeks to take stock of a whole range of arguments, doctrines or constructions that states may resort to when seeking to justify their unilateral exceptions to human rights norms in the fight against terrorism. Many of those constructions have a valid legal basis and a proper scope of application. However, they also have their limitations, to the effect that often they affect only a specific treaty, or the availability of a procedure, but do not affect the substantive obligations of the state in question under international law. In many cases this results from the overlap of treaty law and customary norms of international law. Some of the constructions are open to abuse, i.e. bad faith efforts to distort international law to the detriment of human rights. Because of the complexity of the combined effect of the various excuses and exceptions, there is a need for a holistic approach that seeks to address the combined effect of the various constructions of unilateral exception.

Some of the main conclusions of the paper are highlighted in this executive summary. To start with:

• None of the constructions discussed affects a state's obligations under peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens).
• Outside that realm of peremptory norms, some of the constructions discussed have an impact upon both treaty law and customary international law, hence affecting the substantive human rights obligations of a state. This would be the case for the lex specialis effect of international humanitarian law during armed conflict but only when lex specialis is properly construed as an interpretive effect upon the scope or content of a particular human right.
• Counter-terrorism measures may qualify as permissible limitations on human rights, again when properly construed. This conclusion calls for a rigorous test for permissible limitations, rather than an all-encompassing act of 'balancing'.
• Most constructions discussed in this paper pertain merely to human rights treaties and do not affect the state's obligations under customary international law. As there is a high degree of substantive overlap between human rights treaties and customary norms of international law, resorting to these excuses therefore usually only has procedural consequences. It does not affect the substantive obligations of the state under international law, but precludes the competence of an international (or regional) human rights court or treaty body to address the breach of international law through its regular monitoring mechanisms.
• The most relevant constructions of unilateral exceptions to human rights treaty obligations are the power of a state to declare a state of emergency and to derogate from some but not all of its human rights treaty obligations, reduction of the scope of a state's human rights obligations when it acts outside its own territory, the right to enter permissible reservations upon the signature or ratification of a treaty and, in some cases, withdrawal from a treaty.
• There is some state practice of declaring a state of emergency because of acts of or a threat of terrorism. When applied under the fairly strict requirements for derogation enshrined in the treaties in question and when subject to international monitoring through the procedures available under the treaties in question, derogation is a permissible and even recommended mechanism for reacting to situations of a genuine threat to the life of the nation.
• Although the European Court of Human Rights has in some cases implied that a state is not subject to exactly the same obligations when it is, through its agents, acting outside its own territory, caution is required when resorting to this excuse. Other human rights treaties and customary norms of human rights law may remain applicable, and even the position of the European Court of Human Rights appears to be shifting (or inconsistent).
• Somewhat surprisingly, states have not resorted to reservations under human rights treaties with express reference to terrorism. However, a very small number of existing reservations, including in respect of the right to a fair trial, may have a bearing upon the treatment of terrorism suspects.
• Some, primarily regional, human rights treaties would allow for a state's unilateral withdrawal from the treaty. In practice, the option of withdrawal has figured in the political discourse, for instance after a government has received a ruling by a regional human rights court but no state has actually resorted to withdrawal from human rights treaties as a response to terrorism.

Detecter Deliverable: Privacy, Secret Detention Centres and Overflights

Deliverable 16.1 was written by Geir Ulfstein as part of Work Package 08. You can read the whole thing here.

