/page/2
For the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, May 2012  ::Shell’s $4bn lobbying campaign cleared the way for Arctic drilling  Offshore oil drilling in the Arctic has long been considered off-limits – but as the New York Times revealed yesterday, a sustained and ingenious campaign by Shell has overcome all objections. The campaign to win permission to drill in the Arctic is a masterclass in major-league lobbying: Shell has spent seven years and an incredible $4bn (£2.55bn) to win over opponents at almost every stage, from the local Native Eskimo community, through multiple layers of environmental agencies, all the way to President Obama. It even managed to win permission to drill not long after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which involved BP and was one of the worst such incidents in US history. The granting of Shell’s permits will also spark a new oil rush as more companies seek to join Shell in seeking oil in the Arctic. But many fear that an oil spill in the Arctic could be devastating – particularly as no technique exists for cleaning oil from ice – while the rush of industry into the area risks disturbing local wildlife. The fresh supply of oil will also slow the impetus towards more sustainable energy sources. New York Times reporters John M Broder and Clifford Krauss unpick Shell’s strategy, describing how the company adopted a two-pronged approach focusing on the local community and on Washington. While many Eskimos depend on oil and energy for their income – it provides a third of all jobs in the state – they also revere the natural environment and rely on the ocean for much of their food. They have long been concerned that oil drilling would disturb whale migration rates. On a local level, Shell faced a canny opponent in Edward S Itta, who campaigned for mayor of his town on an anti-drilling platform. He was happy to play to the myth of the mystical Native and what the reporters call the ‘special moral authority’ that Eskimos possess in Congress. After an ill-advised effort at fielding its own candidate, Shell sent in a right-on executive, Pete Slaiby, who embarked on a charm offensive, sponsoring community meetings, serving food, and gamely eating the local delicacy of raw whale meat. Slaiby also made a series of concessions to Itta’s demands – but at the same time the company was working to isolate him, funding local colleges, village parties and whaling equipment. Itta was eventually forced to accept that drilling was inevitable and negotiated for the best possible deal. Meanwhile, in Washington Shell took the unusual step of joining an anti-global warming alliance, which gave them access to senior policymakers and helped deflect criticism of the scheme’s impact, says the New York Times. At the 2008 election the company drew up an action plan for winning over each of the candidates in the event of their victory and retained former politicians who they were close to for an inside line to power – although Obama’s win caught Shell on the hop, as it had assumed Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate. The report examines the lobbying that has gone on since his win. The company employs ‘three dozen’ staff to lobby government officials, according to government registers, and senior Shell lobbyists have visited the White House at least 19 times during Obama’s administration. This is aside from the constant stream of contact with the agencies that would actually grant the permits. Click here to read the Bureau’s investigation into lobbying’s hidden influence. ‘I understood they were doing it, I understood why they were doing it, and it wasn’t as subtle as it should have been,’ an official told the New York Times. Recognising the blunt force power of Shell’s lobbying blitz, environmental groups have backed off according to the paper, choosing to focus on projects where victory is more feasible. In the end, fuel security and ever-rising oil prices have helped win over President Obama – and while an activist describes the drilling as ‘a reckless gamble we cannot afford’, events such as the Osama bin Laden raid show that Obama, while often cautious, also has a gambling streak. Barring a major upset, drilling starts in July. As the New York Times points out, ‘It is a moment of major promise and considerable danger.’ Read the New York Times article here.

For the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, May 2012 

::
Shell’s $4bn lobbying campaign cleared the way for Arctic drilling 

Offshore oil drilling in the Arctic has long been considered off-limits – but as the New York Times revealed yesterday, a sustained and ingenious campaign by Shell has overcome all objections.

The campaign to win permission to drill in the Arctic is a masterclass in major-league lobbying: Shell has spent seven years and an incredible $4bn (£2.55bn) to win over opponents at almost every stage, from the local Native Eskimo community, through multiple layers of environmental agencies, all the way to President Obama. It even managed to win permission to drill not long after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which involved BP and was one of the worst such incidents in US history.

The granting of Shell’s permits will also spark a new oil rush as more companies seek to join Shell in seeking oil in the Arctic. But many fear that an oil spill in the Arctic could be devastating – particularly as no technique exists for cleaning oil from ice – while the rush of industry into the area risks disturbing local wildlife. The fresh supply of oil will also slow the impetus towards more sustainable energy sources.

New York Times reporters John M Broder and Clifford Krauss unpick Shell’s strategy, describing how the company adopted a two-pronged approach focusing on the local community and on Washington.

While many Eskimos depend on oil and energy for their income – it provides a third of all jobs in the state – they also revere the natural environment and rely on the ocean for much of their food. They have long been concerned that oil drilling would disturb whale migration rates.

On a local level, Shell faced a canny opponent in Edward S Itta, who campaigned for mayor of his town on an anti-drilling platform. He was happy to play to the myth of the mystical Native and what the reporters call the ‘special moral authority’ that Eskimos possess in Congress.

After an ill-advised effort at fielding its own candidate, Shell sent in a right-on executive, Pete Slaiby, who embarked on a charm offensive, sponsoring community meetings, serving food, and gamely eating the local delicacy of raw whale meat. Slaiby also made a series of concessions to Itta’s demands – but at the same time the company was working to isolate him, funding local colleges, village parties and whaling equipment. Itta was eventually forced to accept that drilling was inevitable and negotiated for the best possible deal.

Meanwhile, in Washington Shell took the unusual step of joining an anti-global warming alliance, which gave them access to senior policymakers and helped deflect criticism of the scheme’s impact, says the New York Times.

At the 2008 election the company drew up an action plan for winning over each of the candidates in the event of their victory and retained former politicians who they were close to for an inside line to power – although Obama’s win caught Shell on the hop, as it had assumed Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate.

The report examines the lobbying that has gone on since his win. The company employs ‘three dozen’ staff to lobby government officials, according to government registers, and senior Shell lobbyists have visited the White House at least 19 times during Obama’s administration. This is aside from the constant stream of contact with the agencies that would actually grant the permits.

Click here to read the Bureau’s investigation into lobbying’s hidden influence.

‘I understood they were doing it, I understood why they were doing it, and it wasn’t as subtle as it should have been,’ an official told the New York Times.

Recognising the blunt force power of Shell’s lobbying blitz, environmental groups have backed off according to the paper, choosing to focus on projects where victory is more feasible.

In the end, fuel security and ever-rising oil prices have helped win over President Obama – and while an activist describes the drilling as ‘a reckless gamble we cannot afford’, events such as the Osama bin Laden raid show that Obama, while often cautious, also has a gambling streak.

Barring a major upset, drilling starts in July. As the New York Times points out, ‘It is a moment of major promise and considerable danger.’

Read the New York Times article here.

11 hours ago  View high resolution

For the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a review of Michael Portillo’s Great Euro Crisis, in May 2012:  :: The ties that bind: Greece, Germany and the euro The prospect of arch-Eurosceptic Michael Portillo being sent to investigate the collapse of the euro isn’t immediately promising: at first glance it’s a little like sending Bart Simpson to investigate behaviour in schools. But This World: Michael Portillo’s Great Euro Crisis, which screened last night, is a thoughtful and fascinating hour’s TV. As the euro approaches breaking point, Portillo travels to Greece, where he visits the glitzy airports and train networks built with government debt, and the facilities for the €12bn 2004 Athens Olympics, which now lie derelict, their grand piazzas transformed into wastelands. He also visits scenes of appalling suffering: Portillo says that a quarter of Athens’ shops have closed, the numbers of homeless are spiralling, and soup kitchens now feed thousands every day. A medical charity that usually focuses on aid to Africa has opted to attend to the needy closer to home after the Greek government introduced charges for hospital visits; its director tells the camera: ‘We are in the middle of a humanitarian crisis.’ He then visits Germany, where in contrast he meets the bankers and car manufacturers who have thrived thanks to the lower exchange rates offered by the euro, constructing large government and commercial loans and selling luxury cars, including to Greece. In each country, he also meets ordinary people on the frontlines of the crisis: the Greek electrician who is trying to sell his Porsche Cayenne for half its original price to make ends meet, and the German Porsche factory worker, in former East Germany, who acknowledges that the euro has helped the country flourish. But as the factory worker’s father points out, rebuilding East Germany was a similarly grand project, which demanded hard work and dedication – the implication being that the Greeks expected something for nothing. Another German is bitterly stung by Greek comparisons of the Germans to Nazis. Perhaps inevitably, at times there’s more than a hint of ‘I told you so’ about Portillo’s delivery, and at times his Euroscepticism leads him to some bizarre leaps, such as the suggestion that Greece’s endemic tax evasion is somehow caused by the euro. But Portillo acknowledges his own bias, and he does an excellent job of illustrating how the euro boosted German exports while enabling the Greeks to build up unsustainable levels of debt. He also highlights the emotional crisis: the resentment, fury and fear that are increasingly the undertow of the political debates. One motif runs through the show, and it’s hard to tell whether it’s a cause for optimism or not. Again and again, Portillo asks whether people would choose the euro or a return to the drachma or deutschmark – and again and again, both Greeks and Germans opt for the euro. As the common currency faces its toughest test yet, could this shared goal be enough to see it through? Watch This World: Michael Portillo’s Great Euro Crisis here.

For the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a review of Michael Portillo’s Great Euro Crisis, in May 2012: 

::

The ties that bind: Greece, Germany and the euro

The prospect of arch-Eurosceptic Michael Portillo being sent to investigate the collapse of the euro isn’t immediately promising: at first glance it’s a little like sending Bart Simpson to investigate behaviour in schools. But This World: Michael Portillo’s Great Euro Crisis, which screened last night, is a thoughtful and fascinating hour’s TV.

As the euro approaches breaking point, Portillo travels to Greece, where he visits the glitzy airports and train networks built with government debt, and the facilities for the €12bn 2004 Athens Olympics, which now lie derelict, their grand piazzas transformed into wastelands.

He also visits scenes of appalling suffering: Portillo says that a quarter of Athens’ shops have closed, the numbers of homeless are spiralling, and soup kitchens now feed thousands every day. A medical charity that usually focuses on aid to Africa has opted to attend to the needy closer to home after the Greek government introduced charges for hospital visits; its director tells the camera: ‘We are in the middle of a humanitarian crisis.’

He then visits Germany, where in contrast he meets the bankers and car manufacturers who have thrived thanks to the lower exchange rates offered by the euro, constructing large government and commercial loans and selling luxury cars, including to Greece.

In each country, he also meets ordinary people on the frontlines of the crisis: the Greek electrician who is trying to sell his Porsche Cayenne for half its original price to make ends meet, and the German Porsche factory worker, in former East Germany, who acknowledges that the euro has helped the country flourish.

But as the factory worker’s father points out, rebuilding East Germany was a similarly grand project, which demanded hard work and dedication – the implication being that the Greeks expected something for nothing. Another German is bitterly stung by Greek comparisons of the Germans to Nazis.

Perhaps inevitably, at times there’s more than a hint of ‘I told you so’ about Portillo’s delivery, and at times his Euroscepticism leads him to some bizarre leaps, such as the suggestion that Greece’s endemic tax evasion is somehow caused by the euro.

But Portillo acknowledges his own bias, and he does an excellent job of illustrating how the euro boosted German exports while enabling the Greeks to build up unsustainable levels of debt. He also highlights the emotional crisis: the resentment, fury and fear that are increasingly the undertow of the political debates.

One motif runs through the show, and it’s hard to tell whether it’s a cause for optimism or not. Again and again, Portillo asks whether people would choose the euro or a return to the drachma or deutschmark – and again and again, both Greeks and Germans opt for the euro.

As the common currency faces its toughest test yet, could this shared goal be enough to see it through?

Watch This World: Michael Portillo’s Great Euro Crisis here.

2 weeks ago  1 note View high resolution

For World Press Freedom Day on May 3 2012, a quick list of five reasons such a day is needed for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism :: Today the United Nations highlights the pressures and dangers facing journalists across the world with a conference in Tunis and a themed day, World Press Freedom Day. Tunis is a slightly strange choice of location for the conference – barely three weeks ago Reporters Without Borders issued an open letter highlighting a crackdown on protesters that saw 16 journalists assaulted, including two foreign reporters. Still, here are five reasons a day dedicated to press freedom is still sorely needed: Vietnam: Bloggers have been repeatedly harassed and detained after reporting on wildcat strikes and other topics the authorities would prefer to keep away from the public attention. In mid-April, Human Rights Watch called for the immediate release of Nguyen Van Hai, Phan Thanh Hai, and Ta Phong Tan, all members of the Club for Free Journalists, which HRW says was set up to ‘promote freedom of expression and independent journalism’. The three are currently facing criminal charges for conducting propaganda against the state. Russia: In the run-up to the elections earlier this year, Reporters Without Bordershighlighted a series of attempts to intimidate journalists, stemming from both the government and from other sources. Eight reporters were arrested covering the protests that followed Putin’s re-election and two were beaten, according to Reporters Without Borders. Thailand: Chiranuch Premchaiporn faces up to 20 years in jail under Thailand’s strict lese-majeste laws, which criminalise comments that are critical of the King. Chiranuch is not accused of making the comments herself: instead, she is an online editor at Thai news website Pracithai. A number of anonymous online commenters had posted negative messages about the Thai royalty; Chiranuch is being held liable. Earlier this week a court delayed its verdict on her case. Ethiopia: The government has employed anti-terror laws to crack down on journalists. Last summer, as the Bureau reported, reporter Martin Schibbye and photographer Johan Persson were arrested attempting to cross into the troubled Ogaden region, while Ethiopian journalists Eskinder Nega and Sileshi Hago were arrested for plotting terrorist attacks. Two further Ethiopian journalists were arrested after writing critical articles about the government. Last week, a prominent independent news website was blocked for at least five days, according to Reporters Without Borders. UK: Although super-injunctions have dropped out of the headlines, thanks in part to the ongoing phone-hacking scandal, they are a key tool for the rich and powerful to silence press scrutiny. Despite a number of high-profile backfires last year, super-injunctions remain in favour among some of the UK’s more ill-behaved high-flyers. This week Private Eye cheekily suggested that two individuals in the top 10 of the Sunday Times Rich List are currently enjoying this particularly British status symbol. Unfortunately, this list could have been 10, 25 or 50 examples long. Whether through incarceration, violence, intimidation, web blocking or lawyers’ letters, the threats to press freedom are plentiful, widespread and show no sign of subsiding.

For World Press Freedom Day on May 3 2012, a quick list of five reasons such a day is needed for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism

::

Today the United Nations highlights the pressures and dangers facing journalists across the world with a conference in Tunis and a themed day, World Press Freedom Day.

Tunis is a slightly strange choice of location for the conference – barely three weeks ago Reporters Without Borders issued an open letter highlighting a crackdown on protesters that saw 16 journalists assaulted, including two foreign reporters.

Still, here are five reasons a day dedicated to press freedom is still sorely needed:

  1. Vietnam: Bloggers have been repeatedly harassed and detained after reporting on wildcat strikes and other topics the authorities would prefer to keep away from the public attention. In mid-April, Human Rights Watch called for the immediate release of Nguyen Van Hai, Phan Thanh Hai, and Ta Phong Tan, all members of the Club for Free Journalists, which HRW says was set up to ‘promote freedom of expression and independent journalism’. The three are currently facing criminal charges for conducting propaganda against the state.
  2. Russia: In the run-up to the elections earlier this year, Reporters Without Bordershighlighted a series of attempts to intimidate journalists, stemming from both the government and from other sources. Eight reporters were arrested covering the protests that followed Putin’s re-election and two were beaten, according to Reporters Without Borders.
  3. Thailand: Chiranuch Premchaiporn faces up to 20 years in jail under Thailand’s strict lese-majeste laws, which criminalise comments that are critical of the King. Chiranuch is not accused of making the comments herself: instead, she is an online editor at Thai news website Pracithai. A number of anonymous online commenters had posted negative messages about the Thai royalty; Chiranuch is being held liable. Earlier this week a court delayed its verdict on her case.
  4. Ethiopia: The government has employed anti-terror laws to crack down on journalists. Last summer, as the Bureau reported, reporter Martin Schibbye and photographer Johan Persson were arrested attempting to cross into the troubled Ogaden region, while Ethiopian journalists Eskinder Nega and Sileshi Hago were arrested for plotting terrorist attacks. Two further Ethiopian journalists were arrested after writing critical articles about the government. Last week, a prominent independent news website was blocked for at least five days, according to Reporters Without Borders.
  5. UK: Although super-injunctions have dropped out of the headlines, thanks in part to the ongoing phone-hacking scandal, they are a key tool for the rich and powerful to silence press scrutiny. Despite a number of high-profile backfires last year, super-injunctions remain in favour among some of the UK’s more ill-behaved high-flyers. This week Private Eye cheekily suggested that two individuals in the top 10 of the Sunday Times Rich List are currently enjoying this particularly British status symbol.

Unfortunately, this list could have been 10, 25 or 50 examples long. Whether through incarceration, violence, intimidation, web blocking or lawyers’ letters, the threats to press freedom are plentiful, widespread and show no sign of subsiding.

3 weeks ago  1 note View high resolution

With ace Bureau reporter Emma Slater, I interviewed James Jones, director of an Unreported World documentary about Putin’s youth army, the Nashi.

The video and accompanying article were published on the Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s website.

3 weeks ago  1 note

Through Freedom of Information requests I revealed that police are granted access to people’s communication records far more often in some parts of the country than in others. The story was published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in April 2012, as the government was planning to expand its surveillance powers. :: Huge variation in police spying powers raises concerns Research by the Bureau raises questions over the supervision of police access to phone and email records, as the government prepares to expand the access police and other authorities have to communication data. Freedom of Information requests reveal worrying inconsistency in how often police forces are granted permission to access phone and email records under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). In some forces, applications were rejected well over a quarter of the time due to a ‘particularly robust’ screening process, while in other forces virtually all applications were approved.     It is impossible to say that due process is not being compromised by over-zealous police forces.’Nick Pickles, Big Brother Watch Of over 31,000 applications made by South Yorkshire Police in a four-year period between 2007 and 2010, just 48 were rejected – 0.15% of all applications. Merseyside Police rejected 228 of almost 48,000 applications. A spokesman for South Yorkshire Police said: ‘All forces are inspected by the Office of Surveillance Commissioner or the Interception of Communications Commissioners Office. Any issues of concern would be highlighted by them and addressed by the force concerned.’ By contrast, Kent Police rejected 6,832 of nearly 22,000 applications – over 30% of all applications it received. Although Wiltshire handled a fraction of the number of applications – 2,131 – it rejected more than a quarter of them. Assistant Chief Constable Gary Beatridge, head of the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate, told the Bureau: ‘The reason why there is a high number of declined applications in Kent, compared with some other forces, is because the accredited authorising officer is particularly robust when assessing the content of each application.’ He added that officers were given an explanation for the rejection and were allowed to revise and re-submit their application. Nick Pickles, campaign director of campaigning group Big Brother Watch, said: ‘At a time when the Home Office is trying to argue for even more information about our communications to be held, it is deeply concerning that the existing regime for regulating when that data is handed over is so dysfunctional. ‘Before any more data is collected, we need to review the current legal framework as it is impossible to say that due process is not being compromised by over-zealous police forces.’ Eric King, research director of Privacy International, said: ‘RIPA’s authorisation regime is amongst the weakest in the world and enables government access to information, with barely any real restrictions.’ Police and other public bodies lodge over half a million applications every year to access records showing basic information about calls, texts, emails and web searches. This doesn’t let authorities listen in on phonecalls or read emails or text messages – which requires sign-off from the home secretary – but it can reveal who an individual has been in contact with, and where they were at particular times. The Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, oversees access to communications data in the UK. He said in his last report that his inspectors had found, ‘communications data is being obtained lawfully and for a correct statutory purpose’ by police forces, adding: ‘Generally a good level of independence and objectivity exists’ in the application process. But privacy campaigners have called this independence into question. Last year, privacy group Liberty called for warrants to be authorised by outside bodies, and in some cases to be approved by magistrates. The new plans, which were widely reported early this week, are said to include police powers to access call, text and email records, social media accounts, and web histories, all in real time. After widespread outcry the government announced the plans would be put to public consultation rather than being announced in the Queen’s speech as initially reported. A Home Office spokesman said: ‘It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public. We need to take action to maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes.’

Through Freedom of Information requests I revealed that police are granted access to people’s communication records far more often in some parts of the country than in others. The story was published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in April 2012, as the government was planning to expand its surveillance powers.

::

Huge variation in police spying powers raises concerns

Research by the Bureau raises questions over the supervision of police access to phone and email records, as the government prepares to expand the access police and other authorities have to communication data.

