back to article MPs to review laws on UK spy-snoopery after GCHQ Tempora leaks

Parliament's intelligence services watchdog is to hold an inquiry into whether or not UK surveillance laws need updating in light of Edward Snowden's revelations into GCHQ's activities. The Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) will also consider the impact on personal privacy of intercepting people's communications as …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Circadian
    Thumb Down

    Translation

    (From article) "Although we have concluded that GCHQ has not circumvented or attempted to circumvent UK law, it is proper to consider further whether the current statutory framework governing access to private communications remains adequate," a statement by the Committee issued on Thursday explains.

    Translated: "We thought we had everyone sewn up tighter than a kipper's arse, but somehow that guy Snowden got through. We need to be able to snoop more to ensure that no further leaks embarrassing to us get out."

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Translation

      ".....Translated: "We thought we had everyone sewn up tighter than a kipper's arse, but somehow that guy Snowden got through. We need to be able to snoop more to ensure that no further leaks embarrassing to us get out."

      You need to fix your Babel fish, the actual translation should be as follows: "It was and is legal, but seeing as certain people can't get over it we'll do a review, juggle the wording, and continue as before."

    2. streaky

      Re: Translation

      The actual translation is " we have concluded that GCHQ has not circumvented or attempted to circumvent UK law*

      *For parts of their work which involved scooping data out of US systems, we didn't bother looking at all the data they're hoovering up *inside* the UK's borders which is covered by RIPA, and that CGHQ were clearly breaking that law in spirit and in fact.

      **We took their word for it on the first part and didn't bother turning up with police to check for ourselves, because frankly we didn't want to know."

      1. streaky

        Re: Translation

        Or another translation would be "They said they didn't do it and we believed them".

        Now, I'm all for invasive surveillance - in a different way I want to see more of it - but it should be targeted at specific individuals. You go around hoovering up a whole internet's worth of data it's going to be expensive, and you're going to end up with massive volumes of data you can only deal with by sampling. Then you get into a situation where you're going to miss things because you're only really looking at 1MB in every TB or whatever and that's all youtube videos.. Then to get to that point you're massively invading the privacy of innocent people and pissing off supposedly friendly foreign governments - and for what? Where are the success stories of all this?

        Bin Laden was caught by an anonymous tip-off not broad surveillance - and they've patently missed many obvious terrorist incidents where the people involved were pretty well welded to the internet previous to the attacks and followed some shady people on twitter (which you can look at as public data rather than slurping up bandwidth).

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: streaky Re: Translation

          "....Bin Laden...." Was forced into the life of a virtual recluse, and his ability to communicate with his followers massively disrupted by EXACTLY the monitoring you're whining about, AFTER it had been used to track and kill or capture many of his followers. His being forced to relie on human couriers massively reduced the speed with which his network could respond to threats, meaning whilst he might have to wait a whole week for the message "don't have a polio jab", the CIA's planners knew anything new about his whereabouts within minutes. The example of Bin Laden only supports the use of such measures.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: streaky Translation

            I'm greatly in favour of a robust intelligence service when regarded as part of our military capability. I'm also happy with high levels of secrecy in such work, as we all know that giving the enemy clues about our capabilities is to their advantage, not ours.

            But when that military capability is deployed against the bulk of civilians and in particular against civilians in the same country, and when GCHQ is funded by the NSA to conduct spying on their behalf raising the question of a conflict of interest, then a good number of lines have been crossed.

            It's little different to if we had other military capability (say soldiers with guns) deployed on our streets. There'd need to be a darned good reason (like a major war) and we'd want to know exactly what that reason was and when it would end. Saying "Ooh, its secret, we can't tell you, trust us" just doesn't cut it, especially given the repeated and continuing evidence that all the explanations we're given are lies.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: AC Re: streaky Translation

              "I'm greatly in favour of a robust intelligence service when regarded as part of our military capability....." Great, except fighting terrorism and organised crime is usually not a military action. When the terrorists do find a hidey-hole in a foreign country that openly supports and shields them, such as Afghanistan under the Taleban, then it does become a military action. But when the threat is coming from radicalised Muslims living in Bradford, Birmingham or Bolton, then it is very much a police and secret services matter. Please note the London Tube bombers, the Madrid bombers, and the 9/11 nutters ALL did not "fight" as an organised military, did not wear a uniform, and definately did not folllow the rules of war, so expecting our services to do the same is - frankly - either incredibly moronic or deliberately obtuse.

          2. streaky

            Re: streaky Translation

            "Was forced into the life of a virtual recluse, and his ability to communicate with his followers massively disrupted by EXACTLY the monitoring you're whining about, AFTER it had been used to track and kill or capture many of his followers"

            Seems to be the case that a) he wasn't a recluse at all - just an electronic recluse - and b) the Pakistani intelligence services knew where he was and they didn't pick that up either. Regardless of all that he was still able to command a very large international terrorist organisation from his front porch so..

            It may reduce terrorists to a position where they have to pass paper around but hey, stock markets used to work like that too. It's slightly less efficient, but in an emergency you can also use more public means - [provably] basically none of what they're doing is having any effect and it's costing the taxpayer in both the US and the UK pretty huge volumes of cash.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Stop

              Re: streaky Translation

              "....Regardless of all that he was still able to command a very large international terrorist organisation...." No he wasn't, indeed one of AQ's problems has been the splintering of their different franchises and the lack of control over them because of the interference with coms. The co-operation between the Sunni Anbar Awakening and the US military in Iraq in 2005 came about because the local AQ in Iraq went off on a rampage without central control from Bin Ladin. Their acts so shocked the Iraqi Sunni's they stopped supporting AQ and started working with the Yanks instead, a 180 degree shift. Bin Ladin and his number two, al Zwahiri (now the AQ leader) publicly chided AQ in Iraq for their mindless brutality. More recently, al Zwahiri was taken completely by surprise by the recent merger of AQ in Iraq and the largest Islamist rebel group in Syria (http://www.fpri.org/geopoliticus/2013/06/al-qaeda-iraq-publicly-rebuts-al-qaedas-leader-ayman-al-zawahiri) because those coms links have been broken. One reason that the Iraqi AQ leader did so was because he accused the current AQ leadership of hiding away "like frightened women".

              "....It may reduce terrorists to a position where they have to pass paper around but hey, stock markets used to work like that too....." Not a problem when ALL stockmarkets worked that way, big problem when one got a competitive advantage over the others by being first to go electronic. The problem for AQ is all their opponents have superior coms and capability, they are the last ones trying to run on paper. The ultimate proof of that is that Bin Ladin is feeding the fishes.

              ".....basically none of what they're doing is having any effect and it's costing the taxpayer in both the US and the UK pretty huge volumes of cash." You do realise the US has assets worth $200tn? The amount being spent on the WoT are big but not unsustainable at all. In real terms, the amount the UK has spent fighting the WoT plus the Iraq and Afghan campaigns has yet to match the amount we spent in almost a century of fighting the IRA - guess who blinked first in that one.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Translation

      Oh yawn, here we go again. ANY kind of surveillance has to be justified, supervised and the use of the outcome of that snooping has be very carefully controlled - provided it's justified in the first place which is a question that's always gingerly danced around in such discussions.

      The whole BS about fighting terrorists is quite simply NOT a justification for mass violation of the rights of (in this case) literally millions of people, it doesn't matter what the excuse is. As I said before, it's equivalent to arresting every 10th person on Oxford Street during a busy Saturday and then claiming success because you're statistically going to catch at least 1 or 2 thieves.

      I lived in London at the height of the IRA repurposing of fertiliser, and I know how much work the Met did to prevent much of that using the existing legal structures. They did a good job (by its nature isn't never perfect), but with have the invasive powers police now seems to somehow consider an entitlement. Any law that damages the due diligence process and makes a citizen defenceless to an invasion of privacy must be fought. I have no problem with law enforcement having those privileges, but they MUST be controlled, supervised and its use must become transparent after a few years to prevent the sort of abuse that is now already rampant (we all focus on the US, but there is a lot more happening).

      I'll sit back now while you'll start on all the emotional stuff, like think of the children etc.

      BTW: want to see any evidence of the damage uncontrolled, legalised mass surveillance can do? Easy: anyone with any duty of confidentiality will now not touch ANY US originated service. Not because they hand off data by default (as some allege), but because it can no longer be guaranteed they do not. I can see a lot of BS emerging now with apparent "crack down" on privacy violations, but they do not repeal the laws that are the problem in the first place. So it's privacy theatre all over again.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: AC Re: Translation

        "..... it's equivalent to arresting every 10th person on Oxford Street during a busy Saturday and then claiming success because you're statistically going to catch at least 1 or 2 thieves......" Complete male bovine manure of the most stupid and deceitful form. GCHQ are not arresting every tenth person at all, that's just hyperventilating, paranoid melodrama. They are not even reading the coms of every tenth person, merely storing it for a finite period during which very narrow searches are made. What, are you going to insist the Royal Mail are reading all your letters just because the postie had them in his sack? How about BT, are you going to accuse them of reading all your emails because they spent a finite time in a BT switch? How about your email provider? Complete male genitalia.

        ".....they MUST be controlled, supervised and its use must become transparent after a few years....." Firstly, they are controlled and supervised, just not by complete cretins like you. Secondly, terror investigations (and many criminal ones) can last for many years, even decades, so the idea that we should routinely announce to the crims and terrorists the information we hold on them is simply monumentally moronic.

        ".....I'll sit back now while you'll start on all the emotional stuff, like think of the children etc...." If anyone is spouting mindless "emotional stuff" they it is you and the people that have been spoonfeeding you.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: AC Translation

          Complete male bovine manure of the most stupid and deceitful form. GCHQ are not arresting every tenth person at all

          LOL. You should really learn to pay more attention to that great whooshing sound rushing overhead, but hey, it makes it so much more fun to bait you...