Executive Summary

1. Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) establishes the right to privacy. The implementation of this right is monitored by the Human Rights Committee. The Committee has emphasized that interference in the right to privacy must be foreseeable; mechanisms should be established to prevent abuse of collected information and to ensure review, supervision and redress; and vulnerable groups should be protected. The Committee has, however, not established clear guidance about which substantive measures would be considered a violation of the right of privacy.
2. News media and NGOs reported in 2005 about secret detention centres and overflights in Europe as part of US counter-terrorism strategy. Such activities gave rise to several human rights concerns. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe initiated an inquiry into these matters. The Secretary General requested member states to provide relevant information. The European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) prepared an opinion on the human rights aspects. Cooperation was also established with the European Parliament of the European Union. This cooperation uncovered suspicious patterns of military and civilian aircraft and indications of secret detention centres. They were also able to put political pressure on the respective international organs and on national governments. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, however, failed to follow up strongly, and the European Parliament deplored the lack of follow up by the Council of the European Union, and by member states.
3. Several UN organs have been involved in the issues of secret detention and overflights, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee Against Torture, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. The UN organs have generally been more reactive than what was the case of the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly. But all the bodies have, within their mandates, addressed these matters. They have helped to uncover certain facts, but have not been able to establish ‘hard facts’ about the relevant activities. These bodies have, however, the benefit of being able to have a more continuous focus on such cases. Furthermore, they have a global focus, and may thus engage in activities beyond the European context.

Comment: John Rentoul Attacks Chakrabarti's 'Shameless' Endorsement of Surveillance

Regular Independent columnist John Rentoul blogs about Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti’s appearance on last night’s Newsnight programme. He writes under the headline ‘Shameless: I Want a Surveillance Society’ - he likes to call her ‘Shameless Chakrabarti’ you see, which I presume is an attempt to imply she’s a hypocrite: ‘Oh so now you’re in favour of surveillance’ this line goes – ‘I thought you civil liberties people were against it’. This is already puzzling, as Liberty have consistently defended the principle that the security services ought to be able to use targeted surveillance against people about whom there is specific evidence to imply involvement in serious crime, though they campaign vigorously against arbitrary and unjustified use of surveillance. Rentoul’s attack focuses on her continued criticism of control orders:

What would she do instead of control orders, she was asked by Alex Carlile, the Liberal Democrat peer and independent reviewer of anti-terrorist law. After trying to hide behind trying them in court - what if there is not enough evidence for a conviction yet enough to warrant concern? - and the use of intercept evidence - not relevant in this case - she was eventually embarrassed into mumbling an answer: "Put them under surveillance."

Presumably she wants more CCTV, especially around the homes of terrorist suspects, and monitoring of their telephones and internet use.

Surveillance would either be prohibitively expensive, or intensely intrusive (thereby reinventing control orders in another form), or ineffective. Several suspects subject to control orders have already legged it to who knows where; any weakening of the controls would make it easier for them to abscond.

Given how small the numbers of people are who have been put under control orders (about 12 as of February this year) I think his argument about cost is of marginal importance, even if his assessment of the relative expense is accurate.

It also seems highly disputable that even intrusive surveillance would ‘reinvent’ control orders in another form – control orders primarily involve restrictions on people’s freedom, by imposing restrictions on who suspects can and can’t associate with, or imposing curfews and various degrees of house arrest, rather than intrusions into their privacy (though certainly the practice of 'tagging' is invasive). Now you could maybe argue that the additional invasions of privacy would always be worse than the restrictions of freedom. That would be a interesting position to take, and might even be coherent (though I suspect most would find it unpersuasive). But Rentoul’s not coming out and saying that. Instead he seems to want to have it both ways: control orders aren’t effective enough as they are, anything weaker will let the bad guys get away, but using surveillance beyond what is in place now will be just as bad. He’s painting Liberty as an organisation that is indifferent to the needs of effective policing and intelligence gathering. On the contrary their criticism of the use of control orders specifically takes aim at the claims of efficacy - take their earlier response to Lord Carlile’s previous announcement that there was no alternative to the control order regime or for that matter Shami Chakrabarti's piece in today's Times:

These orders were dreamt up by officials in 2005 and allow terror suspects to be placed under house arrest for ever without any semblance of criminal charge or trial. Apart from being profoundly unfair and un-British (the term “control order” comes from apartheid South Africa), this scheme is profoundly unsafe. A number of its targets have disappeared, and one former “controlee” had a habit of turning up, complete with plastic tag, at large public meetings attended by members of the present and past Cabinets.

