back to article Snowden documents show British digital spies use viruses and 'honey traps'

At the start of this week, documents released by whistleblower Edward Snowden detailed DDOS attacks on chatrooms by a British online intelligence unit dubbed the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG). Now he has released a new trove showing that JTRIG is about much more than purely online annoyances. According to …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. dssf

    Phy vs Virtual

    "JTING could also block up older technologies, such as fax machines, it said and delete someone's entire online persona."

    I the real world, a "disappeared" or "harangued" person would be called "persona non grata".

    In the online world, a blocked, blacklisted, or otherwise harangued or "profile disappeared" person would be...

    "persona non-data" (dah-tah)

    Sorry... Couldn't... Re... Sist....

    1. Swarthy
      Joke

      Re: Phy vs Virtual

      Sorry... Couldn't... Re... Sist....

      Resistance is Futile (If less than 1 Ohm).

  2. dssf

    SIGINT-Friendly Hotels

    No surprises here:

    Recall the Spooks (MI-5) Episode in which the concierge/hotel staff employee was asked about the accessibility of the room and the timetable of the target, and told he was to sign the National Secrets Act letter Tom handed him. (IIRC, this, but mayber another, episode verbalized MI-5 having the ability to bugger/dig into corporate hotel accounts to find those who paid block room reservations short to eternity periods.)

    Even still, Malcom and an assistant still drilled into the walls and set up cams and mics.

    Then, later, Zoe was caught on video, to the horror of Colin.

    May be better to arrive at the room door face-masked, and enter with a suitably-high trade show booth canvas, erected against all walls and windows to provide a face-secure way to sweep the room for electronics eavesdropping. That was depicted somewhat in Ep 3 or 4 (IIRC) of Spooks when an Embassy/Consulate was taken under siege.

    It could become costly for intel agencies if highly-sought targets just started holing up in the likes of Motel 6, Days Inn, and budget hotels scattered about.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: dssf Re: SIGINT-Friendly Hotels

      Down vote for failing to realise the yawning gap between "Spooks" and reality.

      1. dssf

        Re: dssf SIGINT-Friendly Hotels

        Why so punative with the down vote when text would have sufficed? Not as if was intentionally misleading or malicious.

        Maybe I should have more thoughfully appended with:

        In real life, hotels are bugged, mic'd, and some loaded with cameras -- in advance. Well, if watching shows about dumb criminals and drugs dealers are to be believed.

        Besides, as for the episode, of course I know it's just a show. Still, even if scene-sequencing is bad, people still get handed OSA letters, don't they? And, that was an earlier episode. As the show progressed, they got into laser mic's and other stuff, just to try to look realistic. Some police agencies don't even have the best stuff and walk away with no intel, or illegally-obtained intel/evidence, or have to call another agency to help.

        Gods, it so easy to incur negative points lately. But, in your case, sincerely, I DO appreciate that you gave an explanation. That softens some of the pain. Much appreciated!

        Cheers

        1. Richard Jones 1
          WTF?

          Re: dssf SIGINT-Friendly Hotels

          Does anyone thing this stuff is new? It has been the norm for years. I suggest it is likely that plane seats and other transport options have also been used in this way. In fact anywhere there is an option to book facilities or steer the punter it is likely that some form of set up has been at least tried or used

          It does depend on where you go. Some places have their hotels, guest houses and the like pre-wired. The most the host side have to do is connect the patch cords, in many cases that is not even required as everything is fully tested and ready to roll. Guests are steered to the 'prime' suites/rooms/flee pits where the equipment has been pretested. Staff who worked for me/with me overseas saw some of this in action, including the physical honey traps - if they were spurned in the lobby, they came calling at the door. Door wedges in addition to inclined chairs, (not always a reliable option) were a useful item of travel equipment. This was only for commercial contract management. Idle chatter about nice to have items appearing on the menu would be greeted by a new menu sporting the items shortly after. Perhaps it was all done by magic?

          The list of such places may be longer than it once was, I guess it will not be shorter.