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Stop

            Re: AC Re: AC Translation

            ".... it makes it so much more fun to bait you..." So that would be another sheeple back-peddling at speed.

  2. Dan 55 Silver badge

    The Snoopers' Charter seemed like an attempt to update the laws to match GCHQ's current practice more than anything else. So how on earth can the committee conclude that they did not circumvent or attempt to circumvent UK law?

    "The outcome of Rifkind's review is likely to favour leaving the UK's surveillance laws as they are, or even strengthening them" - i.e., The Snoopers' Charter's going to make a comeback.

  3. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse

    Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

    But... "There is a balance to be found between our individual right to privacy and our collective right to security. "

    Is there a balance to be found? My individual right to privacy is paramount. There is no balance to be made when it is primarily the governments actions and policies that are the root cause of many of the threats to our collective security.

    1. Don Jefe

      Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

      Your privacy is not paramount to the safety and security of others. That'll be the argument from the screaming right wing cowards anyway.

      That's the weirdest part, to me, of all 'security' measures put in place in 'The West' over the last 13-14 years. It is the minimalist government supporters that push these massive government expansions. I thought they were supposed to be 'strong'. It is most certainly not a sign of strength if you're afraid of every shadow.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: Dong Jefe Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

        "....It is most certainly not a sign of strength if you're afraid of every shadow." So who is scared of shadows? When was the last time you stepped out of your house and checked your car for a bomb? Or had to check the street for any discarded rubbish that might be hiding an IED? Or made a point of remembering what people hanging around on your street looked like just in case they were actually part of a gang waiting to kidnap your family? I have colleagues that have to do so as a matter of course in their countries. I don't have to do any of those in the UK, but I did in many countries I have visited and worked in (and not just the Mid East, I've known people kidnapped and/or murdered in Mexico City, Johanesburg, and Bangkok). In fact, it's a case of the opposite, that I'm not afraid of the shadows. You, however, seem very good at imagining all types of spooky shadows. Maybe you need to get out in the World a bit more?

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

          Presumably that's the definition of a civilised country - where you are more afraid of the police than the criminals?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

          ...last time you stepped out of your house and checked your car for a bomb? Or had to check the street for any discarded rubbish that might be hiding an IED? ...

          I did this in the UK in the 1970s when there was a genuine threat to me and my collegues from terror organizations who were successful in blowing-up mainland UK targets. Then ECHELON was "all pervasive" in monitoring of threats, but most of us carried on with our normal lives without intrusion. Even the Prime Minister walked from Downing Street to Parliament.

          There was one important difference between then and now - The Bulk of our treasure to "keep us safe" was spent on the perceived threat of the Soviet Union now, without them, the money must be spent on the War on Terror so we must all be kept frightened and under serveillance.

          The AC icon is quite appropriate ----------------------------------->>

          1. lglethal Silver badge

            The words of Thomas Jefferson come to mind...

            "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

            1. tom dial Silver badge

              Re: The words of Thomas Jefferson come to mind...

              Those words, apparently widely current in the English colonies during the lead in to the American Revolution, generally are attributed to Benjamin Franklin. However, both Franklin and Jefferson thought too subtly to allow a single brief quotation to state their full belief about anything.

              Another Franklin quote that, in the context, might be relevant: "For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions, even on important subjects, which I once thought right but found to be otherwise."

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @Matt Bryant

          I'm not sure why your heart-rending and descriptive tale of someone's inability to apply the green cross code at a zebra crossing reminds you that the UK security services secretly spent our tax money building systems to monitor the communications of its own citizens, but then the mind is a tricky thing to fathom.

          As far as you willing to give up your privacy to feel safe, good for you. Unfortunately you seem to think that you can speak for me and give up mine too. And funnelling raw data for narrow analysis does surrender privacy, if the raw data being funnelled up for analysis is private. All you did there was dress up what they're doing in different clothes and claim they're someone else.

          The cities you mention are among the most dangerous in the world, so the chances of being caught up in something are greatly increased, but their problems stem from criminal elements not terrorist.

          So no, I don't have to perform any of the checks that you mentioned when I leave my house, but nor did I in the '70s and '80s when the IRA were at the height of their mainland terror campaign. I just got on with my life. Not because I thought that the security forces were out there guarding me, but because there were so few people out there capable of commiting those acts, making my chances of being affected so slim that there was no point in worrying about it.

          Despite what the media try to portray I still believe this today, even though the cause for which modern terrorists fight is different.

          I'm not afraid of shadows because there are very few of them that contain monsters, not because there are people out there trying to find every one and shine a light into it.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: AC Re: @Matt Bryant

            "I'm not sure why your heart-rending and descriptive tale of someone's inability to apply the green cross code at a zebra crossing reminds you that the UK security services secretly spent our tax money building systems to monitor the communications of its own citizens...." The point of the story is that the pedestrian was so wrapped up in his insistance that he had the right to cross it over-rode his natural instinct of self-preservation. When I see numpties writing such gumph as "my right to privacy is much more imortant than my personal safety", especially when their privacy is very likely not even being threatened, and the point of the exercise is to ensure their safety in the first place, then it is equally stupid and self-delusional as the poor chap that decided "I'll show that van driver." It certainly was his right, I'm sure the driver was eventually done for careless driving or the like, but by that time the pedestrian was beyond caring. People that sit in the comfort and safety of the West often don't have a clue what it's like in the rest of the World. Just ask Sir Bob Geldoff what it was like trying to convince people about the straving masses in Ethiopia, that is the same type of insular denial we get with terrorism. Every now and then there is an attack and the population wakes up, then they slowly drift off back to sleep and the numpties start bleating again.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: AC @Matt Bryant

              Cobblers. The chances of a terrorist attack are significantly lower than being hit by lightning while being savaged by hyenas.

              You're wrong. Aside from anything else, name ONE terrorist incident that has been thwarted by all this data slurping. The Boston bombers still achieved a 'result' despite the US being fucking told that those guys were dodgy by the Russians.

              The data slurping, so far, has not improved our collective security one whit; whilst simultaneously opening up the possibility of that data being misused in a number or harmful ways. A more effective way of combating terrorism would be to stop carpet-bombing civilians and creating the terrorists in the first place,

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: moiety Re: AC @Matt Bryant

                "....The chances of a terrorist attack are significantly lower than being hit by lightning while being savaged by hyenas....." Whilst that is true in the UK, you might want to consider it is not so in many other parts of the World. It's not the best illustration given its preoccupation only with Islamic terrorist attacks that reach the media, but a quick perusal of the following list for attacks in the last thirty days alone might open your eyes a tad (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks). The difference is the security you take for granted. As you seem so obsessed in claiming that GCHQ is reading all you post, maybe you'd like to post a thankyou? They probably won't see it, but it is the thought that counts after all.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: moiety AC @Matt Bryant

                  While those were disturbing statistics; I note that a) many of those deaths are in parts of the world that are having active wars and b) the makers of that website do not seem to be wholly unbiased.

                  Also -and here's the point- hoovering my private data is going to do precisely fuck all to ameliorate any of it or to to increase the safety of UK citizens one iota. You've yet to provide any proof that all this data slurping provides any benefit -to safety or otherwise- at a considerable cost. And that's not even factoring in the way that this data can be used for harmful things for the rest of my natural life; not to mention possibly affecting my grandkid's credit scores or whatever. Quite the reverse; I would contend that alienating people in this manner may push marginal cases over the edge into joining whatever Rebel Alliance may be available at the time.

                  P.S. I downvoted you once in this thread for using the word 'sheeple'.

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: moiety AC @Matt Bryant

                  "....The chances of a terrorist attack are significantly lower than being hit by lightning while being savaged by hyenas....."

                  Whilst that is true in the UK, you might want to consider it is not so in many other parts of the World

                  Well, duh. Other parts actually HAVE hyenas.

                  1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    FAIL

                    Re: moiety AC @Matt Bryant

                    ".....Well, duh. Other parts actually HAVE hyenas." I'm guessing you were the clueless coward that also ignored the post before about the London Tube bombings? You are simply too stupidly self-delusional for words.

                    1. BlueGreen

                      Re: moiety AC @Matt Bryant

                      > ".....Well, duh. Other parts actually HAVE hyenas." I'm guessing you were the clueless coward that also ignored the post before about the London Tube bombings? You are simply too stupidly self-delusional for words.

                      Mmm. They guy's point was that the UK does not have hyenas. Luckily for all the plump & bleaty sheep that safely graze here. Because sheep are a prey animal whereas hyenas are predators. Fortunately the sheep have Farmer to look after them in the pastures of crewe/guildford/linkedin...

                      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                        FAIL

                        Re: Убежденные придурок синий grren Re: moiety AC @Matt Bryant

                        "....They guy's point was that the UK does not have hyenas....." Just for those living in denial - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain. Now take your head out of your arse and go learn something, you blinkered moron.

              2. tom dial Silver badge

                Re: AC @Matt Bryant

                There is a logical problem here: success cannot be proved, but failure can. If a planned attack is identified based on analysis of collected data but did not occur, it may not be possible to prove that it did not occur "because of" the data analysis. In addition, if such analysis identifies potential attackers, and consequent police activities alarm or divert them, there is likely no way to claim reasonably that the snooping was beneficial. On the other hand, if an attack occurs, and indications of the preparation later are found in the collected data, that constitutes proof of failure.

                As for the Boston bombers, your point is not clear. The FBI investigated Russian warnings, and the investigators concluded, incorrectly as it happened, that they had no basis for further action and no justification for surveillance - thus respecting the Tsarnaevs' civil rights. Similarly, there would have been no reason for the NSA to target their communications, and while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, no indication that they did so.

                My recollection is that the Afghanistan and Iraq wars followed after the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks in the US.

