NSA files – '60m Spanish phone calls monitored' as Merkel row continues – live coverage

Here's Nicholas Watt's full story about David Cameron's comments about whether he might "act" against the Guardian.

That's it from me for today. Join me again tomorrow.

Representatives from a Latin American human rights panel have told US diplomats that oversight of America's surveillance programmes is "illusory", Spencer Ackerman reports in Washington.

Members of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an arm of the Organization of American States, expressed frustration and dissatisfaction with the National Security Agency's mass surveillance of foreign nationals – something the agency argues is both central to its existence and necessary to prevent terrorism.

"With a program of this scope, it's obvious that any form of control becomes illusory when there's hundreds of millions of communications that become monitored and surveilled," said Felipe Gonzales, a commissioner and Chilean national.

"This is of concern to us because maybe the Inter-American Committee on Human Rights may become a target as well of surveillance," said Rodrigo Escobar Gil, a commissioner and Colombian citizen.

Earlier, Labour MP David Winnick urged David Cameron to congratulate the Guardian for publishing revelations from Snowden:

With the orchestrated campaign and witch-hunting against the Guardian newspaper, would this not be an appropriate time to congratulate that newspaper for publishing the details of how the mobile phone of the German chancellor had been monitored? Do you not consider that sort of information should be in the public domain?

Cameron replied:

I certainly wouldn't congratulate the Guardian newspaper because I can see what has been done here where information has been published about the work of our security and intelligence services, which quite frankly will make this country less safe.

We live in a free country so newspapers are free to publish what they want. We have not been heavy-handed and come in with injunctions and all the rest of it, but we do appeal to newspapers to use judgment and common sense and responsibility when they are making these decisions.

In fact, the Merkel story was broken by Der Spiegel.

Here’s a summary of today’s key events:

David Cameron has threatened to “act” against newspapers such as the Guardian that print revelations based on Edward Snowden’s leaked documents. The British prime minister raised the prospect of the use of “injunctions or D notices or the other tougher measures” of the newspapers “don’t demonstrate some social responsibility”.

 Claude Moraes, the Labour MEP who is heading the delegation of European parliamentarians visiting Washington to discuss spying today, has said that the Snowden documents suggest that "the type of surveillance that is taking place by intelligence services is completely disproportionate in the important fight against terrorism and for security". The allegations "need to be investigated", he said. Elmar Brok, the chairman of the European parliament's foreign affairs committee, told reporters that the US surveillance revelations could affect negotiations over a US-EU trade agreement.

The Spanish government has warned the US that revelations of widespread spying by the National Security Agency could, if confirmed, “lead to a breakdown in the traditional trust” between the two countries. The Spanish prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, summoned the US ambassador to explain the latest revelations to emerge from the files leaked by Edward Snowden, which suggested the National Security Agency tracked more than 60m phone calls in Spain in the space of a month.

Elmar Brok, the chairman of the European parliament's foreign affairs committee, has told reporters in Washington that the US surveillance revelations could affect negotiations over a US-EU trade agreement.

Brok said counterterrorism co-operation must continue but that European privacy must be better respected, and enshrined in data protection agreements now being negotiated as part of the trade deal. He said if a resolution to the crisis was not found, the entire deal could be affected.

Shadow minister Kevin Brennan questioned if Cameron's phone had been monitored by the US – "and if not why not?"

Cameron replied:

There was a very good moment at the dinner when one EU prime minister said how disappointed he was that clearly no one was interested in his conversations. I won't reveal who it was.

Cameron also defended the security services, calling them "silent heroes and heroines" as he reported back to MPs on last week's European council. And he repeated his defence of the system of parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence services, although he added that "as technology develops and threats we face evolve, so we need to make sure the scrutiny and frameworks in place remain strong and effective".

He said serious attempts were made to attack Britain once or twice a year, noting that 330 people had been convicted of terror offences in British courts since the 9/11 terror attacks.

