UK's MI5 'Unlawfully' Obtained Data From Former BBC Journalist (theguardian.com) 39
Bruce66423 shares a report from The Guardian: MI5 has conceded it "unlawfully" obtained the communications data of a former BBC journalist, in what was claimed to be an unprecedented admission from the security services. The BBC said it was a "matter of grave concern" that the agency had obtained communications data from the mobile phone of Vincent Kearney, a former BBC Northern Ireland home affairs correspondent. The admission came in a letter to the BBC and to Kearney, in relation to a tribunal examining claims that several reporters in Northern Ireland were subjected to unlawful scrutiny by the police. It related to work carried out by Kearney for a documentary into the independence of the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (PONI). Kearney is now the northern editor at Irish broadcaster RTE.
In documents submitted to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), MI5 conceded it obtained phone data from Kearney on two occasions in 2006 and 2009. Jude Bunting KC, representing Kearney and the BBC, told a hearing on Monday: "The MI5 now confirms publicly that in 2006 and 2009 MI5 obtained communications data in relation to Vincent Kearney." He said the security service accepted it had breached Kearney's rights under article 8 and article 10 of the European convention on human rights. They relate to the right to private correspondence and the right to impart information without interference from public authorities. "This appears to be the first time in any tribunal proceedings in which MI5 publicly accept interference with a journalist's communications data, and also publicly accept that they acted unlawfully in doing so," Bunting said. He claimed the concessions that it accessed the journalist's data represented "serious and sustained illegality on the part of MI5." Bruce66423 comments: "The good news is that it's come out. The bad news is that it has taken 16 years to do so. The interesting question is whether there will be any meaningful consequences for individuals within MI5; there's a nice charge of 'malfeasance in public office' that can be used to get such individuals into a criminal court. Or will the outcome be like that of when the CIA hacked the US Senate's computers, lied about it, and nothing happened?"
In documents submitted to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), MI5 conceded it obtained phone data from Kearney on two occasions in 2006 and 2009. Jude Bunting KC, representing Kearney and the BBC, told a hearing on Monday: "The MI5 now confirms publicly that in 2006 and 2009 MI5 obtained communications data in relation to Vincent Kearney." He said the security service accepted it had breached Kearney's rights under article 8 and article 10 of the European convention on human rights. They relate to the right to private correspondence and the right to impart information without interference from public authorities. "This appears to be the first time in any tribunal proceedings in which MI5 publicly accept interference with a journalist's communications data, and also publicly accept that they acted unlawfully in doing so," Bunting said. He claimed the concessions that it accessed the journalist's data represented "serious and sustained illegality on the part of MI5." Bruce66423 comments: "The good news is that it's come out. The bad news is that it has taken 16 years to do so. The interesting question is whether there will be any meaningful consequences for individuals within MI5; there's a nice charge of 'malfeasance in public office' that can be used to get such individuals into a criminal court. Or will the outcome be like that of when the CIA hacked the US Senate's computers, lied about it, and nothing happened?"
At this point (Score:5, Interesting)
Journalists everywhere should expect to be targeted. When you're reporting on crime and corruption of government officials or agencies, you can be assured those same people or organizations will do whatever it takes to stop you. As we're seeing in Palestine, deliberate targetting of journalists by Israel is the last step in preventing the truth from coming out.
The next question is, how much more of this is going on that we'll hear about in another decade or so and have to hear the same apologies?
Re:At this point (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure but we expect those kinds of things in Russia, China, Burma, etc. But a modern, western, democratic state, not so much. The fact Netanyahu is targeting and killing journalists is a huge red flag, and not something a liberal democracy does. Two wrongs don't make a right. Taking the moral high ground will always be the right thing to do and the only way to truly combat evil. Netanyahu wants war, and wants a bigger war, and to drag the US into it as well. Hard to fathom that kind of thinking.
Re: (Score:1)
"we expect those kinds of things in Russia, China, Burma, etc. But a modern, western, democratic state, not so much"
You must've been asleep - or not born - when the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
Re: At this point (Score:3)
"Its always Israel isn't it. No mention made of the journalists who've been "accidentally" fallen out of windows, in front of cars or just shot in Russia. Ditto China, Burma - sorry , Myanmar - and a dozen african countries."
It's not always Israel, it's only Israel more than any other country because they assassinate more journalists than any other country no matter how you measure.
Re: (Score:1)
"they assassinate more journalists than any other country no matter how you measure."
If you're going to simply outright lie then why bother posting? 13 journalists were killed by russia in 2024 alone.
Re: At this point (Score:1)
"If you're going to simply outright lie then why bother posting? 13 journalists were killed by russia in 2024 alone."
That's not even a busy month for Israel, you clown of a genocide apologist.
Re: (Score:2)
Not apologising for anything, but why don't people like you get so worked up about whats happening in ukraine or myanmar or various provinces in china? I'm not jewish but I know anti seminitism when I smell it and its stinking up slashdot and a lot of other places right now.