And, as I said, they've consistently defended the use of targetted surveillance when the evidence supports it:

We take no issue with the use of intrusive surveillance powers per se. While intrusive surveillance will always engage Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)1 (right to privacy) such intrusion can be justified if it falls within the legitimate purposes set out under Article 8 (e.g. if done to prevent crime and threats to national security) and if it can be shown to be necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances.

What's shameless about that?

News: European Parliament Says No to US Bank Access

From BBC News: By 378-196 with 31 abstentions, the European Parliament has voted down the agreement to continue allowing the United States' counter-terrorism authorities access to the SWIFT database of European banking transactions, citing concerns at the 'inadequate privacy safeguards'. The deal, agreed by EU governments, would have granted US access for another nine months and follows intensive lobbying on the part of the American government:

Last week the Greens' home affairs expert, Jan Philipp Albrecht MEP, said that in backing the new deal the European Commission and EU governments had "not respected the fundamental criticism about the lack of sufficient protections with regard to privacy and the rule of law".

The leader of the Socialist group, Martin Schulz MEP, said: "We want a new and better deal with proper safeguards for people's privacy."

Comment: Gambetta on In Flight Terror

Diego Gambetta, well known for his social scientific studies of the Mafia and organised crime, has an interesting article in the Guardian about why terrorists continue to target aeroplanes when other, less well protected targets might seem more attractive.

Admitting the necessarily speculative nature of the endevour, he discusses purely practical issues: the fact that only a small amount of explosive, for example is needed to cause the intended chaos and the fact that flights, as they involve both an origin and a destination, raise questions and fears in two countries at once. He goes on to make a vivid case for the symbolic value of successfully hitting 'the enemy' in exactly the spot where most effort and resources have been expended in the name of security:

My hunch is that a reason to target air travel is precisely because it is the area in which the west has concentrated its maximum overt security efforts after 9/11. Piercing the thick barriers of checks all passengers have to go through to board a plane is in itself a success. It amounts to defying the toughest challenge, freshening up memories of 9/11, showing that even a puny David, farcically armed with just a pair of explosive underpants, can hit Goliath right where he feels strongest.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab failed to kill, but succeeded in making the west quake in its boots, engendering a hysterical worldwide security response, shaming the US security services, and inducing Obama to resurrect the dismal and counter-productive rhetoric of "we are at war against al-Qaida", which one hoped had departed with Bush. Had Abdulmutallab succeeded in killing, the global havoc caused would not have been that much greater. He could never have achieved that by aiming at softer targets.

I think there is always a danger in trying to infer to much about the intentions of actors from the effects of their actions, particularly in the case of violence. I do, however, think its interesting to reflect on governments' (and societies') reactions to terrorism and the calculus of risk - while countries targetted by terrorists have a necessarily limited ability to stop terrorism from happening its at least plausible to think they have more control over how they choose to respond to such events.

News: European Parliament due to Decide on SWIFT Soon

From the Financial Times: We have reported on the issue of US access to the SWIFT banking transactions database before. The agreement provisionally came into force on February the 1st, but is subject to confirmation by a European Parliament vote in the plenary session of 8th-11th of February next week. The FT reports that the Parliament, long concerned at the privacy implications of US access, is likely to vote down the agreement in the face of strong objections from the US:

Adam Szubin, director of the Office of Foreign Assets control at the Treasury, said the intelligence programme processing the Swift data "provides perhaps the most important source on terrorism financing".

The European parliament looks set to block an interim agreement negotiated by the European Commission and representatives of the member states. "It's very unlikely to go in favour of the Swift agreement," one diplomat said.

News: 'Climate Change Emails a Foreign Intelligence Hack'

The lead story on the Independent today: Former chief scientific advisor to the Blair government David King says that the climate change emails leak bears all the hallmarks of a foreign intelligence agency operation:

Quite simply, it's the sophistication of the operation. I know there's a possibility that they had a very good hacker working for these people, but it was an extraordinarily sophisticated operation. There are several bodies of people who could do this sort of work. These are national intelligence agencies and it seems to me that it was the work of such a group of people," he said.

