Feeds

GCHQ's 'NOSEY SMURF' spyware snoops dragged into secretive tribunal

Privacy International believes UK intelligence nerve-centre may have helped infect millions

Maximizing your infrastructure through virtualization

Privacy International has launched a legal bid to stop GCHQ and British intelligence agents from "unlawfully" spying on Brits using malware.

Its complaint [PDF] to the UK’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal is a formal challenge to snoops' use of malicious software and hacking to surveil people. The campaigning charity fears millions of innocent people may have had their machines attacked and personal data slurped by British g-men.

A panel of 10 judges and QCs appointed by the Queen sit on the tribunal, which probes complaints about surveillance operations carried out by GCHQ, MI5, MI6, the government, local authorities and the police.

Its hearings are often held in secret, and there's no way to appeal its findings short of going to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. If a complaint is upheld, the taxpayer-funded tribunal can order the destruction of records, or dish out financial compensation, among other measures.

Privacy International, in its filing yesterday, said hacking targets' computers and gadgets, and infecting them with spy-ware, was tantamount to "entering someone's house, searching through his filing cabinets, diaries and correspondence, and then planting devices to permit constant surveillance in future".

Campaigners highlighted some of the infiltration techniques linked to GCHQ that were revealed in documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

According to the top-secret cache, British spooks use software called Nosey Smurf to secretly monitor devices' microphone and record conversations from afar. They use Gumfish to covertly snap photos using webcams, Foggybottom to collect passwords typed into web browsers, Grok to log keystrokes, and Tracker Smurf to identify the locations of targets.

They are also apparently able to retrieve content from smartphones, including text messages, emails, web history, call records, videos, photos, address books, notes, and calendars. This can be done by installing dodgy apps on the target's handset, if not outright hacking the device, it's claimed.

Privacy International said: "These forms of invasive surveillance allow intelligence agencies access to the most personal and sensitive information about an individual’s life – their location, age, gender, marital status, finances, health information, ethnicity, sexual orientation, education, family relationships, private communications, and potentially, their most intimate thoughts."

Privacy International regards the use of these capabilities as a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guards the right to privacy, and Article 10, protecting the right to freedom of expression.

It hopes the tribunal will put a stop to the electronic spying if British intelligence is found to be breaking the law.

Eric King, deputy director of Privacy International, said: "Intelligence agencies can do all this without you even knowing about it, and can invade the privacy of anyone around the world with a few clicks.

"All of this is being done under a cloak of secrecy without any public debate or clear lawful authority. Arbitrary powers such as these are the purview of dictatorships not democracies. Unrestrained, unregulated government spying of this kind is the antithesis of the rule of law and government must be held accountable for their actions.”

GCHQ has refused to comment on this week's complaint. The last time it was accused of hacking innocents' mobile phones and computers, the eavesdropping nerve-centre said: "All of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework that ensures that our activities are authorised, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the secretary of state, the interception and intelligence services commissioners, and the parliamentary intelligence and security committee.

"All our operational processes rigorously support this position." ®

Top three mobile application threats

More from The Register

next story
Arrr: Freetard-bothering Digital Economy Act tied up, thrown in the hold
Ministry of Fun confirms: Yes, we're busy doing nothing
Help yourself to anyone's photos FOR FREE, suggests UK.gov
Copyright law reforms will keep m'learned friends busy
Apple smacked with privacy sueball over Location Services
Class action launched on behalf of 100 million iPhone owners
US judge: YES, cops or feds so can slurp an ENTIRE Gmail account
Crooks don't have folders labelled 'drug records', opines NY beak
ONE EMAIL costs mining company $300 MEEELION
Environmental activist walks free after hoax sent share price over a cliff
UK government officially adopts Open Document Format
Microsoft insurgency fails, earns snarky remark from UK digital services head
You! Pirate! Stop pirating, or we shall admonish you politely. Repeatedly, if necessary
And we shall go about telling people you smell. No, not really
prev story

Whitepapers

Designing a Defense for Mobile Applications
Learn about the various considerations for defending mobile applications - from the application architecture itself to the myriad testing technologies.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Top 8 considerations to enable and simplify mobility
In this whitepaper learn how to successfully add mobile capabilities simply and cost effectively.
Seven Steps to Software Security
Seven practical steps you can begin to take today to secure your applications and prevent the damages a successful cyber-attack can cause.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.