I quote these figures just to demonstrate the scale of the ongoing threat we face in our country. Our intelligence has also allowed us to warn our EU allies about terrorist plots aimed at their people, about cyber attacks on their businesses and infrastructure, and about attempts in their own states to illegally traffic drugs, people, arms and money.

Ed Miliband, the opposition Labour leader, also praised the security services, although he added that "we can all understand the deep concerns recent reports have caused in some European countries, especially Germany. So as well as providing that support for intelligence services, it is right every country ensures proper oversight of those activities."

Cameron told the Commons:

We have a free press. It's very important the press feels it is not pre-censored from what it writes and all the rest of it.

The approach we have taken is to try to talk to the press and explain how damaging some of these things can be and that is why the Guardian did actually destroy some of the information and discs that they have but they've now gone on and printed further material which is damaging.

I don't want to have to use injunctions or D notices or the other tougher measures. I think it's much better to appeal to newspapers' sense of social responsibility.

But if they don't demonstrate some social responsibility it would be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act.

MPs have been tweeting details of what Cameron has been saying.

David Cameron told parliament today his government was likely to act to stop newspapers publishing what he called damaging leaks from former US intelligence operative Edward Snowden unless they began to behave more responsibly. The prime minister said:

If they [newspapers] don't demonstrate some social responsibility it will be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act.

He said the Guardian "gone on" to print damaging material after initially agreeing to destroy other sensitive data.

In Britain, prime minister David Cameron has said his government is likely to act against newspapers that do not show "social responsibility" over spying leaks, according to Reuters.

More details soon ...

Claude Moraes, the Labour MEP who is heading the delegation of European parliamentarians visiting Washington to discuss spying today, has just been interviewed in Washington on BBC News.

He admitted "spying has always existed, and occasionally friends spy on friends", but he said:

The fact is that spying is only the top note here. The real problem is the mass surveillance of citizens, in the European Union and other countries. It's the big metadata; that's the big problem.

The heart of the matter was "mass surveillance, and what that really does mean for people in the future", he said.

My colleagues at Guardian US have devised this interactive to illustrate the scope of the NSA's possible surveillance. The agency is allowed to travel “three hops” from its targets – who could be people who talk to people who talk to people who talk to you. Facebook, where the typical user has 190 friends, shows how three degrees of separation gets you to a network bigger than the population of Colorado – over 5 million people. Click here and find out how many people are three “hops” from you.

Claude Moraes, the Labour MEP who is heading the delegation of European parliamentarians visiting Washington to discuss spying today, has published a statement explaining the reasons for the MEPs' trip. Moraes, head of the civil liberties committee inquiry on mass surveillance of EU citizens, writes that the Snowden documents suggest that "the type of surveillance that is taking place by intelligence services is completely disproportionate in the important fight against terrorism and for security". The allegations "need to be investigated", he writes.

I am leading a European Parliament delegation to Washington on 28-30 October which will allow us to discuss directly with US counterparts the alleged surveillance activities by the American NSA and any impact they have in terms of EU citizens' fundamental right to privacy.
Since the Edward Snowden revelations in June, both authorities in the US and the EU agree that a public debate on these issues is welcome and necessary.
We consider it extremely important to meet with NSA’s Director, General Keith Alexander, who has repeatedly stated the importance of dialogue. Given the gravity of these accusations, the pivotal role he plays within the NSA and the political message that such a meeting would make, we are hoping that he will respond to our invitation positively.

Moraes mentions the recent approval by the European parliament of an amended package of legislation that would overhaul EU data protection rules that date from 1995. The European parliament also voted on Wednesday to suspend the Swift agreement, the international system used for transferring money electronically, which is based in Europe, because of suggestions the United States may have violated it, accessing more data than it was allowed to. He writes:

The key question is where will all these allegations lead to - for my part and my involvement with the European parliament's inquiry, emphasis has to be put on ensuring that there is a strong legal framework in place in the EU which not only protects EU citizens’ fundamental right to privacy but also ensures that member states and third countries, including the US, respect this right too.

