With all honesty, if you're a programmer or a hacker working for GCHQ (I'm certain there are some of you around here) you should really bury your head in shame. No excuses, you are simply disgusting.
I know you are upset about the spying on private citizens for deceptive purposes, but lets not throw out the good with the bad. Yes, the agencies are overzealous and have overstepped their mandate, but that does not mean every single person working for them is an evil person out to get you. Real people work there, and nearly all of them probably have nothing to do with this. Reform, not harassing innocent bystanders, should be the aim here.
There certainly are problems with the excessive government surveillance -- it is also the duty of a government in any civilised, democratic nation to protect its citizens from itself, after all.
However, it seems unconstructive to go all gung-ho against people who are probably mostly just trying to do some good from what is inevitably sometimes an awkward position. It's like arguing we'd be better without a police force because sometimes bad people manage to become police officers and sometimes their colleagues can't just flick a switch and shut them off, or arguing that we shouldn't invest in military forces because it gives the government the power to kill people from afar and in any case diplomacy is preferable to violence. Those things may all be true, but that doesn't mean we'd really be better off if the organisations with a degree of corruption or inadequate safeguards were eliminated rather than fixed.
This is not intrinsically the case; though modern general-purpose police organizations tend to be paramilitary (however, specialized regulatory law-enforcement bodies with police powers often aren't paramilitary in structure and operation the way most general police agencies working for the same government are.)
So, I don't think this is a situation that is fundamentally not subject to reform, though it might require rethinking fairly fundamentally the role of law enforcement, and redistributing much of what is now the role of general law enforcement agencies into domain specific agencies that are not defined by being enforcement agencies despite including enforcement functions within their domain as part of their brief.
That seems pessimistic.
For one thing, any organisation made of real people is in reality affected by the views of those people. Even if there are some bad spies/cops/soldiers out there, a lot of people who get into that line of work do do it for the right reasons and because they genuinely want to make the world a safer place. If very bad things start happening, none of these organisations is going to universally side with a government that is doing those things.
For another thing, any organisation that requires funding is subject to influence by whoever funds it. As long as someone has to pay PC Smith's salary and there is enough civilisation left for essentials to require money to buy them, PC Smith is going to be accountable on some level because he or she literally can't afford not to be.
For a third thing, any organisation that enjoys special privileges that most people do not have, for example greater resources provided by the state or powers to do certain things legally when they would otherwise be illegal, is always under threat of having their special status revoked. The natural order is that everyone has the same rights and powers and resources, and the only ways that change are either through democratic acceptability as with policing by consent or through an actual dictatorship/police state scenario. And for reasons 1 and 2 above, it is highly unlikely we would ever actually reach the latter, which means the only way the police and security services get to keep doing what they're doing (and the only way the politicians get to keep their jobs) is by maintaining sufficient public support and trust. As we've seen in recent elections, there isn't a lot of that going around lately, so it seems unlikely that anyone wants to rock the boat unnecessarily.
Finally, it's worth remembering that we're talking about Britain here, which means the police very much isn't a paramilitary force in the way that many other countries have. Neither our citizens nor our police routinely carry firearms, for example, and while there are certainly specialist units in the police that do have that kind of equipment, they don't have anything like the numbers or equipment to put down a serious popular revolt. At the end of the day, there are still only 150,000 or so people working for the police, out of a population of well over 60,000,000.
This is why I think we're still a very, very long way from the kind of brutal dictatorships and police states that some people in the world still tragically live under today, and why I think despite the flaws of our various government organisations and the need to be mindful of their power and restrict it appropriately we are still a long way from any point of no return in terms of the balance of power between the state and its citizens. We've just let paranoia after a few high profile but actually relatively minor incidents tip the balance too far towards authoritarian tendencies in recent years -- which is, after all, why it's called "terrorism". At some point, we as a society are going to realise that this just plays into the bad guys' hands and stop putting up with it, and the balance will tip back again.
If anything history has taught us that this isn't true. Oragnisations like the police and army of any dictatorhip get swept up in it and become part of it.
But we aren't starting from a position of dictatorship in the West, nor do we have things like an army formed primarily from conscripts or a police force whose members live in fear of some secret police force hurting their families if they don't comply.