Freedom of Information requests reveal worrying inconsistency in how often police forces are granted permission to access phone and email records under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).

In some forces, applications were rejected well over a quarter of the time due to a ‘particularly robust’ screening process, while in other forces virtually all applications were approved.   

 It is impossible to say that due process is not being compromised by over-zealous police forces.’
Nick Pickles, Big Brother Watch

Of over 31,000 applications made by South Yorkshire Police in a four-year period between 2007 and 2010, just 48 were rejected – 0.15% of all applications. Merseyside Police rejected 228 of almost 48,000 applications.

A spokesman for South Yorkshire Police said: ‘All forces are inspected by the Office of Surveillance Commissioner or the Interception of Communications Commissioners Office. Any issues of concern would be highlighted by them and addressed by the force concerned.’

By contrast, Kent Police rejected 6,832 of nearly 22,000 applications – over 30% of all applications it received. Although Wiltshire handled a fraction of the number of applications – 2,131 – it rejected more than a quarter of them.

Assistant Chief Constable Gary Beatridge, head of the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate, told the Bureau: ‘The reason why there is a high number of declined applications in Kent, compared with some other forces, is because the accredited authorising officer is particularly robust when assessing the content of each application.’

He added that officers were given an explanation for the rejection and were allowed to revise and re-submit their application.

Nick Pickles, campaign director of campaigning group Big Brother Watch, said: ‘At a time when the Home Office is trying to argue for even more information about our communications to be held, it is deeply concerning that the existing regime for regulating when that data is handed over is so dysfunctional.

‘Before any more data is collected, we need to review the current legal framework as it is impossible to say that due process is not being compromised by over-zealous police forces.’

Eric King, research director of Privacy International, said: ‘RIPA’s authorisation regime is amongst the weakest in the world and enables government access to information, with barely any real restrictions.’

Police and other public bodies lodge over half a million applications every year to access records showing basic information about calls, texts, emails and web searches. This doesn’t let authorities listen in on phonecalls or read emails or text messages – which requires sign-off from the home secretary – but it can reveal who an individual has been in contact with, and where they were at particular times.

The Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, oversees access to communications data in the UK. He said in his last report that his inspectors had found, ‘communications data is being obtained lawfully and for a correct statutory purpose’ by police forces, adding: ‘Generally a good level of independence and objectivity exists’ in the application process.

But privacy campaigners have called this independence into question. Last year, privacy group Liberty called for warrants to be authorised by outside bodies, and in some cases to be approved by magistrates.

The new plans, which were widely reported early this week, are said to include police powers to access call, text and email records, social media accounts, and web histories, all in real time. After widespread outcry the government announced the plans would be put to public consultation rather than being announced in the Queen’s speech as initially reported.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public. We need to take action to maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes.’

3 weeks ago  1 note View high resolution

In March 2012, as UK papers reported plans to expand the government’s surveillance powers, I reviewed a lengthy Wired investigation into the NSA’s enormous new data surveillance centre, for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It’s a creepy but fascinating project. :: America’s new data centre makes UK surveillance plans seem petty In the small town of Bluffdale in the Utah desert, the US government is halfway to completing a gargantuan complex designed to store and trawl through billions of phone calls, emails, and other global communications. As the UK government reveals its own plans to carry out mass surveillance, a lengthy piece in May’s Wired reveals the full extent of the US’s ambitions to capture and spy on almost everything that is said online or on the phone. The Utah Data Center is the new hub in the National Security Agency’s (NSA) network of surveillance centres: a sprawling $2bn (£1.25bn) complex that takes the US one step closer to ‘total information awareness’. The centre is so big it’s hard to get your head around the figures quoted in the article. Ten thousand builders are working on it. It will use an estimated $40m of electricity every year, according to one estimate. Much of this will be spent powering four 2,300 sq m halls filled with servers capable of storing a truly enormous amount of data – Wired mentions Pentagon ambitions to store yottabytes of data (septillion bytes of data). The centre will ‘intercept, decipher, analyse and store vast amounts of the world’s communications from satellites and underground and undersea cables of international, foreign and domestic networks,’ Wired reporter James Bamford says. Even the most apparently insignificant scraps of data will be captured and stored – in case they later become important: ‘private emails, mobile phone calls and Google searches, as well as personal data trails – travel itineraries, purchases and other digital “pocket litter”‘, Bamford adds. Click here to read the Bureau’s State of Surveillance investigation, in collaboration with WikiLeaks and Privacy International. But the Utah Data Center has another, more secret purpose: cracking cryptoanalysis to allow the US security agencies to read foreign diplomatic and military communications, as well as confidential financial or personal messages, scouring the ‘deep web’ of password-protected and otherwise encrypted information. The Bluffdale project is the next step in the rapid escalation of the NSA’s surveillance powers, and will cement its position as the ‘largest, most covert and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever created’, as Bamford points out. And as with the UK government’s plans to monitor email and other communications, announced this weekend, much of the Utah Data Center’s phenomenal surveillance capability is directed at US citizens. The US government has installed monitoring rooms in the facilities of US telecommunications companies, Wired reports, enabling it to monitor emails and phone calls with ease – the ‘warrantless wiretapping’ programme that caused outcry when it surfaced. Former NSA official William Binney explains to Wired how the NSA’s ‘warantless wiretapping’ domestic surveillance programme may have been larger than ever reported at the time: he helped design the systems, and explains that the US had a choice over where it placed the surveillance equipment. By installing it at the landing points where internet cables enter the country, the NSA could have limited interception to foreign communications only. That wasn’t what the US decided to do: instead, it built intercept stations within the US, allowing it to access the bulk of domestic traffic too. Binney says the programme could tap 1.5 billion calls a day. And that’s what the government is capable of before the Utah Data Center comes online: the massive codebreaking power and storage that the Bluffdale project adds will take the NSA’s surveillance capability to staggering new levels. As Bamford points out, although this level of surveillance is often justified as being essential for fighting counterterrorism, the NSA was unaware of both the ‘underpants bomber’ in 2009 and the Times Square bomber in 2010. In both those cases, incompetence on the would-be attackers’ parts, rather than the sophisticated surveillance network, prevented serious attacks. Bamford, who is also the author of a book on the NSA, lays out a shadowy, complex world in impressively clear and detailed terms. Even the complex, techy aspects of the project are digestible – although this sheer accessibility makes it hard to stave off the feeling of powerlessness and paranoia that shadowy forces could, if they chose, learn so much about your life. He uses the Utah Data Center as a route into explaining the vast intelligence infrastructure that allows the NSA to monitor everything from walkie-talkie messages in foreign countries to private government communications of both allied and enemy nations. Bamford also outlines the supercomputers being built by the NSA to boost its codebreaking powers. It certainly doesn’t make for soothing reading – but it’s the kind of investigation Wired can do better than anybody else, and it’s a useful reminder that even before the UK government rolls out its latest surveillance programme, we are all being watched already. Click here to read the Wired article.

In March 2012, as UK papers reported plans to expand the government’s surveillance powers, I reviewed a lengthy Wired investigation into the NSA’s enormous new data surveillance centre, for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It’s a creepy but fascinating project.

::

America’s new data centre makes UK surveillance plans seem petty

In the small town of Bluffdale in the Utah desert, the US government is halfway to completing a gargantuan complex designed to store and trawl through billions of phone calls, emails, and other global communications. As the UK government reveals its own plans to carry out mass surveillance, a lengthy piece in May’s Wired reveals the full extent of the US’s ambitions to capture and spy on almost everything that is said online or on the phone.

The Utah Data Center is the new hub in the National Security Agency’s (NSA) network of surveillance centres: a sprawling $2bn (£1.25bn) complex that takes the US one step closer to ‘total information awareness’.

The centre is so big it’s hard to get your head around the figures quoted in the article. Ten thousand builders are working on it. It will use an estimated $40m of electricity every year, according to one estimate. Much of this will be spent powering four 2,300 sq m halls filled with servers capable of storing a truly enormous amount of data – Wired mentions Pentagon ambitions to store yottabytes of data (septillion bytes of data).

The centre will ‘intercept, decipher, analyse and store vast amounts of the world’s communications from satellites and underground and undersea cables of international, foreign and domestic networks,’ Wired reporter James Bamford says. Even the most apparently insignificant scraps of data will be captured and stored – in case they later become important: ‘private emails, mobile phone calls and Google searches, as well as personal data trails – travel itineraries, purchases and other digital “pocket litter”‘, Bamford adds.

Click here to read the Bureau’s State of Surveillance investigation, in collaboration with WikiLeaks and Privacy International.

But the Utah Data Center has another, more secret purpose: cracking cryptoanalysis to allow the US security agencies to read foreign diplomatic and military communications, as well as confidential financial or personal messages, scouring the ‘deep web’ of password-protected and otherwise encrypted information.

The Bluffdale project is the next step in the rapid escalation of the NSA’s surveillance powers, and will cement its position as the ‘largest, most covert and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever created’, as Bamford points out.

And as with the UK government’s plans to monitor email and other communications, announced this weekend, much of the Utah Data Center’s phenomenal surveillance capability is directed at US citizens. The US government has installed monitoring rooms in the facilities of US telecommunications companies, Wired reports, enabling it to monitor emails and phone calls with ease – the ‘warrantless wiretapping’ programme that caused outcry when it surfaced.

Former NSA official William Binney explains to Wired how the NSA’s ‘warantless wiretapping’ domestic surveillance programme may have been larger than ever reported at the time: he helped design the systems, and explains that the US had a choice over where it placed the surveillance equipment.

By installing it at the landing points where internet cables enter the country, the NSA could have limited interception to foreign communications only. That wasn’t what the US decided to do: instead, it built intercept stations within the US, allowing it to access the bulk of domestic traffic too. Binney says the programme could tap 1.5 billion calls a day.

And that’s what the government is capable of before the Utah Data Center comes online: the massive codebreaking power and storage that the Bluffdale project adds will take the NSA’s surveillance capability to staggering new levels.

As Bamford points out, although this level of surveillance is often justified as being essential for fighting counterterrorism, the NSA was unaware of both the ‘underpants bomber’ in 2009 and the Times Square bomber in 2010. In both those cases, incompetence on the would-be attackers’ parts, rather than the sophisticated surveillance network, prevented serious attacks.

Bamford, who is also the author of a book on the NSA, lays out a shadowy, complex world in impressively clear and detailed terms. Even the complex, techy aspects of the project are digestible – although this sheer accessibility makes it hard to stave off the feeling of powerlessness and paranoia that shadowy forces could, if they chose, learn so much about your life.

He uses the Utah Data Center as a route into explaining the vast intelligence infrastructure that allows the NSA to monitor everything from walkie-talkie messages in foreign countries to private government communications of both allied and enemy nations. Bamford also outlines the supercomputers being built by the NSA to boost its codebreaking powers.

It certainly doesn’t make for soothing reading – but it’s the kind of investigation Wired can do better than anybody else, and it’s a useful reminder that even before the UK government rolls out its latest surveillance programme, we are all being watched already.

Click here to read the Wired article.

3 weeks ago  View high resolution

After the Sunday Times secretly recorded the Conservative Party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas claiming £250,000 would buy exclusive access to the prime minister, I wrote this piece for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on what the investigation revealed and confirmed about top-flight lobbying. :: Cruddas’ Tobin tax boast speaks volumes about ‘premier league’ lobbying The Sunday Times’s undercover investigation into the ‘premier league’ of Conservative super-donors contains many explosive claims. Among the most telling is Peter Cruddas’ boast that he directly lobbied the prime minister against a Tobin tax ahead of a meeting with the German chancellor. Cruddas, who resigned from his role as Conservative co-treasurer within hours of the investigation being published, is founder of spread betting firm CMC Markets, which would have been directly hit by the proposed tax of between 0.01% and 0.1% on financial transactions. He is also a major Tory donor, having given £1.2m in party donations and support for the No2AV campaign; his wife and company have also donated thousands to the party coffers. The City tycoon told the Sunday Times’s undercover reporters he had attended a party at Woburn Abbey and gained personal assurances from David Cameron on the tax. ‘I knew he was seeing [Angela] Merkel the next day, so when I’m having my photograph done I said, prime minister, for God’s sake, don’t let them bring in the Tobin tax where they tax financial transactions. He said, “Don’t even worry about it, don’t even think about it, it ain’t going to happen, not on my watch”. Thank you prime minister … Bosh. Off we go,’ Cruddas said. Cameron has consistently opposed calls by European leaders to back the Tobin tax. The Conservative Party openly sells face-to-face access to David Cameron and other senior figures through its Leaders Group, which offers those who donate over £50,000 opportunities to join the prime minister and Cabinet members at ‘dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches’. Last year a major Bureau investigation into Tory party funding revealed that 101 individuals were eligible to attend such events – although as they are considered private, there was no way of knowing who had taken up the invitations, or what was discussed. Still, the Bureau found a strong correlation between the interests of the City – the party’s biggest donors – and government policy. And a former government minister told the Bureau most large donations were motivated by a desire to influence policy: ‘Most of them [donors] do not have a political bone in their body. They are completely apolitical. All they care about is their agenda.’ In opposition, David Cameron famously vowed to change ‘a system in which too much power is concentrated in the hands of the elite and denied to the man and woman on the street… I believe it’s time we shone the light of transparency on lobbying in our country and forced our politics to come clean about who is buying power and influence.’ The party has denied that big donations equate to high-level influence - but as the Sunday Times investigation confirms, behind closed doors the story remains very different. Spread betting’s support for the Tory party The spread betting industry has long been generous to the Conservatives. In 2001, Stuart Wheeler, founder of pioneering spread betting company IG Index, gave £5m to the Conservatives in what remains the UK’s largest-ever single political donation. Electoral Commission records show Cruddas, founder of spread betting company CMC Markets, has contributed over £800,000 directly to the party coffers, while his wife Fiona has donated a further £8,000 and an auction prize worth £2,653. In June 2011, as Cruddas was made co-treasurer of the Conservative Party, CMC Markets made a £100,000 donation. The party treasurer before Cruddas was Michael Spencer, chair of IPGL Ltd. This holding company owns City Index, another spread betting company, as well as the city’s most powerful inter-dealer broker. Spencer has contributed over £168,000 in cash, and a further £120,000 in travel expenses, auction prizes and sponsorships. IPGL Ltd itself is a generous supporter of the party: it has donated over £3.1m in cash since 2005, as well as over £290,000 in staff costs, £112,151 in sponsorships, £70,330 in travel costs and £3,584 in auction prizes, taking its total contribution to the Conservative Party to over £3.6m. Guido Fawkes has flagged up an interview with derivatives magazine Risk, in which Spencer claimed he too had received assurances on the Tobin tax from ‘very, very senior members of our administration’.

After the Sunday Times secretly recorded the Conservative Party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas claiming £250,000 would buy exclusive access to the prime minister, I wrote this piece for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on what the investigation revealed and confirmed about top-flight lobbying.

::

Cruddas’ Tobin tax boast speaks volumes about ‘premier league’ lobbying

The Sunday Times’s undercover investigation into the ‘premier league’ of Conservative super-donors contains many explosive claims. Among the most telling is Peter Cruddas’ boast that he directly lobbied the prime minister against a Tobin tax ahead of a meeting with the German chancellor.

Cruddas, who resigned from his role as Conservative co-treasurer within hours of the investigation being published, is founder of spread betting firm CMC Markets, which would have been directly hit by the proposed tax of between 0.01% and 0.1% on financial transactions.

He is also a major Tory donor, having given £1.2m in party donations and support for the No2AV campaign; his wife and company have also donated thousands to the party coffers.

The City tycoon told the Sunday Times’s undercover reporters he had attended a party at Woburn Abbey and gained personal assurances from David Cameron on the tax.

‘I knew he was seeing [Angela] Merkel the next day, so when I’m having my photograph done I said, prime minister, for God’s sake, don’t let them bring in the Tobin tax where they tax financial transactions. He said, “Don’t even worry about it, don’t even think about it, it ain’t going to happen, not on my watch”. Thank you prime minister … Bosh. Off we go,’ Cruddas said.

Cameron has consistently opposed calls by European leaders to back the Tobin tax.

The Conservative Party openly sells face-to-face access to David Cameron and other senior figures through its Leaders Group, which offers those who donate over £50,000 opportunities to join the prime minister and Cabinet members at ‘dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches’.

Last year a major Bureau investigation into Tory party funding revealed that 101 individuals were eligible to attend such events – although as they are considered private, there was no way of knowing who had taken up the invitations, or what was discussed.

Still, the Bureau found a strong correlation between the interests of the City – the party’s biggest donors – and government policy.

And a former government minister told the Bureau most large donations were motivated by a desire to influence policy: ‘Most of them [donors] do not have a political bone in their body. They are completely apolitical. All they care about is their agenda.’

In opposition, David Cameron famously vowed to change ‘a system in which too much power is concentrated in the hands of the elite and denied to the man and woman on the street… I believe it’s time we shone the light of transparency on lobbying in our country and forced our politics to come clean about who is buying power and influence.’

The party has denied that big donations equate to high-level influence - but as the Sunday Times investigation confirms, behind closed doors the story remains very different.


Spread betting’s support for the Tory party
The spread betting industry has long been generous to the Conservatives. In 2001, Stuart Wheeler, founder of pioneering spread betting company IG Index, gave £5m to the Conservatives in what remains the UK’s largest-ever single political donation.

Electoral Commission records show Cruddas, founder of spread betting company CMC Markets, has contributed over £800,000 directly to the party coffers, while his wife Fiona has donated a further £8,000 and an auction prize worth £2,653.

In June 2011, as Cruddas was made co-treasurer of the Conservative Party, CMC Markets made a £100,000 donation.

The party treasurer before Cruddas was Michael Spencer, chair of IPGL Ltd. This holding company owns City Index, another spread betting company, as well as the city’s most powerful inter-dealer broker. Spencer has contributed over £168,000 in cash, and a further £120,000 in travel expenses, auction prizes and sponsorships.

IPGL Ltd itself is a generous supporter of the party: it has donated over £3.1m in cash since 2005, as well as over £290,000 in staff costs, £112,151 in sponsorships, £70,330 in travel costs and £3,584 in auction prizes, taking its total contribution to the Conservative Party to over £3.6m.

Guido Fawkes has flagged up an interview with derivatives magazine Risk, in which Spencer claimed he too had received assurances on the Tobin tax from ‘very, very senior members of our administration’.

3 weeks ago  View high resolution

Review of the book Blood on the Altar by Tobias Jones, for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, in March 2012. Read the original review here. :: Italian corruption and church complicity left a murderer free to kill again One Sunday morning in 1993, Elisa Claps vanished in her home town of Potenza. She was 16 years old. Despite suspicion immediately falling on local oddball Danilo Restivo, his family connections and an apparent cover-up by Catholic priests ensured it would be another 17 years before her body was found. In that time, Restivo killed again: his victim was Heather Barnett, a British mother of two. British journalist Tobias Jones, who was living in Italy in the years following Elisa Claps’ disappearance, became fascinated with the case. His new book, Blood on the Altar, charts how the Claps family battled for almost two decades to bring any kind of closure to the case. From the start, the investigation was hopelessly bungled and probably corrupt. Danilo Restivo, an awkward teenager with a habit of cutting chunks out of girls’ hair, had been due to meet Elisa that morning. He arrived home late, with a cut in his hand and an improbable explanation. But his father, a well-connected local figure, helped block the investigation, preventing investigators from taking away his clothes and enlisting his high-up friends to slow the investigation. At best, this investigation was incompetent. But Jones unpicks Potenza’s small-town society, showing that a web of favours, social standing and outright corruption may be more to blame for the Claps family’s long fight for justice. A string of rumours, lies and false leads distracted investigators – and it never became clear whether these were pranksters or deliberate attempts to sow confusion. Years later, it emerged that Restivo’s father even had the personal phone number of the magistrate who was directing the investigation. And it appears the church was complicit in hiding Elisa’s body: Don Mimi, the local priest who allegedly had secrets of his own, left town the day of Elisa’s disappearance and refused to allow police to search the church, La Trinita, where Elisa had been due to meet Restivo. In 2010, Elisa’s mummified body was discovered in the attic of La Trinita, metres from where she had disappeared. Most confusingly of all, it appears that some connected to the church had known the body was there but had chosen not to reveal it. Nine years after Elisa disappeared, Heather Barnett, a British mother of two, was killed and mutilated in a brutal attack at her home in Bournemouth, Dorset. A lock of hair was found in each of her hands. Danilo Restivo, a near neighbour, comforted her children after they returned from school and found her body. Yet despite the police knowing of the suspicion that had surrounded Restivo in Italy and placing him under intense surveillance, Restivo wasn’t charged with a crime until 2010, just after Elisa’s body was discovered. Shortly before Elisa was buried, Restivo was found guilty of Heather’s murder; he was later convicted of Elisa’s too. It’s a compelling story, and Jones paints a damning portrait of certain aspects of Italian society: the close relationships between a town’s upper echelons, corruption in the church, and an obsession with scandalous explanations, no matter how far-fetched, that distract from the answer that’s right under the authorities’ noses. It can be a little slow – in Italy, Jones embarks on lengthy digressions exploring the region’s landscape and history that are better suited to a travelogue than a grisly double murder story. While charting the UK end of the investigation, his fascination with forensic gadgets leads to some similarly meandering passages. At other points, Jones’s closeness to the story and to the Claps family intrudes onto his writing: when Restivo appears on trial in England, Jones is unable to contain his contempt for the man in the dock. It’s also hard not to feel sorry for Heather Barnett: although two women were killed by Restivo (and there is the suggestion that a second Bournemouth murder may bear some of his hallmarks), she is a minor presence, and there is little explanation as to why the investigation into her death took eight years to bring Restivo to trial. In the end, Blood on the Altar is about Italy, Italian justice, and the structures that prevent it from working. It’s also about Italian family solidarity – for better or worse – and the steadfast determination of Elisa’s mother and brother to bring her home.

