NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Apart from the guardian, every other news source in the UK is arse paper.
Funny enough that the news they report and others don't is the only news I really care about.
I wonder if having the Scott Trust[1] as its backer gives it has more freedom in these matters compared to other papers.
Once again, this is not news. Joint operations between NSA/CIA and MI5/6 have been thoroughly reported for decades. The Menwith Hill facility in particular has been doing its spy thing for half a century.
Nor is it news that both countries use regulatory arbitrage to evade each other's intel laws.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/aug/01/gch...
As well as discussing the funding and various projects in more detail, it also sheds some light on what life is like for the rank-and-file.
It is a world of decoding and cake sales, programming and pub quizzes.
Nobody at Cheltenham is particularly well paid, compared to the private sector at least – a junior analyst might earn £25,000. "We can offer a fantastic mission but we can’t compete with [private sector] salaries," one briefing note lamented.
There are protocols on the clearing of desks at the end of the day, with particularly sensitive documents being locked in special cupboards, the keys to which are then stored in other reinforced –lockers which can only be opened by following a set of complex instructions.
Edit: [0] Slot machines for gambling.
FWIW, this sort of thing is standard in every classified facility in the US. It would be messed up if they didn't do that, it is just basic opsec.
I guess, funding GCHQ makes that worse, as well.
It's interesting to see the USG contradictions and hypocrisy coming to light in this fashion, especially since their lies are increasingly egregious and continuous.
There is an image[1] of their operations that is especially interesting, and one can interpret it in multiple ways. For example the colors likely represent intelligence reciprocity, but it could also be construed to identify allies and enemies. Since America is yellow then it could represent weak intelligence gathering effectiveness, and it stands to reason that allies likely spy on Americans for us. I wonder how much legal liability that opens up for them? Perhaps they're leery of spying on Americans.
[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Boundless...
A foreign agency is secretly funnelling money into an institution that's supposed to be looking after my (as a UK citizen) interests.
I think it's well past time this incestuous charade was exposed.
It's been publicly available since June 2010, which is when the full contents of the original document were released to the UK National Archives in Kew, and simultaneously declassified by NSA [4].
It is generally assumed that the arrangement is still active, and is being updated on an ongoing basis by the participating agencies.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_BRUSA_Agreement
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement
Yep. That was a big part of why when I talked to a GCHQ recruiter when I was finishing my doctorate that I didn't bother going any further.
I actually ended up writing him a reference from my company for some private work to cover the time he was there and he said he was unemployed for the entire period.
Not that I did anything interesting unfortunately :(
>"It's not just a US problem," he said. "They are worse than the US."
Interesting. The Brits care less about privacy than the U.S.
Not that these are proving to be all that strong, as things go...
Which I've always felt dangerous - on a personal, social and democratic level - if combined with isolation from the country's political system.
Who does GCHQ serve? The British or the hand that feed them.
>When GCHQ does supply the US with valuable intelligence, the agency boasts about it. In one review, GCHQ boasted that it had supplied "unique contributions" to the NSA during its investigation of the American citizen responsible for an attempted car bomb attack in Times Square, New York City, in 2010.
>No other detail is provided – but it raises the possibility that GCHQ might have been spying on an American living in the US. The NSA is prohibited from doing this by US law.
I'd say that's more than a possibility. That's a reasonable inference. And there's nothing that any of the citizens of our respective western democracies can do about it. Our own governments aren't representing our interests. We can't flee to other governments because they're the ones doing our own government's dirty work. It's corruption all the way down to protect us from a nebulous threat, even though the panopticon presents a far more pervasive and persistent threat than any terrorist could ever dream of, and whose motivations are typically a response to our own foreign policies to begin with. It's a nasty positive feedback loop that I want no part in, but have no substantive say in regardless.
Living in the US.
Downvoters: Rebutal?
Some countries are better at dealing with this than others, but I don't think Europeans are perfect on the matter either.
>should they have be more discrete?
Like how? Do you want mothers to retreat to a disgusting public restroom to feed baby?
Most mothers that I've seen publically breastfeeding have a light cloth that they drape over themselves. Portable, cheap, and effective.
Do you want that to be law? It's what my wife usually did with our children. Our friends' child though, refused to feed under a cloth and would cry or thrash until the cloth was removed.
I was merely pointing out that "going to a disgusting bathroom" is far from the only concealment option.
This is not a comment on breastfeeding, it's an acknowledgement of the environment.
The only part of an image such as that which is NSFW is that it is IMO not suitable to spend time gawking at it while at work; but it is only slightly less suitable than wasting time on most any of the other news articles.
>What do you consider as NSFW
In general, the mere presence of an image, even a fully nude one isn't NSFW until some person's reaction to it negatively affects themselves or their co-workers, and even then, it isn't really the image that is to blame. But still, gross and or gratuitous pornography are out [2], as are most images of penises, vaginas, and anuses.
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2295906/Lara-St...
[2] Unless you are a pornographer, of course.