In September the European parliament's civil liberties committee launched a public inquiry into the surveillance of EU citizens revealed by Snowden. But Moraes complains that no EU member states have agreed to have their intelligence agencies appear at the public hearings.

It is absolutely necessary that EU governments respond to these requests so that we can establish facts and ensure that European citizens are fully informed. It is only by participation of these intelligence authorities that we can get clarification on their surveillance programmes, especially in relation to their existence, scope, legality and proportionality.

This video shows James Costos, the US ambassador to Spain, arriving at the foreign ministry to meet officials.

The Spanish government has warned the US that revelations of widespread spying by the National Security Agency could, if confirmed, “lead to a breakdown in the traditional trust” between the two countries, writes Paul Hamilos in Madrid.

The White House has so far declined to comment on the El Mundo report. Spain, however, expressed its concern. José Manuel García Margallo, Spain’s minister of foreign affairs, warned of a “breakdown” in trust between Madrid and Washington at a press conference in Warsaw, where he was on an official visit.

Earlier yesterday, the US ambassador to Spain, James Costos, had been summoned to meet Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, Spain’s secretary of state for Europe.

Margallo took a harder line than the statement put out by his own ministry earlier in the day: “Spain has relayed to the United States the importance of preserving a climate of trust … and its interest in understanding the full reach of practices that, if true, would be considered inappropriate and unacceptable between allies.”

Spain has called on the US to explain the extent of spying on its citizens.

Public interest in Snowden's revelations seems to have grown these last two weeks as details have emerged of the monitoring of French, German and Spanish communications – and the revelation that the NSA monitored the phone conversations of 35 world leaders.

With that in mind it is worth recalling one of the Guardian's early stories based on the Snowden documents, which revealed that foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British government hosts. As we wrote at the time:

The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of surveillance by GCHQ and its American sister organisation, the National Security Agency, whose access to phone records and internet data has been defended as necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. The G20 spying appears to have been organised for the more mundane purpose of securing an advantage in meetings. Named targets include long-standing allies such as South Africa and Turkey.

There have often been rumours of this kind of espionage at international conferences, but it is highly unusual for hard evidence to confirm it and spell out the detail. The evidence is contained in documents – classified as top secret – which were uncovered by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian. They reveal that during G20 meetings in April and September 2009 GCHQ used what one document calls "ground-breaking intelligence capabilities" to intercept the communications of visiting delegations.

This included:

•  Setting up internet cafes where they used an email interception programme and key-logging software to spy on delegates' use of computers;

• Penetrating the security on delegates' BlackBerrys to monitor their email messages and phone calls;

• Supplying 45 analysts with a live round-the-clock summary of who was phoning who at the summit;

• Targeting the Turkish finance minister and possibly 15 others in his party;

•  Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow.

The documents suggest that the operation was sanctioned in principle at a senior level in the government of the then prime minister, Gordon Brown, and that intelligence, including briefings for visiting delegates, was passed to British ministers.

In case you missed it, there was a rally in protest against the surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden in Washington, DC, on Saturday.

As Jim Newell reports, thousands gathered to march, chant and listen to speakers and performers in a day called "Stop Watching Us".

As Jim points out, Stop Watching Us was sponsored by an unusually broad coalition of left- and rightwing groups, including everything from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Green Party, Color of Change and Daily Kos to the Libertarian Party, FreedomWorks and Young Americans for Liberty.

The Associated Press has a report on how the meeting between US ambassador James Costos and Spanish foreign ministry officials went.

Afterward, the ministry made no direct reference to the El Mundo report but called on US authorities to hand over all the necessary information concerning "supposed eavesdropping carried out in Spain".

Spain warned the United States "of the importance of preserving the climate of confidence existing in bilateral relations and to know the extent of practices, which if true, are impropriate and unacceptable between friendly allies," the ministry said in a statement.

Costos, for his part, reminded Spain how it has benefited from US intelligence.

The US "acknowledges that some of our closest allies have raised concerns about the recent series of unauthorised disclosures of classified information," the ambassador said.

