[Chriky]

I know that's what you think, but you got it backwards.

Countries are completely allowed to spy on their own citizens (in accordance with their own laws). They are also allowed to spy on foreigners (in accordance with their own laws, which typical have few protections for foreigners).

5-EYES is an agreement between certain countries to NOT spy on people from those other countries, and instead agree to freely exchange intelligence, and respond to each others requests etc.

For example, if a suspected terrorist on a GCHQ operation turns out to be American (or Australian etc), GCHQ are NOT allowed to intercept their phone. It must be done by the NSA who have to get a warrant in accordance with the US Constitution and US laws etc.

Without going into detail, I know this from experience.

[ionised]

So why was there such a furore in the wake of those leaks about the NSA and GCHQ spying on their own people?

Clapper was questioned by congress about whether data on a Americans was swept up in the dragnet, and Clapper (lying) said no, not wittingly.

Likewise, GCHQ were found to be acting illegally, hence the IPA that enshrined what they were already doing into law.

> 5-EYES is an agreement between certain countries to NOT spy on people from those other countries

If this is the case, then based on those leaks, it looks like both the US and UK broke this agreement. None of this makes any sense based on what you just told me.

[Chriky]

The legal challenges and confusion relate mainly to the distinction between "targeting" a person's communications (i.e. the actual content of their emails and phone calls), and the bulk collection of "metadata".

5-EYES countries agree to not "target" each others citizens, i.e. to actually hack their devices or listen to their phones.

---

GCHQ's bulk collection of metadata was ruled legal but they had failed to provide some information to the surveillance watchdog, which is why the watchdog retrospectively ruled a period of it's operation (7 years) unlawful.

It did not become lawful after IPA, it was always allowed (rightly or wrongly), they just failed to provide sufficient information about the programme to the watchdog. IPA didn't pass until 2016, well after the programme had been ruled lawful under existing laws.

[linkregister]

You have made two data points, but haven't linked them.

P: Clapper lied.

Q: RIPA was signed into law to make GCHQ collection legal.

P -> Q: ???