        4. streaky

          Re: Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

          "Or had to check the street for any discarded rubbish that might be hiding an IED?"

          I did this in canary wharf like 3 days ago - some kind person had decided to dump a waitrose bag with unidentified stuff in it, and bankers were walking past it like they're not in a reasonably tight security cordon (it is easy to forget these things). I took a look inside it without touching because the obvious thing to me is it might be an IED (having spent a lot of time growing up on military bases and being aware of where I was at the time).

          Because people don't give a damn doesn't mean they're not at risk - but it doesn't justify invasion in their *personal space* either. How often do GCHQ mass-trawl documents sent by snail mail? Oh yeah - never. Why is that I wonder?

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: streaky Re: Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

            ".....How often do GCHQ mass-trawl documents sent by snail mail?....." You're missing the point - the authorities can and do monitor snail mail, right down to using x-ray scanners and the like to read through the envelope. It's just that the majority of coms between terror groups (and criminals) are via electronic means such as email, mobile phones, and apps like Skype.

            1. streaky

              Re: streaky Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

              "the authorities can and do monitor snail mail, right down to using x-ray scanners and the like to read through the envelope"

              I don't doubt they monitor mail from targeted individuals - this is kinda my point - we're talking about a mass trawl of basically everybody regardless of who they are - it would be hugely expensive. And hey guess what you'd have to take the volumes of mail off civilian royal mail employees who frankly every now and then would say what was happening no matter how much you threatened them.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Stop

                Re: streaky Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                "......I don't doubt they monitor mail from targeted individuals....." During WW2 the UK censored EVERY letter manually with a body of approximately 10,000 people (IIRC, the biggest censor office was in the Littlewood Pools building in Liverpool). Nowadays they have much more electronic capability to scan letters as they pass through the automated sorting system at 350+ letters per minute. Commercial solutions for companies looking for dodgy items in their company mail are available to order (http://www.themailingroom.com/mail-scanners.php). More exact methods have been used by historians to read ancient texts (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/gen/com/images/technical%20summary_final.pdf). Modern printer inks contain elements that show up very well on x-rays as discussed here (http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200216/000020021602A0579753.php). At the expense of giving the sheeple something new to bleat about, do you still think your snail mail is unlikely to be read?

                ".... we're talking about a mass trawl of basically everybody regardless of who they are...." Male bovine manure. If you want to call it a "mass trawl" then it's about time you admitted the fact that 99.99999% of the catch gets thrown back overboard. Only a tiny fraction of the raw data recovered by PRISM and TEMPORA ever actually gets read, as admited right from the start by Snowden and Greenwald.

                1. BlueGreen

                  Re: streaky Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                  > Dong Jefe

                  WAAAAA HAAAA HAAAA HAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAA! Hoooooooo Hoooooo!

                  Hawwwwwww hawww hawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! HEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee heeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!

                  That is so cool! The way you mutated his name to show him up! Utter smackdown...

                  Don Jefe -> Dong Jefe !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!1!

                  So good I had to repeat it!

                  Fantastic, plumps, every post of yours is a lesson in caustic, whetted put-downs that Wilde and H. H. Munroe would have sold their bollocks for. I'm on my fucking knees before you! We cringe before your dominance! I am but grass beneath your ravaging herviborous teeth. Sophistication is your middle name and now DONG Jefe knows it!

                  Roo -> Poo! Fuck me you are red hot. And spelling MY name in RUSKY, man you are so good it actually hurts! You actually put it through google translate to show me up as the leftie that I am, just using a brainless algorithm - imagine what you could have done if you actually had any imagination! I'm going to have to live with this for a very long time, and that is going to be my cross to bear, and it's crushing me.

                  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  more !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! because you're that good !!!!!!!!!!!

                  It might sound like I'm being sarcastic but I'm not, seriously you are good you are. No dissing, it's the truth. There's no element of petulant sprog round here, you embody emotional balance and intellectual reach in a way that I (no, WE!) cannot even aspire to. The sad thing is how long it's even taken for me to realise you've been doing this clever stuff with our names! Totally under the fucking radar. I take back everything I said about you - please quote me on it in every future post of yours!

                  Right. Onwards and upwards.

                  > Commercial solutions for companies looking for dodgy items in their company mail are available to order

                  Your link does not say anything about scanning for suspicious text, just 'suspicious items'. Try again.

                  > Modern printer inks contain elements that show up very well on x-rays as discussed here (http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200216/000020021602A0579753.php).

                  It says nothing about 'modern', and this is 'X-ray fluorescence', not x-rays as such.

                  > More exact methods have been used by historians to read ancient texts (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/gen/com/images/technical%20summary_final.pdf).

                  If you actually read the pdf you might find it's about iron gall inks NOT MODERN LASER TONERS. And they quote "30 hours to image half a folio from one side".

                  You lose, lambchop.

                  Again.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: streaky Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                    @BlueGreen, I am in awe. And still laughing :).

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Happy

                      Re: AC Re: streaky Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                      "....I am in awe...." I assume there was nothing on the kiddie TV channels then?

                      1. BlueGreen

                        Re: AC streaky Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                        > "....I am in awe...." I assume there was nothing on the kiddie TV channels then?

                        Oh hell, another 110% razor sharp plump & bleaty putdown. Another angry sheep headbutt; you're starting to bruise my legs, plumps, take pity on me. Lord help us all if you ever sprout a pair of horns.

                  2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                    Happy

                    Re: синий зеленый неудачник Re: streaky Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                    "....every post of yours is a lesson in...." self-delusional denial. You fail to ever deal with any point raise, simply instead pretending you have a new point when the previous has been soundly debunked, and never admitting your mistakes and continually exposed stupidity. You are the epitome of a loser.

                    "....Your link does not say anything about scanning for suspicious text, just 'suspicious items'. ...." The example was of a commercial scanner, not the type already in use by the UK and US governments. It was in preparation for your instant reflexive denial that such items could not possibly exist - oops, looks like you had to find another way of denying it instead. Try again.

                    "....It says nothing about 'modern', and this is 'X-ray fluorescence', not x-rays as such....." Splitting hairs much? I know you have zero technical knowledge so I suppose science is also a very short subject in your pitiful ehjookayshun. Here, open wide:

                    "X-ray fluorescence analysis (XRF) involves the emission of the characteristic fluorescent X-rays of the atoms of reference and analysis substances that have been excited by the discrete spectrum and the bremsspectrum of an X-ray tube."

                    Please note the bit about the x-ray tube, loser.

                    "....If you actually read the pdf you might find it's about iron gall inks NOT MODERN LASER TONERS...." Which is why I included the other link to how copper and other elements in modern inks play EXACTLY the same role as the iron in old inks. Again, I predicted your obvious and reflexive denial. You really are getting boringly predictable, loser. Your problem is you cannot accept the advice or knowledge of someone who's politics you find indigestible (I won't say disagreeable as that would imply you would understand anyone else's POV, which you obviously can't). In truth, you are just very sad in your blinkered, denying "outlook". You lose, again. Again. But don't worry, you can still deny it to yourself, even if every other forum reader will know it's so.

                    1. BlueGreen

                      Re: синий зеленый неудачник streaky Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                      @Plump & bleaty

                      > You fail to ever deal with any point raise, simply instead pretending you have a new point when the previous has been soundly debunked, and never admitting your mistakes and continually exposed stupidity.

                      So masterful.... the stench of lanolin will always remind me of the time we spent together...

                      > The example was of a commercial scanner, not the type already in use by the UK and US governments.

                      You were trying to claim that our letters are read in the post. You posted some duff info about the wrong kind of scanner, and now claim that it was a different kind - but strangely provide no link. Because they don't exist? "I could tell you but it's a secret" - that's how kids do it.

                      > "....It says nothing about 'modern', and this is 'X-ray fluorescence', not x-rays as such....." Splitting hairs much?

                      Well, it's x-ray fluorescence rather than x-rays per se, is what I said, but if you claim that's splitting hairs, fair enough.

                      Now, the bit about 'modern' you did not answer, plumpywumpy. You have not established that these techniques are in use currently.

                      > Which is why I included the other link to how copper and other elements in modern inks play EXACTLY the same role as the iron in old inks

                      1. I'm not aware that copper is used in current toners, 2. where is that link that claims it is? link + exact page if it's a pdf 3. despite what I implied, current toners DO use iron (though in small amounts) and I imagine you read that, thought you'd made a mistake and tried the sheepie backpeddle about started spouting crap about copper.

                      And 4. let me re-quote it for you

                      > "30 hours to image half a folio from one side".

                      Which you didn't address (oh facts are SUCH nuisance aren't they).

                      And 5, which linkedin matt bryant profile is you - you still haven't answered

                      Guildford?

                      Crewe?

                      Another on that link <http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Matthew/Bryant>?

                      And if I was mean I might have taken a copy so if your profile disappears I'll know exactly which one it was immediately and I'll post it here... Feeling lucky, punk?

                      Oh yes, I know what a nom-de-plum is, I just don't believe you.

                      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                        FAIL

                        Re: синий зеленый неудачник streaky Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                        "....You posted some duff info about the wrong kind of scanner...." Nope, as I pointed out, commercial examples of mail scanners have been available for many years, I suppose it was simply far to big a jump for a cretin like you to think "hey, if that's what private companies can buy on the open market, I wonder what capability secret government kit could have?" After all, PRISM and TEMPORA are just like ordinary, everyday search engines, right? I apologise for making the mistaken assumption that you might have even the slightest hint of a clue.

                        "....Well, it's x-ray fluorescence rather than x-rays per se...." Just hurry up and admit you were wrong.

                        ".... I'm not aware that copper is used in current toners...." Try the cyan inks in toners, where it's usually copper phthalocyanine. Here's an example (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5556727.html), please ask an adult to read the long words for you. Diffferent toners also may use copper and cobalt in red and violet toners as well as "wet" ink cartridges. Oops, did I just show up your complete lack of technical knowledge and inability to do simple research AGAIN? I'll try my hardest to feel sorry for exposing your stupidity yet again, again, honest.

