GCSB spied on Kiwis in Pacific, but it was legal
A long running inquiry into whether the secretive Government Communications Security Bureau spied on Kiwis in the Pacific has revealed the mass collection of all communications channelled through certain satellites.
But there was no evidence of the spy agency acting unlawfully, the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security Cheryl Gwyn has found.
In a practice the GCSB labelled ‘‘full take’’, all communications data of certain types acquired from a particular satellite communications link was collected in pursuit of intelligence to protect New Zealand’s interests in the Pacific.
This potentially included the communications of New Zealanders.
Gwyn’s inquiry followed claims the GCSB carried out mass surveillance in the Pacific and allegations it unlawfully intercepted the communications of New Zealanders as part of its broad sweep.
The allegations date to the Edward Snowden documents and the 2014 election campaign, when documents released by investigative journalist Nicky Hager showed the GCSB was engaged in wholesale spying on New Zealand’s Pacific neighbours. Hager said the GCSB was passing on the information directly to the United States National Security Agency (NSA).
Gwyn launched an inquiry after receiving complaints from individuals that their own information might have been accessed.
In the report released yesterday, Gwyn found that the GCSB did undertake signals intelligence gathering in relation to New Zealand’s interests in the South Pacific during 2009-2015.
That included the collection of satellite communications.
Significantly, Gwyn also found that GCSB was collecting and storing communications on a mass scale.
This effectively meant that everything channelled through certain satellites was indiscriminately hoovered up by the GCSB sweep. This was one of Hager’s central claims.
Gwyn said ‘‘full take’’ collection contrasted with collection that resulted in storage of ‘‘selected’’ data, which had been filtered by reference to selectors, such as telephone numbers.
It was applied only to satellite communications links assessed by GCSB as likely to carry communications of intelligence value.
Unselected information collected and retained through ‘‘full take’’ could only be analysed by the application of structured queries and GCSB staff were required to monitor and review collected data at regular intervals to ensure the collection remained compliant and of foreign intelligence value, she said.
‘‘There is no evidence that the GCSB deliberately targeted the private communications of any complainant for collection, or retained any data relating to any complainant,’’ Gwyn said.
‘‘It is possible that some of the private communications of some complainants were collected as part of interception activity, either inadvertently [by mistake] or incidentally.’’
In a statement yesterday, GCSB director Andrew Hampton welcomed the finding that the agency did not deliberately target the communications of any of the complainants.