He said the programmes referred to in the media "are national security programmes that have played a critical role in protecting citizens of the United States. They have also played an instrumental role in our coordination with our allies and in protecting their interests as well."

Costos referred to an internal review ordered by Barack Obama to ensure that the intelligence that is collected is "intelligence that should and needs to be collected".

"Ultimately, the United States needs to balance the important role that these programmes play in protecting our national security and protecting the security of our allies with legitimate privacy concerns," he said in his statement.

It is interesting that the Spanish reaction to allegations of spying by the NSA on its allies has been much more muted than that of Germany and France, adds Paul Hamilos.

The Spanish prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, last week went so far as to suggest he believed his phone had not been tapped, unlike that of his German counterpart, Angela Merkel, although he did not say why he thought this.

This El País article suggests that one of the reasons for this dates back to 2001, and the presidency of George Bush, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. At the time, the Spanish prime minister, José María Aznar, was keen to build a strong relationship with the US. In the teeth of opposition from the vast majority of the Spanish public, he agreed to join the Iraq war, and became a keen supporter of American intervention.

The article suggests that, as a result of this relationship, an understanding was reached between both countries not to ask too many questions about their monitoring of phone calls inside Spain.

Paul Hamilos points out an interesting comment piece in eldiaro.es, in which lawyer Gustavo Boye, editor of the satirical magazine Mongolia, raises the point that the reported American monitoring of Spanish phones would be illegal under article 97 of the penal code. But he also looks at the extraordinary level of legal, and possibly illegal, phone-tapping carried out by the Spanish intelligence services. Paul writes:

Under Spanish law a judge must give permission before a phone can be tapped, and is then required to permanently supervise the execution of that legal order. According to Boye, there are around one million phone lines currently being monitored in Spain, and given the number of judges, he says that works out at an average 600 wiretaps supposedly being supervised by each judge. That's a lot of work. As he suggests, it is impossible that this monitoring is really receiving any proper judicial oversight.

Britain’s intelligence and security committee announced last week that on 7 November it will be holding an open evidence session with the heads of GCHQ, MI5, and MI6, Sir Iain Lobban, Andrew Parker, and Sir John Sawers.

The Sun today reports what the paper says the three will say at the evidence session: that “spy bosses have lost track of terrorists plotting atrocities because of CIA fugitive Edward Snowden’s leaks”.

The paper claims:

Extremists stopped using electronic communications after he [Snowden] divulged details of UK surveillance. The alarming development means our spies can no longer keep track of militants’ plans and opens Britain up to a possible 9/11-style outrage.

It says that “in a bid to show the damage the leaks published by the Guardian have caused, [the spy chiefs] will speak out to intelligence and security committee MPs on November 7".

The paper, which illustrates its piece with a picture of the 9/11 attacks, quotes “a top surveillance source” as saying:

Some very dangerous people have gone quiet. There is no doubt Snowden is to blame. The last time visibility was lost on this scale was when Osama bin Laden discovered we could listen to his satellite phone conversations. The next we heard of him was 9/11.

In a leader column, the Sun attacks the Guardian for “recklessly and widely” reporting Snowden’s leaks and calls on politicians to abandon the idea that Snowden is a whistleblower.

Staying with Greenwald, the journalist was interviewed by Bill Keller, former executive editor of the New York Times, for a piece published yesterday. The piece shone some light on how Greenwald may proceed in reporting on the Snowden documents he has in his possession once he moves on to the new news website he is setting up with eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.

Keller asked Greenwald what his policy would be on publishing information “that some would argue jeopardises national security”. Greenwald replied:

As for taking into account dangers posed to innocent life before publishing: nobody disputes that journalists should do this. But I don’t give added weight to the lives of innocent Americans as compared to the lives of innocent non-Americans, nor would I feel any special fealty to the US government as opposed to other governments when deciding what to publish …

I have no objection to the process whereby the White House is permitted to give input prior to the publication of sensitive secrets.