                        "....And if I was mean I might have taken a copy so if your profile disappears I'll know exactly which one it was immediately and I'll post it here... Feeling lucky, punk?...." Well, actually I'm feeling quite lucky seeing as IT'S A NOM DE PLUME. I'm going to take a wild guess that none of the linkedin entries for any Bryants have changed, but if you feel lucky, please do instigate some form of action against the list from linkedin, I'm just dying to see an El Reg article on another skiddie getting arrested, charged and sent down for another dumb online act. Enjoy your showers with Bubba, just don't drop the soap.

                        "....Oh yes, I know what a nom-de-plum is, I just don't believe you." Oh, I see it is another problem of your laughable desire to "baaaah-lieve" whatever fantasy takes your fancy. In which case logic is pointless and completely beyond you.

                        Now that we have dealt with your laughable denial of the technologies that might be used to read snail mail, and your twice as laughable attempts at intimidation (you must have got bullied a lot at school), would you care to provide another opportunity for humour by supplying an actual "thought" on the thread subject? Thought not. Again.

                        1. BlueGreen

                          Re: синий зеленый неудачник streaky Dong Jefe Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                          @Plump & Bleaty

                          > simply far to big a jump for a cretin like you to think "hey, if that's what private companies can buy on the open market, I wonder what capability secret government kit could have?"

                          You can't be wrong, you just make up some new sci-fi device and suppose the government has it. You lose, plumps. Your fantasy rocks, though.

                          > Just hurry up and admit you were wrong.

                          Ok, I was wrong.

                          > Try the cyan inks in toners, where it's usually copper phthalocyanine

                          Damnit, he's right again! Now all letters in cyan text can be read [*] by governments. Emo teenager girls of the world, quiver knowing that your missives to your BF can be read (and don't forget to put smiley faces over each letter 'i'). Well done lambchop, most convincing. All I have to do is print in black and the revolution can continue, eh?

                          > seeing as IT'S A NOM DE PLUME

                          Yes dear, it is.

                          [*] in a matter of hours, a point you have carefully neglected to address.

                          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                            Happy

                            Re: синий зеленый неудачник streaky Dong Jefe Hmmm......

                            "....You can't be wrong, you just make up some new sci-fi device and suppose the government has it. You lose, plumps. Your fantasy rocks, though....." See, you really hate your lameness being predicted almost as much as you hate being proven wrong again. Again.

                            "....All I have to do is print in black and the revolution can continue, eh?...." Just as long as you ignore the black toner is rich in carbon, which shows up almost as good as iron and copper. Duh! But don't worry, I'm sure crayon is still OK, so all your missives should be safe.

                            Oh, BTW, I note you're still nto keen to return to the subject of the thread and get proven worng there too. Should I even pretend to be surprised, just out of politeness?

                            1. BlueGreen

                              Re: синий зеленый неудачник streaky Dong Jefe Hmmm......

                              > Just as long as you ignore the black toner is rich in carbon, which shows up almost as good as iron and copper.

                              Wow. Grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory. Let me essplain... turns out black toner actually has much more iron in than I realised when I posted that (saw a figure of 40% which seems high but who am I to argue), so in fact black toner might show up quite well (in a process that takes hours, which you conveniently ignore...). So you were right and I was wrong. And now you're claiming that carbon works just as well.

                              Yeah, course it does... and you'll provide a link to prove it of course...?

                              And you'll be able to distinguish the carbon in the paper from the carbon in the toner...?

                              Daft plump pillock. You had it in the bag and because you couldn't admit you're wrong you blew it by inventing new 'facts'.

                              No, fucking seriously matt, what is it with you being unable to admit you're wrong. You think I'll think less of you if you own up to a mistake? - quite the opposite.

                              Do you think less of me because I admit I'm wrong (see a few lines above) - I doubt it, actually.

                              Why can't you just own up that sometimes you're right and you should hold your corner and sometimes you're wrong and you should concede gracefully, and sometimes people have different opinions to you and there isn't a right or wrong, just a difference of perspective.

                              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                                Happy

                                Re: синий зеленый неудачник streaky Dong Jefe Hmmm......

                                LOL, whatever, loser! You are so desperate not to admit you've lost again you're now insisting I'm "inventing" stuff.

                                "....Do you think less of me....." Chap, it would be virtually impossible to think any less of you!

                                Like I said, what you worry,crayon is probably safe.

      2. SundogUK Silver badge

        Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

        It is not the minimalist government supporters that push this. It is the fundamentally left-wing neo-cons that are responsible and they have never had a problem with massive state intervention.

        1. Intractable Potsherd

          Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this... @sundog

          "left-wing neo-cons"??????? You do know what the "con" stands for, don't you?

          (Clue: it is "conservative".)

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

      "....My individual right to privacy is paramount....." That reminds me of an event from several years ago - we used to have a zebra crossing outside one of our offices, but in rush hour it was quite common for cars to refuse to stop for pedestrians waiting to cross (foreigners may be confused by this but in the UK it is the law that vehicles have to stop to allow pedestrians to cross at certain crossings). One day an exasperated pedestrian stepped out in front of a van, the van couldn't brake in time, and I had the delightful job of using my suit jacket as a pillow for his bleeding head whilst we waited for an ambulance. Whilst he was lying their bleeding to death, he mumbled quite clearly "It was my right to cross...."

      Personally, I put my requirement to carry on breathing above my right to privacy (or my right to cross pedestrian crossings in the face of oncoming traffic), and seeing as people like Al Quaeda and co have the intent to stop me breathing I'm quite happy to sacrifice a little privacy. And seeing as neither PRISM or TEMPORA actually spy on all of us, as claimed by the sheeple, but instead funnel raw data for very narrow analysis, it looks like I haven't actually surrendered any privacy at all, thanks.

      1. SundogUK Silver badge

        Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

        You are sacrificing a massive amount in terms of privacy for almost nothing in terms of security, while opening the door for the state to take more and more control of your, and my life.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Stop

          Re: SundogUK Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

          "You are sacrificing a massive amount in terms of privacy...." No I'm not - the data gathering does not equal the actual analysis, so the chances that even the complete loons that post on these forums have ever had their coms actively monitored are simply so minute as to make the National Lottery look like a sure thing. If you want to claim otherwise then please do provide proof of how you personally have had your privacy "invaded" and how it caused you any ill effect.

          "....while opening the door for the state to take more and more control of your, and my life." Frankly, why you think anyone would be interested in your life, other than as part of a study of delusional paranoia, is completely beyond me. Please do supply some information on why you think your are so gosh-darn interesting to anyone, let alone the security services.

          1. BlueGreen

            Re: SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

            @Plump 'n Bleaty

            > the data gathering does not equal the actual analysis

            so you're claiming that it's not going to be gathered but not analysed? Howzat work, plumps?

            > Some people feel the need to rock the boat on moral grounds. Let's use them for examples

            From <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/05/fbi-occupy-wall-street_n_2410783.html>

            "

            If there was a unified mission behind the Occupy surveillance, it appears the purpose was to pass information about activists' plans to the finance industry. In one memo from August 2011, the FBI discusses informing officials at the New York Stock Exchange about "the planned Anarchist protest titled 'occupy Wall Street', scheduled for September 17, 2011.[sic] Numerous incidents have occurred in the past which show attempts by Anarchist groups to disrupt, influence, and or shut down normal business operations of financial districts."

            The documents reveal that the FBI met with officials from four banks and one credit union, and spoke over the phone with a representative from a fifth bank. The FBI also talked with officials from the Richmond Federal Reserve, a branch of the central bank that covers much of the American South.

            "

            from <www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html>

            "

            Documents released show coordination between the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and corporate America. They include a report by the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), described by the federal government as “a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the private sector,” discussing the OWS protests at the West Coast ports to “raise awareness concerning this type of criminal activity.” The DSAC report shows the nature of secret collaboration between American intelligence agencies and their corporate clients - the document contains a “handling notice” that the information is “meant for use primarily within the corporate security community. Such messages shall not be released in either written or oral form to the media, the general public or other personnel…” (The DSAC document was also obtained by the Northern California ACLU which has sought local FBI surveillance files.)

            "

            So they're also suppressing knowledge of the use of monitoring (just right for plump & bleaty apologists!)

            There's plenty more.

            The sad thing is that I do actually have some understading and agreement with large scale monitoring because terrorism is a real issue and it's only likely to grow, however having cringing, bleating, obsequious sheep trying to defend what many find indefensible... well, it actually undermines the point they're trying to make. I believe we need to know and all agree, democratically, what is acceptable and for that we need to be informed.

            Have a blindfold, plumps, as it makes you feel better. But not us.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Синий зеленый Re: SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

              "....so you're claiming that it's not going to be gathered but not analysed? Howzat work...." Hmm, how to explain such a concept to one who obviously doesn't work in IT (if you even work at all)? I suppose the best example is the copper on the beat - all the time he is on the beat, he is looking around at people and cars and going-ons, his brain gathering data, but it is only when he suspects a crime that he takes out his notebook and starts to record details for later investigation and analysis. The copper probably forgets most of the day's sights not related to crime. You want the copper to walk around blindfolded and only allow him to remove the blindfold when a definite and undoubted crime has already taken place, and you do not want him to be able to scan back through CCTV in case he should see some normal and innocent activity (which he has zero interest in) whilst looking for evidence. You are so scared the copper might "invade your privacy" by seeing your ugly mug on the street that you want to completely curtail his ability to proactively detect and prevent crime, and all because some celebrity told you that was "a good idea". I'm sure the muggers in your town would like you. Even Snowden and Greenwald amdit that the data from PRISM and TEMPORA is selectively analysed, and unanalysed data is disposed of after so many years. So your determined bleating that the NSA and GCHQ are reading ALL your coms ALL the time is just sheep manure.

