This 2012 classification guide details the NSA’s human intelligence (TAREX) operations: see the Intercept article Core Secrets: NSA Saboteurs in China and Germany, 10 October 2014.
This NSA classification guide, dated 21 November 2011, covers signals intelligence material that as to be kept secret for more than the standard 60 years: see the Der Spiegel article The NSA in Germany: Snowden’s Documents Available for Download, 18 June 2014.
This extract from an NSA briefing document dated 25 January 2013 – framed as an example of how to write up such reports from the agency’s Foreign Affairs Division (FAD) – describes how The Netherlands’ MIVD sought to cover a gap in the NSA’s signals intelligence capability: see the NRC Handelsblad article The secret role of the Dutch in the American war on terror, 5 March 2014.
Two images from an NSA presentation describe Dutch-US cooperation in an international mission against Somali pirates in which signals intelligence was used to map contacts and support a naval mission. Identifying and technical details have been redacted: see the NRC Handelsblad article The secret role of the Dutch in the American war on terror, 5 March 2014.
UK MPs have been told that, not only is the legal regime governing GCHQ likely to be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, many of the agency’s activities are illegal even by current domestic standards.
Jemima Stratford QC and Tim Johnston were asked to prepare the opinion for the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Drones. While APPGs have no formal powers within the UK political system some – like the APPG on Extraordinary Rendition – have done important investigatory work in areas where formal oversight has been lacking.
While legislative proposals based on this opinion have already been tabled, its primary importance is likely to be its foreshadowing of issues the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) could adjudicate on this year in the case Big Brother Watch v United Kingdom. In the past, the Strasbourg court has played a decisive role in forcing changes to UK surveillance practices and it has never before been asked to consider the legality of mass surveillance.