US denies listening in on David Cameron’s calls

David Cameron said he had not been targeted by the NSA, unlike German counterpart Angela Merkel. Picture: Getty

The statement came after claims that US intelligence agencies monitored the calls of a number of European politicians, including German chancellor Angela Merkel.

Merkel and French president François Hollande have both called for talks with the US administration before the end of the year to resolve the dispute and rebuild trust.

The Prime Minister yesterday indicated he had not been targeted by the US National Security Agency (NSA), while Merkel has already confronted US president Barack Obama over claims the NSA tapped her mobile phone.

Cameron signed up to a statement from all 28 EU leaders calling for the rebuilding of trust with the US. Allegations that US agencies engaged in widespread tapping of phone calls by prominent European politicians dominated the two-day European Council summit in Brussels.

Meanwhile, classified documents leaked by US whistleblower Edward Snowden outline GCHQ’s ongoing battle against having evidence obtained through interception being admissible in court.

According to reports, the leaked memos revealed the agency was keen to reduce the possibility of challenges against its widescale interception programmes. The agency feared right-to-privacy challenges under the Human Rights Act if information it intercepted became admissible as evidence in court.

Cameron mounted a staunch defence of the intelligence agency, issuing a stern reminder at the EU summit in Brussels that GCHQ’s intelligence had helped protect citizens across Europe from terrorist attacks.

The Prime Minister also denounced the leaks by former US intelligence operative Snowden and “what some newspapers are assisting him in doing” – warning that they were making it more difficult to keep people safe.

Four years ago, the intelligence agencies GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 defeated an attempt to make intelligence gathered from intercepts admissible in court, it was reported.

A note prepared for the GCHQ board before the decision was made public revealed it was keen to halt the proposals because of fears that even passing references to its surveillance powers could start a “damaging” public debate.

On the decision to publish the report about interception as evidence without classification, it said: “Our main concern is that references to agency practices [interception and deletion] could lead to damaging public debate which might lead to legal challenges against the current regime.”

An update from May 2012 outlined the “risks” of making intercepts admissible, including “the damage to partner relationships if sensitive information were accidentally released in open court”. It also highlighted that the “scale of interception and retention required would be fairly likely to be challenged on Article 8 [right to privacy] grounds.”

The documents also revealed that GCHQ has gone to great lengths to keep secret its relations with telecoms companies, which have gone “well beyond” their legal obligations in assisting intelligence agencies’ interception of communications in the UK and abroad.

The latest revelations came to light after it emerged that the NSA had monitored the telephone calls of at least 35 world leaders, using numbers obtained by officials in other US government departments.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, and Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, issued a joint statement stating: “Across the globe, these disclosures continue to raise fundamental questions about the lack of effective legal protection against the interception of all our communications.

“Yet in Britain that conversation is in danger of being lost beneath self-serving spin and scaremongering, with journalists who dare to question the secret state accused of aiding the enemy.

“A balance must of course be struck between security and transparency, but that cannot be achieved whilst the intelligence services and their political masters seek to avoid any scrutiny of, or debate about, their actions.”

Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, said: “The fact GCHQ has doubts about the legality of its surveillance reinforces the public interest in the disclosures about what has taken place in America and closer to home.

“Parliament never legislated to allow the scale of interception that has been exposed, with laws written long before widespread broadband internet access or Facebook existed. There is a clear and overwhelming need for a fundamental review of our legal framework and oversight mechanisms.

“If companies are handing over customer data or access to their equipment when there is no legal authority then those businesses may well have broken the law. This should be urgently investigated by the Information Commissioner.”