More than 1,000 emails, and some 2,000 documents, were stolen from a university back-up server where remote access is difficult. This represents a small fraction of the total number of emails for the period from 1996 to 2009, suggesting they had been selected for the most incriminating phrases relating to possible scientific misconduct and breaches of the Freedom of Information Act. The leak of the emails in the weeks running up to the climate change conference in Copenhagen appeared to be carefully timed to destabilise the meeting.

He does not draw concrete conclusions about who might be responsible, but responding to the fact that the emails appeared on a Russian company's server he speculates:

"If it was a job done on behalf of a government, then I suppose there is the possibility that it could be the Russian intelligence agency," he said.

"If it was a maverick group then I suppose it could be the Americans, but I am hazarding a guess as much as anyone else. The only thing is, I've worked within government and I've seen this in operation," Sir David added. "It was a sophisticated and expensive operation. In terms of the expense, there is the American lobby system which is a very likely source of finance. Right now, the American lobbyists are a very likely source of finance for this, so the finger must point to them," he said.

News: UK Introducing Compulsory Body Scans

From BBC News: Under new security rules passengers selected for screening by the Millimetre Wave 'Naked Body Scanners' will be forced to consent to the scanning on pain of not being allowed on the flight. The machines are in place at Heathrow and Manchester airport and will be installed at Birmingham airport later this month:

Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said in the immediate future only a small proportion of airline passengers would be selected for scanning.

In a written statement to the House of Commons, he said: "If a passenger is selected for scanning, and declines, they will not be permitted to fly."

News: Florence DETECTER Programme Announced

The second DETECTER Project Meeting will take place in Florence on Thursday the 18th of February 2010. The Programme will run as follows:

9.00 – 9.15 Introduction by Prof. Martin Scheinin, Professor of International Law at the European University Institute and United Nations Special Rapporteur on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism

9.15 – 11.00 Identification of terrorist suspects through detection technologies: risks and opportunities
Chair: Martin Scheinin (European University Institute, Italy)

• Ehud Givon (WECU-technologies, Israel) – Security through intent detection
• Jacques Verraes (Europan Commission, Belgium) – Data protection issues related to identification of terrorist suspects
• Ben Hayes (Statewatch, United Kingdom) – Respondent to presentations of Commission and WeCU technologies

11.00 – 11.30 Coffee break

11.30 – 13.30 Human rights aspects of the use of detection technologies

Chair: Daniel Moeckli (University of Zurich, Switzerland)

• Roos van der hilst (University of Oslo, Norway) – Human rights risks of selected detection technologies - sample uses by governments
• Emilio Mordini (HIDE, Italy) - Biometrics, Body, Identity
• R. Leenes (University of Tilburg, the Netherlands) – Location based surveillance – why planes, trains and automobiles are the new castles

13.30 – 15.00 Lunch

15.00-17.00 Martin Scheinin presenting WP4 Deliverable on "Developments in the Declarations of Exceptions, Claims of Inapplicability, or Unilateral Modifications in Respect of Internation Law for the Sake of Counter-Terrorism"

Limited Places - To register, please e-mail mathias.vermeulen@eui.eu

News: New Security Measures for UK Airports

From the BBC: In a statement to the House of Commons earlier today, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the recommendations arising from a review of airport security and further intelligence briefings. The main measures include:

• Direct Flights from Yemen to the UK are suspended until security concerns are addressed.
• A "no fly" list is to be established to prevent suspected terrorists from travelling to the UK.
• A second list of lower risk suspects will be established entailing 'special measures' for those attempting to fly to the UK, such as more stringent screening (officials are not currently specifying anything further).
• All UK airports and ports to follow the 'e-borders' scheme, designed to collect personal data on all passengers entering or exiting the country, by the end of the year.
• Enhanced global cooperation to enable suspect individuals to be checked against watchlists 24 hours before flying to or via the UK.
• Full Body Scanners at British airports next week.
• New Intelligence teams to identify threats to British security abroad.