              "....the FBI discusses informing officials at the New York Stock Exchange about "the planned Anarchist protest titled 'occupy Wall Street', scheduled for September 17, 2011...." Gosh! You mean officers of the law thought it might be a good idea to forewarn inncoent companies of the criminal plans of known ne'erdowells, after said ne'erdowells had spoken of their intent to attack and damage their property? Well, I suggest you don't ever come drinking down my way, you'll only think the pub landlords are the worst thing since the Gestapo. The local coppers not only provide them with mugshots of know hooligans when there's a match on at the local football ground, but also of known drug dealers!!! "OMFG, the landlords are EEEEEVVVVVIIIIILLLLLL!!!!" Or maybe not. In fact, this effort at co-operation between pubs and coppers will probably have your "liberal" head exploding (http://www.thisisthewestcountry.co.uk/news/somerset_news/8737107.print/)!

              "....Have a blindfold, plumps...." I suggest you change your handle to Pavlov's Sheep so it more accurately reflects the nature of your tiresomely predictable bleating.

              1. BlueGreen

                Re: Синий зеленый SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                @plump & bleaty (again)

                > he is looking around at people and cars and going-ons, his brain gathering data, but it is only when he suspects a crime

                If while looking around he suspects a crime then he's processed the data. Not as deeply as his subsequent activities if he gets suspicious (reviewing cctv etc), but he's analysing it nonetheless. If he was not then he would effectively be wearing a camera and a blindfold. So, you lose.

                > You are so scared the copper might "invade your privacy" by seeing your ugly mug on the street

                The issue is it's not about coppers on the beat but pervasive surveillance. That bothers me lots (but it's ok with plump sheep). There is a tradeoff, I'd like some say in this tradeoff.

                > you want to completely curtail his ability to proactively detect and prevent crime

                You really are not the smartest. I don't want to 'completely curtail' but a democratic say in where the line is drawn. I've explained this before.

                > inncoent companies of the criminal plans of known ne'erdowells

                Oh dear, getting desperate. You presume the companies are 'innocent' (because it suits your argument) and that the protestors are criminal (because it suits your argument). Per your standard, where are they defined as criminal. Please show a court verdict that the entire Occupy collective, as a whole, was illegal, or withdraw your claim.

                > criminal plans of known ne'erdowells, after said ne'erdowells had spoken of their intent to attack and damage their property?

                well: "As Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, executive director of the PCJF, put it, the documents show that from the start, the FBI – though it acknowledges Occupy movement as being, in fact, a peaceful organization – nonetheless designated OWS repeatedly as a "terrorist threat":"

                You lose again. Try not inventing 'facts'.

                Rest of your post is MBZCC (matt bryant zero content condescension, just to remind you and everyone else), plumps.

                1. tom dial Silver badge

                  Re: Синий зеленый SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                  In the US (and I think also the UK) companies, like natural persons, are entitled to a presumption of innocence in any criminal proceeding.

                  Although violence associated with Occupy * groups was uncommon, it was not entirely absent, and not all of it was initiated by the police. It also is not unknown for subgroups in a mainly peaceful large group to have discrepant motives and intent to guide the larger group in ways that not all members would favor, so classification of the Occupy groups as peaceful, while still considering them to be a threat. From a police perspective, every crowd presents a threat of possible violence, even if because of a potential mass panic.

                  1. BlueGreen

                    Re: Синий зеленый SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                    @tom dial

                    > violence associated with Occupy * groups was uncommon, it was not entirely absent, and not all of it was initiated by the police

                    Obviously. I never said it was.

                    > It also is not unknown for subgroups in a mainly peaceful large group to have discrepant motives ...

                    Yeeeees, we know this.

                    > From a police perspective, every crowd presents a threat of possible violence, even if because of a potential mass panic.

                    Every *person* presents a possible threat of violence, let's presume they too are domestic terrorists just to be sure, right? You deal with individuals not the crowd otherwise that's collective punishment, right? The occupy movement was not illegal (AFAIK) and was mostly peaceful (AFAIK) so what's your point, that criminalising a whole group of people is ok, or state-backed and arguably illegal surveillance of notable members for undesirable opinions (AKA political dissent) in a democracy was acceptable? What exactly are you trying to say?

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Синий зеленый SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                "....so you're claiming that it's not going to be gathered but not analysed? Howzat work....

                " Hmm, how to explain such a concept to one who obviously doesn't work in IT (if you even work at all)?

                With your attitude and reasoning you certainly wouldn't have a job in my company for long.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  Happy

                  Re: AC Re: Синий зеленый SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                  "With your attitude and reasoning you certainly wouldn't have a job in my company for long." Well, I never actually wanted to work at McDonalds, thanks.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: AC Синий зеленый SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                    "With your attitude and reasoning you certainly wouldn't have a job in my company for long."

                    Well, I never actually wanted to work at McDonalds, thanks.

                    Good repartee, so one point for humour, but you don't know who are behind the various ACs. You talk *way* too much for someone who genuinely has to handle protectively marked information.

                    BTW, if you're such an expert, how come you haven't worked out the use of HTML tags yet?

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      FAIL

                      Re: синий зеленый неудачник Re: AC Синий зеленый SundogUK Hmmm...

                      ".....You talk *way* too much for someone who genuinely has to handle protectively marked information....." Really? Please do point to any post where I have revealed any classified information? Oh, you can't, because I haven't. You just want to whine becasue you can't handle a dissenting voice. Dissent is just not tolerated in the herd. I note you have given up all pretence of trying to post an opion on the topic thread, having instead concentrated rather clumsily on attacking the person that doesn't agree with your blinkered and spoonfed POV. What a surprise, not.

                      ".....if you're such an expert, how come you haven't worked out the use of HTML tags yet?" Gosh, you make such incisive points - not. Yawn. If you had tried more than just your OLPC XO laptop you would know that not all El Reg's functions display perfectly on all devices. Safari is particularly buggie in that respect. Cutting and pasting the whole link does seem to work, though I can see you never bother to actually read any of the links by the way your posts are continually shot down.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: синий зеленый неудачник AC Синий зеленый SundogUK Hmmm...

                        ".....if you're such an expert, how come you haven't worked out the use of HTML tags yet?" Gosh, you make such incisive points - not. Yawn. If you had tried more than just your OLPC XO laptop you would know that not all El Reg's functions display perfectly on all devices. Safari is particularly buggie in that respect

                        It's spelled "buggy", but we'll let that slide. I'm glad you finally go into specifics by stating that especially Safari is buggy - I just used to Safari to enter this post. Strangely, it works for me, and that's with all the stuff enabled that sometimes gets in the way on other websites (Adblock, Incognito, Ghostery and Disconnect - I figured that was enough). Any more real facts you want to share?

                        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                          FAIL

                          Re: синий зеленый неудачник AC Синий зеленый SundogUK Hmmm...

                          "....It's spelled "buggy"...." Apologies, auto-correct on an iPad, something you're probably not at all familiar with.

                          "....but we'll let that slide...." Really? So I assume you have no points to raise at all then?

                          "....Any more real facts you want to share?" Ah, I see you didn't have any points to share. So, once again, having had your ass handed to you on a plate in yet another debate, where your pitiful non-arguments have been thoroughly debunked, and your laughable attempts to intimidate have been exposed, you fall back on trying to deny issues with Safari? LOL! What, nothing new been spoonfed to the sheeple?

            2. tom dial Silver badge

              Re: SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

              Police being police (and the FBI is a kind of police), they will keep an eye on activities they think might lead to disorder. That will include, in the normal course of events, planting undercover agents, if they can, in what appear to be organized groups that they think might bring about disorder. And they may pass warnings to those they discover are targets of such activities or groups. They also will attempt to prevent disorder, although the comment fails to mention it, e. g., if it appears inflamed opinions may lead to violence or property damage. That is, after all, why we hire them.

              To prevent abuse, there are internal controls, and when those fail there are prosecutors and courts.

              It's not a perfect system, and likely is improvable, but there is no news here except in some of the details.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

            Please do supply some information on why you think your are so gosh-darn interesting to anyone, let alone the security services.

            You first. After all, you seem to agree with all "this nothing to hide" and other guff they have been trying to feed people whilst at the same time breaking every law in the book designed to contain these data gathering exercises to what is really legal. If you don't (probably with the argument that you don't supply it to this forum), then explain what gives you the right to demand that for someone else. What you don't seem to get is that the very fundamentals of a lawful state are being undermined by this crap. But hey, you are scared of your own shadow by now, I get it, so please go ahead and bend over for the nice, non-lubricated glove.

            Just don't ask other people to do the same.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: AC Re: SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

              "....You first. After all, you seem to agree with all "this nothing to hide" and other guff...." As I have already revealed, I have previouly signed the OSA and been vetted, so I have voluntarily already undergone much more stringent "invasion of my privacy" than you will ever be subjected to. That means I will probably also be subject to some form of monitoring my whole life. One of the resulting benefits is I am not on the "naughty list" but the "good list", which means I don't have trouble getting through US immigration whenever I visit.

              ".....whilst at the same time breaking every law in the book...." Oooh, you still can't get over the fact it has all been decalred quite legal and above board, can you? Maybe you should seek professional help with that denial problem of yours.

              ".....probably with the argument that you don't supply it to this forum...." I had no problem with the authorities going right back and interviewing relatives and childhood friends, because I understand the processes and checks and balances used not just by those interviewers but also in the methods by which those people qualified for the job. On the other hand, the type of sheeple that post their shrieking bleats here I wouldn't trust with anything.

              ".....What you don't seem to get is that the very fundamentals of a lawful state are being undermined by this crap...." Really? How? I see you're still ignoring the legal bit.