      2. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

        Re: dssf SIGINT-Friendly Hotels @ Matt Bryant

        Down vote for failing to realise the yawning gap between "Spooks" and reality.... Matt Bryant

        Quite so, Matt, I concur. In "Spooks" the non-state actors know what they are doing and are pretty effective, in reality is it completely different.

        And the JTRIG slideshow tells everyone that sad rad fact.

        Presenting and drivering a viable and vibrant alternative reality program, and/or virtually sustainable pogrom, is not something/anything which can be done by anyone without a sublime and supreme and superior command of control intelligence, media and communications ..... which morph and expand to exploit and exercise Online Covert Action with Virtual Clandestine Programs and Projects in Significantly Smarter SMARTR Operations with Right Royal Renegade Rogue Recruits. :-) ...... which is, I suppose and propose, what GCHQ and British Intelligence Services are missing and need to purchase, at whatever price it be offered and although it would certainly not be cheap, it will be punishingly expensive to have it exercised by others elsewhere.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: SIGINT-Friendly Hotels

      More like SIGINT friendly software if you ask me.

      The whole Snowden episode shows that the biggest friends of the "opposing side" (whoever that side may be) are:

      1. Sharepoint. It does not bloody matter if you classify something "Top secret, burn before reading". If it is on a sharepoint server the sharepoint PFY can download the whole lot and take it to a neutral or adversary location.

      2. Powerpoint. The need to "capture PHB attention" by sticking audious claims in a slide deck so you can get more funding to your project round of departamental reshuffle is as bad in spookland as for us civilians outside the fence

      3. LinkedIn. I have long noted that its javascript is designed in a manner which would make it the dream vehicle for attack. You have to give it total permissions in whatever defensive system you have installed for your browser. It simply refuses to work otherwise. Even the most modest attempt to cut down on permissions via NoScript will be futile as far as LinkedIn is concerned.

      So your first steps towards security your organization should probably be banning ther first, binning the second and setting the third to equate to 127.0.0.1 on your name server :)

      1. frank ly

        Re: LinkedIn (etc) and browser security

        You could always run your browser in a sandbox. Or have the security services found a way to get out of one?

        1. WatAWorld

          Re: LinkedIn (etc) and browser security

          Sadly yes.

    3. WatAWorld

      Fictional spy shows so ironic they must be a hipster's dream.

      Please try to remember that fictional TV programs are not news reports.

      You saw it on Spooks. Spooks isn't a new show.

      I'm sitting here watching the US TV show "Alias".

      When it was made 10 years ago it was a fictional account of an agency called SD-6, sort of a new world order type organization. And its employees thought they were working for the CIA.

      Alias portrays all sorts of psychopathic bad guys and dirty tricks by the English, the French and people in turbans.

      Most of it still is over-the-top fantasy. But what isn't, the dirty tricks that are no longer fictional, they're what the CIA and NSA have been doing.

      And rather than the employees of SD-6 thinking they're working for the CIA but actually working for some fantasy "new world order" it seems the reality is that the CIA is working for SD-6 working for some new world order.

      It isn't precise. It is still fiction. But the irony is monumental.

  3. Lars Silver badge

    And I thought it was all about terrorists.

    1. Lapun Mankimasta

      There was an incident a few years ago when a newlywed couple in China had their nuptials videoed and later sold to them as porn ... there is a profit motive to espionage, and we all trust that the GCHQ has imbibed enough of the Thatcher spirit to monetarize their snooping ... The Chinese couple? they sued the hotel to the ground, IIRC. They showed more understanding of the value of privacy than most in the West these days.

      1. WatAWorld

        Insider Knowledge to Violate Fair Tradingi Laws

        "... there is a profit motive to espionage, and we all trust that the GCHQ has imbibed enough of the Thatcher spirit to monetarize their snooping ... "

        It isn't just selling porn.

        I don't imagine anyone at the SEC or Serious Fraud Office, Financial Services Authority or Office of Fair Trading is checking to see if NSA or GCHQ employees are using insider knowledge to violate fair trading laws.

