Spying on Australians

NSA considered spying on Australians 'unilaterally', leaked paper reveals

2005 draft directive says citizens of '5-Eyes' countries may be targeted without knowledge or consent of partner agencies

the Guardian,

5 December, 2013

The US National Security Agency has considered spying on Australian citizens without the knowledge or consent of the Australian intelligence organisations it partners with, according to a draft 2005 NSA directive kept secret from other countries.

The draft directive leaked by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals how the NSA considered the possibility of "unilaterally" targeting citizens and communication systems of Australia, New Zealand and Canada – all "5-Eyes" partners which it refers to as “second party” countries.

"Under certain circumstances, it may be advisable and allowable to target second party persons and second party communications systems unilaterally when it is in the best interests of the US and necessary for US national security,” says the directive, which was classified as “NF” for No Foreign and is titled Collection, Processing and Dissemination of Allied Communications.

“Such targeting must be performed exclusively within the direction, procedures and decision processes outlined in this directive."

Australia is one of the countries acting in partnership with Britain, the US, New Zealand and Canada to share intelligence and conduct surveillance operations around the world. These 5-Eyes states form part of the UKUSA agreement, which was believed to limit the ability of the partner countries to spy on each other. The Australian Signals Directorate maintains a close partnership with the NSA.

On Monday Guardian Australia revealed that the Defence Signals Directorate – now the Australian Signals Directorate – had offered to share citizens’ personal data in a 2009 meeting. Last month an officer responsible for federal parliament’s IT systems left open the possibility that parliamentarians could be subject to US surveillance through a Microsoft operating system vulnerability.

The draft 2005 directive, which was published in the Guardian in November, goes on to state that the US could conduct the targeting without the knowledge of Australian, Canadian or New Zealand authorities, and even if the countries had rejected a "collaboration proposal" for the operation.

"When sharing the planned targeting information with a second party would be contrary to US interests, or when the second party declines a collaboration proposal, the proposed targeting must be presented to the signals intelligence director for approval with justification for the criticality of the proposed collection."

It is not clear how the NSA would select Australian targets for unilateral surveillance and what the purpose of this targeting would be and it is unclear which procedures may have been enacted as a result of the draft directive.

The “targeting” procedures of the NSA are broad and allow a large range of internet, data and phone information to be collected if approved. They can even be authorised to “acquire communications about the target that are not to or from the target”.

The original 1946 UKUSA agreement between the US and Britain was previously designed only for "foreign intelligence" operations. The draft memo appears to indicate that the agreement has changed.

"[The 1946 UKUSA] agreement has evolved to include a common understanding that both governments will not target each other's citizens/persons. However, when it is in the best interest of each nation, each reserved the right to conduct unilateral Comint [communications intelligence] action against each other's citizens/persons."

In a later part of the draft cleared for release to the 5-Eyes countries, the document suggests there may be circumstances in which Australia, Canada and New Zealand should co-operate to allow the US to target their citizens.

“There are circumstances when targeting of second party persons and communications systems, with the full knowledge and co-operation of one or more second parties, is allowed when it is in the best interests of both nations,” the 2005 document says. “This targeting will conform to guidelines set forth in this directive.”

It says this type of collaborative targeting is most commonly achieved "when the proposed target is associated with a global problem such as weapons proliferation, terrorism, drug trafficking or organised crime activities".

After Monday’s revelations, Australia’s prime minister, Tony Abbott, said there was no evidence Australia’s spy agencies had acted outside the law. The inspector general of intelligence and security says it maintains “ongoing visibility” of all activities undertaken by the Australian Signals Directorate.

Ex-spy's passport cancelled by Australia

Radio NZ,

5 December, 2013

Australia has cancelled the passport of an ex-spy who was about to give evidence at an international court, claiming a $A40 billion oil and gas treaty was bedevilled by spying.

East Timor's government is to argue at a court in the Hague that Canberra got an unfair advantage in the treaty talks in 2004 by spying on it.

The ABC reports the ex-spy has signed an affidavit that is understood to say the spying was "immoral and wrong" because it served big oil and gas, not the national interest.

That affidavit was seized on Tuesday in a raid by Australia's domestic spy agency on the Canberra offices of East Timor's lawyer, Bernard Collaery.

Mr Collaery says the ASIS agent decided to blow the whistle on the 2004 operation because former foreign minister Alexander Downer become a lobbyist for Woodside after leaving politics.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has defended the raid, saying Australia will always act to uphold its national interest.

The ABC reports the existence of the whistleblower, a former director of technical operations at the the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, was a secret known to only a handful of officials and lawyers until the raids on Tuesday.

On Wednesday afternoon, prime minister Xanana Gusmao of East Timor issued a statement calling on Mr Abbott to explain himself and guarantee the safety of the whistleblower.

"Raiding the premises of a legal representative of Timor-Leste and taking such aggressive action against a key witness is unconscionable and unacceptable conduct,'' he said.

"It is behaviour that is not worthy of a close friend and neighbour or of a great nation like Australia."

Mr Guterres said East Timor understands the need for spying in issues of national security, but that was not the case here.

"What we are engaging here is purely a commercial issue," he said.