"A spokesperson for GCHQ told the Sunday Times: "We don't comment on our defence against the dark arts."
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'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.
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.
Oh wait. It actually still is all about that. Just warmer and fluffier.
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.
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. ;)
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...
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.
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.