This presentation from June 2010, presented at the SIGDEV conference of that year, describes an approach to exploiting medical supplies in order to track down Osama bin Laden: see the Intercept article The NSA Plan to Find Bin Laden by Hiding Tracking Devices in Medical Supplies, 21 May 2015.
These extracts from the 2013 Congressional Budget Justification (the “Black Budget”) describe US intelligence activity around the raid on Osama bin Laden’s Abbotabat compound: see the Intercept article What the Snowden Files Say About the Osama Bin Laden Raid, 18 May 2015.
This undated presentation from the NSA’s European Cryptologic Center explains some of the activities of the agency’s main European base: see the Der Spiegel article Terrorverdächtige: NSA nutzte Erkenntnisse aus Deutschland-Filiale für Tötungen, 15 June 2014.
This GCHQ presentation, given to the 2012 SigDev Conference by a representatives of the Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group (JTRIG) and Cyber Defence Operations (CDO) describes how JTRIG attempts to “deny, disrupt, degrade and deceive” its targets. Speaker notes are included: see the NBC News article Snowden Docs: British Spies Used Sex and ‘Dirty Tricks’, 7 February 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.