I know my example is a little extreme, but it's kind of what GCHQ and NSA do, too. They use their powers maybe 10% of the time to look for terrorists and whatnot, and then the other 90% to get data on everyone, including people in power that they can blackmail and influence. Don't think this is just a theory. There have been articles in the UK press about MI5 for instance covering up child abuse by politicians because they wanted to blackmail them with that. Enough said?
However, my appraisal of "safety" markedly differs (like most people's appraisals of things) and I am more concerned with an overzealous government than a foreign attacker. I would trade my google search history for a bullet-proof vest if I was in a war-zone. However, I am not, and I don't think giving it to the government makes me safer.
However, people view the risk to the country and themselves differently and they also put markedly different values on their own privacy[0]. Also, this article should come as absolutely NO surprise to anyone in the HN community (or even anyone with internet).
edit: [0] which they use as a framework to assess how others value their own privacy AND the value they themselves put on others privacy.
The point I was sort of facetiously making here was that the people who implement these things don't think about it the way we do. They probably don't feel ashamed and do it out of a misplaced sense of patriotism, power or coercion(if they got caught doing wire crimes).
More granularly, if you believe you are protecting America from a 9/11 scale attack I could certainly see trading away some of your fellow countrymen's privacy.
These aren't my personal views on privacy or security I was making the point that some engineers won't be ashamed implementing this sort of stuff. I am pro freedom and privacy to be clear, and, I wouldn't make the above trade.
Citation?
I've seen articles like this, http://news.sky.com/story/1523821/child-abuse-pm-tells-polic..., but none that give the reason for the coverup as being enabling MI5 to blackmail people.
I agree. Those engineers are just following orders. They bear no personal responsibility at all...
"The standard you walk past, is the standard you accept."
Jacob Appelbaum gave a very interesting talk[2] about a month ago where he specifically addressed[3] this problem (among other topics - the entire talk is worth watching). He even gets a question from someone from the NSA[4] who was in the audience, who also asked about this problem.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaqpoeVgr8U
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Xw3z-8oP4
There are definitely a lot of areas that wouldn't suffer from this problem. I'd be surprised if a cryptographer couldn't distinguish between working on civilian signals intelligence vs military (since the first will be using published ciphers).
Any how far does the scope of assisting the organization go? If you work for the FBI in a non-surveillance capacity, are you still part of the machine since the FBI and NSA cooperate on counter-terrorism? Should everybody at the FBI with a conscience quit because some in the organization have taken advantage of overextended surveillance powers?
Also it's not like the UK has conscription into GCHQ.
Does that means mobsters also shouldn't be reviled?
When what they've done, effectively, is surveil everyone including the very people who are supposed to be able to exercise oversight and enact reforms how can oversight succeed?
I for one think the corruption is simply too deep to root out while keeping these orgs intact. They need to be torn down and rebuilt with clear missions consistent with our constitution (in the us), strict boundaries, and oversight. Reform is insurmountable when they still hold this wealth of illegally gathered surveillance data and retain their existing command structure.
The data must be destroyed. These orgs must be broken up and rebuilt so they are fit for purpose. Criminal, not overzealous is the word for what they've done. That in no way makes every person working there a criminal and I don't think demonizing the rank and file is productive or appropriate but we cannot keep watering down the severity of the problem for the sake of their feelings either.
A single 1To hdd may contain 10Ko of information on every UK citizen. So while we clean, we'd better check every single pocket of every employee...
History shows that the only way this is likely to happen is when the revolutionaries storm the building, such as the collapse of East Germany and the Stasi, or the Libyan security files blowing around in the street after the airstrikes.
Then there's the whole business of supplying intelligence to support the policy of invading Iraq, and the mysterious death of Dr. David Kelly. The Iraq invasion made us considerably less safe at the cost of about a million (non-coalition) lives.
But what would we do if we wanted to provide total security? The naive and most popular approach is to give total control to the government. Not secure yet? More control then. Technology is the most promising way to achieve total control yet, and it's actually growing much faster than any global threat.
Anytime I read an article about some spying technology, I can imagine those developers looking at the existing infrastructure and internet technologies, thinking "we can totally do something to control this and that as well". That will actually be the "office culture" in places like the NSA. I know that's how I would think if I was sure my organization was serving a legitimate purpose. My colleagues would agree, and we'd high-five each other about redirecting yet another stream of information into our system. And whenever anyone has any doubts, group-dynamics or -think will take care of that. And if that's still not enough, maybe you need deeper philosophical help? https://boingboing.net/2015/08/11/the-failed-writer-who-beca...