I can understand this notion, but I feel that there is more to consider. I take NSFW to mean "would you read this at work". That is something I wouldn't think of opening at work, just to avoid things that MAY happen. For example:
- My computer isn't in an office, anyone can look and see what I'm doing when walking past. Someone to my boss, "I saw X looking at Y on his computer, I was offended" (in fact I didn't even open your link so that this or something similar doesn't occur)
Why even risk this sort of situation?
I think this is at the very heart of the phrase "NSFW". I'm on a news website, I don't want this to negatively affect me in any way, it's a "safe for work" site.
Back to the breastfeeding image. I will agree that on the whole, a good chunk of people would say that this is a safe for work picture. But because of workplace culture at certain businesses, I feel that this is on the boarder at best.
What more?
> I take NSFW to mean "would you read this at work".
Unless you are Brewster Kahle, almost everything on the internet has nothing to do with your work. That goes for nearly all Guardian content.
>Someone to my boss, "I saw X looking at Y on his computer, I was offended"
Well, if your boss searched your internet history, would anything be found to substantiate such a claim?
> (in fact I didn't even open your link so that this or something similar doesn't occur)
I deliberately posted the link to the article (daily mail) so that you wouldn't be afraid I was trying to goatse you or something. The images in the article are no worse than those that can be seen at a grocer's checkout. I am really sorry that you have so little job security that you fear reprisal over a simple image such as that. Incidentally, I've seen full frontal nudity plastered on bus stops in Germany and I don't think anyone batted an eye.
>Why even risk this sort of situation?
Because pandering to this risk-averse approach to never offending anyone ever, even the most socially-repressive of us, even by chance or misunderstanding only encourages more of it?
>I think this is at the very heart of the phrase "NSFW". I'm on a news website, I don't want this to negatively affect me in any way, it's a "safe for work" site.
Well, I have to inform you that not everyone shares your career and that an article on breastfeeding, or even one on marketing with racy photos, or any number of other subjects might very well be pertinent and safe for many peoples' work. You may have to adopt a more forgiving sense of propriety or confine yourself to some much smaller portion of the internet.
Do you suggest that everyone should be forced to obey the most repressive moral standards of all the sub-groups in our culture?
While this is true, I use the internet heavily, being in the tech industry.
> if your boss searched your internet history, would anything be found to substantiate such a claim?
Not if the image was on the Guardian or something similar that just blends in.
> I am really sorry that you have so little job security that you fear reprisal over a simple image such as that. Incidentally, I've seen full frontal nudity plastered on bus stops in Germany and I don't think anyone batted an eye.
Yea, it kind of sucks, but that just comes back to different cultures. Nudity is more accepted in Germany apparently, and it isn't in the US, that's just something we have to live with.
> You may have to adopt a more forgiving sense of propriety or confine yourself to some much smaller portion of the internet.
I guess I do, unfortunate for the Guardian.
> Do you suggest that everyone should be forced to obey the most repressive moral standards of all the sub-groups in our culture?
Of course not, but this is not what I'm claiming at all. The Guardian presents itself as a news organization. The person that picked out that picture should have considered posting it in light of the fact that they are now, with the Snowden leak, a global news organization, with visitors from Germany AND the US (in this example). What they should consider is "Who is going to see this article?" and then take the option that attracts the most people to their site.
Understand that I'm not trying to say that Guardian should change their site up at all, rather I'm saying that it might benefit them to think twice about what they post, because I'm no longer visiting their site at work.
That's the impression I get too.
> that's just something we have to live with.
But I differ with you there.
> The Guardian presents itself as a news organization.
It is. Here amuse yourself and learn about the nature of various newspapers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DG...
>The person that picked out that picture should have considered posting it
Oh, I bet that photo was chosen carefully to draw attention.
> in light of the fact that they are now, with the Snowden leak, a global news organization, with visitors from Germany AND the US (in this example).
They have always been so, and I hope they don't begin to pander to social conservatives.
> What they should consider is "Who is going to see this article?" and then take the option that attracts the most people to their site.
I think that's exactly what they've done. For better or worse.
>Understand that I'm not trying to say that Guardian should change their site up at all, rather I'm saying that it might benefit them to think twice about what they post, because I'm no longer visiting their site at work.
Not that I necessarily want more breastfeeding in my news but I certainly hope you're in the minority. How bad will it be when they have to pander to even more conservative Islamic sensibilities?
Talk about being bent over.
Maybe it's time to cut losses now and discuss UK's expulsion from the EU (unless of course the other EU members are able to exert heavy pressure upon the UK, which I honestly doubt).
But it is extremely worrisome to see this culture of corruption swapping over to Europe.
I'm talking about the scale of corruption. In this regard, DC is the sickest known example in the western world, I'd say. And now this kind of scale seems about to be extended further.
Corruption was always high-scale, but usually with low visibility or even lower accountability (as long as you bribe the watchers too). I think the major change is the visibility of these actions, and the expectations around them: people now hope (and not just dream) for better.
Maybe we really could all agree on having 1 big merger.
But the idea that "Americope" would then be controlled mainly out of North America is pretty unhealthy/insane.
When these Snowden leaks first came out I was hoping that Europe would stand up to the US but the fact is that many of the Intel agencies in Europe are either in on the various programs or benefit from them via funding or some sort of data sharing.