GCHQ 'intervened' over Harry Potter leak
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
I don't care about anything else, I'm just so glad that someone at GCHQ maintains their sense of humour whilst being a spook.
> I don't care about anything else
I suspect that's exactly the intention of this sort of PR.
Oh wait. It actually still is all about that. Just warmer and fluffier.
This is up there with the piece they ran a few days ago about how they saved us from shitty smart meters, which were instituted and approved by another department of government (ofgem). They're playing themselves off against themselves in order to make you think of them as GCHQ as better, when the whole is still just as rotten as it ever was.
When I was in the military, I discovered a vulnerability in a website while I was browsing the web bored at work. I did mention I was an airman. If somehow that resulted in a news story, I don't think it would be fair to demand a response from the Air Force. Sure, they were technically paying for me to do that, but it wasn't really the mission.
a) We don't know which this is
b) An organisation might choose to stand behind its - as you say, altruistic - employee
A leaked copy of the Harry Potter novel is not a national security threat in any way, shape or form. GCHQ are not there to enforce copyright.
GCHQ is way out of line here. I am very concerned that the agency will eventually use these capabilities to blackmail our elected leaders. As much as I'd like to have leaders who aren't corrupt, we have what we have. I'd still not want our corrupt politicians to be slaves to shadowy organizations.
True. Good thing that GCHQ's mission is (and has always been) much broader than national security. For example, they have an arm which provides Information Security advice[1].
GCHQ are not there to enforce copyright.
Fire departments aren't there cats out of trees. This is a cat.
[1] http://www.gchq.gov.uk/what_we_do/Information_Security/Pages...
No, but part of their remit is to protect "UK plc", from cybersecurity threats as they relate to economic attack.
J.K. Rowling was (arguably still is), a huge economic force. Billions and billions in revenues over many years, and she pays tax on all of it as a moral obligation: no Panama-led duck-outs into trust funds for her, so far.
So, let's suppose you're one of the 4,000-5,000 estimated staff members at GCHQ. You are looking at a part of the dark web in an effort to understand if its being used to arrange illegal arms deals, trade child pornography or other criminal material that falls within your employer's remit.
You notice a document that reports to be a leak of the publication of this book. It's about 500 pages, and the first page reads OK. You talk to your line manager about it.
You and your manager are going to have to realise that the leak of this book could lead to a loss in tax revenue equivalent to the entire annual operating budget of GCHQ. If genuine, it could be a severe impact on GDP.
Do you want them to do nothing? Or do you think it should be escalated internally and dealt with appropriately, which is to check with the publishers if it has been leaked?
The tricky question becomes what would have happened if the editor had confirmed it was real? What action would they have taken? That's where it gets dark...
On the side, they might try to stop this or that threat tl people's lives in UK or many eyes alliance. ;)
If GCHQ did want to alert the publisher there are very many ways they'd do this without calling and saying "oh hi semi-secret spy agency here".
PR on a dodgy govt agency that thinks the rules don't apply to them delivered via state web site.
To put things in perspective BAE systems revenue was $25 billion some years ago.
Spy agencies should not help domestic businesses by engaging in serious crime, i.e. industrial espionage, though some nations' intelligence agencies, including France's have done so.
If the easiest way to make money is to spy then it will happen.
Whoever does it successfully once will be rewarded, and that reward will reshape their behavior.
"There was [an instance] where a child was going to die
of an awful childhood condition before the book came
out," he said. "So we did the only thing we could do and
referred it to the author to decide how to handle it
because it's her story, not ours.
"History doesn't tell the outcome of that sad story, but
I'm sure it was a happy one."
Ouch.
I know I wouldn't publicise it - it is rather vulgar to use the death of a child to improve ones public images; publicly granting such a request will also bring the problem of more being made in the future.
There is also the risk to the book to consider. I can completely understand if an author chose not to give anybody special consideration. It is an unfortunate fact that it is impossible to guarantee the security of such a reading.
Not an easy decision, and I think the publisher is speaking out of turn by mentioning that such events have been considered.
Such events have already been publicly confirmed. Here's two:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...
When something unusual, or of a large magnitude, comes along these organisations will talk with each other to help mitigate the damage.
GCHQ does a lot of good work alongside invading our privacy.
(Of course, in the second case, they never tell you how they came to that conclusion, just that "something" was found.)
Once I even had a card start reporting fraudulent transactions before I even had a chance to activate it, which was bizarre.
It's also worth noting that different banks use different fraud detection algorithms, with different levels of sensitivity. Some card companies will call you at the drop of a pin, others are much more relaxed.
I've received one report of misuse of my card from the bank, and I was impressed. I had been in Georgia (the US state), stayed in a motel and bought gas for a rental car. All of that happened with no problems. A while later, someone used my information to make a purchase at a convenience store in Georgia (where I no longer was). That got flagged and the bank called me about it.
So in my experience, the bank is amazingly effective at determining which uses of your card are likely to be you and which aren't.
This is the actual purpose of 3d-secure and contactless payments - if you take the time to read the small print, or if you work on the merchant/retailer side of things, you'll know/find that in both cases liability for fraud is shifted to the consumer for the majority of cases, as by giving you the "secure token" (i.e. a cookie or a card) the only possible reason for any fraud in their reasoning is your own negligence.
So someone at GCHQ finds a story someone has wrote pretending to be new Harry Potter, and that warrants them ringing them up ??
Maybe the publisher is lying.
Maybe someone called but lied when they saidthey were from GCHQ.
I'm pretty sure the story didn't happen as the publisher claims.
> However, after a page was read to an editor, it was determined to be fake.
This is hilarious
There was a lot of crap being put online being named for an upcoming book, usually fanfic (especially at the time of Book 5 and 6)
But it was easy to tell
I thought it was to stop terrorism or something like that. Silly me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Concerns
http://www.statisticbrain.com/total-harry-potter-franchise-revenue/