Feeds

back to article UK.gov eavesdroppers frustrated by red tape

Chiefs at GCHQ, the government's electronic eavesdropping station in Cheltenham, have been told to cut bureaucracy, which it's feared may hamper the agency's ability to cope with an increased demand for intelligence and security testing. "The department has developed a proliferation of strategies, which serves to dilute its …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Headmaster

Proliferation?

Plethora? Maybe the best defence against eavesdropping is obfuscation.

0
0
Pint

Two things

1) Are they going to tackle the staff's concerns, or the staff?

2) They need _MORE_ red tape not less. Slow the buggers down a little

Beer because they should be going for a couple rather than spying on me.

0
0
Unhappy

Look, it's the government, right?

"The reports authors spoke to junior staff at GCHQ, who said there were too many middle managers slowing decision-making and contributing to overly complex internal procedures."

Replace GCHQ with your choice of NHS, District Council, City Council, in fact, the list of Government 'organisations' to whom it would *not* apply is probably shorter.

Oh - and then they go on to call for 'diversification', rather then employing the best person for the job irrespective of their other attributes.

I think these two things are linked - probably in a manner that is going to involve infinite recursion until the whole house of cards falls down under its own weight.

0
0
Black Helicopters

X

"...for providing IT security expertise across other branches of UK government". Can they perhaps train those other branches on not losing a laptop full of personal data every other week?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Less women?

The organisation has a purpose and is essentially a pure maths, applied signals and translation organisation, why would there be an equal number of men and women there outside the translation section.

No-one would suggest that there would be an equal number of men working in somewhere, say the house of colour, or even in a government department such as the National Health Service?

While not wanting to offend the small number of women clever enough to work in GCHQ (outside translation - I don't get translation, it's outside my capacity, so I don't know whether you can be clever at linguistics or just knowledgable,) they themselves must be aware that they aren't exactly your typical bird from a mental capacity perspective.

I forget who said it, but someone once described these type of people as "Near geniuses who operate outside all the usual rules." Bearing in mind the relative variance from the norm of male and female intellectual capability, we can hardly expect there to be anything other than a predisposition to masculinity in the staff levels.

"It also promised to improve the diversity of its staff, which the Cabinet Office said was "poor", with the proportion of women lagging behind other departments."

It doesn't do the same work as other departments. GCHQ is not a policy department. It's a do-er, not a spender. Any bod can administer, most can manage, but there are almost no women could constuct some cipher, based on elliptic curves, let alone decrypt such ciphertext.

(Actually, to be fair, I don't actually know if anyone can do it.)

0
0
Happy

And behold...

The people rejoiced.

0
0
Pint

the same survey

mentioned that 80% of gchq staff fully , proudly supported their current tasks, which only leaves 20% of the spooks unhappy - or maybe they are ecstatic!?? and only 34% of gchq staff think their PHB's have no clue

rounding up other gchq news

GCHQ = BETFAIR <http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/cheltenham/cheltenhamnews/Betfair-founder-GCHQ-employee-book/article-1178361-detail/article.html>

and GCHQ facebook = Civil Pages <http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/cheltenham/cheltenhamnews/GCHQ-staff-access-networking-site/article-1162800-detail/article.html>

plus don't mention cooling water in 2007,

may I take this operatunity to say how proud I am of gchq and their cesg colleagues.

0
0
Joke

What we need is

... another QUANGO to provide oversight for their operations.

0
0
Alert

At least they're meant to do it

Since this is bound to turn into a debate about the rights and wrongs of snooping on the general population, I'm going to point out that I don't have a great problem with GCHQ eavesdropping on me or other ne'er-do-wells. These guys, after all, are supposed to be the professionals.

The issue is when "amateurs" do it, like government departments, the police, local councils and anyone vaguely employed by the state (which RIPA covers rather comprehensively, dontcha think?).

0
0
Coat

Mastering the Internet?

Shouldn't the focus be on getting a few bods in who know what the Internet is / does, or maybe there’s a fear that they may need a few (male or female) lee7 Hax0rz for the job? Once again some clueless intervention by government fuckwits will insure that GCHQ's Internet surveillance will cost a fortune and be totally ineffective for years to come...

Great...

0
0
Linux

Good

nosey feckers need to be re-deployed. Maybe Traffic Wardens in downtown Kabul.

0
0
Gold badge
Paris Hilton

@ Less women

Nice couple of holes you've been digging there :-).

I'm amazed at how *few* women work there, because you're overlooking something. For good SIGINT you don't just need the analytics to clean up the signals, you also need someone to read and interpret them. As far as I know it has even been medically proven that women are better talented in that area, and I would in any case stand well back from any observation that there are fewer women clever enough - they may be clever enough not to want to work there..

I'm all for simplifying structure, as long as they don't facilitate lowering security standards in the process. Some red tape has a reason.

Paris, because she too isn't quite as dumb as she is made out to be.-

0
0
Pint

how about less snooping

Then they won't have to worry about how they carry it out.

There, solved now, innit?

0
0
Gold badge
Joke

GCHQ will deal robustly with its staff

And with their tech finding the blabbermouths won't be too difiicult

After all. They're there to defend democracy, not to practise it.

0
0
Troll

Re: Less woman?

Look at the icon, now bugger off.

0
0
Big Brother

You'd think

That the overlords couldn't put a price on monitoring there drones.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.