              "....you are scared of your own shadow by now...." Covered this already - I am not scared in the UK or US because I know the security services are on the job, but I sure am cautious in a lot of other countries. That's because I have been to other countries and seen some real nasty shadows, whereas all your shadows were dreamt up for you by Z-list celebrity wannabes.

              ".....Just don't ask other people to do the same." Oh, I wasn't expecting to talk some sense into you lot, it was more a matter of poking fun at you!

              1. BlueGreen

                Re: AC SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                @ Plump & Bleaty

                > so I have voluntarily already undergone

                Yeah. Voluntarily. That's the difference. But I suppose you are a free agent whereas we are all sheeple so don't deserve a choice.

                Oh, you still haven't answered, if you google for your name as you suggested, are you the Guildford, Crewe or other, at <http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Matthew/Bryant>. Because you haven't answered after 2 requests which must be an oversight because you endorse the "nothing to hide so nothing to fear" motif, and you downvoted my post so you certainly read it. And you told us to google your name, too.

                Hurry up lambchop, we're waiting.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: AC SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                  ".....Yeah. Voluntarily......" <Sigh> Just because I volunteered for the extra, doesn't mean I wasn't perfectly happy with the involuntary level (or non-level, seeing as it is selective analysis and the majority of gathered data NEVER GETS READ) that happens regardless. The point was I am quite satisfied with the authorities doing so because I understand the process, whereas it is very obvious the sheeple bleating here haven't a clue.

                  ".....you still haven't answered, if you google for your name as you suggested, are you the Guildford, Crewe or other, at <http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/dir/Matthew/Bryant>....." I did answer already when I pointed out I use a nom de plume. You do understand the concept of a nom de plume, right?

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: AC SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                As I have already revealed, I have previouly signed the OSA and been vetted, so I have voluntarily already undergone much more stringent "invasion of my privacy" than you will ever be subjected to. That means I will probably also be subject to some form of monitoring my whole life. One of the resulting benefits is I am not on the "naughty list" but the "good list", which means I don't have trouble getting through US immigration whenever I visit.

                Oh dear.

                1 - if you're subject to OSA you're not supposed to talk about that in public, and any vetting doubly so. Unless it's a soldier's BC which doesn't mean anything beyond not having any outstanding parking tickets and no criminal record.

                2 - if you have taken your ignorant aura near anything sensitive I'd be very worried about those who sponsored you, so the only reason I don't punt this one into the records office to get you a formal warning is because it would have an impact on The Register itself. You're not worth that.

                3 - the fact that you volunteer for the rubber glove treatment does not automatically imply you're not up to something. As a matter of fact, given your "protest doth too much" attitude online it would not be beyond the pale to suspect ulterior motives in seeking clearance, so some extra deep probing may be in order. If I were you I'd start taking some strong laxatives, that apparently helps. Also helps with a strong cough (I'll leave you to work that one out).

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: AC Re: AC SundogUK Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

                  ".... if you're subject to OSA you're not supposed to talk about that in public...." Wrong. You are not supposed to IDENTIFY yourself (and I haven't) and talk about the DETAILS of your vetting (which I again have not). You can not only admit to signing the OSA, but you can include your level of security clearance in CVs and job applications (http://www.contractoruk.com/security_clearance/security_clearance_it_contractor.html). There are many examples of people talking about their experience of being vetted available in books printed in the UK. You might try reading one some time. A book, any book, that is. I wouldn't expect you to have progressed any time soon to actual adult books that might cover the subject.

                  ".... the only reason I don't punt this one into the records office to get you a formal warning is because it would have an impact on The Register itself. You're not worth that....." LOL, please do try, if only for the comedy value, and please do explain how it would affect El Reg? What complete male genitalia!. Gosh, was that another pointless and tired attempt at silencing dissent? You really do have a Stalinesque level of clumsiness.

                  "....the fact that you volunteer for the rubber glove treatment does not automatically imply you're not up to something...." Even after a stiff whiskey that last "point" makes no sense at all. Seriously, try posting BEFORE inhaling, chap. Trying to superimpose your self-deluding paranoia onto everyone else just isn't going to work. Now, seeing as you really should abandon your dull attempts at intimidation, do you have anything even remotely original to say about the actual thread topic? Thought not.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Personally, I put my requirement to carry on breathing above my right to privacy

        That's certainly your right to do so, but it's not a little privacy you're being expected to give up. However if you're happy with that go ahead, just don't expect everyone to do the same.

        Personally my view is they can fuck off with their supposedly benevolent snooping, I want my privacy and I'm quite willing to take care of my own personal security.

        BTW, vehicles in the UK are only required to stop at a crossing once a pedestrians foot has crossed the line of the curb and touched the crossing itself. (unless they've changed that since I last looked which was some time ago).

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Stop

          Re: notauser Re: Personally, I put my requirement to carry on breathing above my right to privacy

          "....but it's not a little privacy you're being expected to give up...." And again, please demonstrate how you have personally been effected by the decades of monitoring which - presumably - you happilly went about without worrying about prior to Snowden, but are now crippling your freedom.

          ".....Personally my view is they can fuck off with their supposedly benevolent snooping...." I congratulate you on speaking your mind and encourage you to pursue your democratic right to vote for a politician or representative that will reflect said view, just don't expect everyone else to have the same POV, and please try not to be too upset when your one-issue politician gets hammered at the polls.

          ".... I want my privacy and I'm quite willing to take care of my own personal security....." I too want my privacy, it's just I want some other things more. I would also question your ability to take care of yourself - what, you're going to declare yourself a state, pay for your own army and police force of one, and refuse any help from others? Sorry, that's not how society works, joining a social group has always been a compromise right back to caveman days.

          "....BTW, vehicles in the UK are only required to stop at a crossing once a pedestrians foot has crossed the line of the curb and touched the crossing itself...." Half-right. The Highway Code states (https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/pedestrian-crossings-191-to-199);

          "1. look out for pedestrians waiting to cross and be ready to slow down or stop to let them cross

          2. you MUST give way when a pedestrian has moved onto a crossing"

          BTW, the police can charge you for not driving with due care and attention, or reckless driving (bigger fine, more points), if they observe you driving in a manner where you would be unlikely to stop in time at a crossing. Can I suggest you take some time off reading alarmist sheeple websites and instead spend it more productively in reviewing your Highway Code?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

        Actually Matt, a pedestrian does have an absolute right to cross anywhere they choose and if they are struck by a vehicle then the driver has a case to answer whether or not there is a crossing marked or not. There are, of course, defences to the charge of causing death or injury by careless or dangerous driving but they are not of the form "he wasn't on a pedestrian crossing".

      4. Someone Else Silver badge
        FAIL

        @ Matt Bryant Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

        [...] I'm quite happy to sacrifice a little privacy.

        On this side of the pond, Matt, one of our founders (you know, the guys who kicked the Crown's ass (or arse, as you'd spell it) some 250 years ago) had a little saying that goes along the lines of the following:

        They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
        . Even though you may think it doesn't apply to you, you might want to consider it.

        1. BlueGreen

          Re: @ Matt Bryant Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

          @Someone Else

          > They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

          I've quoted this at him before. He's too dense to absorb it, sorry.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @ Matt Bryant Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

            I've quoted this at him before. He's too dense to absorb it, sorry.

            ... which leads me to quote my favourite statement of all time:

            "he's so dense, light bends around him"

            :)

        2. tom dial Silver badge

          Re: @ Matt Bryant Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

          Benjamin Franklin surely was wise enough to recognize that between individuals rights might come into conflict, and for the same individual, different rights might occasionally be in competition, and that whether a particular liberty is "essential" might depend some on circumstances.

          In all of the discussion about collection of communication data by the NSA and (occasionally by other SigInt agencies) the connection between collection and analysis of the data and sacrifice of liberty is left extremely vague, perhaps intentionally so as to avoid the need to think hard. There is an enormous difference between collecting, storing, and analyzing communication metadata, most of it not personally identifiable, and constructing individual dossiers on the whole of the population for use at convenience in controlling them. For all the yelling there is little or no evidence that the NSA or other SigInt agencies engage in the latter or, for that matter, assist internal police type agencies in doing so. Passing information to the FBI or DEA, as has been reported, would be inappropriate under the NSA authorization if it came from a purely domestic communication, but might be OK otherwise. Whether the evidence obtained thereby would be admissible in a criminal trial would be for the trial court to decide if it were questioned. I suspect DEA were told to find alternative explanations primarily to sidestep a possible need to expose classified programs in open court proceedings.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: @ tom dial

            there is little or no evidence that the NSA or other SigInt agencies engage in the latter or, for that matter, assist internal police type agencies in doing so.

            OK, let's play with that one for a moment. If they do not collect that data to start with, the potential for abuse is astonishingly close to zero, so that seems to me a good Modus Operandi to start with. Only when there is a reason (like a defendable "reasonable suspicion") should they collect data.

            You may find this staggering: that principle already exists, and was even in use in the US for a while. It is called "due process". It is a bit annoying because you have to convince someone else that you are serious about this and will go about things lawfully, but it is a democratically agreed process.

            1. streaky

              Re: @ tom dial

              "Only when there is a reason (like a defendable "reasonable suspicion") should they collect data"

              The point at which they start to collect data from people is the point at, lets say the police, want to tap your phones. They go to a court and say "here's the evidence this guy is a Tango - can we please do this".

              Government agencies are woefully ignorant of IT security. There's several issues - the (relevant, UK) law clearly states they shouldn't be doing this anyway. They're going to lose it all to some kid with aspergers who's going to pwn your bank account with the information he collects from them or just use it to embarrass people - and chances are that's going to be you. On top of that it's just a really expensive way of getting no relevant intelligence at all.