Indeed, WikiLeaks, advocates of radical transparency, went to the White House and sought guidance before publishing the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, but the White House refused to respond, then had the temerity to criticize WikiLeaks for publishing material that it said should have been withheld. That pre-publication process is both journalistically sensible (journalists should get as much relevant information as they can before making publication decisions) and legally wise (every Espionage Act lawyer will say that such consultation can help prove journalistic intent when publishing such material). For all the N.S.A. reporting I’ve done — not just at The Guardian but with media outlets around the world — the White House was notified by editors before the fact of publication (though in the vast, vast majority of cases, their demands that information be suppressed were disregarded due to lack of specific reasons in favor of suppression).

My objection is not to that process itself but to specific instances where it leads to the suppression of information that ought to be public.

Here is what Greenwald said when asked about his venture with Omidyar:

We absolutely believe that strong, experienced editors are vital to good journalism, and intend to have plenty of those. Editors are needed to ensure the highest level of factual accuracy, to verify key claims, and to help journalists make choices that avoid harm to innocents.

But they are not needed to impose obsolete stylistic rules, or to snuff out the unique voice and passion of the journalists, or to bar any sort of declarative statements when high-level officials prevaricate, or to mandate government-requested euphemisms in lieu of factually clear terms, or to vest official statements or official demands for suppression with superior status. In sum, editors should be there to empower and enable strong, highly factual, aggressive adversarial journalism, not to serve as roadblocks to neuter or suppress the journalism.

We intend to treat claims from the most powerful factions with skepticism, not reverence. Official assertions are our stating point to investigate (“Official A said X, Y and Z today: now let’s see if that’s true”), not the gospel around which we build our narratives (“X, Y and Z, official A says”).

Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who broke many of the Snowden stories, will be leaving the paper on 31 October, he told his readers in a column published on Friday.

In the same piece he made three points about last week’s revelations about spying on France and Germany:

• First, note how leaders such as Chancellor Angela Merkel reacted with basic indifference when it was revealed months ago that the NSA was bulk-spying on all German citizens, but suddenly found her indignation only when it turned out that she personally was also targeted. That reaction gives potent insight into the true mindset of many western leaders.

• Second, all of these governments keep saying how newsworthy these revelations are, how profound are the violations they expose, how happy they are to learn of all this, how devoted they are to reform. If that's true, why are they allowing the person who enabled all these disclosures – Edward Snowden – to be targeted for persecution by the US government for the "crime" of blowing the whistle on all of this? ...

• Third, is there any doubt at all that the US government repeatedly tried to mislead the world when insisting that this system of suspicionless surveillance was motivated by an attempt to protect Americans from The Terrorists™? Our reporting has revealed spying on conferences designed to negotiate economic agreements, the Organization of American States, oil companies, ministries that oversee mines and energy resources, the democratically elected leaders of allied states, and entire populations in those states.

Greenwald also drew attention to the comments made by NSA director Keith Alexander last week; Alexander said ”we ought to come up with a way of stopping” reporting on Snowden’s leaks. He also accused journalists of “selling” the Snowden documents – which is not the case. Greenwald noted:

There are 25,000 employees of the NSA (and many tens of thousands more who work for private contracts assigned to the agency). Maybe one of them can tell The General about this thing called "the first amendment".

I'd love to know what ways, specifically, General Alexander has in mind for empowering the US government to "come up with a way of stopping" the journalism on this story. Whatever ways those might be, they are deeply hostile to the US constitution – obviously. What kind of person wants the government to forcibly shut down reporting by the press?

The debate over Alexander’s comments also illustrates the difference between the debate over the Snowden files in the US and in the UK. In Britain some spy chiefs, politicians and even rival newspapers have attacked the Guardian’s publication of these stories.

The Spanish prime minister, Mariano Rajoy, has summoned the US ambassador to explain the latest revelations to emerge from the files leaked by Edward Snowden, which suggest the National Security Agency tracked more than 60m phone calls in Spain in the space of a month, reports Paul Hamilos in Madrid.

