Talk:Waihopai Valley

Untitled
This article clearly shows a biased view of the work performed by the UKUSA network. More specifically, the following paragraph has an obvious political tone to it:

"'Its two satellite interception dishes (shielded by giant domes) intercept a huge volume of satellite phone calls, including New Zealanders’ international calls, plus telexes, faxes, e-mail and computer data communications. It gathers this data from our Asia/Pacific neighbours, and forwards it on to the major partners in the UKUSA Agreement, specifically the US National Security Agency. Its targets include international communications involving New Zealanders. The codename for this – Echelon – has become known worldwide. New Zealand is an integral, albeit junior, part of a global spying network, one that is ultimately accountable to its own constituent agencies, not governments, and not to citizens.'"

The UKUSA network is accountable to the governments who oversee it through standard government chain of command. Although that fact can be disputed, it is nevertheless the official position of GCHQ, a partner of that network:

People sometimes think that we cannot be accountable because we do not disclose much about GCHQ's operations and methods.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, GCHQ is subject to very rigorous oversight both by Parliament and senior members of the judiciary, and works entirely within a legal framework which complies with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Activities at GCHQ are underpinned by the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (amended most recently by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The purposes for which interception may be permitted are set out explicitly in these Acts: national security, safeguarding economic wellbeing, and the prevention and detection of serious crime. Interception for other purposes is not lawful, and we do not do it.

If only because it is the official position of members of the network, the above mentionned claim in dispute should be moved to a "criticisms" section and not be included as factual information.

Zlorfik 13:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)