              And all those reasons are just related to GCHQ boasting about how well connected they are into the UK infrastructure - it ignores the fact that the backdoors they've apparently had inserted all over the shop damage the security of *everybody* - and this is in a country where you can be compelled to produce crypto keys by a court or face prison for an unlimited time anyway. Why would they need backdoors in that situation if they didn't know for a fact courts would agree at the stuff they're up to?

      5. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

        " and seeing as people like Al Quaeda and co have the intent to stop me breathing I'm quite happy to sacrifice a little privacy."

        And that Matthew, makes you a true "sheeple."

        Baaaah.

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

        Personally, I put my requirement to carry on breathing above my right to privacy (or my right to cross pedestrian crossings in the face of oncoming traffic), and seeing as people like Al Quaeda and co have the intent to stop me breathing I'm quite happy to sacrifice a little privacy

        Ah, well, it is of course your right to join the sheeple if you so choose. Just don't entertain the illusion you're speaking on someone else's behalf when you advocate giving up inalienable Human Rights. Because they are inalienable, and some people spent an awful lot of time in 1948 coming up with something they could all agree to.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

          "....when you advocate giving up inalienable Human Rights. Because they are inalienable...." What complete cobblers. No right is "inalienable", they are all granted through the power of society and society can remove tham any time it likes, especially when under threat. Basically, every government reserves the right to remove rights if required, such as happened most widely in the West during WW2.

          "....and some people spent an awful lot of time in 1948 coming up with something they could all agree to." ROFLMAO! Half the countries that dreamt up to the UDHR had zero intention of implementing it - it wan't until 1976 that enough members of the UN General Assembly could even agree to make it international law! Eleanor Roosevelt only intended it to be used to beat up on the Soviets and their allies (it had a clause 13 stating free movement of citizens between countries, which was a dig at the USSR). One of the reasons the Saudis refused to agree it on 1948 is the equal rights it gives to homosexuals, all religions, and the right to change religion. Since then a large number of Islamic countries have hypocritically signed up but refused to give those rights to their own citizens. You really do need to take a breather from your moral hobbyhorse and actually do some background reading on whatever mumbojumbo has been spoonfed to you.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

            What complete cobblers. No right is "inalienable", they are all granted through the power of society and society can remove tham any time it likes, especially when under threat. Basically, every government reserves the right to remove rights if required, such as happened most widely in the West during WW2.

            You know, the more you talk, the more ignorance shines through. You really have no clue at all, don't you?

            To wit:

            PREAMBLE

            Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

            Maybe you should have paid attention to this:

            Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

            — ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

            ... but it's clearly too late.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: AC Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

              "....You know, the more you talk, the more ignorance shines through. You really have no clue at all, don't you?...." LOL, it is so obvious you just couldn't wait to type that, so much so you completely faield to do any research (hey, at least I throw you the bone of pretending I think you could actually do research). Since you didn't take the time, I'll do it for you.

              In the case of the UK, you might want to consider the Emergency Powers Bill of 1939 (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1939/aug/24/emergency-powers-defence-bill) and the Treachery Bill of 1940 (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1940/may/22/treachery-bill), both of which trampled all over a lot of those "inalienable rights".

              In the US not only did you have censorship of the press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship), which would probably be enough to have you sheeple shrieking if Obambi put a similar Office to work today, you also had the War Powers Act of 1941, which gave Roosevelt the powers to trample all over Abe's "inalienable rights". In particular, it removed safeguards on government confidential census data, which allowed the FBI to quickly track down and intern US citizens judged to be of enemy origin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt#Internment_of_Germans.2C_Japanese_and_Italians), completely pissing all over their "inalienable rights". In short, it is very clearly YOU that is completely ignorant, uneducated and blinkered. And probably far too late to rectify the problem.

    3. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

      Your individual right to privacy may be paramount. Would you have said the same about the individual right to privacy of those who left backpacks full of explosives in the London subway on 7/7/2005 or those who carried out the recent attack on the Westgate Mall in Kenya, the Spanish train bombings in March, 2004, or the Beslan school massacre in September of the same year?

      I make no claim that these atrocities could have been prevented but for inadequate surveillance and insufficient sifting of inadequate data. Such claims are mostly rubbish. However, the claim that your privacy (or other) rights, and, by extension, mine and everyone else's, are not subject to limits is equally rubbish.

      We establish (US) or allow (UK) governments partly to establish and enforce those limits. That they do not always do so to everyone's satisfaction is certain. That they begin to act like rulers more than agents of the electorate is, to a large extent our fault in choosing those who represent our interests, watching them to ensure that they continue to do so, and electing their successors when they fail. As a wise 'possum once was quoted "we have met the enemy and he is us." I suspect that part of the anger about intelligence agency data collection derives from the unmentioned recognition of this fact.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hmmm... not sure where to begin with this...

        Would you have said the same about the individual right to privacy of those who left backpacks full of explosives in the London subway on 7/7/2005 or those who carried out the recent attack on the Westgate Mall in Kenya, the Spanish train bombings in March, 2004, or the Beslan school massacre in September of the same year?

        So, you're suggesting that by building a huge warehouse of irrelevant data burying the most important facts those events would have been discovered? You really believe that?

        Oh dear. I though Matt was bad.

  4. ForthIsNotDead
    Meh

    Hmmm...

    Seems like our great elected don't like the idea of GCHQ being able to read their emails whenever they like. Anyone that thinks there could be a change in the law for our benefit needs a reality check. If there is a benefit for us, it'll be a coincidence, rather than by design.

  5. NinjasFTW
    WTF?

    Sigh

    so the same committee that basically said move along, nothing to see here is now going to be in charge of determining if the laws need changing.

    Anyone willing to offer odds on them making a proposal that simply requires all data to be routed through GCHQ with criminal charges against anyone who dares to question what is being collected. Of course the wording will be slightly different because they are doing it for our benefit and of course lets not forget TERRORISTS!!1!.1!1!!! with a side order of Think of the Children!

  6. Ebaneezer Wanktrollop

    MP's and Spooks

    Plebs - the lot of 'em

  7. Brent Longborough
    Megaphone

    Why didn't he answer the question?

    On Hard Talk, Stephen Sackur asked Malcolm Rifkind whether he and the ISC knew the extent to which NSA and GCHQ were hoovering up the Internet. If you listen carefully to his answers, you'll see that he never actually said 'Yes' or 'No'.

    Now, if he'd said 'Yes', we all might shout at him and argue that it was grossly excessive and why did he allow it -- a courageous answer, but at least honest.

    If he'd replied 'No', however, that would have been an excellent sign of ISC's failure to exercise adequate oversight.

    What's my conclusion? Well, 'Yes' would have been bad, but 'No' would be a complete disaster. As I don't see how answering 'Yes' would have in any way compromised security, I begin to suspect the true answer would have been 'No'

    1. WonkoTheSane
      Headmaster

      Re: Why didn't he answer the question?

      You forget that politicians are psychologically incapable of answering yes or no to ANY question.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why didn't he answer the question?

        Indeed, they also seem to have an inability to recall the company line without using the key phrase "let me be clear..." first.

        All a bit Manchurian Candidate for my liking...

      2. PassingStrange

        Re: Why didn't he answer the question?

        Not to comment on Rifkind's interview per se (which I didn't hear) - but, to be fair to politicians, the Beeb's current batch of journalists seem to positively revel in aggressively asking mind-bogglingly overly-simplistic, often highly slanted questions to which no-one in their right mind would give a simple yes or no. Presumably they think it makes their interviews look "tough", and they go to bed dreaming of the golden moment when someone will actually make the mistake of a straight answer. It's piss-poor journalism of the very worst kind - the best interviewers of the past (Robin Day comes to mind) were fully capable of skewering their victims with incisive, razor-sharp questions in the most polite manner, and then hanging politely but doggedly in there until they either got an answer or it became crystal clear to everyone listening that the interviewee was dodging the issue - but aggression and hoping for a gaffe seems to be all that today's poor dears are capable of.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Why didn't he answer the question?

      "....you'll see that he never actually said 'Yes' or 'No'....." Apart from the impossibility of putting a politician in front of a TV camera and then expecting them to just answer "yes" or "no", I find it quite amusing that you think the pointing of a TV camera at a politician somehow magically forces them to speak only the truth.

      1. Don Jefe

        Re: Why didn't he answer the question?

        Indeed, neither a TV camera nor the presence of an official inquiry committee has no effect on the degree of dishonesty spewing forth from politicians.

        There jobs do not require honesty. In fact they've gamed the system so hard it is against the law for them to disclose the truth of 'national security' related matters.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why didn't he answer the question?

      We've already heard from many MPs associated with Intelligence and Security topics and they all say that they were not aware of what was being done by GCHQ as being able to do just that was part and parcel of the Snoopers' Charter bill being debated earlier in this parliament.

      We ought to be asking, what else don't we know about that is illegal and being done in our name?

      1. tom dial Silver badge

        Re: Why didn't he answer the question?

        Assuming MPs are similar to US Senators or Representatives:

        - almost all of them can plausibly (for the constituents) deny knowledge at no real cost, as the programs are classified;

        - a "yes" answer would be equivalent to admitting outright that they didn't look after their constituents' interests.

        The correct answer is obvious, and has no truth value at all.

  8. PassingStrange

    Of course GCHQ did nothing illegal...

    ..at least, not technically. How could they? The internet in its current form basically didn't exist when most of our current batch of security and privacy laws were drawn up, and those laws simply don't cover it. But - and it's a BIG but - GCHQ undoubtedly DID do things that, had they involved older modes of communication that WERE covered by those laws (obvious parallels would be mass tampering with and copying of letters, or tapping and recording every phone line in the country without a warrant) most certainly WOULD have been illegal. And with that in mind, their behaviour was morally dubious, to say the least - obeying the letter of the law whilst clearly breaching its spirit.No, it's not surprising that any intelligence agency would do (at least) everything the law lets it get away with, but we've been here before, had the discussions, and come to conclusions that don't support what they were (and, presumably, still are) doing. And we therefore have every right to be very suspicious of any attempt to avoid, prevent or back-pedal on, a significant legal crackdown on the scope of what is permitted without proper and independent oversight.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: PassingStrange Re: Of course GCHQ did nothing illegal...