With all those leaked documents, I've not even once heard about any limits. None. There's no "we'd like to know and control much more, but obviously we'll stop at that". If you gave the CIA the ultimate device that could provide them with all the information about every single human being on the planet and would also allow them to kill any individual instantly, they would immediately start using that. They don't want any oversight, they don't want anyone to control them, they don't want to have to respect anyone's privacy. They think they have a certain mandate or duty, and those things are by nature standing in their way of fulfilling it.
These developers absolutely should hang their heads in shame. Because every last one of them should understand that their organizations won't stop for ethical reasons, or deny themselves certain powers which should not be concentrated in the hands of a few people, no matter how well they think they mean. Being a "real person", not being out to get the average joe (but still spying on him), and generally meaning well - that doesn't make you any less guilty. At best it means you're a naive idiot who trusts authority too much, at worst you don't care and just want to play with your cool toys.
The world definitely isn't all roses and sunshine. Just because you think you're working for your country, making sure those who promise to protect it get all the help they could ever wish for and more, that doesn't mean the things you create will actually be used for "good". All it means is that someone further up now has more power than before, and they will use it the way everyone uses their power - to further their own interests. You simply hope your interests and theirs are the same and along the lines of "sticking it to those terrorists", but if history has shown anything, it's that power corrupts. I have zero doubt that those systems will be used against all of us eventually.
Let's be clear here. This is the first time in the history of the world that nearly all ordinary communications by ordinary citizens, globally, are aggressively being monitored. The impact hasn't yet been fully felt by the global populace, but the power of these tools to rig the system and suppress dissent is very large and there is currently no effective check on these powers that is subject to public scrutiny.
there are rogue nation-states and rogue actors
Okay, see, you are just wrong there. I personally know about 5 people who are crazy good programmers (systems programming and all) who have been unable to find jobs. They say they have trouble finding employment because of their age... time commitments (can only put in 40 hours, need to take care of kids), etc. It absolutely is the fact that some of these people take these jobs because they pay competitively and meet with their requirements. I know this because I personally know some of them and they told me exactly this.
it really makes you wonder what sort of people their roles appeal to...
almost all of the mathmos I knew really thought GCHQ would be an amazing place to work, and about 50% ended up there, with the other 50% at quant funds (more or less correlated with religion).
this was of course prior to the Snowden disclosures, I'm not sure it's such a hot place to work these days...
I grew up in the shadow of the doughnut (it was sheds then) and they recruited 'second 11' folks from my school, the ones that didn't get A's. The buy in is that they can pay a mortgage, brings some more kids into the world and not have to leave Gloucestershire. They are all kept in little boxes so none know the big picture, except they believe they are protecting the world from Osama/kiddie porn.
Although no hard evidence, I believe the doughnut people also have everyone's school reports too. Imagine the lengths or procedures in place to do that. Yep, the spy on kids.
I suppose the only way you can do this work is by being delusional, they likely seek the quality out.
Religious zealots fit perfectly the psychological profile of the typical alphabet agency stooge.
They're dogmatic, conformists, traditionalists/conventionalists, authoritarians by nature (more specifically RWA[0]), malleable to chauvinistic rhetoric and propaganda, averse and hostile to opposition's rhetoric and dissenters.
That explains why these folks are attracted to these positions and why those spy agencies seek them aggressively and make no mistake some of them are very bright and innovative but unfortunately their brain is severely compartmentalized and the one chamber holding the religious and nationalist stuff is extremely deficient in terms of mental capacity and reasoning.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism
Who has the courage to shame these people to their face for collaborating in our oppression? It's easy to wax poetic and spit fire on the internet, but it's much harder to actually shun someone standing in front of you.
God knows how many there are doing these jobs.
Also, if you get a reputation for hiring the brightest and best, you also get people who've spent so long being told they're the brightest and best that they may have little concern for whatever lesser beings get spied on, shamed, discredited, disenfranchised during their fun intellectual challenges.
Right, I'm on a list somewhere now! Hi echelon.
And it IS a cult, make no doubt about it!
People who work for these agencies deserve no quarter, and they serve no useful place in a free and open society. I don't view myself as a 'mean' person, and I probably wasn't particularly effective when abusing this guy, but I like to think it's the thought that counts.