News: UK Equality and Human Rights Commission Say Body Scanners Breach Privacy

From the Times: Trevor Phillips, head of the UK watchdog created under the Equality Act (2006) in order to uphold nondiscrimination, has declared them a violation of privacy law established by the Human Rights Act.

They are calling on the UK Home Secretary Alan Johnson to explain in detail how the government will ensure that implementation of body scanning is compliant with the right to privacy. In particular they have raised privacy concerns with the use of body scanners on the disabled, the elderly, preoperative transsexuals and those with potentially embarrassing medical aids.

An EHRC spokesman said the use of profiling was “discriminatory, contrary to domestic legislation and international standards, and is harmful to community relations”.

A source at the watchdog added: “Scanners have a negative impact on people’s right to privacy, particularly the disabled, older people and children. Transsexuals and transgender people would be particularly vulnerable.

“We are talking about very intimate pictures. To be blunt, one could imagine a bunch of loutish security guards seeing some attractive women in the queue and all rushing into the office saying, ‘Let’s have a look’.”

News: US SWIFT Access Granted

From the Lift: The EU has agreed a nine month interim deal to allow the US non reciprocal access to SWIFT banking data. Germany and Austria, reported as threatening a veto over the privacy implications of such a deal, abstained. A unanimous vote was required, not counting abstentions as votes against. The agreement can be annulled in the Spring, when the European Parliament will have to give their assent to the plan.

The Register quotes an EU official as saying that "The truth is that we in Europe don’t have the technical ability to interpret this stuff," and that this is the reason why "We rely on the Americans to process it and pass it on as intelligence." Many European intelligence agencies end up as beneficiaries in the arrangement as they are not permitted by their home countries to gather such information themselves. In the event, delegates were apparantly put under huge pressure from US representatives to pass the deal:

The pressure from the Americans was "massive," say diplomats in Brussels. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apparently told her European counterparts that the fate of the West hung in the balance. And in the capital cities of Europe, American ambassadors stormed governments like door-to-door salespeople. As one EU foreign minister put it, "they pulled out all the moral and political stops."

News: SWIFT Update

The Legalift reported last week that 4 Countries remain opposed to the draft agreement granting US access to SWIFT banking transfers records. Germany's justice minister says that Berlin is uncomfortable with the plan and France, Austria and Finland have also signalled discontent with the scheme.

The draft plan is significantly different from the resolution issued by the European Parliament on the issue. 'Terrorism' is left undefined, requirements for judicial oversight are nowhere to be seen and the restriction of access to the specific issue of 'terrorism financing' is loosened to "prevention, investigation, detection, or prosecution of terrorism or terrorist financing". Ralf Bendrath has a round up of all these issues and many more.

If a decision is not reached by November 30th, then, as the Lisbon Treaty kicks in on December the 1st, the European Parliament may have much more say in the process (and it is likely to take another 6 months). Germany and Austria are reported to be under pressure to drop their opposition.

News: Biometrics to be Used to Identify 'Outsiders' in Afghanistan

From the Sunday Times: in Afghanistan biometrics such as fingerprints, retina scans or DNA tests are being proposed as a means to draw up "gated communities" in which outsider 'rebels' can be swiftly identified. In Basra, patrolling US soldiers are being issued with iPODs with a list of all local people.

Brigadier James Cowan, the new commander of British forces in Afghanistan, gave an interview to the Sunday Times in which he emphasised the importance of reassuring the local population of UK and US ability to provide security.

For the brigadier it is all about challenging the Taliban’s rule of fear: “What you have to do is create communities where people wish to be separate from the enemy because they have the confidence to be separate from them.”

Cowan’s staff have embarked on a huge exercise known as “human terrain mapping”. It involves not only delineating tribal boundaries, but also family networks, land ownership and all the possible grievances that can be exploited by the Taliban.

News: UK T-Mobile Staff Sold Private Data

From BBC News: T-Mobile staff sold customer data on to other mobile phone companies to target people coming to the end of their contract for coldcalls. Thousands of customers and millions of records were involved. The Information Commissioner has said he is preparing a prosecution.