A Dutch Sim card firm allegedly hacked by the GCHQ has said it was "probably" hacked but denies large amounts of phone data was stolen.Read the full story ›
British and American spies have been accused of stealing codes from one of the world's largest Sim card firms in order to hack into phones.Read the full story ›
The Government Communications Headquarters has allowed cameras behind-the-scenes for the first time.Read the full story ›
By UK Editor Rohit Kachroo
This is a new tone from the new head of GCHQ and language like this from someone like him indicates a new level of fear and frustration about these American internet giants.
In his FT article, Robert Hannigan challenges them after blaming them, saying they should work with the British security services to end the threat posed online by groups like Islamic State.
However much they may dislike it, they have become the command and control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us.
Then he makes this direct plea, saying in effect that we cannot do this on our own:
GCHQ and its sister agencies, MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service, cannot tackle these challenges at scale without greater support from the private sector, including the largest US technology companies which dominate the web.
In other words, beating the threat online from the likes of Islamic State is as much about the likes of Google and YouTube as it is MI5 and MI6.
There has been no response so far from the companies, but rarely has a spy chief spoken to directly and so publicly in this fashion against the internet and against groups like Islamic State.
But, a word of caution.
This isn't something that can be ended on someone's laptop in San Francisco.
British police are already overstretched, pulling down over 1,000 items a week.
The Islamic State are finding new ways of posting, of getting their message across the internet every single week as well, and our security services are really playing catch-up.
Civil liberties and privacy group, Big Brother Watch, have condemned the head of GCHQ Robert Hannigan for his criticism of internet firms being "in denial" about the role their products play in terrorism and other criminality.
It is wholly wrong to state that internet companies are failing to assist in investigations. The Government and agencies have consistently failed to provide evidence that internet companies are being actively obstructive.
These companies have consistently proved through their own transparency reports that they help the intelligence agencies when it is appropriate for them to do so, which is in the vast majority of cases.
Public debate on this issue would make the country stronger and more unified, yet we have so far failed to achieve this in the UK. Perpetuating falsehoods about the nature of relations between internet companies and the intelligence agencies is certainly not going to help.
The head of GCHQ has called on internet companies to be more open to working with the intelligence agencies against the threat posed by terror organisations such as Isis.
In a blunt article for the Financial Times, Robert Hannigan said the internet has become the "command-and-control" network of choice for Islamist and other criminals providing "routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism"
The extremists of Isis use messaging and social media services such as Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp, and a language their peers understand. [...]
There is no need for today’s would-be jihadis to seek out restricted websites with secret passwords: they can follow other young people posting their adventures in Syria as they would anywhere else. [...]
Increasingly their services not only host the material of violent extremism or child exploitation, but are the routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism. However much they may dislike it, they have become the command-and-control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us. If they are to meet this challenge, it means coming up with better arrangements for facilitating lawful investigation by security and law enforcement agencies than we have now.
The head of listening agency GCHQ has accused technology companies of being "in denial" about the role their networks and products play in terrorism and criminality.
In a forthright opinion piece for the Financial Times Robert Hannigan said companies must open themselves up to more intelligence services.
GCHQ and its sister agencies, MI5 and the Secret Intelligence Service, cannot tackle these challenges at scale without greater support from the private sector, including the largest US technology companies which dominate the web. I understand why they have an uneasy relationship with governments. They aspire to be neutral conduits of data and to sit outside or above politics. But increasingly their services not only host the material of violent extremism or child exploitation, but are the routes for the facilitation of crime and terrorism.
Foreign Secretary William Hague has today announced, that former counter terrorism adviser to the Prime Minister Robert Hannigan has been appointed as the new GCHQ Director.
Speaking in a statement Hague said:
I am delighted that Robert Hannigan has been appointed as the next Director of GCHQ. GCHQ’s world-class work is vital to the safety and security of the United Kingdom.
Robert Hannigan also told of his "privilege" to be asked to lead the GCHQ:
It is a privilege to be asked to lead GCHQ, an organisation which is so central to keeping the people of this country safe. I am excited about meeting the challenges of the coming years with them.
Robert Hannigan has been appointed as the new GCHQ Director, Foreign Secretary William Hague announced today.
Robert Hannigan joined the FCO as Director General, Defence and Intelligence on 29 March 2010 and for a number of years he advised the Prime Minister on counter terrorism, intelligence and security policy.
Nick Clegg has said Britain's intelligence services should be overseen by a single watchdog in the wake of a series of privacy scandals.
He said the watchdog, dubbed the Inspector General for the UK intelligence services, would:
- Have "reinforced powers, remit and resources"
- Bring together the present Interception of Communications Commissioner and Intelligence Services Commissioner
- Allow appeals against decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and publication of the reasons for rulings
- Put a member of the opposition in charge of Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee "to avoid accusations that the committee is too cosy with the Government of the day"