Re: (Score:1)
but why don't people like you get so worked up about whats happening in ukraine or myanmar or various provinces in china?
We're not talking about those right now.
Your ADHD is not my problem.
I'm not jewish but I know anti seminitism when I smell it
You mean like when Israel murders people who are more semitic than Israelis?
Re: At this point (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Err - ukraine war - hello? Have you heard of google?
Re: At this point (Score:2)
" The New York Post broke the true story on Hunter Biden's laptop and was censored off social media."
The only thing they were asked to stop sharing was pictures of Hunter's cock.
Private corresponsdence? (Score:3)
"They relate to the right to private correspondence"
Thats all well and good, but taken literally no communications intercept could be undertaken on anyone. I doubt MI5 did this just for lols, they mustve had a damn good reason.
Re: Private corresponsdence? (Score:3)
Unless you're arguing that the end justifies the means of disregarding the law, this is irrelevant.
It's also a weird thing to argue. There is a rich history, in many countries, of law enforcement/defence/whatever agencies spying on journalists for bad reasons, and no history of spying illegally for good enough reasons. The only people arguing "they probably had a good reason" are apologists of authoritarianism.
Re: (Score:1)
" and no history of spying illegally for good enough reasons"
Really?
Kim Philby
Roy Greenslade
I'm afraid you have a typical naive world view that people are divided up into good and bad with no grey areas inbetween.
Re: Private corresponsdence? (Score:2)
These people had illegal activities and also happened to be journalists, they were not investigated for their journalism. Talk about being simplistic, geez. Also do tell me what good was achieved by spying on Roy Greenslade, I am not familiar with his story.
Ultimately laws apply to everyone or they are meaningless. Just like justice is for everyone or there is no justice at all. If you are fine with laws applying to all except the law enforcers, then you are not for a lawful society but for an authoritarian
Re: (Score:3)
"These people had illegal activities and also happened to be journalists, they were not investigated for their journalism"
Wow, thats some impressive hair splitting there. Tell me - how would you know where their journalist activities stop and their illegal ones start without first investigating?
" Also do tell me what good was achieved by spying on Roy Greenslade, I am not familiar with his story."
Go read up on him, you're not in kindergarten and have to be spoon fed.
"Ultimately laws apply to everyone or the
Re: Private corresponsdence? (Score:2)
Go read up on him, you're not in kindergarten and have to be spoon fed.
I did and only found that his involvement was discovered a posteriori with zero consequence. So I don't see a benefit. I thought maybe you knew something I don't.
My point remains unaddressed: laws apply to everyone. If you decide that it's ok for some people to not be subject to the law, then you better really trust them to not abuse this kind of power, and history is full of examples of why such trust is a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
MI5's reason appears to have been to help stifle an investigation into police corruption, which could have looked bad for some important people.
Unfortunately they are known to have done this kind of work in other cases too. They aren't particularly good at it either.
Law vs Justice (Score:2, Interesting)
That makes the action illegal, but nut necessarily unjust.
\ The law does not dictate what is just, although we should aim for that.
Re:Law vs Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps but that is a great argument for why the scope of domestic clandestine services and the lengths of times they are allowed to keep secrets away from public discovery is wildly excessive and wholly incompatible with democratic society as implemented on both sides of the pond.
If an action was just (provided society can agree on that thru some kind of republican process) but illegal, then answer is the law should be changed to enable the activity.
Keeping this stuff hush hush for a decade and longer is just a recipe for abuse and excess by agents and at the same time an impediment to implementing the actual procedure and legal framework in place so they have proper tools to do what is required.
They can gets warrants for intercepts (Score:2)
The case here is about targeting a journalist who is telling tales about the past misbehaviour of the state. They didn't get the necessary warrants, so broke the law. Getting such material into the hands of the public is what journalism should be about, not gossiping about TV celebrities. The state is failing to respect that role - and this should result in consequences for those who should know better. It's a breach of the fundamental implicit agreement between state and citizen: 'we serve you'.
Of course t
Re: (Score:1)
Helpful comment (Score:2)
However the minimum consequence for clearly breaking the law when you are in law enforcement should be your sacking.
Isn't it cute (Score:3)
They always cover their butts - if it's convenient then it's the individual, if it isn't then it's the organisation. But every single time thet threaten with arresting someone if they don't comply because "it's the law". Now let's wait for 2041 for all those protester arrests around London to be blamed on these "few crooked rozzers who did it off their own accord" etc etc
Further MI5 misbehaviour being investigated (Score:2)
They lied in court about an agent they were running.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/art... [bbc.co.uk]
Warm and Fuzzy (Score:2)
the court case will be classified (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
MI5 (Score:2)
Why didn't they unlawfully monitor the Epstein swamp?
I mean, an associate of the Royal family, with a child abuse ring and strange income sources. What does MI5 know?