        Look at Russia. If you want to be rich, if you want to succeed in business, join the FSB or be ex-KGB. This is where we are headed if we don't change course.

    2. nematoad

      "And I thought it was all about terrorists",

      Silly man, it's about control, of everyone.

    3. lambda_beta
      Linux

      Ufortunately, it's all about control, or to exercise power. I like to think of it as basic insucurity.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You know it makes sense

      #define "terrorist" "anyone who opposes the government"

    5. Arachnoid

      Nope

      Its about targeting the Enemy of the State ergo whomever the "state" deems a valid target, be they @home or abroad

  4. dssf

    When booking a hotel...

    Ask, "Have you had to sign a national security letter regarding but bugging or monitoring of your hotl or any rooms?"

    If the response is "I am not at liberty to confirm or deny...."

    Hang up and keep looking for another accomodation.

    IIUC, people will not reply in such a manner unless presented such a letter. Well, assuming the OSAs/NSLs commit the signator/subject to also lie, and to report that s/he has been tested or asked trigger event questions. Would that be legal? To commit an ordinary, non-sworn civilian to until death report back to NatSec when asked such questions?

    Wait, you probably cannot confirm or deny that, but you MIGHT be required to report this post. Worry not... I presume ALL my posts, emails, social sites, and more are being monitored -- JUST in case I am more important (as a target, not as a gft) than I ever dreamt.....

    1. Mark 85
      Big Brother

      Re: When booking a hotel...

      There's a downside to asking that question... it could put you on a watch list. The reason being, if you ask, you must have something to hide.

      1. Tom 38
        Joke

        Re: When booking a hotel...

        There is another downside to that I've found, the response is invariably "Mate, this is a Holiday Inn, you want the bloody room or what?"

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: When booking a hotel...

      Do you think the person at reception would know the answer, or just presume it's a prank phone call? As pointed out by someone above "Spooks" is not reality.

    3. WatAWorld

      Re: When booking a hotel...

      The desk clerk is unlikely to know unless it is a tiny owner operated hotel.

      In the UK and USA it would be a violation of the law to spread knowledge of security letters beyond the bare minimum people needed to carry out the request and the company's lawyers.

  5. Sanctimonious Prick

    Sack The Editor!

    Seriously! There is so much rubbish posted by "writers" on here. Sack 'em, sack 'em all! They can't spell for shit, and only half the time seemingly know what they're writing about!

    I only come here now to be a troll.

    I only come here now to read about Snowden. No, I don't know what the fuck I'm doing here!

  6. Someone Else Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Stop me if you've heard this before...

    "All of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework," said the agency in a statement, "which ensure[s] that our activities are authorized, necessary and proportionate can be easily changed, twisted, fudged and/or twiddled as we see fit, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee to make sure we don't get caught with out mitts in the cookie jar. All of our operational processes rigorously support this position."

    There, fixed it for ya.

    Blackguards...

  7. ThomH

    There's no 'report a problem' button, so...

    It's Der Spiegel, not De Spiegel. As in "the mirror" but at a completely different end of the market from The Mirror.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As you'd expect

    The gullible sheeple believe every Snowjob they hear.

    1. Slawek

      Re: As you'd expect

      Yes. I fully expect that in a few weeks time Snowden will reveal that NSA achieved complete control over space and time, which will be greeted with anger among the commentators here, who will fear that they will be first in line to have every second of their life checked by millions of evil NSA employees.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: As you'd expect

      The gullible sheeple believe every Snowjob they hear.

      Hi Matt,

      Why the AC post? Are you bosses spying on you?

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: ObnoxiousLiar Re: As you'd expect

        "....Why the AC post?....." Unlike you paranoid sheeple I do not AC my posts. Does it pain you that much to have to face the fact others do not share your paranoid and myopic view of the World? I bet you really wanted to pretend there was only one person that might disagree, it makes your dullard acquiescence to what your flock have told you is "cool" and "right think" so much easier, right?