Really? Wow. I am concerned at the lack of human decency, the unwillingness to at least conduct a civil dialogue about his point of view. "Breaking" a person is really quite manipulative, harsh, and implies their existing person and personality are 'wrong', and I am concerned that is even considered as a valid action. Even the devil deserves his fair day in court.
FISA? In my dealings with sociopaths, or merely the deluded, nothing sets the record straight like a public calling out on their bullshit.
The softly softly approach with these enablers doesn't work quick enough, unless you meet them regularly. You want the experience to stick.
Jaywalking, sure. Homicide, not so much.
I don't understand why someone would choose to say that the NSA or their workers are innocent, as we have mountains of evidence to their obvious malfeasance.
There is 0 path to justice in holding our government accountable, so welcome to the impotent rage of the masses.
You are mistaken if you think people should only be taken to task within a court hearing.
In any case these guys are never going to court.
The point was to publicly challenge the people that work for the surveillance-industrial-complex. That is simply free speech. The other party has the right to yell back if the desire, or to simply leave[1]l.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
There is a difference between crude or vulgar name-calling/insults and challenging someone with language that is frank, strong, and maybe a bit rude. One is just trying to make people angry and the other is seeking to throw a bucket of cold water onto someone's naive or harmful point of view.[2]
[1] Free speech doesn't guarantee you an audience.
[2] Failure to understand this distinction is why some people perceive Linus Torvalds as being rude and "foul mouthed".
Total Surveillance is a Crime Against Humanity.
NO! THIS IS NOT HOW A FREE SOCIETY WORKS!
The corruption of government begins with its secrets. A truly free people keep no secrets.
If you continue to justify this corruption, you are encouraging the downfall of Western society. We did not attain the heights we have through secrecy and class warfare disguised as security theatre.
We must discourage involvement in these organizations to the same degree that we discourage teenagers from going on jihad. It is truly the same degree of bigotry and intolerance which allows such machinations to persist in our society - on the one hand, violent extremism. On the other hand: covert extremism.
My former GCHQ-supporting associate recently left, to start his own hardware company in an unrelated (non-surveillance-state) field. As much as I appreciate his design and skill at producing appealing devices (synthesizers), I strongly boycott his business. We must punish this "secret clearance class" of society with utter disdain, disrespect, shame and discouragement. We must not let future generations rise to assume that this totalitarian/authoritarian control system is the norm - it may be too late, but nevertheless, civil discouragement must be perpetuated in light of the total failure of our supposed democratic institutions to protect us from this covert violence.
Replace porn with '*' and now we're really cooking...
I've written a small-scale system for VoIP calls, to archive and index all network traffic - it's amazingly useful for debugging. Several years back, on a single quad-core machine with 1 disk, I was able to handle 5TB (several billion messages) of signalling data per day - indexing, archiving, searching. I'm nothing amazing. (I went to SF thinking I could somehow turn this indexing system into amazing profit. First guy I showed says "oh yeah I recognize this, go get <some intro db textbook>". Oops, so much for breakthrough ideas.)
A team of me-equivalents (with some that _have_ gone to school) and a nice budget could end up designing something like these spy systems. They aren't the Manhattan Project requiring new knowledge no one in the world has. I'm no 3-sigma intellect. There are dozens of millions of people more intelligent than me. Complaining about it and shaming engineers will not work against such critical projects.
I wouldn't be so sure - GCHQ recruits heavily from Cambridge and Oxford, and I once met a Mathematics PhD who told me in the UK his two main options for employment were academia or the service. They have a lot of crypto talent there and they're not working on the big data systems talked about here.
Besides inventing public key cryptography?
If the government were building a device to blow up the moon, would saying "that's what we pay them to do" (due to us paying tax) be a valid excuse?
There's a reason for external oversight and governance - you don't need malice in a large organisation to get a really shitty outcome, just a bunch of cogs in the machine each chasing local optima.
Didn't the US government organisation responsible for security checking millions of employees and presumably storing all kinds of sensitive information about them in the process just have a huge leak?
I have a sense of Schadenfreude about that particular incident from the point of view of a government collecting too much data and itself becoming the victim, but when you look at it on the level of the individuals involved and presumably also their family and friends in some cases, it's pretty hard to see any real upside to that kind of result.