Review of the book Blood on the Altar by Tobias Jones, for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, in March 2012.

Read the original review here.

::

Italian corruption and church complicity left a murderer free to kill again

One Sunday morning in 1993, Elisa Claps vanished in her home town of Potenza. She was 16 years old. Despite suspicion immediately falling on local oddball Danilo Restivo, his family connections and an apparent cover-up by Catholic priests ensured it would be another 17 years before her body was found. In that time, Restivo killed again: his victim was Heather Barnett, a British mother of two.

British journalist Tobias Jones, who was living in Italy in the years following Elisa Claps’ disappearance, became fascinated with the case. His new book, Blood on the Altar, charts how the Claps family battled for almost two decades to bring any kind of closure to the case.

From the start, the investigation was hopelessly bungled and probably corrupt. Danilo Restivo, an awkward teenager with a habit of cutting chunks out of girls’ hair, had been due to meet Elisa that morning. He arrived home late, with a cut in his hand and an improbable explanation. But his father, a well-connected local figure, helped block the investigation, preventing investigators from taking away his clothes and enlisting his high-up friends to slow the investigation.

At best, this investigation was incompetent. But Jones unpicks Potenza’s small-town society, showing that a web of favours, social standing and outright corruption may be more to blame for the Claps family’s long fight for justice. A string of rumours, lies and false leads distracted investigators – and it never became clear whether these were pranksters or deliberate attempts to sow confusion.

Years later, it emerged that Restivo’s father even had the personal phone number of the magistrate who was directing the investigation.

And it appears the church was complicit in hiding Elisa’s body: Don Mimi, the local priest who allegedly had secrets of his own, left town the day of Elisa’s disappearance and refused to allow police to search the church, La Trinita, where Elisa had been due to meet Restivo.

In 2010, Elisa’s mummified body was discovered in the attic of La Trinita, metres from where she had disappeared. Most confusingly of all, it appears that some connected to the church had known the body was there but had chosen not to reveal it.

Nine years after Elisa disappeared, Heather Barnett, a British mother of two, was killed and mutilated in a brutal attack at her home in Bournemouth, Dorset. A lock of hair was found in each of her hands. Danilo Restivo, a near neighbour, comforted her children after they returned from school and found her body.

Yet despite the police knowing of the suspicion that had surrounded Restivo in Italy and placing him under intense surveillance, Restivo wasn’t charged with a crime until 2010, just after Elisa’s body was discovered. Shortly before Elisa was buried, Restivo was found guilty of Heather’s murder; he was later convicted of Elisa’s too.

It’s a compelling story, and Jones paints a damning portrait of certain aspects of Italian society: the close relationships between a town’s upper echelons, corruption in the church, and an obsession with scandalous explanations, no matter how far-fetched, that distract from the answer that’s right under the authorities’ noses.

It can be a little slow – in Italy, Jones embarks on lengthy digressions exploring the region’s landscape and history that are better suited to a travelogue than a grisly double murder story. While charting the UK end of the investigation, his fascination with forensic gadgets leads to some similarly meandering passages.

At other points, Jones’s closeness to the story and to the Claps family intrudes onto his writing: when Restivo appears on trial in England, Jones is unable to contain his contempt for the man in the dock.

It’s also hard not to feel sorry for Heather Barnett: although two women were killed by Restivo (and there is the suggestion that a second Bournemouth murder may bear some of his hallmarks), she is a minor presence, and there is little explanation as to why the investigation into her death took eight years to bring Restivo to trial.

In the end, Blood on the Altar is about Italy, Italian justice, and the structures that prevent it from working. It’s also about Italian family solidarity – for better or worse – and the steadfast determination of Elisa’s mother and brother to bring her home.

3 weeks ago  View high resolution

In February 2012 the House of Lords published a report into the future of investigative journalism. I wrote this slightly pompous analysis piece for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on the report’s findings. :: While big names and juicy details have poured out of the Leveson Inquiry, the House of Lords have quietly got on with a media project of their own. The Committee on Communications conducted a series of hearings into the future of investigative journalism – and the report, published today, contains some intriguing suggestions. As part of a comprehensive analysis of the current state of investigative journalism, The Future of Investigative Journalism praises the Bureau as an innovative and ‘non-traditional’ model for providing such reporting, comparing it to US investigative non-profits like ProPublica. The report acknowledges that ‘serious investigative reporting’ is an essential element of a healthy democracy, and that it is currently beset by ‘economic, legal and regulatory challenges’. Of all these, the economic challenges are the most pressing. It’s a measure of just how serious they are that the Lords recommend the rules surrounding charitable purposes should be rewritten to include investigative journalism. Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has refused to legislate around this, but the report calls on him to reverse this decision. The report highlights the hurdles that have so far prevented the Bureau from achieving charitable status. Dr David Levy of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism explained that investigative reporting could be seen as ‘partisan or as running some kind of line and it might be more difficult to say that it complied with existing UK charity law’ – although it’s also hard to see how many mainstream charity campaigns are not partisan. Meanwhile, the Charity Law Association pointed out that investigative reporting does not always offer ‘a reasonable expectation of a beneficial outcome’ – one of the requirements of charitable law – but added that the laws should be changed to explicitly include investigative journalism. This isn’t the report’s only suggestion for new funding models: it also proposes a fund for investigative journalism and for training, made up of fines levied for breaches of the print and broadcast codes of practice by a beefed-up Press Complaints Commission and by Ofcom. At the moment, the report points out, fines levied by Ofcom go straight to the Treasury. The vision of, say, a non-profit news agency funding a major investigative project, using money that was paid by a red-top because of a poorly judged sex scandal, has a certain piquancy. But, as the report admits, choosing which projects would receive the funding and ensuring money was being spent correctly would be a fraught process. In the public interest The committee takes a commendably nuanced view of when it’s acceptable for investigative journalists to break the law, highlighting the projects when deception – whether for undercover reporting, paying for the CD of MPs’ expenses data, or breaching privacy to find out key details – could be argued to be in the public interest. Paul Lewis of the Guardian points to the Panorama care homes story as a key instance of a story that could not have been obtained in a purely ‘above-board’ way. The Lords suggest that the definition of what is in the public interest should remain fluid, but editors and reporters should adopt rigid processes for recording the processes by which they decided breaking the law was in the public interest. Clearly, some organisations already have just such a system in place. Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian outlines his ‘five-bar’ process, step four of which is ‘a kind of audit trail’, while Al Anstey of Al Jazeera outlines ‘three levels of check and balance’. The Lords decide two steps is probably enough, but they recommend that this becomes a key part of decision-making within organisations. The emphasis is on due process and considered lawbreaking where absolutely necessary. Meanwhile, the government should consider inserting a public interest defence into any new laws, while prosecuting authorities should ‘publish their broad approach’ as to when they would consider transgressions to be in the public interest. But civil law can be just as effective for silencing investigative journalism, and the report glances over this, assuming the forthcoming Defamation Bill will tackle this effectively. One of the most unexpected twists is the report’s treatment of the growth of PR: it calls for a stringent code of conduct for an industry that’s currently unregulated, and is particularly damning of political spin. The report calls on the Coalition to ensure ‘that their press releases are universally transparent and straightforward’. It also picks up on the flaws in the government’s datastore – a common gripe among data reporters. Given that the committee met in the fallout of the phone-hacking scandal – which the report calls ‘perhaps the greatest political media scandal of a generation’ – the Lords report is a welcome blast of Establishment support for investigative journalism. It celebrates the medium’s recent successes and underlines, again and again, how important it is as a mechanism for identifying wrongdoing and holding power to account. It is hard to imagine the end result of the Leveson Inquiry: by now, it has become a sprawling beast devouring all aspects of media culture. By contrast, the Future of Investigative Journalism is a focused and reasonably thorough analysis of one form of journalism, containing some pragmatic advice.

In February 2012 the House of Lords published a report into the future of investigative journalism. I wrote this slightly pompous analysis piece for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on the report’s findings.

::

While big names and juicy details have poured out of the Leveson Inquiry, the House of Lords have quietly got on with a media project of their own. The Committee on Communications conducted a series of hearings into the future of investigative journalism – and the report, published today, contains some intriguing suggestions.

As part of a comprehensive analysis of the current state of investigative journalism, The Future of Investigative Journalism praises the Bureau as an innovative and ‘non-traditional’ model for providing such reporting, comparing it to US investigative non-profits like ProPublica.

The report acknowledges that ‘serious investigative reporting’ is an essential element of a healthy democracy, and that it is currently beset by ‘economic, legal and regulatory challenges’.

Of all these, the economic challenges are the most pressing. It’s a measure of just how serious they are that the Lords recommend the rules surrounding charitable purposes should be rewritten to include investigative journalism. Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has refused to legislate around this, but the report calls on him to reverse this decision.

The report highlights the hurdles that have so far prevented the Bureau from achieving charitable status.

Dr David Levy of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism explained that investigative reporting could be seen as ‘partisan or as running some kind of line and it might be more difficult to say that it complied with existing UK charity law’ – although it’s also hard to see how many mainstream charity campaigns are not partisan.

Meanwhile, the Charity Law Association pointed out that investigative reporting does not always offer ‘a reasonable expectation of a beneficial outcome’ – one of the requirements of charitable law – but added that the laws should be changed to explicitly include investigative journalism.

This isn’t the report’s only suggestion for new funding models: it also proposes a fund for investigative journalism and for training, made up of fines levied for breaches of the print and broadcast codes of practice by a beefed-up Press Complaints Commission and by Ofcom. At the moment, the report points out, fines levied by Ofcom go straight to the Treasury.

The vision of, say, a non-profit news agency funding a major investigative project, using money that was paid by a red-top because of a poorly judged sex scandal, has a certain piquancy. But, as the report admits, choosing which projects would receive the funding and ensuring money was being spent correctly would be a fraught process.

In the public interest
The committee takes a commendably nuanced view of when it’s acceptable for investigative journalists to break the law, highlighting the projects when deception – whether for undercover reporting, paying for the CD of MPs’ expenses data, or breaching privacy to find out key details – could be argued to be in the public interest. Paul Lewis of the Guardian points to the Panorama care homes story as a key instance of a story that could not have been obtained in a purely ‘above-board’ way.

The Lords suggest that the definition of what is in the public interest should remain fluid, but editors and reporters should adopt rigid processes for recording the processes by which they decided breaking the law was in the public interest.

Clearly, some organisations already have just such a system in place. Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian outlines his ‘five-bar’ process, step four of which is ‘a kind of audit trail’, while Al Anstey of Al Jazeera outlines ‘three levels of check and balance’. The Lords decide two steps is probably enough, but they recommend that this becomes a key part of decision-making within organisations.

The emphasis is on due process and considered lawbreaking where absolutely necessary. Meanwhile, the government should consider inserting a public interest defence into any new laws, while prosecuting authorities should ‘publish their broad approach’ as to when they would consider transgressions to be in the public interest.

But civil law can be just as effective for silencing investigative journalism, and the report glances over this, assuming the forthcoming Defamation Bill will tackle this effectively.

One of the most unexpected twists is the report’s treatment of the growth of PR: it calls for a stringent code of conduct for an industry that’s currently unregulated, and is particularly damning of political spin. The report calls on the Coalition to ensure ‘that their press releases are universally transparent and straightforward’.

It also picks up on the flaws in the government’s datastore – a common gripe among data reporters.

Given that the committee met in the fallout of the phone-hacking scandal – which the report calls ‘perhaps the greatest political media scandal of a generation’ – the Lords report is a welcome blast of Establishment support for investigative journalism. It celebrates the medium’s recent successes and underlines, again and again, how important it is as a mechanism for identifying wrongdoing and holding power to account.

It is hard to imagine the end result of the Leveson Inquiry: by now, it has become a sprawling beast devouring all aspects of media culture. By contrast, the Future of Investigative Journalism is a focused and reasonably thorough analysis of one form of journalism, containing some pragmatic advice.

3 weeks ago  View high resolution

Online bullying hit the headlines on both sides of the Atlantic in February 2012, and I wrote this review piece for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It compares a Panorama investigation into cyber-bullying with a thoughtful New Yorker piece tracing a challenging and ambiguous case where a teen is accused of hounding his college roommate to death by outing him online. :: Two views of online bullying Online bullying may seem lightweight as a topic for investigative journalism, but last night’s Panorama on the subject was eye-opening, exposing a world that’s largely hidden to those who remember a time before Facebook. Sometimes it feels as if no documentary is complete without a minor celebrity appearance to boost the ratings, and Panorama was no different: reporter Declan Lawn opens the programme meeting Cher Lloyd, the 18-year-old X Factor starlet who has been the target of huge vitriol online. But if Lloyd’s presence encouraged even a handful of teenagers to tune in, this is arguably a more justifiable celebrity appearance than most. Lawn interviews the father of Natasha MacBryde, the teenager who threw herself under a train after a vicious online bullying campaign. It quickly becomes apparent that in an online age, when the social tide turns against you it can be devastating. Even the bare bones of online bullying can be shocking to those who have never experienced it: simple Facebook ‘Likes’ can be turned into weapons, acting as a chorus of your classmates’ agreement with a nasty comment, while bullies can set up ‘hate pages’ dedicated to a single person. Tools like Little Gossip and Formspring, which allow users to comment anonymously, only heighten the nastiness. While it’s easy to dismiss online bullying as playground scraps that have gone viral, Panorama shows there has been a step change in how teenagers interact. The programme tackles trolling – where anonymous commenters set out to cause maximum distress, often to someone they’ve never met. Following Natasha’s death, Sean Duffy was sentenced to 18 weeks in prison for trolling a Facebook tribute page set up for her. Lawn tracks down another prolific troll through ‘someone familiar with the trolling community’, confronting him on camera over racist online comments. But Panorama never quite hits home: the online landscape is so nebulous that it’s tricky to pin down which body or organisation should be held to account. While lots of the behaviour that is shown is awful, it remains just that – people being awful to each other – and it’s not certain it would be desirable to legislate around that. It’s notable that all victims of internet bullying featured in the programme are young women – but this is never remarked on. It is also frustratingly one-sided: when Natasha MacBryde’s father calls for an end to anonymity online, this is accepted without question. We are told that Sean Duffy has Asperger’s, but this is glanced over. There is little attempt to explore why people troll, and the programme raises the spectre of a global network of trolls, which is arguably a sensationalised way of presenting a collection of people who share a penchant for malice. There’s a far more nuanced and challenging view of online bullying in the New Yorker’s The Story of a Suicide, a forensic examination of the relationship between college roommates Tyler Clementi and Dharun Ravi. Ravi is currently awaiting trial for effectively driving Clementi to his suicide, after remotely turning on a webcam to spy on Clementi and a male sexual partner, then gossiping about the fact on Twitter and arranging to do it a second time. As Ravi is accused of harassing Clementi over his sexuality he is accused of a hate crime, meaning he could face up to 10 years in jail. The New Yorker’s Ian Parker traces Ravi and Clementi’s instant messenger logs, tweets, text messages and social networking entries (in a manner that would never be possible under UK contempt of court laws), building up a picture of teenage bravado and anxiety that is far more complex than the conventional narrative of Ravi outing Clementi and thereby leading to his death. Parker raises tough questions over when youthful callousness and thoughtlessness becomes harassment, and unpicks the way that social networking puts bitchy conversations that were once private into the public domain. It also questions the media’s readiness to uncritically attribute teenage suicides to online bullying, and nothing else.

Online bullying hit the headlines on both sides of the Atlantic in February 2012, and I wrote this review piece for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It compares a Panorama investigation into cyber-bullying with a thoughtful New Yorker piece tracing a challenging and ambiguous case where a teen is accused of hounding his college roommate to death by outing him online.

::

Two views of online bullying

Online bullying may seem lightweight as a topic for investigative journalism, but last night’s Panorama on the subject was eye-opening, exposing a world that’s largely hidden to those who remember a time before Facebook.

Sometimes it feels as if no documentary is complete without a minor celebrity appearance to boost the ratings, and Panorama was no different: reporter Declan Lawn opens the programme meeting Cher Lloyd, the 18-year-old X Factor starlet who has been the target of huge vitriol online. But if Lloyd’s presence encouraged even a handful of teenagers to tune in, this is arguably a more justifiable celebrity appearance than most.

Lawn interviews the father of Natasha MacBryde, the teenager who threw herself under a train after a vicious online bullying campaign. It quickly becomes apparent that in an online age, when the social tide turns against you it can be devastating.

Even the bare bones of online bullying can be shocking to those who have never experienced it: simple Facebook ‘Likes’ can be turned into weapons, acting as a chorus of your classmates’ agreement with a nasty comment, while bullies can set up ‘hate pages’ dedicated to a single person. Tools like Little Gossip and Formspring, which allow users to comment anonymously, only heighten the nastiness.

While it’s easy to dismiss online bullying as playground scraps that have gone viral, Panorama shows there has been a step change in how teenagers interact.

The programme tackles trolling – where anonymous commenters set out to cause maximum distress, often to someone they’ve never met. Following Natasha’s death, Sean Duffy was sentenced to 18 weeks in prison for trolling a Facebook tribute page set up for her. Lawn tracks down another prolific troll through ‘someone familiar with the trolling community’, confronting him on camera over racist online comments.

But Panorama never quite hits home: the online landscape is so nebulous that it’s tricky to pin down which body or organisation should be held to account. While lots of the behaviour that is shown is awful, it remains just that – people being awful to each other – and it’s not certain it would be desirable to legislate around that.

It’s notable that all victims of internet bullying featured in the programme are young women – but this is never remarked on.

It is also frustratingly one-sided: when Natasha MacBryde’s father calls for an end to anonymity online, this is accepted without question. We are told that Sean Duffy has Asperger’s, but this is glanced over. There is little attempt to explore why people troll, and the programme raises the spectre of a global network of trolls, which is arguably a sensationalised way of presenting a collection of people who share a penchant for malice.

There’s a far more nuanced and challenging view of online bullying in the New Yorker’s The Story of a Suicide, a forensic examination of the relationship between college roommates Tyler Clementi and Dharun Ravi. Ravi is currently awaiting trial for effectively driving Clementi to his suicide, after remotely turning on a webcam to spy on Clementi and a male sexual partner, then gossiping about the fact on Twitter and arranging to do it a second time.

As Ravi is accused of harassing Clementi over his sexuality he is accused of a hate crime, meaning he could face up to 10 years in jail.

The New Yorker’s Ian Parker traces Ravi and Clementi’s instant messenger logs, tweets, text messages and social networking entries (in a manner that would never be possible under UK contempt of court laws), building up a picture of teenage bravado and anxiety that is far more complex than the conventional narrative of Ravi outing Clementi and thereby leading to his death.

Parker raises tough questions over when youthful callousness and thoughtlessness becomes harassment, and unpicks the way that social networking puts bitchy conversations that were once private into the public domain. It also questions the media’s readiness to uncritically attribute teenage suicides to online bullying, and nothing else.