Spain's European secretary of state, Íñigo Méndez de Vigo, is meeting James Costos as the White House struggles to contain a growing diplomatic crisis following accusations that the NSA monitored the phones of scores of allies, including the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

El Mundo newspaper reported on Monday that it had seen an NSA document that showed the US spy agency had intercepted 60.5m phone calls in Spain between 10 December 2012 and 8 January this year.

An NSA graphic, entitled "Spain – last 30 days", reportedly shows the daily flow of phone calls within Spain, and that on one day alone – 11 December 2012 – the NSA monitored more than 3.5m phone calls. It appears that the content of the calls was not monitored but the serial and phone numbers of the handsets used, the locations, sim cards and the duration of the calls were. Emails and other social media were also monitored.

Just as with the report about spying in France in Le Monde, the El Mundo story was co-written by Glenn Greenwald, who originally revealed the NSA surveillance programme in the Guardian based on leaks from Snowden. El Mundo said it had reached a deal with Greenwald to have the exclusive on the Snowden documents relating to Spain.

Welcome to our hub for all Edward Snowden, NSA and GCHQ-related developments around the world, as controversy over revelations leaked by the whistleblower continue to make headlines. As arguments rage over how much of our day to day life should be monitored in the name of security, we'll be tracking the growing global debate about privacy in the digital age. We'd like to know what you think about the whole NSA story, what you're worried about – and any new areas you'd like to read more about.

Good morning and welcome back to the Guardian’s live blog tracking the fallout from Edward Snowden’s leaks revealing vast programmes of US and UK surveillance.

Here are today’s headlines:

A Spanish newspaper has published a document it says shows the US National Security Agency spied on more than 60m phone calls in Spain in one month alone. The report in El Mundo comes a week after Le Monde reported similar allegations of US spying in France, and German magazine Der Spiegel reported that a document shows that Washington tapped chancellor Angela Merkel's mobile phone. El Mundo said that a document provided by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden shows that the NSA monitored the phone calls from 10 December 2012 to 8 January 2013, but not their content. The dates were the same in the French case.

The US National Security Agency was forced on Sunday to deny that its director ever discussed a surveillance operation against the German chancellor with President Barack Obama, as the White House tried to contain a full-scale diplomatic crisis over espionage directed at allied countries. The Obama administration appeared in disarray as it struggled with the fallout over the disclosure that the National Security Agency monitored the phone conversations of at least 35 world leaders, and that the phone of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, had been monitored.

Early on Sunday, the White House refused to comment on an overnight report in the German tabloid Bild, which alleged that Obama was personally briefed about by the operation to target Merkel's phone by the NSA's director, Keith Alexander, and allowed it to continue.

That appeared to conflict with a second report, in the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung. It said that when Obama spoke to Merkel over the phone on Wednesday, he assured the German leader he had not previously known her phone had been monitored.

Caitlin Hayden, the White House's national security council spokeswoman, declined to comment on the reports, telling the Guardian: "We are not going to comment publicly on every specific alleged intelligence activity."

However just over three hours later, that position appeared to have been reversed, when the NSA said in a statement that Alexander "did not discuss with President Obama in 2010 an alleged foreign intelligence operation involving German Chancellor Merkel, nor has he ever discussed alleged operations involving Chancellor Merkel. News reports claiming otherwise are not true".

The first signs are emerging that Obama's administration may seek to distance itself from the NSA, concluding that the spy-agency has strayed beyond its remit and overreached. Many senior figures in Congress have already said the NSA failed to properly inform them of the nature and scope of its surveillance activities.

 A delegation of nine MEPs are due to travel to Washington today for a three-day visit, during which they will press senior US government and intelligence officials for answers on allegations of widespread spying by the US, and explore "possible legal remedies for EU citizens" resulting from the alleged surveillance. The EU's civil liberties committee will meet members of Congress to express their concerns over the impact on EU citizens' fundamental right to privacy. Separately, the German government said on Friday that a group of senior officials including the heads of its foreign and domestic intelligence agencies would travel to the US "shortly" for talks at the White House and with the NSA.

We’ll have all this and more throughout the day today.