        And that is the core of the problem - you sheeple are so desperate to fit in, to think as told by your celebutard "leaders", that you will happily swallow anything they tell you to think. I bet you're the type that swore off measles vaccinations for kids because that well-known medical expert, Jenny McCarthy, told you on Oprah "they are bad, just there to make money for Big Pharma". LOL!

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yeah sure...

    ""All of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework,"

    This is getting very, very tired, and I don't think the endless repetition is making it any more believable than it was the first 273 times - it surely ranks only slightly behind the Israeli army's fatuous "most moral army in the world" in terms of truthiness.

    Legal is easy; wiring suspects testicles to the national grid was doubtless perfectly legal in Saddam's Iraq, owning black people was legal in the US in the 1850s. "Legal" didn't equal to "right" any more then than it does to the smug crap GCHQ and the NSA are up to now. A shame they won't get any mains delivered payback, just the opprobrium of future history books alongside the Stasi.

    1. Richard Jones 1
      Holmes

      Re: Yeah sure...

      Quote; "owning black people was legal in the US in the 1850s"

      Sadly it still is a large parts of the world and even where it is not fully legal it is surprisingly well tolerated. The world is not the lovely, fluffy, cuddly place outside of the usual suspects that some people think it to be.

    2. Syntax Error

      Re: Yeah sure...

      GCHQ's boss just got the sack.

    3. tom dial Silver badge

      Re: Yeah sure...

      While I am skeptical of statements like this from GCHQ and our NSA, I do wonder why they should be thought less "truthy" than those of Edward Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, etc. Certainly there is no significant evidence in what has been published to warrant equating either agency with the Stasi or similar. The closest I have noticed in the US are local police departments and on-the-make prosecutors, hardly any of whom need or rely on SIGINT agencies.

      As an aside, in the US before 1861 (a) slavery was illegal in many places, (b) not all slaves were black, and (c) not all slave owners were white. Slavery was not permitted in much of US territory from about 1820 forward. I'm not aware of white slaves, but some number were native American, and some number of slave owners were black; small numbers, to be sure.

      Let the downvoting start.

  10. spider from mars
    Thumb Up

    surely I can be the only one

    who feels a bit of pride that good ol' Blighty can mix it with the best of them?

  11. Scroticus Canis
    Black Helicopters

    Official Secrets Act

    Think you will find all UK citizens are bound by the OSA, signing it just ups the jail time you get if you are found guilty of an offence covered by it.

    Long ago I have had to sign it on three different occasions for completely mundane and ordinary civil service posts; shows that they were not too good at keeping records of who has and who hasn't.

  12. JaitcH
    Pint

    Great new word - SIGNIT

    which, I presume is the name given SIGINT operators.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Great new word - SIGNIT

      ... or perhaps for young CIA trained Swans trained in aerial recon and surveillance.

      1. DropBear
        Trollface

        Re: Great new word - SIGNIT

        Nah, methinks that's what they yell when showing one of 'em super-sekrit pinkie-swear-won't-tell-anyone letters in your face...

  13. JaitcH
    Thumb Up

    Posting negative information about a firm on online firms or actively ...

    trying to ruin business relationships.

    Sort of describes Edward Snowden's valiant work.

    How many people have riled up so many governments, using peaceful means, as our hero? And made the main protagonists look so stupid.

    1. WatAWorld

      Re: Posting negative information about a firm on online firms or actively ...

      1. Snowden did not fabricate the information. So that is one difference.

      2. Snowden did this to aid the US public.

      Snowden is a patriot to his nation working to defend it as a democracy run by its citizens.

      Who are the NSA and GCHQ doing it for when they do it?

      Their employees are patriots to their agency, not their country.

      1. Slawek

        Re: Posting negative information about a firm on online firms or actively ...

        Snowden has not been just talking about scope of the surveillance programs, but also revealing technical means (and exaggerating here) and details of foreign operations. This is helping American, and generally western, enemies. He is a traitor to the agency, USA, and Western civilization.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Posting negative information about a firm on online firms or actively ...