3 weeks ago  View high resolution

As cuts to the NHS started to bite, I analysed spending figures to show that almost half a billion pounds was being spent on management consultants - despite Department of Health figures that appeared to show the spend was less than half that. The article was published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism here. :: DoH lack of transparency hides £470m spent on management consultants Two years after committing to greater transparency in reporting the use of management consultants, the Department of Health has yet to centrally report how much consultants have truly cost the NHS.  This failure masks the fact that the NHS spent almost half a billion pounds last year on consultancy services. The Department of Health’s central accounts show £197m was spent on consultancy services in 2010/11. But these figures do not take into account spending by NHS trusts – a broad category that includes acute, mental health and ambulance trusts – or foundation trusts. Taking these into account, the Bureau has found that management consultants have cost this section of the NHS a further £274m. This takes the consultancy bill for public health services to £471m – more than twice the amount that the Department of Health states was spent on consultancy work. In 2009, the health select committee called on the Department of Health to collate information on consultancy contracts including costs, duration and the highest day rates. It recommended that the figures should include spending not only for the Department of Health but also the layers of the NHS including strategic health authorities (SHAs), primary care trusts (PCTs), and NHS trusts. The Department of Health agreed to publish overall consultancy spending and to look at ways to publish detailed information. Two years on, the most comprehensive list – the Department of Health’s central accounts – excludes a significant portion of such spending, particularly that of NHS trusts. When approached by the Bureau about this, the Department of Health declined to comment. How consultancy spend is reportedThe Department of Health’s accounts outline consultancy spending throughout central government, SHAs, PCTs, and bodies such as health regulator Monitor, the Care Quality Commission, and Nice. For 2010/11, this amounts to £197m – a 58% fall on the previous year’s £469m.  This would have been well received by the Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, who has focused on slashing bureaucracy costs as one way of securing £20 billion savings for the Health Service. However, this figure does not include £118m spent by other NHS trusts. This despite the fact that the Department of Health was advised by the health select committee to include NHS trusts in its overall figures. The figure also excludes spending by foundation trusts, the 141 more independent, patient-led health organisations. The select committee did not mention foundation trusts in its recommendations to the Department of Health. However, figures published by Monitor show that foundation trusts were the biggest clients of management consultants last year, spending £156m – a 10% rise. New opportunities for business The Department of Health and NHS’s total spending on management consultants fell nearly 40% in the first year of the Coalition, from £752m to £470m. But some experts fear the complex forthcoming NHS reforms could send the bill creeping up again. Last week, health secretary Andrew Lansley announced that struggling NHS trusts must undergo inspections by external management consultants to help them meet the government’s deadline of becoming foundation hospitals by 2014. Dr Peter Carter, chief executive of the Royal College of Nurses, said: ‘A concern that people have about the reform agenda is whether the more market-based systems currently being created will bring with them a requirement for more support, advice and consultancy to develop new systems and financial structures.’ He added that the increased role of private providers, combined with the commercial confidentiality clauses they can invoke, could affect transparency and accountability over spending on external consultants: ‘It’s difficult at the moment to know the true nature of the spend. Our concern is that that could become even more difficult.’ In 2009, the Royal College of Nursing showed more was spent on management consultants by SHAs and PCTs alone than on lung cancer and skin cancer combined. Dr Carter said: ‘The issue of concern for us was that of the consultancy spend, nearly 80% we found was unrelated to direct patient care. We have vacancies being left open, posts being made redundant, but we see very significant sums of money being spent… at a time when we should be targeting resources to the front line.’ The chairman of the British Medical Association’s Consultants Committee, Dr Mark Porter said: ‘The NHS is under extreme financial pressure from the government, despite the promise to protect front line care. Available resources should be allocated to staff and equipment for patient care and stopping the reductions in patient services, not given to management consultancies whose priorities are sometimes very different to those of professional doctors and nurses.’

As cuts to the NHS started to bite, I analysed spending figures to show that almost half a billion pounds was being spent on management consultants - despite Department of Health figures that appeared to show the spend was less than half that.

The article was published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism here.

::

DoH lack of transparency hides £470m spent on management consultants

Two years after committing to greater transparency in reporting the use of management consultants, the Department of Health has yet to centrally report how much consultants have truly cost the NHS.  This failure masks the fact that the NHS spent almost half a billion pounds last year on consultancy services.

The Department of Health’s central accounts show £197m was spent on consultancy services in 2010/11. But these figures do not take into account spending by NHS trusts – a broad category that includes acute, mental health and ambulance trusts – or foundation trusts.

Taking these into account, the Bureau has found that management consultants have cost this section of the NHS a further £274m.

This takes the consultancy bill for public health services to £471m – more than twice the amount that the Department of Health states was spent on consultancy work.

In 2009, the health select committee called on the Department of Health to collate information on consultancy contracts including costs, duration and the highest day rates.

It recommended that the figures should include spending not only for the Department of Health but also the layers of the NHS including strategic health authorities (SHAs), primary care trusts (PCTs), and NHS trusts.

The Department of Health agreed to publish overall consultancy spending and to look at ways to publish detailed information.

Two years on, the most comprehensive list – the Department of Health’s central accounts – excludes a significant portion of such spending, particularly that of NHS trusts.

When approached by the Bureau about this, the Department of Health declined to comment.


How consultancy spend is reported
The Department of Health’s accounts outline consultancy spending throughout central government, SHAs, PCTs, and bodies such as health regulator Monitor, the Care Quality Commission, and Nice.

For 2010/11, this amounts to £197m – a 58% fall on the previous year’s £469m.  This would have been well received by the Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, who has focused on slashing bureaucracy costs as one way of securing £20 billion savings for the Health Service.

However, this figure does not include £118m spent by other NHS trusts. This despite the fact that the Department of Health was advised by the health select committee to include NHS trusts in its overall figures.

The figure also excludes spending by foundation trusts, the 141 more independent, patient-led health organisations.

The select committee did not mention foundation trusts in its recommendations to the Department of Health. However, figures published by Monitor show that foundation trusts were the biggest clients of management consultants last year, spending £156m – a 10% rise.

New opportunities for business
The Department of Health and NHS’s total spending on management consultants fell nearly 40% in the first year of the Coalition, from £752m to £470m. But some experts fear the complex forthcoming NHS reforms could send the bill creeping up again.

Last week, health secretary Andrew Lansley announced that struggling NHS trusts must undergo inspections by external management consultants to help them meet the government’s deadline of becoming foundation hospitals by 2014.

Dr Peter Carter, chief executive of the Royal College of Nurses, said: ‘A concern that people have about the reform agenda is whether the more market-based systems currently being created will bring with them a requirement for more support, advice and consultancy to develop new systems and financial structures.’

He added that the increased role of private providers, combined with the commercial confidentiality clauses they can invoke, could affect transparency and accountability over spending on external consultants: ‘It’s difficult at the moment to know the true nature of the spend. Our concern is that that could become even more difficult.’

In 2009, the Royal College of Nursing showed more was spent on management consultants by SHAs and PCTs alone than on lung cancer and skin cancer combined.

Dr Carter said: ‘The issue of concern for us was that of the consultancy spend, nearly 80% we found was unrelated to direct patient care. We have vacancies being left open, posts being made redundant, but we see very significant sums of money being spent… at a time when we should be targeting resources to the front line.’

The chairman of the British Medical Association’s Consultants Committee, Dr Mark Porter said: ‘The NHS is under extreme financial pressure from the government, despite the promise to protect front line care. Available resources should be allocated to staff and equipment for patient care and stopping the reductions in patient services, not given to management consultancies whose priorities are sometimes very different to those of professional doctors and nurses.’

3 weeks ago  View high resolution

In autumn 2011 I worked on the Spy Files project, a collaboration between WikiLeaks, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the Washington Post, L’Espresso, Owni and others. We examined the global surveillance industry and identified western companies that were selling to dictatorships. As part of this I tracked down a group of people in London who documents suggested were the targets of spying by Gaddafi. The original article is here. :: Was Gaddafi ‘cyber-spying’ on opponents in the UK? The operating manual for a spying system built for Colonel Gaddafi may have contained the email addresses of a British lawyer and the new Libyan ambassador to the UK, suggesting that the oppressive regime’s ability to electronically spy on opponents may have extended to Britain. Amesys, a French company, sold its ‘Eagle’ online surveillance system to the Libyan government in 2007. The technology is marketed for monitoring terrorists and serious criminals, but it appears the Gaddafi regime may have used it to keep tabs on political opponents, including those overseas. There is no evidence that anyone was harmed as a result of the Amesys system. But a Libya-based individual who is identified in a draft of the manual was summoned in 2009 to explain his emails by Gaddafi’s feared spying chief, Moussa Koussa. It is not known, however, whether this was directly connected or not. The Libyan surveillance centres were discovered in August by the Wall Street Journal, but this is the first time it has been suggested the technology may have been used outside Libya. Following the Bureau’s revelations that Gaddafi may have spied on individuals in London, Daniel Kawczynski MP, Conservative leader of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Libya, has said he intends to write to the prime minister on the matter. Mr Kawczynski will urge David Cameron to ask President Sarkozy why a French company sold such technologies to a repressive regime. The draft Eagle operating manual, obtained by French website Owni and seen by the Bureau, is dated March 2009 and contains screengrabs appearing to show the system in action. Emails and other identifiers have been redacted, but these redactions were easily reversed. When contacted by the Bureau, Amesys said: ‘The Libyan authorities were the only ones in a position to operate the equipment. Amesys therefore, has never compiled any list for the Libyan authorities. The manual you are referring to, contains screengrab[s] exclusively provided by the customer, including page 52. Amesys does not operate any listening centre anywhere in the world.’ Targets for surveillanceOne screengrab features the email addresses of many individuals based in Britain. The 40 addresses and phone numbers in the image, some of which are aliases for the same person, include those of members of Libya Forum, a network of dissidents based in London, Washington and Helsinki. It appears that this is only half of the list. The name at the top, ‘Annakoa’, has been identified as Mahmud Nacua, the new Libyan government’s ambassador to London. When the draft manual was compiled, he was a prominent dissident, living in London and writing for several Arabic newspapers and magazines. Mr Nacua told the Bureau he first learned that he may have been under surveillance earlier this year. ‘I’m not surprised – in the past I had a website, and Gaddafi’s intelligence hacked it and destroyed it. This was five or six years ago. The main purpose for [monitoring emails] was to know what I was up to, what I was writing.’ He added: ‘When you use this revolution of technology to serve people, to improve their lives, to protect them from criminals, that’s good. But when it goes to the other side, to be used in a bad way, I think everyone would condemn that use of technology.’ In an indication of how far Gaddafi’s overseas surveillance network may have spread, the list also names a London-based lawyer, Jeffrey Smele of media lawyers Simons Muirhead & Burton. Smele’s only obvious connection to Libya is that he once helped defend a defamation case against Ashur Shamis, editor of the Akhbar Libya website, who is also on the list. It is not clear whether the apparent list of targets was assembled using Eagle, or whether human intelligence or other surveillance were used. However, Smele’s inclusion, given his tangential connections with Libya, suggests that at least some of the addresses may have been harvested from the email accounts of other targets. Smele told the Bureau: ‘I expect that sort of thing from the Gaddafi regime, but I was surprised that someone with only my peripheral involvement in one libel case regarding a UK-based Libyan blogger could end up on what appears to be a weapon system – because if it’s a surveillance system, that’s effectively what it is. ‘I have never had anything to do with Libyan internal or foreign affairs…it’s always going to be a surprise to find out you’re potentially on the receiving end of a foreign government’s spying,’ he added. The Bureau contacted five other individuals on the list. Dr Younis Fannush, a Libyan writer, lived in exile for 20 years, returning to Benghazi in 1997. He wrote for Ashur Shamis’s website Akhbar Libya under several pseudonyms, and was in contact with other members of the Libya Forum. In 2009, he was summoned to Tripoli, to the office of Moussa Koussa, then Gaddafi’s chief of external intelligence. ‘I went to that meeting thinking I would never come back: I was expecting to go from his office to jail, or worse, because I knew I had been acting against [Koussa] and Gaddafi,’ Fannush said. At the meeting, Koussa produced print-outs of Fannush’s email conversations with Ashur Shamis and other members of the Libya Forum. ‘He knew everything about my connections with my colleagues in London, and all the names I was writing under,’ he said. ‘He didn’t show me the police face of the regime: he was very kind and very gentle with me. He told me, what you’re saying is natural; Libya is your country. You have a right to write things, and if you need anything, I’m ready. I thanked him and said I got the message,’ Fannush continued. Fannush interpreted the meeting as a warning: ’It was a message that they knew everything, and a message to stop [writing for dissident outlets]. So I did.’ There is no clear evidence linking Amesys’ technology to Koussa accessing Fannush’s emails. However, Fannush’s email address is in the draft manual created in March 2009. Amesys signed contracts for the equipment in 2007, and installed it in 2008. Image from Amesys’ technical specification showing the monitoring centre Inside the Eagle dealDocuments seen by the Bureau reveal the potential extent of collaboration between the French company – which at that point was called i2e – and the Libyan government. An unsigned draft of the contract and a detailed technical specification, both dated 2006, outline the systems Amesys proposed to create for Gaddafi’s regime as part of the Homeland Security Program. Amesys proposed a wide-ranging system, including security and encryption protocols for the country’s phone, email and computer networks. The proposal entailed ‘communication and data interception’ of mobile and fixed lines, email, and computer exchanges. These would allow the authorities to locate and even to remotely activate microphones on mobile phones. ‘The objective of this development programme is to be able to trigger phones of selected persons and be able to listen to their discussions using their GSM phone as a microphone and without their awareness,’ the proposal states. Amesys proposed to send two engineers to Tripoli to train Libyan engineers in how to use it, with a further three engineers working in either France or Libya to custom-design the phone eavesdropping system. The contract seen by the Bureau was only a draft. When contacted by the Bureau, Amesys said the contract it signed related to analysis hardware for a few thousand internet lines, and did not enable the regime to access satellite internet communications, encrypted data such as Skype, web filtering, or fixed or mobile phone lines. It also pointed to a previous public statement on the website of its parent company, Bull.

In autumn 2011 I worked on the Spy Files project, a collaboration between WikiLeaks, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the Washington Post, L’Espresso, Owni and others. We examined the global surveillance industry and identified western companies that were selling to dictatorships.

As part of this I tracked down a group of people in London who documents suggested were the targets of spying by Gaddafi.

The original article is here.

::

Was Gaddafi ‘cyber-spying’ on opponents in the UK?

The operating manual for a spying system built for Colonel Gaddafi may have contained the email addresses of a British lawyer and the new Libyan ambassador to the UK, suggesting that the oppressive regime’s ability to electronically spy on opponents may have extended to Britain.

Amesys, a French company, sold its ‘Eagle’ online surveillance system to the Libyan government in 2007.

The technology is marketed for monitoring terrorists and serious criminals, but it appears the Gaddafi regime may have used it to keep tabs on political opponents, including those overseas. There is no evidence that anyone was harmed as a result of the Amesys system. But a Libya-based individual who is identified in a draft of the manual was summoned in 2009 to explain his emails by Gaddafi’s feared spying chief, Moussa Koussa. It is not known, however, whether this was directly connected or not.

The Libyan surveillance centres were discovered in August by the Wall Street Journal, but this is the first time it has been suggested the technology may have been used outside Libya.

Following the Bureau’s revelations that Gaddafi may have spied on individuals in London, Daniel Kawczynski MP, Conservative leader of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Libya, has said he intends to write to the prime minister on the matter. Mr Kawczynski will urge David Cameron to ask President Sarkozy why a French company sold such technologies to a repressive regime.

The draft Eagle operating manual, obtained by French website Owni and seen by the Bureau, is dated March 2009 and contains screengrabs appearing to show the system in action. Emails and other identifiers have been redacted, but these redactions were easily reversed.

When contacted by the Bureau, Amesys said: ‘The Libyan authorities were the only ones in a position to operate the equipment. Amesys therefore, has never compiled any list for the Libyan authorities. The manual you are referring to, contains screengrab[s] exclusively provided by the customer, including page 52. Amesys does not operate any listening centre anywhere in the world.’

Targets for surveillance
One screengrab features the email addresses of many individuals based in Britain.

The 40 addresses and phone numbers in the image, some of which are aliases for the same person, include those of members of Libya Forum, a network of dissidents based in London, Washington and Helsinki. It appears that this is only half of the list.

The name at the top, ‘Annakoa’, has been identified as Mahmud Nacua, the new Libyan government’s ambassador to London. When the draft manual was compiled, he was a prominent dissident, living in London and writing for several Arabic newspapers and magazines.

Mr Nacua told the Bureau he first learned that he may have been under surveillance earlier this year. ‘I’m not surprised – in the past I had a website, and Gaddafi’s intelligence hacked it and destroyed it. This was five or six years ago. The main purpose for [monitoring emails] was to know what I was up to, what I was writing.’

He added: ‘When you use this revolution of technology to serve people, to improve their lives, to protect them from criminals, that’s good. But when it goes to the other side, to be used in a bad way, I think everyone would condemn that use of technology.’

In an indication of how far Gaddafi’s overseas surveillance network may have spread, the list also names a London-based lawyer, Jeffrey Smele of media lawyers Simons Muirhead & Burton. Smele’s only obvious connection to Libya is that he once helped defend a defamation case against Ashur Shamis, editor of the Akhbar Libya website, who is also on the list.

It is not clear whether the apparent list of targets was assembled using Eagle, or whether human intelligence or other surveillance were used. However, Smele’s inclusion, given his tangential connections with Libya, suggests that at least some of the addresses may have been harvested from the email accounts of other targets.

Smele told the Bureau: ‘I expect that sort of thing from the Gaddafi regime, but I was surprised that someone with only my peripheral involvement in one libel case regarding a UK-based Libyan blogger could end up on what appears to be a weapon system – because if it’s a surveillance system, that’s effectively what it is.

‘I have never had anything to do with Libyan internal or foreign affairs…it’s always going to be a surprise to find out you’re potentially on the receiving end of a foreign government’s spying,’ he added.

The Bureau contacted five other individuals on the list.

Dr Younis Fannush, a Libyan writer, lived in exile for 20 years, returning to Benghazi in 1997. He wrote for Ashur Shamis’s website Akhbar Libya under several pseudonyms, and was in contact with other members of the Libya Forum.

In 2009, he was summoned to Tripoli, to the office of Moussa Koussa, then Gaddafi’s chief of external intelligence.

‘I went to that meeting thinking I would never come back: I was expecting to go from his office to jail, or worse, because I knew I had been acting against [Koussa] and Gaddafi,’ Fannush said.

At the meeting, Koussa produced print-outs of Fannush’s email conversations with Ashur Shamis and other members of the Libya Forum.

‘He knew everything about my connections with my colleagues in London, and all the names I was writing under,’ he said.

‘He didn’t show me the police face of the regime: he was very kind and very gentle with me. He told me, what you’re saying is natural; Libya is your country. You have a right to write things, and if you need anything, I’m ready. I thanked him and said I got the message,’ Fannush continued.

Fannush interpreted the meeting as a warning: ’It was a message that they knew everything, and a message to stop [writing for dissident outlets]. So I did.’

There is no clear evidence linking Amesys’ technology to Koussa accessing Fannush’s emails. However, Fannush’s email address is in the draft manual created in March 2009.

Amesys signed contracts for the equipment in 2007, and installed it in 2008.

Image from Amesys’ technical specification showing the monitoring centre

Inside the Eagle deal
Documents seen by the Bureau reveal the potential extent of collaboration between the French company – which at that point was called i2e – and the Libyan government.

An unsigned draft of the contract and a detailed technical specification, both dated 2006, outline the systems Amesys proposed to create for Gaddafi’s regime as part of the Homeland Security Program.

Amesys proposed a wide-ranging system, including security and encryption protocols for the country’s phone, email and computer networks.

The proposal entailed ‘communication and data interception’ of mobile and fixed lines, email, and computer exchanges. These would allow the authorities to locate and even to remotely activate microphones on mobile phones.

‘The objective of this development programme is to be able to trigger phones of selected persons and be able to listen to their discussions using their GSM phone as a microphone and without their awareness,’ the proposal states.

Amesys proposed to send two engineers to Tripoli to train Libyan engineers in how to use it, with a further three engineers working in either France or Libya to custom-design the phone eavesdropping system.

The contract seen by the Bureau was only a draft. When contacted by the Bureau, Amesys said the contract it signed related to analysis hardware for a few thousand internet lines, and did not enable the regime to access satellite internet communications, encrypted data such as Skype, web filtering, or fixed or mobile phone lines. It also pointed to a previous public statement on the website of its parent company, Bull.

