You're being downvoted unfairly IMHO. I'm against the status quo, but the people in these organisations tend to believe they're doing the right thing. They're not scofflaws, but they are isolated and insulated.
There are a lot of legal exemptions for agencies, but they are well aware they're not above the law. The public scrutiny will create genuine headaches for them, and I can guarantee you right now that there are a lot of people whose sole job is to ensure that they meet directives.
They're not gonna change international agreements over it though.
I am surprised that people on HN aren't seeing this for the genuine victory it is; only law can bind these entities, and it's not a quick process. This is the process working, as well as it ever does (for ill and good).
> The briefings, which are entitled UK Operational Legalities, stress that GCHQ "is an organisation with a highly responsible approach to compliance with the law".
> GCHQ also has a well staffed legal team, known as OPP-LEG, to help staff navigate their way through the complexities of the law.
> But there appears to be some nervousness about Tempora. In a paper written for National Security Agency (NSA) analysts entitled A Guide to Using Internet Buffers at GCHQ, the author notes: "[Tempora] represents an exciting opportunity to get direct access to enormous amounts of GCHQ's special source data.
> "As large-scale buffering of metadata and content represent a new concept for GCHQ's exploitation of the internet, GCHQ's legal and policy officers are understandably taking a careful approach to their access and use."
The mob also has well staffed legal teams to help their staff navigate through the complexities of the law.
It's easy to keep the appearance of following the law when you're a secret organisation on a mission, with little public oversight. And unlike organised crime, intelligence services don't have to rely on blackmail to get a direct line to the executive and legislation.
Admit to the stuff that's legal, make the stuff that's borderline a political issue, make excuses for the stuff that was illegal then retroactively legalise it, all the while relying on the bottom end of the iceberg being secret for long enough that you've got time to destroy the evidence or nobody cares anymore.
I'm sure that's how it works, it's not even malicious, it's just tribalism. It's why we institute transparency and accountability in most other places. Give your local library enough funding and remove all the oversight and in 10 years it'll have a bunch of skeletons in the closet and a "well staffed legal team to help them navigate their way through the complexities of the law."
There are a lot of legal exemptions for agencies, but they are well aware they're not above the law. The public scrutiny will create genuine headaches for them, and I can guarantee you right now that there are a lot of people whose sole job is to ensure that they meet directives.
They're not gonna change international agreements over it though.
I am surprised that people on HN aren't seeing this for the genuine victory it is; only law can bind these entities, and it's not a quick process. This is the process working, as well as it ever does (for ill and good).