This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24493062

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Guardian's leaks publication a 'public service', says Cable Guardian's leaks publication a 'public service', says Cable
(about 1 hour later)
The Guardian performed a "considerable public service" when it published details of surveillance programmes, Vince Cable has said. The Guardian performed a "considerable public service" by publishing leaks about secret surveillance, Business Secretary Vince Cable has said.
The business secretary added there needed to be "political oversight of the intelligence services". But Mr Cable appeared to contradict his party leader, Nick Clegg, who has suggested the stories were damaging.
Earlier, a senior UK security expert said the leaking of documents by Edward Snowden was the "most catastrophic loss to British intelligence ever". A UK expert said the leaks from Edward Snowden were the "most catastrophic loss to British intelligence".
Sir David Omand said it was likely that China and Russia now had the data. Downing Street said there were no plans to review the system that oversees the security services.
Mr Cable's comments appeared to contradict those of his Lib Dem party leader, Nick Clegg, on Thursday, who described the publication of the leaks as damaging. A spokesman, however, said the prime minister is ready to listen to ideas for improving the system.
He was speaking as Mr Cable also called for "proper political oversight of the intelligence services" in remarks to BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
'Good' system already'Good' system already
In May, Mr Snowden leaked information to the Guardian about mass surveillance programmes such as the US National Security Agency's Prism and GCHQ's Tempora operations.In May, Mr Snowden leaked information to the Guardian about mass surveillance programmes such as the US National Security Agency's Prism and GCHQ's Tempora operations.
The Guardian has defended its decision to publish documents leaked by the former US intelligence worker, who was granted asylum in Russia, and has vowed to publish more.The Guardian has defended its decision to publish documents leaked by the former US intelligence worker, who was granted asylum in Russia, and has vowed to publish more.
Mr Cable told BBC Radio 4' Today programme: "I think Mr Snowden's contribution is two-fold. One is a positive one - the whistleblowing - the other is more worrying which is a large amount of genuinely important intelligence material does seem to have been passed across. Mr Cable told Today: "I think Mr Snowden's contribution is two-fold. One is a positive one - the whistleblowing - the other is more worrying which is a large amount of genuinely important intelligence material does seem to have been passed across.
"We do need to have proper political oversight of the intelligence services and arguably we haven't until now," he added."We do need to have proper political oversight of the intelligence services and arguably we haven't until now," he added.
Earlier this year, the government's Intelligence and Security committee's powers to scrutinise the work of the security services were increased.Earlier this year, the government's Intelligence and Security committee's powers to scrutinise the work of the security services were increased.
Under the Justice and Security Act 2013, the committee now has a statutory power to demand information from the security services, instead of the right to request documents and staff now have powers to go into the offices of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and look at material.Under the Justice and Security Act 2013, the committee now has a statutory power to demand information from the security services, instead of the right to request documents and staff now have powers to go into the offices of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and look at material.
Prime Minister David Cameron said there would be no review of the oversight of the security services, despite Guardian reports that Deputy Prime Minister Mr Clegg was to start conversations in government about updating the way politicians oversee the security services.Prime Minister David Cameron said there would be no review of the oversight of the security services, despite Guardian reports that Deputy Prime Minister Mr Clegg was to start conversations in government about updating the way politicians oversee the security services.
The prime minister said on Thursday "a good legal framework" already existed.The prime minister said on Thursday "a good legal framework" already existed.
On Friday a spokesman said Mr Cameron "thinks the current system is a good one and it works well," but "if others have ideas he is prepared to listen to them".On Friday a spokesman said Mr Cameron "thinks the current system is a good one and it works well," but "if others have ideas he is prepared to listen to them".
'Seriously damaging''Seriously damaging'
Mr Clegg responded to the question of more oversight of the security services on Friday saying the government had already "significantly strengthened the powers of oversight".Mr Clegg responded to the question of more oversight of the security services on Friday saying the government had already "significantly strengthened the powers of oversight".
But he added that "many of these revelations have quite rightly raised questions about how we can increase oversight further where that is clearly justified".But he added that "many of these revelations have quite rightly raised questions about how we can increase oversight further where that is clearly justified".
Former Home Secretary Jack Straw hit out at the Guardian saying its stance was "indulgent irresponsibility" which did not help protect the public.
His comments come in an interview to be broadcast on the BBC's Sunday Politics Wales.
He said the Guardian had a "sense of power of having these secrets and excitement... about these secrets has gone to their heads".
"They are blinding themselves about the consequence and also showing an extraordinary naivety and arrogance in implying that they are in a position to judge whether or not particular secrets which they publish are - are or not - likely to damage the national interest," said Mr Straw.
Sir David Omand said it was likely that China and Russia now had the data.
Sir David, who is the former head of the UK's communications surveillance centre GCHQ, told The Times: "You have to distinguish between the original whistleblowing intent to get a debate going, which is a responsible thing to do, and the stealing of 58,000 top-secret British security documents and who knows how many American documents, which is seriously, seriously damaging.Sir David, who is the former head of the UK's communications surveillance centre GCHQ, told The Times: "You have to distinguish between the original whistleblowing intent to get a debate going, which is a responsible thing to do, and the stealing of 58,000 top-secret British security documents and who knows how many American documents, which is seriously, seriously damaging.
"The assumption the experts are working on is that all that information or almost all of it will now be in the hands of Moscow and Beijing.""The assumption the experts are working on is that all that information or almost all of it will now be in the hands of Moscow and Beijing."
He said it was "the most catastrophic loss to British intelligence ever".He said it was "the most catastrophic loss to British intelligence ever".
Nigel Inkster, who was director of operations and intelligence at MI6, and is now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told BBC Radio 4 programme The World at One he agreed with Sir David.
"The primary implication, I think, is that when we're talking about non-state armed groups and other malevolent non-state actors they have a much higher level of notice and awareness of the vulnerabilities of their communications and a much better capacity to assess the risks that they run in communicating with each other via any one or any group of communications options that are available to them."
He added that in terms of state-on-state espionage, "some of the reach and sophistication of the systems and capabilities developed by NSA and GCHQ have now been compromised".