3 weeks ago  View high resolution

For the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, May 2012  ::Shell’s $4bn lobbying campaign cleared the way for Arctic drilling  Offshore oil drilling in the Arctic has long been considered off-limits – but as the New York Times revealed yesterday, a sustained and ingenious campaign by Shell has overcome all objections. The campaign to win permission to drill in the Arctic is a masterclass in major-league lobbying: Shell has spent seven years and an incredible $4bn (£2.55bn) to win over opponents at almost every stage, from the local Native Eskimo community, through multiple layers of environmental agencies, all the way to President Obama. It even managed to win permission to drill not long after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which involved BP and was one of the worst such incidents in US history. The granting of Shell’s permits will also spark a new oil rush as more companies seek to join Shell in seeking oil in the Arctic. But many fear that an oil spill in the Arctic could be devastating – particularly as no technique exists for cleaning oil from ice – while the rush of industry into the area risks disturbing local wildlife. The fresh supply of oil will also slow the impetus towards more sustainable energy sources. New York Times reporters John M Broder and Clifford Krauss unpick Shell’s strategy, describing how the company adopted a two-pronged approach focusing on the local community and on Washington. While many Eskimos depend on oil and energy for their income – it provides a third of all jobs in the state – they also revere the natural environment and rely on the ocean for much of their food. They have long been concerned that oil drilling would disturb whale migration rates. On a local level, Shell faced a canny opponent in Edward S Itta, who campaigned for mayor of his town on an anti-drilling platform. He was happy to play to the myth of the mystical Native and what the reporters call the ‘special moral authority’ that Eskimos possess in Congress. After an ill-advised effort at fielding its own candidate, Shell sent in a right-on executive, Pete Slaiby, who embarked on a charm offensive, sponsoring community meetings, serving food, and gamely eating the local delicacy of raw whale meat. Slaiby also made a series of concessions to Itta’s demands – but at the same time the company was working to isolate him, funding local colleges, village parties and whaling equipment. Itta was eventually forced to accept that drilling was inevitable and negotiated for the best possible deal. Meanwhile, in Washington Shell took the unusual step of joining an anti-global warming alliance, which gave them access to senior policymakers and helped deflect criticism of the scheme’s impact, says the New York Times. At the 2008 election the company drew up an action plan for winning over each of the candidates in the event of their victory and retained former politicians who they were close to for an inside line to power – although Obama’s win caught Shell on the hop, as it had assumed Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate. The report examines the lobbying that has gone on since his win. The company employs ‘three dozen’ staff to lobby government officials, according to government registers, and senior Shell lobbyists have visited the White House at least 19 times during Obama’s administration. This is aside from the constant stream of contact with the agencies that would actually grant the permits. Click here to read the Bureau’s investigation into lobbying’s hidden influence. ‘I understood they were doing it, I understood why they were doing it, and it wasn’t as subtle as it should have been,’ an official told the New York Times. Recognising the blunt force power of Shell’s lobbying blitz, environmental groups have backed off according to the paper, choosing to focus on projects where victory is more feasible. In the end, fuel security and ever-rising oil prices have helped win over President Obama – and while an activist describes the drilling as ‘a reckless gamble we cannot afford’, events such as the Osama bin Laden raid show that Obama, while often cautious, also has a gambling streak. Barring a major upset, drilling starts in July. As the New York Times points out, ‘It is a moment of major promise and considerable danger.’ Read the New York Times article here.

For the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, May 2012 

::
Shell’s $4bn lobbying campaign cleared the way for Arctic drilling 

Offshore oil drilling in the Arctic has long been considered off-limits – but as the New York Times revealed yesterday, a sustained and ingenious campaign by Shell has overcome all objections.

The campaign to win permission to drill in the Arctic is a masterclass in major-league lobbying: Shell has spent seven years and an incredible $4bn (£2.55bn) to win over opponents at almost every stage, from the local Native Eskimo community, through multiple layers of environmental agencies, all the way to President Obama. It even managed to win permission to drill not long after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which involved BP and was one of the worst such incidents in US history.

The granting of Shell’s permits will also spark a new oil rush as more companies seek to join Shell in seeking oil in the Arctic. But many fear that an oil spill in the Arctic could be devastating – particularly as no technique exists for cleaning oil from ice – while the rush of industry into the area risks disturbing local wildlife. The fresh supply of oil will also slow the impetus towards more sustainable energy sources.

New York Times reporters John M Broder and Clifford Krauss unpick Shell’s strategy, describing how the company adopted a two-pronged approach focusing on the local community and on Washington.

While many Eskimos depend on oil and energy for their income – it provides a third of all jobs in the state – they also revere the natural environment and rely on the ocean for much of their food. They have long been concerned that oil drilling would disturb whale migration rates.

On a local level, Shell faced a canny opponent in Edward S Itta, who campaigned for mayor of his town on an anti-drilling platform. He was happy to play to the myth of the mystical Native and what the reporters call the ‘special moral authority’ that Eskimos possess in Congress.

After an ill-advised effort at fielding its own candidate, Shell sent in a right-on executive, Pete Slaiby, who embarked on a charm offensive, sponsoring community meetings, serving food, and gamely eating the local delicacy of raw whale meat. Slaiby also made a series of concessions to Itta’s demands – but at the same time the company was working to isolate him, funding local colleges, village parties and whaling equipment. Itta was eventually forced to accept that drilling was inevitable and negotiated for the best possible deal.

Meanwhile, in Washington Shell took the unusual step of joining an anti-global warming alliance, which gave them access to senior policymakers and helped deflect criticism of the scheme’s impact, says the New York Times.

At the 2008 election the company drew up an action plan for winning over each of the candidates in the event of their victory and retained former politicians who they were close to for an inside line to power – although Obama’s win caught Shell on the hop, as it had assumed Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic candidate.

The report examines the lobbying that has gone on since his win. The company employs ‘three dozen’ staff to lobby government officials, according to government registers, and senior Shell lobbyists have visited the White House at least 19 times during Obama’s administration. This is aside from the constant stream of contact with the agencies that would actually grant the permits.

Click here to read the Bureau’s investigation into lobbying’s hidden influence.

‘I understood they were doing it, I understood why they were doing it, and it wasn’t as subtle as it should have been,’ an official told the New York Times.

Recognising the blunt force power of Shell’s lobbying blitz, environmental groups have backed off according to the paper, choosing to focus on projects where victory is more feasible.

In the end, fuel security and ever-rising oil prices have helped win over President Obama – and while an activist describes the drilling as ‘a reckless gamble we cannot afford’, events such as the Osama bin Laden raid show that Obama, while often cautious, also has a gambling streak.

Barring a major upset, drilling starts in July. As the New York Times points out, ‘It is a moment of major promise and considerable danger.’

Read the New York Times article here.

For the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a review of Michael Portillo’s Great Euro Crisis, in May 2012:  :: The ties that bind: Greece, Germany and the euro The prospect of arch-Eurosceptic Michael Portillo being sent to investigate the collapse of the euro isn’t immediately promising: at first glance it’s a little like sending Bart Simpson to investigate behaviour in schools. But This World: Michael Portillo’s Great Euro Crisis, which screened last night, is a thoughtful and fascinating hour’s TV. As the euro approaches breaking point, Portillo travels to Greece, where he visits the glitzy airports and train networks built with government debt, and the facilities for the €12bn 2004 Athens Olympics, which now lie derelict, their grand piazzas transformed into wastelands. He also visits scenes of appalling suffering: Portillo says that a quarter of Athens’ shops have closed, the numbers of homeless are spiralling, and soup kitchens now feed thousands every day. A medical charity that usually focuses on aid to Africa has opted to attend to the needy closer to home after the Greek government introduced charges for hospital visits; its director tells the camera: ‘We are in the middle of a humanitarian crisis.’ He then visits Germany, where in contrast he meets the bankers and car manufacturers who have thrived thanks to the lower exchange rates offered by the euro, constructing large government and commercial loans and selling luxury cars, including to Greece. In each country, he also meets ordinary people on the frontlines of the crisis: the Greek electrician who is trying to sell his Porsche Cayenne for half its original price to make ends meet, and the German Porsche factory worker, in former East Germany, who acknowledges that the euro has helped the country flourish. But as the factory worker’s father points out, rebuilding East Germany was a similarly grand project, which demanded hard work and dedication – the implication being that the Greeks expected something for nothing. Another German is bitterly stung by Greek comparisons of the Germans to Nazis. Perhaps inevitably, at times there’s more than a hint of ‘I told you so’ about Portillo’s delivery, and at times his Euroscepticism leads him to some bizarre leaps, such as the suggestion that Greece’s endemic tax evasion is somehow caused by the euro. But Portillo acknowledges his own bias, and he does an excellent job of illustrating how the euro boosted German exports while enabling the Greeks to build up unsustainable levels of debt. He also highlights the emotional crisis: the resentment, fury and fear that are increasingly the undertow of the political debates. One motif runs through the show, and it’s hard to tell whether it’s a cause for optimism or not. Again and again, Portillo asks whether people would choose the euro or a return to the drachma or deutschmark – and again and again, both Greeks and Germans opt for the euro. As the common currency faces its toughest test yet, could this shared goal be enough to see it through? Watch This World: Michael Portillo’s Great Euro Crisis here.

For the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a review of Michael Portillo’s Great Euro Crisis, in May 2012: 

::

The ties that bind: Greece, Germany and the euro

The prospect of arch-Eurosceptic Michael Portillo being sent to investigate the collapse of the euro isn’t immediately promising: at first glance it’s a little like sending Bart Simpson to investigate behaviour in schools. But This World: Michael Portillo’s Great Euro Crisis, which screened last night, is a thoughtful and fascinating hour’s TV.

As the euro approaches breaking point, Portillo travels to Greece, where he visits the glitzy airports and train networks built with government debt, and the facilities for the €12bn 2004 Athens Olympics, which now lie derelict, their grand piazzas transformed into wastelands.

He also visits scenes of appalling suffering: Portillo says that a quarter of Athens’ shops have closed, the numbers of homeless are spiralling, and soup kitchens now feed thousands every day. A medical charity that usually focuses on aid to Africa has opted to attend to the needy closer to home after the Greek government introduced charges for hospital visits; its director tells the camera: ‘We are in the middle of a humanitarian crisis.’

He then visits Germany, where in contrast he meets the bankers and car manufacturers who have thrived thanks to the lower exchange rates offered by the euro, constructing large government and commercial loans and selling luxury cars, including to Greece.

In each country, he also meets ordinary people on the frontlines of the crisis: the Greek electrician who is trying to sell his Porsche Cayenne for half its original price to make ends meet, and the German Porsche factory worker, in former East Germany, who acknowledges that the euro has helped the country flourish.

But as the factory worker’s father points out, rebuilding East Germany was a similarly grand project, which demanded hard work and dedication – the implication being that the Greeks expected something for nothing. Another German is bitterly stung by Greek comparisons of the Germans to Nazis.

Perhaps inevitably, at times there’s more than a hint of ‘I told you so’ about Portillo’s delivery, and at times his Euroscepticism leads him to some bizarre leaps, such as the suggestion that Greece’s endemic tax evasion is somehow caused by the euro.

But Portillo acknowledges his own bias, and he does an excellent job of illustrating how the euro boosted German exports while enabling the Greeks to build up unsustainable levels of debt. He also highlights the emotional crisis: the resentment, fury and fear that are increasingly the undertow of the political debates.

One motif runs through the show, and it’s hard to tell whether it’s a cause for optimism or not. Again and again, Portillo asks whether people would choose the euro or a return to the drachma or deutschmark – and again and again, both Greeks and Germans opt for the euro.

As the common currency faces its toughest test yet, could this shared goal be enough to see it through?

Watch This World: Michael Portillo’s Great Euro Crisis here.

For World Press Freedom Day on May 3 2012, a quick list of five reasons such a day is needed for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism :: Today the United Nations highlights the pressures and dangers facing journalists across the world with a conference in Tunis and a themed day, World Press Freedom Day. Tunis is a slightly strange choice of location for the conference – barely three weeks ago Reporters Without Borders issued an open letter highlighting a crackdown on protesters that saw 16 journalists assaulted, including two foreign reporters. Still, here are five reasons a day dedicated to press freedom is still sorely needed: Vietnam: Bloggers have been repeatedly harassed and detained after reporting on wildcat strikes and other topics the authorities would prefer to keep away from the public attention. In mid-April, Human Rights Watch called for the immediate release of Nguyen Van Hai, Phan Thanh Hai, and Ta Phong Tan, all members of the Club for Free Journalists, which HRW says was set up to ‘promote freedom of expression and independent journalism’. The three are currently facing criminal charges for conducting propaganda against the state. Russia: In the run-up to the elections earlier this year, Reporters Without Bordershighlighted a series of attempts to intimidate journalists, stemming from both the government and from other sources. Eight reporters were arrested covering the protests that followed Putin’s re-election and two were beaten, according to Reporters Without Borders. Thailand: Chiranuch Premchaiporn faces up to 20 years in jail under Thailand’s strict lese-majeste laws, which criminalise comments that are critical of the King. Chiranuch is not accused of making the comments herself: instead, she is an online editor at Thai news website Pracithai. A number of anonymous online commenters had posted negative messages about the Thai royalty; Chiranuch is being held liable. Earlier this week a court delayed its verdict on her case. Ethiopia: The government has employed anti-terror laws to crack down on journalists. Last summer, as the Bureau reported, reporter Martin Schibbye and photographer Johan Persson were arrested attempting to cross into the troubled Ogaden region, while Ethiopian journalists Eskinder Nega and Sileshi Hago were arrested for plotting terrorist attacks. Two further Ethiopian journalists were arrested after writing critical articles about the government. Last week, a prominent independent news website was blocked for at least five days, according to Reporters Without Borders. UK: Although super-injunctions have dropped out of the headlines, thanks in part to the ongoing phone-hacking scandal, they are a key tool for the rich and powerful to silence press scrutiny. Despite a number of high-profile backfires last year, super-injunctions remain in favour among some of the UK’s more ill-behaved high-flyers. This week Private Eye cheekily suggested that two individuals in the top 10 of the Sunday Times Rich List are currently enjoying this particularly British status symbol. Unfortunately, this list could have been 10, 25 or 50 examples long. Whether through incarceration, violence, intimidation, web blocking or lawyers’ letters, the threats to press freedom are plentiful, widespread and show no sign of subsiding.

For World Press Freedom Day on May 3 2012, a quick list of five reasons such a day is needed for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism

::

Today the United Nations highlights the pressures and dangers facing journalists across the world with a conference in Tunis and a themed day, World Press Freedom Day.

Tunis is a slightly strange choice of location for the conference – barely three weeks ago Reporters Without Borders issued an open letter highlighting a crackdown on protesters that saw 16 journalists assaulted, including two foreign reporters.

Still, here are five reasons a day dedicated to press freedom is still sorely needed:

  1. Vietnam: Bloggers have been repeatedly harassed and detained after reporting on wildcat strikes and other topics the authorities would prefer to keep away from the public attention. In mid-April, Human Rights Watch called for the immediate release of Nguyen Van Hai, Phan Thanh Hai, and Ta Phong Tan, all members of the Club for Free Journalists, which HRW says was set up to ‘promote freedom of expression and independent journalism’. The three are currently facing criminal charges for conducting propaganda against the state.
  2. Russia: In the run-up to the elections earlier this year, Reporters Without Bordershighlighted a series of attempts to intimidate journalists, stemming from both the government and from other sources. Eight reporters were arrested covering the protests that followed Putin’s re-election and two were beaten, according to Reporters Without Borders.
  3. Thailand: Chiranuch Premchaiporn faces up to 20 years in jail under Thailand’s strict lese-majeste laws, which criminalise comments that are critical of the King. Chiranuch is not accused of making the comments herself: instead, she is an online editor at Thai news website Pracithai. A number of anonymous online commenters had posted negative messages about the Thai royalty; Chiranuch is being held liable. Earlier this week a court delayed its verdict on her case.
  4. Ethiopia: The government has employed anti-terror laws to crack down on journalists. Last summer, as the Bureau reported, reporter Martin Schibbye and photographer Johan Persson were arrested attempting to cross into the troubled Ogaden region, while Ethiopian journalists Eskinder Nega and Sileshi Hago were arrested for plotting terrorist attacks. Two further Ethiopian journalists were arrested after writing critical articles about the government. Last week, a prominent independent news website was blocked for at least five days, according to Reporters Without Borders.
  5. UK: Although super-injunctions have dropped out of the headlines, thanks in part to the ongoing phone-hacking scandal, they are a key tool for the rich and powerful to silence press scrutiny. Despite a number of high-profile backfires last year, super-injunctions remain in favour among some of the UK’s more ill-behaved high-flyers. This week Private Eye cheekily suggested that two individuals in the top 10 of the Sunday Times Rich List are currently enjoying this particularly British status symbol.

Unfortunately, this list could have been 10, 25 or 50 examples long. Whether through incarceration, violence, intimidation, web blocking or lawyers’ letters, the threats to press freedom are plentiful, widespread and show no sign of subsiding.

With ace Bureau reporter Emma Slater, I interviewed James Jones, director of an Unreported World documentary about Putin’s youth army, the Nashi.

The video and accompanying article were published on the Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s website.

Through Freedom of Information requests I revealed that police are granted access to people’s communication records far more often in some parts of the country than in others. The story was published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in April 2012, as the government was planning to expand its surveillance powers. :: Huge variation in police spying powers raises concerns Research by the Bureau raises questions over the supervision of police access to phone and email records, as the government prepares to expand the access police and other authorities have to communication data. Freedom of Information requests reveal worrying inconsistency in how often police forces are granted permission to access phone and email records under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA). In some forces, applications were rejected well over a quarter of the time due to a ‘particularly robust’ screening process, while in other forces virtually all applications were approved.     It is impossible to say that due process is not being compromised by over-zealous police forces.’Nick Pickles, Big Brother Watch Of over 31,000 applications made by South Yorkshire Police in a four-year period between 2007 and 2010, just 48 were rejected – 0.15% of all applications. Merseyside Police rejected 228 of almost 48,000 applications. A spokesman for South Yorkshire Police said: ‘All forces are inspected by the Office of Surveillance Commissioner or the Interception of Communications Commissioners Office. Any issues of concern would be highlighted by them and addressed by the force concerned.’ By contrast, Kent Police rejected 6,832 of nearly 22,000 applications – over 30% of all applications it received. Although Wiltshire handled a fraction of the number of applications – 2,131 – it rejected more than a quarter of them. Assistant Chief Constable Gary Beatridge, head of the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate, told the Bureau: ‘The reason why there is a high number of declined applications in Kent, compared with some other forces, is because the accredited authorising officer is particularly robust when assessing the content of each application.’ He added that officers were given an explanation for the rejection and were allowed to revise and re-submit their application. Nick Pickles, campaign director of campaigning group Big Brother Watch, said: ‘At a time when the Home Office is trying to argue for even more information about our communications to be held, it is deeply concerning that the existing regime for regulating when that data is handed over is so dysfunctional. ‘Before any more data is collected, we need to review the current legal framework as it is impossible to say that due process is not being compromised by over-zealous police forces.’ Eric King, research director of Privacy International, said: ‘RIPA’s authorisation regime is amongst the weakest in the world and enables government access to information, with barely any real restrictions.’ Police and other public bodies lodge over half a million applications every year to access records showing basic information about calls, texts, emails and web searches. This doesn’t let authorities listen in on phonecalls or read emails or text messages – which requires sign-off from the home secretary – but it can reveal who an individual has been in contact with, and where they were at particular times. The Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, oversees access to communications data in the UK. He said in his last report that his inspectors had found, ‘communications data is being obtained lawfully and for a correct statutory purpose’ by police forces, adding: ‘Generally a good level of independence and objectivity exists’ in the application process. But privacy campaigners have called this independence into question. Last year, privacy group Liberty called for warrants to be authorised by outside bodies, and in some cases to be approved by magistrates. The new plans, which were widely reported early this week, are said to include police powers to access call, text and email records, social media accounts, and web histories, all in real time. After widespread outcry the government announced the plans would be put to public consultation rather than being announced in the Queen’s speech as initially reported. A Home Office spokesman said: ‘It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public. We need to take action to maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes.’

Through Freedom of Information requests I revealed that police are granted access to people’s communication records far more often in some parts of the country than in others. The story was published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in April 2012, as the government was planning to expand its surveillance powers.

::

Huge variation in police spying powers raises concerns

Research by the Bureau raises questions over the supervision of police access to phone and email records, as the government prepares to expand the access police and other authorities have to communication data.

Freedom of Information requests reveal worrying inconsistency in how often police forces are granted permission to access phone and email records under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).

In some forces, applications were rejected well over a quarter of the time due to a ‘particularly robust’ screening process, while in other forces virtually all applications were approved.   