      "....The internet in its current form basically didn't exist when most of our current batch of security and privacy laws were drawn up...." How so? The RIPA laws that underpin the current selective monitoring date to 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000). Please do explain how the Internet was "completely different" in 2000 compared to today? Email has been widely available since 1993, text messaging as part of the GSM standard in 1985, H.323 standardised VoIP in 1996 and even Google Search has been around since 1997.

  9. Crisp

    Agencies seek to find the needles in the haystacks

    Might I suggest that they use a magnet rather than a flamethrower to find them?

    1. Jess--
      Joke

      Re: Agencies seek to find the needles in the haystacks

      A roll in the hay with the right person will almost certainly find it at an inopportune moment

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Rifkind seems to think is committee's job is PR

    I call whitewash. Look at his specification of the second duty of the ISC!

    From Spyblog:

    Henry Porter v Malcolm Rifkind: surveillance and the free society

    Malcolm Rifkind and Henry Porter

    The Observer, Saturday 24 August 2013 20.49 BST

    [...]

    What you clearly don't understand is that the ISC has two duties, not one. The first is to criticise and condemn the intelligence agencies if they exceed their powers or act foolishly. The second, just as important, is to defend them and declare their innocence when unfairly attacked by journalists or politicians. They cannot defend themselves. We are determined to do so, but only when the facts justify it.

    [...]

  11. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Not even 'twoc'ing...'

      > At the very least it is theft

      "1 Basic definition of theft.

      (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly."

      - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1

      Bzzt - return to Go; Do not collect £200... Better luck next time...

  12. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    A Fools' Media Tool is an Ignorant Blunt Instrument and More Feather Duster than Iron Fist

    If intelligence bods can't run rings around self serving politicians and store all manner of leverage to have them jump through prepared circus hoops/desired tasks and chase embarrassing phantoms to never be caught or rightly wrongly identified, then are they not fit for future purpose in either the real and/or virtual fields of active engagement.

    You'd have thought that Rifkind would know that he spouts nothing of effective concern to intelligent bodies by now. He's been blethering such stuff and nonsense for more years than he should care to remember. But such is the lot he has chosen for himself, I suppose.

  13. Someone Else Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Really, what else could they possibly say?

    The committee of seven MPs and two Lords cleared GCHQ of any wrongdoing over its use of data harvesting by the NSA's PRISM programme back in July.

    Uhmm-hmmm, of course it did.

    Now, about that "legislative review". I understand you Brits like to bet on just about anything, so what are the current odds that the review will result in legislation stating, in so many words or less, that GCHQ will be enabled to perform what ever data acquisition (read: spying) it wants, under any circumstances, without any recourse whatsoever?

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And in the end....

    Nothing will change whatever review is undertaken. There's no difference between the UK or US ethos on spying and the budget given over to such programs. Spying Doesn’t Work to Prevent Terrorism .... (Its only about the money). William Binney knows as much about spying as anyone alive... (former NSA whistleblower)

    www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/the-dirty-little-secret-about-nsa-spying-it-doesnt-work.html

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mass surveillance to cover up Edgar J Hoover like abuses-of-power...

    I'm beginning to think the smoking gun isn't dragnet mass surveillance, its targeted micro-surveillance abuses of power. The mass surveillance part is part-cover to gloss over highly-targeted Edgar-J-Hoover-like abuses. Read the reports of past NSA whistleblowers William Binney etc, actual program designers who were much more senior than Snowden...

    Should you become a person of interest i.e. an OWS protestor or an outspoken critic of the banking establishment, or the military, or an outright critic of the UK or US administration, you will be targeted automatically... You may also become an unwitting target if you represent a foreign competitor to a US company, especially in the industrial military or energy sectors. Follow the money! The recent revelations of NSA spying in Brazil and France tell us a lot more about what's really going on...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)

    On a wider theme of abuse of power and controlling information this is also worth a read...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

  16. phil dude
    Boffin

    we the people...

    It is funny really. If you read the american constitution and the bill of rights you get some strong themes.

    1) The government cannot be trusted so no infringing on free speech, no state religions and a freedom of the press and citizens assembling.

    2) We are not sure federal governments can be trusted not to go all royal again, so keeping well armed STATE militias just in case is a good thing.

    3) Government cannot put soldiers on your land without consent.

    4) no unreasonable searches or seizures and no snooping without a warrant, and you had better have probable (as in statistics) cause.

    5) grand juries (of CITIZENS) being indictments in serious of capital cases, protections against double-jeopardy and self-incrimination. Oh and due process , no mkaing it up ion secret. And if they take your stuff they must pay for it.

    6) right to speedy trial, to be told WHY the government wants you, and the right to legal representation.

    7) trial by a jury (of CITIZENS) for civil trials.

    8) no excessive fines, bail or cruel and unusual punishments.

    9) no rights are denied to the people just because they are not listed here.

    10) powers given to states of people those which have not been given to congress.

    Written over 220 years ago by citizens that fought to relieve themselves from tyranny (yes, that is the same feckless royals the UK currently has, and still has a toadying following).

    Unparalleled genius would be to think of these concepts. It is extraordinary to think a country was born from them too.

    It is amazing how easily people in power forget them...

    P.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Warrants

    Without warrants issued independently by a court to cover each intercept, the intercept having a defined scope and purpose and a proper justification given for its necessity, any tweaks to the law will be worthless and change nothing from the current 'do as you please' situation. The current system for authorisation is a joke stripped of the humour and lacks even the stringency of its predecessor. Until someone way outside the system is giving the nod, public trust will deservedly remain at zero.

    Parliamentary oversight also needs to stretch beyond the current cosy gentlemens club of 'those in the know', and ALL major security service activity and projects should be subject to cross-party parliamentary scrutiny - not just "call me Dave and his chums saying great job guys".

    They can split legal hairs over legal and illegal and whats being intercepted being 'content' or 'meta', but it will do nothing to change the perception that they are lying though their teeth - the truth exists in what they actually do, not what they claim they do. It might be a win in the debating society at uni, but cuts bugger all ice in public.

  18. phil dude
    IT Angle

    old boys club...

    Sometimes when I think about "in the thick of it", it feels like I watched a documentary...

    I think there are a few issues that need addressing and it is the revolving door between biz and gov.

    Also, allow "professional politicians", appears to be a really good way of selecting for people who should not be anywhere near the levers of govt power.

    Perhaps we need to make political manifestos legally binding and open to mind term voting?

    If you *really* think about, what was it the govt did when the founding fathers wrote those words, and what does it NEED to do now, you can't help asking yourself if there is ANYTHING you cannot get a company to do for you?

    No coffee yet, soz..

    P.

  19. Tacitus

    Almost all my comments are rejected by the Register unless totally innocuous unlike foul-penned and

    less knowledgeable comments. Here then all I'll bother to say, rather than waste more of my time or anyone else's is that it is not the completely responsible gathering of information from us used solely to overcome a crisis and in no way used to label us that I think most object-to. It is the factually undeniable situation that there is an organism which controls the direction of all our governments in achieving profit financially and politically.

    Unfortunately these information gatherers have now moved into internet scouring, "social media" and increasing from the traditional blundering but almost amiable intelligence boffins into motley collection of 'secret-service' radicals who's pathology is worthy of anxiety. In the interests of the "multiculturalism"...such a sweet sounding name... chapter of globalisation, jihadist believers are not only NOT rejected as immigrants but positively welcomed and some infiltrate communities and mosques (as did Christians against them) with raging anger and promotion of violence against what another set of terrorists call "goyim' Their insults against christians, some well deserved and some infamous are tolerated by the host nations whilst they are themselves intolerant of insults towards their own version of the most shallow understanding of Yeshua.

    The problem essentially is in comparatively small groups of communities being given the power to act on behalf of 'faceless men' whilst purporting, even believing they act to show us the 'way' ...'moving forward' to use today's fashion-apeak. It is the realisation that, they, even our own government bodies are no longer OUR friends but act to protect something not quite visible though many know what it is and are silenced....which drives the resistance to the spying on us using numerous techniques and 'modern developments' and that any of us can disappear during day or night through our own 'security forces' to never be seen again or to turn up as a shadow some time hence.

    What we do not trust any more is that we cannot trust almost anyone...which the new order has a delight in achieving. The mendacious, slippery and doctrinaire adherents to a totalitarian envisioned globalised, new world order cannot be trusted to have a single vision towards peace on earth and we must take the right as OURS to protest loudly and freely, un-harassed, unlisted, un-recorded and maturely.

    Whilst we do so we should do, and openly and vocally acknowledging any benefits we have gained through these intrusions on our privacy. ...but one should not have to be 'either-or' as most commentators seem to suggest. The concept that the State (undefined) is greater than the people is much lauded but intrinsically unsound and a machination. The government should finally be forced by us to understand it is a group elected to be paid to be our advocates, not the latest in a series of advocates for alien forces and ideals and connivance.Voila

    1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

      *mod hat on*

      The reason most of your comments get rejected is because they're simply far too long. Please see the Register Comments Guidelines for more info, paying particular attention to section 8. As soon as we publish anything a commentard says, we become legally liable for it - and we do not have any fulltime mods to devote to this.

      Keep it short and to the point or we'll can it because we don't have the time to wade through reams of comment copy, no matter how insightful. Sorry.

    2. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

      and to add to my last, you seem to have a real fixation with Jews, Israel and America. Nuff said.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like