          Gave it a barely warranted upvote; "traitor" may be a slight overstatement. Nonetheless, the "revelations" some time ago, and ever since, went well beyond anything necessary to a discussion of internal surveillance and its management. Information about the FISA 702 and PATRIOT Act 215 metadata programs covered nearly everything of real concern to US citizens and residents.

        2. Matt Bryant Silver badge

          Re: Slawek Re: Posting negative information about a firm on online firms or actively ...

          More interestingly, his supposed sheltering from US extradition was supposed to be on the condition that Snowdope's stopped making attacks on the US. At some point Putin is going to have to come out and admit Snowdope has been a Russian operative all along.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Posting negative information about a firm on online firms or actively ...

          @Slawek

          If your version of "Western Civilisation" has GCHQ and the NSA as the good guys, rooting through our private lives on the off-chance we're plotting its downfall, you can frankly shove it. The sooner the swivel-eyed paranoid nutter tendency are hived off to a suitably barren island somewhere to get on with doing their thing away from the rest of us, the better. Civilisation will probably do OK without them, and I'd personally rather take the chance.

      2. Fatman

        Re: Posting negative information about a firm on online firms or actively ...

        Who are the NSA and GCHQ doing it for when they do it?

        A: Their corporate masters in the (to use Eisenhower's term) 'military-industrial complex'.

        The same ones that have 'bought and paid for' gubmint lakkeys doing their bidding.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: Fatman Re: Posting negative information about a firm on online firms or actively ...

          ".....'military-industrial complex'.....' gubmint lakkeys....." Do you mean 'Imperialist running dog lackeys', comrade? Were you clutching your little red book or Socialist Weekly whilst you triped (sic) that and daydreaming about the class war?

          1. Pseudonymous Coward

            Re: @Matt Bryant "clutching your little red book"

            Right on, Matt. Fatman quoted that famous old socialist Eisenhower and pointed out how big business lobbying is dragging the US down the toilet: He's totally got to be a communist.

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Happy

              Re: Pseudointelligence Coward Re: @Matt Bryant "clutching your little red book"

              Sarcasm is so wasted on the sheeple.

              1. Bernard M. Orwell

                Re: Pseudointelligence Coward @Matt Bryant "clutching your little red book"

                I do enjoy it when you are called out on a point that you have trouble defending and have to resort to saying "Duhhh. I was being sarcastic" or "Duhhh. Don't you know when to take a joke."

                My children do that too.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Pseudointelligence Coward @Matt Bryant "clutching your little red book"

                  "My children do that too"

                  With considerably more wit and grace than the troll, I'd imagine.

  14. Ole Juul

    Not good enough

    "All of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework,"

    There are more issues which need to be addressed.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    FOR YOUR PROTECTION.

    1. WatAWorld

      We have to make the rest of the world unsafe so that we feel safe

      We have to make the rest of the world unsafe so that we feel safe -- that seems to be what Obama is saying.

      But does he make us safe when he undermines democracies, including western democracies?

      Does he make us safe when he spies on regular citizens, including regular citizens of his own country?

      And how does Cameron (and Blair) spying on industry, probably including UK industry, make anyone safe?

      Isn't their betray of our allies really spreading hate around the world?

      Don't the hawks applaud the spying because the hawks no the spying will cause more ill-will and more wars?

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's kind of nice to know there's still a British Intelligence Agency and it hasn't been overrun by immigrants or flushed down the toilet like the rest of the country.

  17. WatAWorld

    Parliament is the UK's only legislature. Are ministers commiting sedition

    Parliament is the UK's only legislature. Are ministers or bureaucrats committing sedition by usurping Parliament's role as the UK's sole legislature?

    "All of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework," said the agency in a statement, "which ensure[s] that our activities are authorized, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight,"

    From what is reported, we know what they're doing and that they're doing it to companies -- not terrorists.