 It is impossible to say that due process is not being compromised by over-zealous police forces.’
Nick Pickles, Big Brother Watch

Of over 31,000 applications made by South Yorkshire Police in a four-year period between 2007 and 2010, just 48 were rejected – 0.15% of all applications. Merseyside Police rejected 228 of almost 48,000 applications.

A spokesman for South Yorkshire Police said: ‘All forces are inspected by the Office of Surveillance Commissioner or the Interception of Communications Commissioners Office. Any issues of concern would be highlighted by them and addressed by the force concerned.’

By contrast, Kent Police rejected 6,832 of nearly 22,000 applications – over 30% of all applications it received. Although Wiltshire handled a fraction of the number of applications – 2,131 – it rejected more than a quarter of them.

Assistant Chief Constable Gary Beatridge, head of the Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate, told the Bureau: ‘The reason why there is a high number of declined applications in Kent, compared with some other forces, is because the accredited authorising officer is particularly robust when assessing the content of each application.’

He added that officers were given an explanation for the rejection and were allowed to revise and re-submit their application.

Nick Pickles, campaign director of campaigning group Big Brother Watch, said: ‘At a time when the Home Office is trying to argue for even more information about our communications to be held, it is deeply concerning that the existing regime for regulating when that data is handed over is so dysfunctional.

‘Before any more data is collected, we need to review the current legal framework as it is impossible to say that due process is not being compromised by over-zealous police forces.’

Eric King, research director of Privacy International, said: ‘RIPA’s authorisation regime is amongst the weakest in the world and enables government access to information, with barely any real restrictions.’

Police and other public bodies lodge over half a million applications every year to access records showing basic information about calls, texts, emails and web searches. This doesn’t let authorities listen in on phonecalls or read emails or text messages – which requires sign-off from the home secretary – but it can reveal who an individual has been in contact with, and where they were at particular times.

The Interception of Communications Commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, oversees access to communications data in the UK. He said in his last report that his inspectors had found, ‘communications data is being obtained lawfully and for a correct statutory purpose’ by police forces, adding: ‘Generally a good level of independence and objectivity exists’ in the application process.

But privacy campaigners have called this independence into question. Last year, privacy group Liberty called for warrants to be authorised by outside bodies, and in some cases to be approved by magistrates.

The new plans, which were widely reported early this week, are said to include police powers to access call, text and email records, social media accounts, and web histories, all in real time. After widespread outcry the government announced the plans would be put to public consultation rather than being announced in the Queen’s speech as initially reported.

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public. We need to take action to maintain the continued availability of communications data as technology changes.’

In March 2012, as UK papers reported plans to expand the government’s surveillance powers, I reviewed a lengthy Wired investigation into the NSA’s enormous new data surveillance centre, for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It’s a creepy but fascinating project. :: America’s new data centre makes UK surveillance plans seem petty In the small town of Bluffdale in the Utah desert, the US government is halfway to completing a gargantuan complex designed to store and trawl through billions of phone calls, emails, and other global communications. As the UK government reveals its own plans to carry out mass surveillance, a lengthy piece in May’s Wired reveals the full extent of the US’s ambitions to capture and spy on almost everything that is said online or on the phone. The Utah Data Center is the new hub in the National Security Agency’s (NSA) network of surveillance centres: a sprawling $2bn (£1.25bn) complex that takes the US one step closer to ‘total information awareness’. The centre is so big it’s hard to get your head around the figures quoted in the article. Ten thousand builders are working on it. It will use an estimated $40m of electricity every year, according to one estimate. Much of this will be spent powering four 2,300 sq m halls filled with servers capable of storing a truly enormous amount of data – Wired mentions Pentagon ambitions to store yottabytes of data (septillion bytes of data). The centre will ‘intercept, decipher, analyse and store vast amounts of the world’s communications from satellites and underground and undersea cables of international, foreign and domestic networks,’ Wired reporter James Bamford says. Even the most apparently insignificant scraps of data will be captured and stored – in case they later become important: ‘private emails, mobile phone calls and Google searches, as well as personal data trails – travel itineraries, purchases and other digital “pocket litter”‘, Bamford adds. Click here to read the Bureau’s State of Surveillance investigation, in collaboration with WikiLeaks and Privacy International. But the Utah Data Center has another, more secret purpose: cracking cryptoanalysis to allow the US security agencies to read foreign diplomatic and military communications, as well as confidential financial or personal messages, scouring the ‘deep web’ of password-protected and otherwise encrypted information. The Bluffdale project is the next step in the rapid escalation of the NSA’s surveillance powers, and will cement its position as the ‘largest, most covert and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever created’, as Bamford points out. And as with the UK government’s plans to monitor email and other communications, announced this weekend, much of the Utah Data Center’s phenomenal surveillance capability is directed at US citizens. The US government has installed monitoring rooms in the facilities of US telecommunications companies, Wired reports, enabling it to monitor emails and phone calls with ease – the ‘warrantless wiretapping’ programme that caused outcry when it surfaced. Former NSA official William Binney explains to Wired how the NSA’s ‘warantless wiretapping’ domestic surveillance programme may have been larger than ever reported at the time: he helped design the systems, and explains that the US had a choice over where it placed the surveillance equipment. By installing it at the landing points where internet cables enter the country, the NSA could have limited interception to foreign communications only. That wasn’t what the US decided to do: instead, it built intercept stations within the US, allowing it to access the bulk of domestic traffic too. Binney says the programme could tap 1.5 billion calls a day. And that’s what the government is capable of before the Utah Data Center comes online: the massive codebreaking power and storage that the Bluffdale project adds will take the NSA’s surveillance capability to staggering new levels. As Bamford points out, although this level of surveillance is often justified as being essential for fighting counterterrorism, the NSA was unaware of both the ‘underpants bomber’ in 2009 and the Times Square bomber in 2010. In both those cases, incompetence on the would-be attackers’ parts, rather than the sophisticated surveillance network, prevented serious attacks. Bamford, who is also the author of a book on the NSA, lays out a shadowy, complex world in impressively clear and detailed terms. Even the complex, techy aspects of the project are digestible – although this sheer accessibility makes it hard to stave off the feeling of powerlessness and paranoia that shadowy forces could, if they chose, learn so much about your life. He uses the Utah Data Center as a route into explaining the vast intelligence infrastructure that allows the NSA to monitor everything from walkie-talkie messages in foreign countries to private government communications of both allied and enemy nations. Bamford also outlines the supercomputers being built by the NSA to boost its codebreaking powers. It certainly doesn’t make for soothing reading – but it’s the kind of investigation Wired can do better than anybody else, and it’s a useful reminder that even before the UK government rolls out its latest surveillance programme, we are all being watched already. Click here to read the Wired article.

In March 2012, as UK papers reported plans to expand the government’s surveillance powers, I reviewed a lengthy Wired investigation into the NSA’s enormous new data surveillance centre, for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It’s a creepy but fascinating project.

::

America’s new data centre makes UK surveillance plans seem petty

In the small town of Bluffdale in the Utah desert, the US government is halfway to completing a gargantuan complex designed to store and trawl through billions of phone calls, emails, and other global communications. As the UK government reveals its own plans to carry out mass surveillance, a lengthy piece in May’s Wired reveals the full extent of the US’s ambitions to capture and spy on almost everything that is said online or on the phone.

The Utah Data Center is the new hub in the National Security Agency’s (NSA) network of surveillance centres: a sprawling $2bn (£1.25bn) complex that takes the US one step closer to ‘total information awareness’.

The centre is so big it’s hard to get your head around the figures quoted in the article. Ten thousand builders are working on it. It will use an estimated $40m of electricity every year, according to one estimate. Much of this will be spent powering four 2,300 sq m halls filled with servers capable of storing a truly enormous amount of data – Wired mentions Pentagon ambitions to store yottabytes of data (septillion bytes of data).

The centre will ‘intercept, decipher, analyse and store vast amounts of the world’s communications from satellites and underground and undersea cables of international, foreign and domestic networks,’ Wired reporter James Bamford says. Even the most apparently insignificant scraps of data will be captured and stored – in case they later become important: ‘private emails, mobile phone calls and Google searches, as well as personal data trails – travel itineraries, purchases and other digital “pocket litter”‘, Bamford adds.

Click here to read the Bureau’s State of Surveillance investigation, in collaboration with WikiLeaks and Privacy International.

But the Utah Data Center has another, more secret purpose: cracking cryptoanalysis to allow the US security agencies to read foreign diplomatic and military communications, as well as confidential financial or personal messages, scouring the ‘deep web’ of password-protected and otherwise encrypted information.

The Bluffdale project is the next step in the rapid escalation of the NSA’s surveillance powers, and will cement its position as the ‘largest, most covert and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever created’, as Bamford points out.

And as with the UK government’s plans to monitor email and other communications, announced this weekend, much of the Utah Data Center’s phenomenal surveillance capability is directed at US citizens. The US government has installed monitoring rooms in the facilities of US telecommunications companies, Wired reports, enabling it to monitor emails and phone calls with ease – the ‘warrantless wiretapping’ programme that caused outcry when it surfaced.

Former NSA official William Binney explains to Wired how the NSA’s ‘warantless wiretapping’ domestic surveillance programme may have been larger than ever reported at the time: he helped design the systems, and explains that the US had a choice over where it placed the surveillance equipment.

By installing it at the landing points where internet cables enter the country, the NSA could have limited interception to foreign communications only. That wasn’t what the US decided to do: instead, it built intercept stations within the US, allowing it to access the bulk of domestic traffic too. Binney says the programme could tap 1.5 billion calls a day.

And that’s what the government is capable of before the Utah Data Center comes online: the massive codebreaking power and storage that the Bluffdale project adds will take the NSA’s surveillance capability to staggering new levels.

As Bamford points out, although this level of surveillance is often justified as being essential for fighting counterterrorism, the NSA was unaware of both the ‘underpants bomber’ in 2009 and the Times Square bomber in 2010. In both those cases, incompetence on the would-be attackers’ parts, rather than the sophisticated surveillance network, prevented serious attacks.

Bamford, who is also the author of a book on the NSA, lays out a shadowy, complex world in impressively clear and detailed terms. Even the complex, techy aspects of the project are digestible – although this sheer accessibility makes it hard to stave off the feeling of powerlessness and paranoia that shadowy forces could, if they chose, learn so much about your life.

He uses the Utah Data Center as a route into explaining the vast intelligence infrastructure that allows the NSA to monitor everything from walkie-talkie messages in foreign countries to private government communications of both allied and enemy nations. Bamford also outlines the supercomputers being built by the NSA to boost its codebreaking powers.

It certainly doesn’t make for soothing reading – but it’s the kind of investigation Wired can do better than anybody else, and it’s a useful reminder that even before the UK government rolls out its latest surveillance programme, we are all being watched already.

Click here to read the Wired article.

After the Sunday Times secretly recorded the Conservative Party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas claiming £250,000 would buy exclusive access to the prime minister, I wrote this piece for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on what the investigation revealed and confirmed about top-flight lobbying. :: Cruddas’ Tobin tax boast speaks volumes about ‘premier league’ lobbying The Sunday Times’s undercover investigation into the ‘premier league’ of Conservative super-donors contains many explosive claims. Among the most telling is Peter Cruddas’ boast that he directly lobbied the prime minister against a Tobin tax ahead of a meeting with the German chancellor. Cruddas, who resigned from his role as Conservative co-treasurer within hours of the investigation being published, is founder of spread betting firm CMC Markets, which would have been directly hit by the proposed tax of between 0.01% and 0.1% on financial transactions. He is also a major Tory donor, having given £1.2m in party donations and support for the No2AV campaign; his wife and company have also donated thousands to the party coffers. The City tycoon told the Sunday Times’s undercover reporters he had attended a party at Woburn Abbey and gained personal assurances from David Cameron on the tax. ‘I knew he was seeing [Angela] Merkel the next day, so when I’m having my photograph done I said, prime minister, for God’s sake, don’t let them bring in the Tobin tax where they tax financial transactions. He said, “Don’t even worry about it, don’t even think about it, it ain’t going to happen, not on my watch”. Thank you prime minister … Bosh. Off we go,’ Cruddas said. Cameron has consistently opposed calls by European leaders to back the Tobin tax. The Conservative Party openly sells face-to-face access to David Cameron and other senior figures through its Leaders Group, which offers those who donate over £50,000 opportunities to join the prime minister and Cabinet members at ‘dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches’. Last year a major Bureau investigation into Tory party funding revealed that 101 individuals were eligible to attend such events – although as they are considered private, there was no way of knowing who had taken up the invitations, or what was discussed. Still, the Bureau found a strong correlation between the interests of the City – the party’s biggest donors – and government policy. And a former government minister told the Bureau most large donations were motivated by a desire to influence policy: ‘Most of them [donors] do not have a political bone in their body. They are completely apolitical. All they care about is their agenda.’ In opposition, David Cameron famously vowed to change ‘a system in which too much power is concentrated in the hands of the elite and denied to the man and woman on the street… I believe it’s time we shone the light of transparency on lobbying in our country and forced our politics to come clean about who is buying power and influence.’ The party has denied that big donations equate to high-level influence - but as the Sunday Times investigation confirms, behind closed doors the story remains very different. Spread betting’s support for the Tory party The spread betting industry has long been generous to the Conservatives. In 2001, Stuart Wheeler, founder of pioneering spread betting company IG Index, gave £5m to the Conservatives in what remains the UK’s largest-ever single political donation. Electoral Commission records show Cruddas, founder of spread betting company CMC Markets, has contributed over £800,000 directly to the party coffers, while his wife Fiona has donated a further £8,000 and an auction prize worth £2,653. In June 2011, as Cruddas was made co-treasurer of the Conservative Party, CMC Markets made a £100,000 donation. The party treasurer before Cruddas was Michael Spencer, chair of IPGL Ltd. This holding company owns City Index, another spread betting company, as well as the city’s most powerful inter-dealer broker. Spencer has contributed over £168,000 in cash, and a further £120,000 in travel expenses, auction prizes and sponsorships. IPGL Ltd itself is a generous supporter of the party: it has donated over £3.1m in cash since 2005, as well as over £290,000 in staff costs, £112,151 in sponsorships, £70,330 in travel costs and £3,584 in auction prizes, taking its total contribution to the Conservative Party to over £3.6m. Guido Fawkes has flagged up an interview with derivatives magazine Risk, in which Spencer claimed he too had received assurances on the Tobin tax from ‘very, very senior members of our administration’.

After the Sunday Times secretly recorded the Conservative Party co-treasurer Peter Cruddas claiming £250,000 would buy exclusive access to the prime minister, I wrote this piece for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on what the investigation revealed and confirmed about top-flight lobbying.

::

Cruddas’ Tobin tax boast speaks volumes about ‘premier league’ lobbying

The Sunday Times’s undercover investigation into the ‘premier league’ of Conservative super-donors contains many explosive claims. Among the most telling is Peter Cruddas’ boast that he directly lobbied the prime minister against a Tobin tax ahead of a meeting with the German chancellor.

Cruddas, who resigned from his role as Conservative co-treasurer within hours of the investigation being published, is founder of spread betting firm CMC Markets, which would have been directly hit by the proposed tax of between 0.01% and 0.1% on financial transactions.

He is also a major Tory donor, having given £1.2m in party donations and support for the No2AV campaign; his wife and company have also donated thousands to the party coffers.

The City tycoon told the Sunday Times’s undercover reporters he had attended a party at Woburn Abbey and gained personal assurances from David Cameron on the tax.

‘I knew he was seeing [Angela] Merkel the next day, so when I’m having my photograph done I said, prime minister, for God’s sake, don’t let them bring in the Tobin tax where they tax financial transactions. He said, “Don’t even worry about it, don’t even think about it, it ain’t going to happen, not on my watch”. Thank you prime minister … Bosh. Off we go,’ Cruddas said.

Cameron has consistently opposed calls by European leaders to back the Tobin tax.

The Conservative Party openly sells face-to-face access to David Cameron and other senior figures through its Leaders Group, which offers those who donate over £50,000 opportunities to join the prime minister and Cabinet members at ‘dinners, post-PMQ lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign launches’.

Last year a major Bureau investigation into Tory party funding revealed that 101 individuals were eligible to attend such events – although as they are considered private, there was no way of knowing who had taken up the invitations, or what was discussed.

Still, the Bureau found a strong correlation between the interests of the City – the party’s biggest donors – and government policy.

And a former government minister told the Bureau most large donations were motivated by a desire to influence policy: ‘Most of them [donors] do not have a political bone in their body. They are completely apolitical. All they care about is their agenda.’

In opposition, David Cameron famously vowed to change ‘a system in which too much power is concentrated in the hands of the elite and denied to the man and woman on the street… I believe it’s time we shone the light of transparency on lobbying in our country and forced our politics to come clean about who is buying power and influence.’

The party has denied that big donations equate to high-level influence - but as the Sunday Times investigation confirms, behind closed doors the story remains very different.


Spread betting’s support for the Tory party
The spread betting industry has long been generous to the Conservatives. In 2001, Stuart Wheeler, founder of pioneering spread betting company IG Index, gave £5m to the Conservatives in what remains the UK’s largest-ever single political donation.

Electoral Commission records show Cruddas, founder of spread betting company CMC Markets, has contributed over £800,000 directly to the party coffers, while his wife Fiona has donated a further £8,000 and an auction prize worth £2,653.

In June 2011, as Cruddas was made co-treasurer of the Conservative Party, CMC Markets made a £100,000 donation.

The party treasurer before Cruddas was Michael Spencer, chair of IPGL Ltd. This holding company owns City Index, another spread betting company, as well as the city’s most powerful inter-dealer broker. Spencer has contributed over £168,000 in cash, and a further £120,000 in travel expenses, auction prizes and sponsorships.

IPGL Ltd itself is a generous supporter of the party: it has donated over £3.1m in cash since 2005, as well as over £290,000 in staff costs, £112,151 in sponsorships, £70,330 in travel costs and £3,584 in auction prizes, taking its total contribution to the Conservative Party to over £3.6m.

Guido Fawkes has flagged up an interview with derivatives magazine Risk, in which Spencer claimed he too had received assurances on the Tobin tax from ‘very, very senior members of our administration’.

Review of the book Blood on the Altar by Tobias Jones, for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, in March 2012. Read the original review here. :: Italian corruption and church complicity left a murderer free to kill again One Sunday morning in 1993, Elisa Claps vanished in her home town of Potenza. She was 16 years old. Despite suspicion immediately falling on local oddball Danilo Restivo, his family connections and an apparent cover-up by Catholic priests ensured it would be another 17 years before her body was found. In that time, Restivo killed again: his victim was Heather Barnett, a British mother of two. British journalist Tobias Jones, who was living in Italy in the years following Elisa Claps’ disappearance, became fascinated with the case. His new book, Blood on the Altar, charts how the Claps family battled for almost two decades to bring any kind of closure to the case. From the start, the investigation was hopelessly bungled and probably corrupt. Danilo Restivo, an awkward teenager with a habit of cutting chunks out of girls’ hair, had been due to meet Elisa that morning. He arrived home late, with a cut in his hand and an improbable explanation. But his father, a well-connected local figure, helped block the investigation, preventing investigators from taking away his clothes and enlisting his high-up friends to slow the investigation. At best, this investigation was incompetent. But Jones unpicks Potenza’s small-town society, showing that a web of favours, social standing and outright corruption may be more to blame for the Claps family’s long fight for justice. A string of rumours, lies and false leads distracted investigators – and it never became clear whether these were pranksters or deliberate attempts to sow confusion. Years later, it emerged that Restivo’s father even had the personal phone number of the magistrate who was directing the investigation. And it appears the church was complicit in hiding Elisa’s body: Don Mimi, the local priest who allegedly had secrets of his own, left town the day of Elisa’s disappearance and refused to allow police to search the church, La Trinita, where Elisa had been due to meet Restivo. In 2010, Elisa’s mummified body was discovered in the attic of La Trinita, metres from where she had disappeared. Most confusingly of all, it appears that some connected to the church had known the body was there but had chosen not to reveal it. Nine years after Elisa disappeared, Heather Barnett, a British mother of two, was killed and mutilated in a brutal attack at her home in Bournemouth, Dorset. A lock of hair was found in each of her hands. Danilo Restivo, a near neighbour, comforted her children after they returned from school and found her body. Yet despite the police knowing of the suspicion that had surrounded Restivo in Italy and placing him under intense surveillance, Restivo wasn’t charged with a crime until 2010, just after Elisa’s body was discovered. Shortly before Elisa was buried, Restivo was found guilty of Heather’s murder; he was later convicted of Elisa’s too. It’s a compelling story, and Jones paints a damning portrait of certain aspects of Italian society: the close relationships between a town’s upper echelons, corruption in the church, and an obsession with scandalous explanations, no matter how far-fetched, that distract from the answer that’s right under the authorities’ noses. It can be a little slow – in Italy, Jones embarks on lengthy digressions exploring the region’s landscape and history that are better suited to a travelogue than a grisly double murder story. While charting the UK end of the investigation, his fascination with forensic gadgets leads to some similarly meandering passages. At other points, Jones’s closeness to the story and to the Claps family intrudes onto his writing: when Restivo appears on trial in England, Jones is unable to contain his contempt for the man in the dock. It’s also hard not to feel sorry for Heather Barnett: although two women were killed by Restivo (and there is the suggestion that a second Bournemouth murder may bear some of his hallmarks), she is a minor presence, and there is little explanation as to why the investigation into her death took eight years to bring Restivo to trial. In the end, Blood on the Altar is about Italy, Italian justice, and the structures that prevent it from working. It’s also about Italian family solidarity – for better or worse – and the steadfast determination of Elisa’s mother and brother to bring her home.

Review of the book Blood on the Altar by Tobias Jones, for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, in March 2012.

Read the original review here.

::

Italian corruption and church complicity left a murderer free to kill again

One Sunday morning in 1993, Elisa Claps vanished in her home town of Potenza. She was 16 years old. Despite suspicion immediately falling on local oddball Danilo Restivo, his family connections and an apparent cover-up by Catholic priests ensured it would be another 17 years before her body was found. In that time, Restivo killed again: his victim was Heather Barnett, a British mother of two.

British journalist Tobias Jones, who was living in Italy in the years following Elisa Claps’ disappearance, became fascinated with the case. His new book, Blood on the Altar, charts how the Claps family battled for almost two decades to bring any kind of closure to the case.

From the start, the investigation was hopelessly bungled and probably corrupt. Danilo Restivo, an awkward teenager with a habit of cutting chunks out of girls’ hair, had been due to meet Elisa that morning. He arrived home late, with a cut in his hand and an improbable explanation. But his father, a well-connected local figure, helped block the investigation, preventing investigators from taking away his clothes and enlisting his high-up friends to slow the investigation.

At best, this investigation was incompetent. But Jones unpicks Potenza’s small-town society, showing that a web of favours, social standing and outright corruption may be more to blame for the Claps family’s long fight for justice. A string of rumours, lies and false leads distracted investigators – and it never became clear whether these were pranksters or deliberate attempts to sow confusion.

Years later, it emerged that Restivo’s father even had the personal phone number of the magistrate who was directing the investigation.

And it appears the church was complicit in hiding Elisa’s body: Don Mimi, the local priest who allegedly had secrets of his own, left town the day of Elisa’s disappearance and refused to allow police to search the church, La Trinita, where Elisa had been due to meet Restivo.

In 2010, Elisa’s mummified body was discovered in the attic of La Trinita, metres from where she had disappeared. Most confusingly of all, it appears that some connected to the church had known the body was there but had chosen not to reveal it.

Nine years after Elisa disappeared, Heather Barnett, a British mother of two, was killed and mutilated in a brutal attack at her home in Bournemouth, Dorset. A lock of hair was found in each of her hands. Danilo Restivo, a near neighbour, comforted her children after they returned from school and found her body.

Yet despite the police knowing of the suspicion that had surrounded Restivo in Italy and placing him under intense surveillance, Restivo wasn’t charged with a crime until 2010, just after Elisa’s body was discovered. Shortly before Elisa was buried, Restivo was found guilty of Heather’s murder; he was later convicted of Elisa’s too.

It’s a compelling story, and Jones paints a damning portrait of certain aspects of Italian society: the close relationships between a town’s upper echelons, corruption in the church, and an obsession with scandalous explanations, no matter how far-fetched, that distract from the answer that’s right under the authorities’ noses.

It can be a little slow – in Italy, Jones embarks on lengthy digressions exploring the region’s landscape and history that are better suited to a travelogue than a grisly double murder story. While charting the UK end of the investigation, his fascination with forensic gadgets leads to some similarly meandering passages.

At other points, Jones’s closeness to the story and to the Claps family intrudes onto his writing: when Restivo appears on trial in England, Jones is unable to contain his contempt for the man in the dock.

It’s also hard not to feel sorry for Heather Barnett: although two women were killed by Restivo (and there is the suggestion that a second Bournemouth murder may bear some of his hallmarks), she is a minor presence, and there is little explanation as to why the investigation into her death took eight years to bring Restivo to trial.

In the end, Blood on the Altar is about Italy, Italian justice, and the structures that prevent it from working. It’s also about Italian family solidarity – for better or worse – and the steadfast determination of Elisa’s mother and brother to bring her home.

In February 2012 the House of Lords published a report into the future of investigative journalism. I wrote this slightly pompous analysis piece for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on the report’s findings. :: While big names and juicy details have poured out of the Leveson Inquiry, the House of Lords have quietly got on with a media project of their own. The Committee on Communications conducted a series of hearings into the future of investigative journalism – and the report, published today, contains some intriguing suggestions. As part of a comprehensive analysis of the current state of investigative journalism, The Future of Investigative Journalism praises the Bureau as an innovative and ‘non-traditional’ model for providing such reporting, comparing it to US investigative non-profits like ProPublica. The report acknowledges that ‘serious investigative reporting’ is an essential element of a healthy democracy, and that it is currently beset by ‘economic, legal and regulatory challenges’. Of all these, the economic challenges are the most pressing. It’s a measure of just how serious they are that the Lords recommend the rules surrounding charitable purposes should be rewritten to include investigative journalism. Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has refused to legislate around this, but the report calls on him to reverse this decision. The report highlights the hurdles that have so far prevented the Bureau from achieving charitable status. Dr David Levy of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism explained that investigative reporting could be seen as ‘partisan or as running some kind of line and it might be more difficult to say that it complied with existing UK charity law’ – although it’s also hard to see how many mainstream charity campaigns are not partisan. Meanwhile, the Charity Law Association pointed out that investigative reporting does not always offer ‘a reasonable expectation of a beneficial outcome’ – one of the requirements of charitable law – but added that the laws should be changed to explicitly include investigative journalism. This isn’t the report’s only suggestion for new funding models: it also proposes a fund for investigative journalism and for training, made up of fines levied for breaches of the print and broadcast codes of practice by a beefed-up Press Complaints Commission and by Ofcom. At the moment, the report points out, fines levied by Ofcom go straight to the Treasury. The vision of, say, a non-profit news agency funding a major investigative project, using money that was paid by a red-top because of a poorly judged sex scandal, has a certain piquancy. But, as the report admits, choosing which projects would receive the funding and ensuring money was being spent correctly would be a fraught process. In the public interest The committee takes a commendably nuanced view of when it’s acceptable for investigative journalists to break the law, highlighting the projects when deception – whether for undercover reporting, paying for the CD of MPs’ expenses data, or breaching privacy to find out key details – could be argued to be in the public interest. Paul Lewis of the Guardian points to the Panorama care homes story as a key instance of a story that could not have been obtained in a purely ‘above-board’ way. The Lords suggest that the definition of what is in the public interest should remain fluid, but editors and reporters should adopt rigid processes for recording the processes by which they decided breaking the law was in the public interest. Clearly, some organisations already have just such a system in place. Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian outlines his ‘five-bar’ process, step four of which is ‘a kind of audit trail’, while Al Anstey of Al Jazeera outlines ‘three levels of check and balance’. The Lords decide two steps is probably enough, but they recommend that this becomes a key part of decision-making within organisations. The emphasis is on due process and considered lawbreaking where absolutely necessary. Meanwhile, the government should consider inserting a public interest defence into any new laws, while prosecuting authorities should ‘publish their broad approach’ as to when they would consider transgressions to be in the public interest. But civil law can be just as effective for silencing investigative journalism, and the report glances over this, assuming the forthcoming Defamation Bill will tackle this effectively. One of the most unexpected twists is the report’s treatment of the growth of PR: it calls for a stringent code of conduct for an industry that’s currently unregulated, and is particularly damning of political spin. The report calls on the Coalition to ensure ‘that their press releases are universally transparent and straightforward’. It also picks up on the flaws in the government’s datastore – a common gripe among data reporters. Given that the committee met in the fallout of the phone-hacking scandal – which the report calls ‘perhaps the greatest political media scandal of a generation’ – the Lords report is a welcome blast of Establishment support for investigative journalism. It celebrates the medium’s recent successes and underlines, again and again, how important it is as a mechanism for identifying wrongdoing and holding power to account. It is hard to imagine the end result of the Leveson Inquiry: by now, it has become a sprawling beast devouring all aspects of media culture. By contrast, the Future of Investigative Journalism is a focused and reasonably thorough analysis of one form of journalism, containing some pragmatic advice.

In February 2012 the House of Lords published a report into the future of investigative journalism. I wrote this slightly pompous analysis piece for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism on the report’s findings.

::

While big names and juicy details have poured out of the Leveson Inquiry, the House of Lords have quietly got on with a media project of their own. The Committee on Communications conducted a series of hearings into the future of investigative journalism – and the report, published today, contains some intriguing suggestions.

As part of a comprehensive analysis of the current state of investigative journalism, The Future of Investigative Journalism praises the Bureau as an innovative and ‘non-traditional’ model for providing such reporting, comparing it to US investigative non-profits like ProPublica.

The report acknowledges that ‘serious investigative reporting’ is an essential element of a healthy democracy, and that it is currently beset by ‘economic, legal and regulatory challenges’.

Of all these, the economic challenges are the most pressing. It’s a measure of just how serious they are that the Lords recommend the rules surrounding charitable purposes should be rewritten to include investigative journalism. Culture secretary Jeremy Hunt has refused to legislate around this, but the report calls on him to reverse this decision.

The report highlights the hurdles that have so far prevented the Bureau from achieving charitable status.

Dr David Levy of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism explained that investigative reporting could be seen as ‘partisan or as running some kind of line and it might be more difficult to say that it complied with existing UK charity law’ – although it’s also hard to see how many mainstream charity campaigns are not partisan.

Meanwhile, the Charity Law Association pointed out that investigative reporting does not always offer ‘a reasonable expectation of a beneficial outcome’ – one of the requirements of charitable law – but added that the laws should be changed to explicitly include investigative journalism.

This isn’t the report’s only suggestion for new funding models: it also proposes a fund for investigative journalism and for training, made up of fines levied for breaches of the print and broadcast codes of practice by a beefed-up Press Complaints Commission and by Ofcom. At the moment, the report points out, fines levied by Ofcom go straight to the Treasury.

The vision of, say, a non-profit news agency funding a major investigative project, using money that was paid by a red-top because of a poorly judged sex scandal, has a certain piquancy. But, as the report admits, choosing which projects would receive the funding and ensuring money was being spent correctly would be a fraught process.

In the public interest
The committee takes a commendably nuanced view of when it’s acceptable for investigative journalists to break the law, highlighting the projects when deception – whether for undercover reporting, paying for the CD of MPs’ expenses data, or breaching privacy to find out key details – could be argued to be in the public interest. Paul Lewis of the Guardian points to the Panorama care homes story as a key instance of a story that could not have been obtained in a purely ‘above-board’ way.

The Lords suggest that the definition of what is in the public interest should remain fluid, but editors and reporters should adopt rigid processes for recording the processes by which they decided breaking the law was in the public interest.

Clearly, some organisations already have just such a system in place. Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian outlines his ‘five-bar’ process, step four of which is ‘a kind of audit trail’, while Al Anstey of Al Jazeera outlines ‘three levels of check and balance’. The Lords decide two steps is probably enough, but they recommend that this becomes a key part of decision-making within organisations.

The emphasis is on due process and considered lawbreaking where absolutely necessary. Meanwhile, the government should consider inserting a public interest defence into any new laws, while prosecuting authorities should ‘publish their broad approach’ as to when they would consider transgressions to be in the public interest.

But civil law can be just as effective for silencing investigative journalism, and the report glances over this, assuming the forthcoming Defamation Bill will tackle this effectively.

One of the most unexpected twists is the report’s treatment of the growth of PR: it calls for a stringent code of conduct for an industry that’s currently unregulated, and is particularly damning of political spin. The report calls on the Coalition to ensure ‘that their press releases are universally transparent and straightforward’.

It also picks up on the flaws in the government’s datastore – a common gripe among data reporters.

Given that the committee met in the fallout of the phone-hacking scandal – which the report calls ‘perhaps the greatest political media scandal of a generation’ – the Lords report is a welcome blast of Establishment support for investigative journalism. It celebrates the medium’s recent successes and underlines, again and again, how important it is as a mechanism for identifying wrongdoing and holding power to account.

It is hard to imagine the end result of the Leveson Inquiry: by now, it has become a sprawling beast devouring all aspects of media culture. By contrast, the Future of Investigative Journalism is a focused and reasonably thorough analysis of one form of journalism, containing some pragmatic advice.

Online bullying hit the headlines on both sides of the Atlantic in February 2012, and I wrote this review piece for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It compares a Panorama investigation into cyber-bullying with a thoughtful New Yorker piece tracing a challenging and ambiguous case where a teen is accused of hounding his college roommate to death by outing him online. :: Two views of online bullying Online bullying may seem lightweight as a topic for investigative journalism, but last night’s Panorama on the subject was eye-opening, exposing a world that’s largely hidden to those who remember a time before Facebook. Sometimes it feels as if no documentary is complete without a minor celebrity appearance to boost the ratings, and Panorama was no different: reporter Declan Lawn opens the programme meeting Cher Lloyd, the 18-year-old X Factor starlet who has been the target of huge vitriol online. But if Lloyd’s presence encouraged even a handful of teenagers to tune in, this is arguably a more justifiable celebrity appearance than most. Lawn interviews the father of Natasha MacBryde, the teenager who threw herself under a train after a vicious online bullying campaign. It quickly becomes apparent that in an online age, when the social tide turns against you it can be devastating. Even the bare bones of online bullying can be shocking to those who have never experienced it: simple Facebook ‘Likes’ can be turned into weapons, acting as a chorus of your classmates’ agreement with a nasty comment, while bullies can set up ‘hate pages’ dedicated to a single person. Tools like Little Gossip and Formspring, which allow users to comment anonymously, only heighten the nastiness. While it’s easy to dismiss online bullying as playground scraps that have gone viral, Panorama shows there has been a step change in how teenagers interact. The programme tackles trolling – where anonymous commenters set out to cause maximum distress, often to someone they’ve never met. Following Natasha’s death, Sean Duffy was sentenced to 18 weeks in prison for trolling a Facebook tribute page set up for her. Lawn tracks down another prolific troll through ‘someone familiar with the trolling community’, confronting him on camera over racist online comments. But Panorama never quite hits home: the online landscape is so nebulous that it’s tricky to pin down which body or organisation should be held to account. While lots of the behaviour that is shown is awful, it remains just that – people being awful to each other – and it’s not certain it would be desirable to legislate around that. It’s notable that all victims of internet bullying featured in the programme are young women – but this is never remarked on. It is also frustratingly one-sided: when Natasha MacBryde’s father calls for an end to anonymity online, this is accepted without question. We are told that Sean Duffy has Asperger’s, but this is glanced over. There is little attempt to explore why people troll, and the programme raises the spectre of a global network of trolls, which is arguably a sensationalised way of presenting a collection of people who share a penchant for malice. There’s a far more nuanced and challenging view of online bullying in the New Yorker’s The Story of a Suicide, a forensic examination of the relationship between college roommates Tyler Clementi and Dharun Ravi. Ravi is currently awaiting trial for effectively driving Clementi to his suicide, after remotely turning on a webcam to spy on Clementi and a male sexual partner, then gossiping about the fact on Twitter and arranging to do it a second time. As Ravi is accused of harassing Clementi over his sexuality he is accused of a hate crime, meaning he could face up to 10 years in jail. The New Yorker’s Ian Parker traces Ravi and Clementi’s instant messenger logs, tweets, text messages and social networking entries (in a manner that would never be possible under UK contempt of court laws), building up a picture of teenage bravado and anxiety that is far more complex than the conventional narrative of Ravi outing Clementi and thereby leading to his death. Parker raises tough questions over when youthful callousness and thoughtlessness becomes harassment, and unpicks the way that social networking puts bitchy conversations that were once private into the public domain. It also questions the media’s readiness to uncritically attribute teenage suicides to online bullying, and nothing else.

Online bullying hit the headlines on both sides of the Atlantic in February 2012, and I wrote this review piece for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. It compares a Panorama investigation into cyber-bullying with a thoughtful New Yorker piece tracing a challenging and ambiguous case where a teen is accused of hounding his college roommate to death by outing him online.

::

Two views of online bullying

Online bullying may seem lightweight as a topic for investigative journalism, but last night’s Panorama on the subject was eye-opening, exposing a world that’s largely hidden to those who remember a time before Facebook.

Sometimes it feels as if no documentary is complete without a minor celebrity appearance to boost the ratings, and Panorama was no different: reporter Declan Lawn opens the programme meeting Cher Lloyd, the 18-year-old X Factor starlet who has been the target of huge vitriol online. But if Lloyd’s presence encouraged even a handful of teenagers to tune in, this is arguably a more justifiable celebrity appearance than most.

Lawn interviews the father of Natasha MacBryde, the teenager who threw herself under a train after a vicious online bullying campaign. It quickly becomes apparent that in an online age, when the social tide turns against you it can be devastating.

Even the bare bones of online bullying can be shocking to those who have never experienced it: simple Facebook ‘Likes’ can be turned into weapons, acting as a chorus of your classmates’ agreement with a nasty comment, while bullies can set up ‘hate pages’ dedicated to a single person. Tools like Little Gossip and Formspring, which allow users to comment anonymously, only heighten the nastiness.

While it’s easy to dismiss online bullying as playground scraps that have gone viral, Panorama shows there has been a step change in how teenagers interact.

The programme tackles trolling – where anonymous commenters set out to cause maximum distress, often to someone they’ve never met. Following Natasha’s death, Sean Duffy was sentenced to 18 weeks in prison for trolling a Facebook tribute page set up for her. Lawn tracks down another prolific troll through ‘someone familiar with the trolling community’, confronting him on camera over racist online comments.

But Panorama never quite hits home: the online landscape is so nebulous that it’s tricky to pin down which body or organisation should be held to account. While lots of the behaviour that is shown is awful, it remains just that – people being awful to each other – and it’s not certain it would be desirable to legislate around that.

It’s notable that all victims of internet bullying featured in the programme are young women – but this is never remarked on.

It is also frustratingly one-sided: when Natasha MacBryde’s father calls for an end to anonymity online, this is accepted without question. We are told that Sean Duffy has Asperger’s, but this is glanced over. There is little attempt to explore why people troll, and the programme raises the spectre of a global network of trolls, which is arguably a sensationalised way of presenting a collection of people who share a penchant for malice.

There’s a far more nuanced and challenging view of online bullying in the New Yorker’s The Story of a Suicide, a forensic examination of the relationship between college roommates Tyler Clementi and Dharun Ravi. Ravi is currently awaiting trial for effectively driving Clementi to his suicide, after remotely turning on a webcam to spy on Clementi and a male sexual partner, then gossiping about the fact on Twitter and arranging to do it a second time.

As Ravi is accused of harassing Clementi over his sexuality he is accused of a hate crime, meaning he could face up to 10 years in jail.

The New Yorker’s Ian Parker traces Ravi and Clementi’s instant messenger logs, tweets, text messages and social networking entries (in a manner that would never be possible under UK contempt of court laws), building up a picture of teenage bravado and anxiety that is far more complex than the conventional narrative of Ravi outing Clementi and thereby leading to his death.

Parker raises tough questions over when youthful callousness and thoughtlessness becomes harassment, and unpicks the way that social networking puts bitchy conversations that were once private into the public domain. It also questions the media’s readiness to uncritically attribute teenage suicides to online bullying, and nothing else.

As cuts to the NHS started to bite, I analysed spending figures to show that almost half a billion pounds was being spent on management consultants - despite Department of Health figures that appeared to show the spend was less than half that. The article was published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism here. :: DoH lack of transparency hides £470m spent on management consultants Two years after committing to greater transparency in reporting the use of management consultants, the Department of Health has yet to centrally report how much consultants have truly cost the NHS.  This failure masks the fact that the NHS spent almost half a billion pounds last year on consultancy services. The Department of Health’s central accounts show £197m was spent on consultancy services in 2010/11. But these figures do not take into account spending by NHS trusts – a broad category that includes acute, mental health and ambulance trusts – or foundation trusts. Taking these into account, the Bureau has found that management consultants have cost this section of the NHS a further £274m. This takes the consultancy bill for public health services to £471m – more than twice the amount that the Department of Health states was spent on consultancy work. In 2009, the health select committee called on the Department of Health to collate information on consultancy contracts including costs, duration and the highest day rates. It recommended that the figures should include spending not only for the Department of Health but also the layers of the NHS including strategic health authorities (SHAs), primary care trusts (PCTs), and NHS trusts. The Department of Health agreed to publish overall consultancy spending and to look at ways to publish detailed information. Two years on, the most comprehensive list – the Department of Health’s central accounts – excludes a significant portion of such spending, particularly that of NHS trusts. When approached by the Bureau about this, the Department of Health declined to comment. How consultancy spend is reportedThe Department of Health’s accounts outline consultancy spending throughout central government, SHAs, PCTs, and bodies such as health regulator Monitor, the Care Quality Commission, and Nice. For 2010/11, this amounts to £197m – a 58% fall on the previous year’s £469m.  This would have been well received by the Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, who has focused on slashing bureaucracy costs as one way of securing £20 billion savings for the Health Service. However, this figure does not include £118m spent by other NHS trusts. This despite the fact that the Department of Health was advised by the health select committee to include NHS trusts in its overall figures. The figure also excludes spending by foundation trusts, the 141 more independent, patient-led health organisations. The select committee did not mention foundation trusts in its recommendations to the Department of Health. However, figures published by Monitor show that foundation trusts were the biggest clients of management consultants last year, spending £156m – a 10% rise. New opportunities for business The Department of Health and NHS’s total spending on management consultants fell nearly 40% in the first year of the Coalition, from £752m to £470m. But some experts fear the complex forthcoming NHS reforms could send the bill creeping up again. Last week, health secretary Andrew Lansley announced that struggling NHS trusts must undergo inspections by external management consultants to help them meet the government’s deadline of becoming foundation hospitals by 2014. Dr Peter Carter, chief executive of the Royal College of Nurses, said: ‘A concern that people have about the reform agenda is whether the more market-based systems currently being created will bring with them a requirement for more support, advice and consultancy to develop new systems and financial structures.’ He added that the increased role of private providers, combined with the commercial confidentiality clauses they can invoke, could affect transparency and accountability over spending on external consultants: ‘It’s difficult at the moment to know the true nature of the spend. Our concern is that that could become even more difficult.’ In 2009, the Royal College of Nursing showed more was spent on management consultants by SHAs and PCTs alone than on lung cancer and skin cancer combined. Dr Carter said: ‘The issue of concern for us was that of the consultancy spend, nearly 80% we found was unrelated to direct patient care. We have vacancies being left open, posts being made redundant, but we see very significant sums of money being spent… at a time when we should be targeting resources to the front line.’ The chairman of the British Medical Association’s Consultants Committee, Dr Mark Porter said: ‘The NHS is under extreme financial pressure from the government, despite the promise to protect front line care. Available resources should be allocated to staff and equipment for patient care and stopping the reductions in patient services, not given to management consultancies whose priorities are sometimes very different to those of professional doctors and nurses.’

As cuts to the NHS started to bite, I analysed spending figures to show that almost half a billion pounds was being spent on management consultants - despite Department of Health figures that appeared to show the spend was less than half that.

The article was published by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism here.

::

DoH lack of transparency hides £470m spent on management consultants

Two years after committing to greater transparency in reporting the use of management consultants, the Department of Health has yet to centrally report how much consultants have truly cost the NHS.  This failure masks the fact that the NHS spent almost half a billion pounds last year on consultancy services.

The Department of Health’s central accounts show £197m was spent on consultancy services in 2010/11. But these figures do not take into account spending by NHS trusts – a broad category that includes acute, mental health and ambulance trusts – or foundation trusts.

Taking these into account, the Bureau has found that management consultants have cost this section of the NHS a further £274m.

This takes the consultancy bill for public health services to £471m – more than twice the amount that the Department of Health states was spent on consultancy work.

In 2009, the health select committee called on the Department of Health to collate information on consultancy contracts including costs, duration and the highest day rates.

It recommended that the figures should include spending not only for the Department of Health but also the layers of the NHS including strategic health authorities (SHAs), primary care trusts (PCTs), and NHS trusts.

The Department of Health agreed to publish overall consultancy spending and to look at ways to publish detailed information.

Two years on, the most comprehensive list – the Department of Health’s central accounts – excludes a significant portion of such spending, particularly that of NHS trusts.

When approached by the Bureau about this, the Department of Health declined to comment.


How consultancy spend is reported
The Department of Health’s accounts outline consultancy spending throughout central government, SHAs, PCTs, and bodies such as health regulator Monitor, the Care Quality Commission, and Nice.

For 2010/11, this amounts to £197m – a 58% fall on the previous year’s £469m.  This would have been well received by the Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, who has focused on slashing bureaucracy costs as one way of securing £20 billion savings for the Health Service.

However, this figure does not include £118m spent by other NHS trusts. This despite the fact that the Department of Health was advised by the health select committee to include NHS trusts in its overall figures.

The figure also excludes spending by foundation trusts, the 141 more independent, patient-led health organisations.

The select committee did not mention foundation trusts in its recommendations to the Department of Health. However, figures published by Monitor show that foundation trusts were the biggest clients of management consultants last year, spending £156m – a 10% rise.

New opportunities for business
The Department of Health and NHS’s total spending on management consultants fell nearly 40% in the first year of the Coalition, from £752m to £470m. But some experts fear the complex forthcoming NHS reforms could send the bill creeping up again.

Last week, health secretary Andrew Lansley announced that struggling NHS trusts must undergo inspections by external management consultants to help them meet the government’s deadline of becoming foundation hospitals by 2014.

Dr Peter Carter, chief executive of the Royal College of Nurses, said: ‘A concern that people have about the reform agenda is whether the more market-based systems currently being created will bring with them a requirement for more support, advice and consultancy to develop new systems and financial structures.’

He added that the increased role of private providers, combined with the commercial confidentiality clauses they can invoke, could affect transparency and accountability over spending on external consultants: ‘It’s difficult at the moment to know the true nature of the spend. Our concern is that that could become even more difficult.’

In 2009, the Royal College of Nursing showed more was spent on management consultants by SHAs and PCTs alone than on lung cancer and skin cancer combined.

Dr Carter said: ‘The issue of concern for us was that of the consultancy spend, nearly 80% we found was unrelated to direct patient care. We have vacancies being left open, posts being made redundant, but we see very significant sums of money being spent… at a time when we should be targeting resources to the front line.’

The chairman of the British Medical Association’s Consultants Committee, Dr Mark Porter said: ‘The NHS is under extreme financial pressure from the government, despite the promise to protect front line care. Available resources should be allocated to staff and equipment for patient care and stopping the reductions in patient services, not given to management consultancies whose priorities are sometimes very different to those of professional doctors and nurses.’

In autumn 2011 I worked on the Spy Files project, a collaboration between WikiLeaks, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the Washington Post, L’Espresso, Owni and others. We examined the global surveillance industry and identified western companies that were selling to dictatorships. As part of this I tracked down a group of people in London who documents suggested were the targets of spying by Gaddafi. The original article is here. :: Was Gaddafi ‘cyber-spying’ on opponents in the UK? The operating manual for a spying system built for Colonel Gaddafi may have contained the email addresses of a British lawyer and the new Libyan ambassador to the UK, suggesting that the oppressive regime’s ability to electronically spy on opponents may have extended to Britain. Amesys, a French company, sold its ‘Eagle’ online surveillance system to the Libyan government in 2007. The technology is marketed for monitoring terrorists and serious criminals, but it appears the Gaddafi regime may have used it to keep tabs on political opponents, including those overseas. There is no evidence that anyone was harmed as a result of the Amesys system. But a Libya-based individual who is identified in a draft of the manual was summoned in 2009 to explain his emails by Gaddafi’s feared spying chief, Moussa Koussa. It is not known, however, whether this was directly connected or not. The Libyan surveillance centres were discovered in August by the Wall Street Journal, but this is the first time it has been suggested the technology may have been used outside Libya. Following the Bureau’s revelations that Gaddafi may have spied on individuals in London, Daniel Kawczynski MP, Conservative leader of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Libya, has said he intends to write to the prime minister on the matter. Mr Kawczynski will urge David Cameron to ask President Sarkozy why a French company sold such technologies to a repressive regime. The draft Eagle operating manual, obtained by French website Owni and seen by the Bureau, is dated March 2009 and contains screengrabs appearing to show the system in action. Emails and other identifiers have been redacted, but these redactions were easily reversed. When contacted by the Bureau, Amesys said: ‘The Libyan authorities were the only ones in a position to operate the equipment. Amesys therefore, has never compiled any list for the Libyan authorities. The manual you are referring to, contains screengrab[s] exclusively provided by the customer, including page 52. Amesys does not operate any listening centre anywhere in the world.’ Targets for surveillanceOne screengrab features the email addresses of many individuals based in Britain. The 40 addresses and phone numbers in the image, some of which are aliases for the same person, include those of members of Libya Forum, a network of dissidents based in London, Washington and Helsinki. It appears that this is only half of the list. The name at the top, ‘Annakoa’, has been identified as Mahmud Nacua, the new Libyan government’s ambassador to London. When the draft manual was compiled, he was a prominent dissident, living in London and writing for several Arabic newspapers and magazines. Mr Nacua told the Bureau he first learned that he may have been under surveillance earlier this year. ‘I’m not surprised – in the past I had a website, and Gaddafi’s intelligence hacked it and destroyed it. This was five or six years ago. The main purpose for [monitoring emails] was to know what I was up to, what I was writing.’ He added: ‘When you use this revolution of technology to serve people, to improve their lives, to protect them from criminals, that’s good. But when it goes to the other side, to be used in a bad way, I think everyone would condemn that use of technology.’ In an indication of how far Gaddafi’s overseas surveillance network may have spread, the list also names a London-based lawyer, Jeffrey Smele of media lawyers Simons Muirhead & Burton. Smele’s only obvious connection to Libya is that he once helped defend a defamation case against Ashur Shamis, editor of the Akhbar Libya website, who is also on the list. It is not clear whether the apparent list of targets was assembled using Eagle, or whether human intelligence or other surveillance were used. However, Smele’s inclusion, given his tangential connections with Libya, suggests that at least some of the addresses may have been harvested from the email accounts of other targets. Smele told the Bureau: ‘I expect that sort of thing from the Gaddafi regime, but I was surprised that someone with only my peripheral involvement in one libel case regarding a UK-based Libyan blogger could end up on what appears to be a weapon system – because if it’s a surveillance system, that’s effectively what it is. ‘I have never had anything to do with Libyan internal or foreign affairs…it’s always going to be a surprise to find out you’re potentially on the receiving end of a foreign government’s spying,’ he added. The Bureau contacted five other individuals on the list. Dr Younis Fannush, a Libyan writer, lived in exile for 20 years, returning to Benghazi in 1997. He wrote for Ashur Shamis’s website Akhbar Libya under several pseudonyms, and was in contact with other members of the Libya Forum. In 2009, he was summoned to Tripoli, to the office of Moussa Koussa, then Gaddafi’s chief of external intelligence. ‘I went to that meeting thinking I would never come back: I was expecting to go from his office to jail, or worse, because I knew I had been acting against [Koussa] and Gaddafi,’ Fannush said. At the meeting, Koussa produced print-outs of Fannush’s email conversations with Ashur Shamis and other members of the Libya Forum. ‘He knew everything about my connections with my colleagues in London, and all the names I was writing under,’ he said. ‘He didn’t show me the police face of the regime: he was very kind and very gentle with me. He told me, what you’re saying is natural; Libya is your country. You have a right to write things, and if you need anything, I’m ready. I thanked him and said I got the message,’ Fannush continued. Fannush interpreted the meeting as a warning: ’It was a message that they knew everything, and a message to stop [writing for dissident outlets]. So I did.’ There is no clear evidence linking Amesys’ technology to Koussa accessing Fannush’s emails. However, Fannush’s email address is in the draft manual created in March 2009. Amesys signed contracts for the equipment in 2007, and installed it in 2008. Image from Amesys’ technical specification showing the monitoring centre Inside the Eagle dealDocuments seen by the Bureau reveal the potential extent of collaboration between the French company – which at that point was called i2e – and the Libyan government. An unsigned draft of the contract and a detailed technical specification, both dated 2006, outline the systems Amesys proposed to create for Gaddafi’s regime as part of the Homeland Security Program. Amesys proposed a wide-ranging system, including security and encryption protocols for the country’s phone, email and computer networks. The proposal entailed ‘communication and data interception’ of mobile and fixed lines, email, and computer exchanges. These would allow the authorities to locate and even to remotely activate microphones on mobile phones. ‘The objective of this development programme is to be able to trigger phones of selected persons and be able to listen to their discussions using their GSM phone as a microphone and without their awareness,’ the proposal states. Amesys proposed to send two engineers to Tripoli to train Libyan engineers in how to use it, with a further three engineers working in either France or Libya to custom-design the phone eavesdropping system. The contract seen by the Bureau was only a draft. When contacted by the Bureau, Amesys said the contract it signed related to analysis hardware for a few thousand internet lines, and did not enable the regime to access satellite internet communications, encrypted data such as Skype, web filtering, or fixed or mobile phone lines. It also pointed to a previous public statement on the website of its parent company, Bull.

In autumn 2011 I worked on the Spy Files project, a collaboration between WikiLeaks, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the Washington Post, L’Espresso, Owni and others. We examined the global surveillance industry and identified western companies that were selling to dictatorships.

As part of this I tracked down a group of people in London who documents suggested were the targets of spying by Gaddafi.

The original article is here.

::

Was Gaddafi ‘cyber-spying’ on opponents in the UK?

The operating manual for a spying system built for Colonel Gaddafi may have contained the email addresses of a British lawyer and the new Libyan ambassador to the UK, suggesting that the oppressive regime’s ability to electronically spy on opponents may have extended to Britain.

Amesys, a French company, sold its ‘Eagle’ online surveillance system to the Libyan government in 2007.

The technology is marketed for monitoring terrorists and serious criminals, but it appears the Gaddafi regime may have used it to keep tabs on political opponents, including those overseas. There is no evidence that anyone was harmed as a result of the Amesys system. But a Libya-based individual who is identified in a draft of the manual was summoned in 2009 to explain his emails by Gaddafi’s feared spying chief, Moussa Koussa. It is not known, however, whether this was directly connected or not.

The Libyan surveillance centres were discovered in August by the Wall Street Journal, but this is the first time it has been suggested the technology may have been used outside Libya.

Following the Bureau’s revelations that Gaddafi may have spied on individuals in London, Daniel Kawczynski MP, Conservative leader of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Libya, has said he intends to write to the prime minister on the matter. Mr Kawczynski will urge David Cameron to ask President Sarkozy why a French company sold such technologies to a repressive regime.

The draft Eagle operating manual, obtained by French website Owni and seen by the Bureau, is dated March 2009 and contains screengrabs appearing to show the system in action. Emails and other identifiers have been redacted, but these redactions were easily reversed.

When contacted by the Bureau, Amesys said: ‘The Libyan authorities were the only ones in a position to operate the equipment. Amesys therefore, has never compiled any list for the Libyan authorities. The manual you are referring to, contains screengrab[s] exclusively provided by the customer, including page 52. Amesys does not operate any listening centre anywhere in the world.’

Targets for surveillance
One screengrab features the email addresses of many individuals based in Britain.

The 40 addresses and phone numbers in the image, some of which are aliases for the same person, include those of members of Libya Forum, a network of dissidents based in London, Washington and Helsinki. It appears that this is only half of the list.

The name at the top, ‘Annakoa’, has been identified as Mahmud Nacua, the new Libyan government’s ambassador to London. When the draft manual was compiled, he was a prominent dissident, living in London and writing for several Arabic newspapers and magazines.

Mr Nacua told the Bureau he first learned that he may have been under surveillance earlier this year. ‘I’m not surprised – in the past I had a website, and Gaddafi’s intelligence hacked it and destroyed it. This was five or six years ago. The main purpose for [monitoring emails] was to know what I was up to, what I was writing.’

He added: ‘When you use this revolution of technology to serve people, to improve their lives, to protect them from criminals, that’s good. But when it goes to the other side, to be used in a bad way, I think everyone would condemn that use of technology.’

In an indication of how far Gaddafi’s overseas surveillance network may have spread, the list also names a London-based lawyer, Jeffrey Smele of media lawyers Simons Muirhead & Burton. Smele’s only obvious connection to Libya is that he once helped defend a defamation case against Ashur Shamis, editor of the Akhbar Libya website, who is also on the list.

It is not clear whether the apparent list of targets was assembled using Eagle, or whether human intelligence or other surveillance were used. However, Smele’s inclusion, given his tangential connections with Libya, suggests that at least some of the addresses may have been harvested from the email accounts of other targets.

Smele told the Bureau: ‘I expect that sort of thing from the Gaddafi regime, but I was surprised that someone with only my peripheral involvement in one libel case regarding a UK-based Libyan blogger could end up on what appears to be a weapon system – because if it’s a surveillance system, that’s effectively what it is.

‘I have never had anything to do with Libyan internal or foreign affairs…it’s always going to be a surprise to find out you’re potentially on the receiving end of a foreign government’s spying,’ he added.

The Bureau contacted five other individuals on the list.

Dr Younis Fannush, a Libyan writer, lived in exile for 20 years, returning to Benghazi in 1997. He wrote for Ashur Shamis’s website Akhbar Libya under several pseudonyms, and was in contact with other members of the Libya Forum.

In 2009, he was summoned to Tripoli, to the office of Moussa Koussa, then Gaddafi’s chief of external intelligence.

‘I went to that meeting thinking I would never come back: I was expecting to go from his office to jail, or worse, because I knew I had been acting against [Koussa] and Gaddafi,’ Fannush said.

At the meeting, Koussa produced print-outs of Fannush’s email conversations with Ashur Shamis and other members of the Libya Forum.

‘He knew everything about my connections with my colleagues in London, and all the names I was writing under,’ he said.

‘He didn’t show me the police face of the regime: he was very kind and very gentle with me. He told me, what you’re saying is natural; Libya is your country. You have a right to write things, and if you need anything, I’m ready. I thanked him and said I got the message,’ Fannush continued.

Fannush interpreted the meeting as a warning: ’It was a message that they knew everything, and a message to stop [writing for dissident outlets]. So I did.’

There is no clear evidence linking Amesys’ technology to Koussa accessing Fannush’s emails. However, Fannush’s email address is in the draft manual created in March 2009.

Amesys signed contracts for the equipment in 2007, and installed it in 2008.

Image from Amesys’ technical specification showing the monitoring centre

Inside the Eagle deal
Documents seen by the Bureau reveal the potential extent of collaboration between the French company – which at that point was called i2e – and the Libyan government.

An unsigned draft of the contract and a detailed technical specification, both dated 2006, outline the systems Amesys proposed to create for Gaddafi’s regime as part of the Homeland Security Program.

Amesys proposed a wide-ranging system, including security and encryption protocols for the country’s phone, email and computer networks.

The proposal entailed ‘communication and data interception’ of mobile and fixed lines, email, and computer exchanges. These would allow the authorities to locate and even to remotely activate microphones on mobile phones.

‘The objective of this development programme is to be able to trigger phones of selected persons and be able to listen to their discussions using their GSM phone as a microphone and without their awareness,’ the proposal states.

Amesys proposed to send two engineers to Tripoli to train Libyan engineers in how to use it, with a further three engineers working in either France or Libya to custom-design the phone eavesdropping system.

The contract seen by the Bureau was only a draft. When contacted by the Bureau, Amesys said the contract it signed related to analysis hardware for a few thousand internet lines, and did not enable the regime to access satellite internet communications, encrypted data such as Skype, web filtering, or fixed or mobile phone lines. It also pointed to a previous public statement on the website of its parent company, Bull.

About:

I'm a writer and editor based in London. I write news, features, that kind of thing. This is where you'll find things I've written, and things that have caught my eye. Get in touch by emailing alice {at } alicerosswrites.com

Following:

Mother Jones magazine on Tumblr
The Atlantic
#realtalk from your editor
ShortFormBlog
hitRECordJoe
Fast Company
The New Yorker
The Guardian
Rolling Stone
The New Republic
The Awl
The Economist
Bureau Bites
the krause notebook
Design Storytelling
awesome people hanging out together
Party Oysters
The Nia Show
Vanity Fair
Stephen Abbott's Tumblr
Ramble on Rose
By Leonora
Food Feminism Fun
The Gin Palace
Stuff: Siobhan's scrapbook
By Marcus Kernohan