    From what is reported, we know what they're doing and that they're doing it to governments -- not terrorists.

    Only a psychopathic criminal would consider what the UK government authorize such measures as necessary and proportionate against such targets.

    If there is rigorous oversight, then that oversight must be provided by people with similar high levels of psychopathic criminality.

  18. WatAWorld

    Is this technique why Tony Blair forced the UK to join the Attack on Iraq?

    "Targets can also be discredited with a "honey trap", whereby a fake social media profile is created, maybe backed up by a personal blog to provide credibility. This could be used to entice someone into making embarrassing confessions, which the presentation notes described as "a great option" and "very successful when it works.""

    This particular technique would work great against politicians in democratic countries.

    I cannot see it working against terrorists.

    So how many democracies has the UK undermined? How many elected officials? How many foreign prime ministers and presidents?

    Did GCHQ use this technique to undermine the UK's own democracy, by subverting our elected officials, perhaps including prime ministers?

    1. fridaynightsmoke

      Re: Is this technique why Tony Blair forced the UK to join the Attack on Iraq?

      Bingo. I don't think the powers that be are remotely interested in what you or I have had for breakfast or our minor crimes; what I am concerned about is the pressure that could be applied to campaign groups, select politicians who don't "toe the line" and so on. That's the worrying aspect of too-powerful surveillance.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Is this technique why Tony Blair forced the UK to join the Attack on Iraq?

        There was an interesting piece in Macuser of all places, that mentioned that the NSA were tracking the (perfectly legal) porn viewing habits of half a dozen muslims suspected of 'radicalising' others with a view to doing smear job to lessen their cred in the 'community' as prosecution either wasn't possible or wasn't seen as desirable.

        At least in the past you had to work a little to dig up this sort of dirt, which provided something of a natural limiter to the frequency of its deployment. But with the access available, I doubt many adults can be entirely immune to a trivial trashing at some level that can be used to dissuade, and anyone in a prominent position has to be a good deal more vulnerable. Control of such information gives way too much power to almost unaccountable people. The fact that those doing the scrutinising are in the same boat makes it even worse. The brilliant 1988 TV drama "A very British coup" sums it up nicely.

  19. All names Taken
    Joke

    "All of GCHQ's work is carried out in accordance with a strict legal and policy framework," said the agency in a statement, "which ensure[s] that our activities are authorized, necessary and proportionate, and that there is rigorous oversight, including from the Secretary of State, the Interception and Intelligence Services Commissioners and the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee. All of our operational processes rigorously support this position."

    Huh. Yeah like

  20. tom dial Silver badge

    Nothing in this article or the NBC and Spiegel articles to which it links reports anything we should not expect "our country's" intelligence services to be doing on a regular basis to the full extent of their capabilities, for any value of "our country". Capture and publication on youtube of the now famous telephone conversation between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt may be officially unattributed but certainly was not done by any of the Five Eyes SIGINT agencies.

  21. mrjohn

    Maybe Muammar Gaddafi wasn't so crazy when he insisted on using his own tent when he visited the UN.

  22. IngmarWhingesohn

    More specific coverage would be nice

    I would appreciate this article more if it did less rambling and provided more context. I understand a limited amount of information might be available in the original documents, but the article's laundry-list of superficially-described techniques doesn't help me speculate about how well these tools could be used against activists, terrorists, military targets, industrial targets, etc.

    It doesn't help me empathize with the victim. Specific example: what are the long-term psychological attacks? In what way are they trying to influence the target? I could imagine such a tool having mostly evil uses: activists are often strange people with an uphill credibility battle under incredible stress, who nevertheless have something critical they need to express, and if they aren't like that you can pick out some activists who are, and you can use metadata to pick important Paul Revere-like ones. I can begin to speculate based on the sentence fragments you've delivered, but it feels totally silly without more detail. Maybe they're not targeting Occupy. Maybe they're using psychological attacks against Palestinian diplomats to undermine peace talks.

    I'd also like to understand for what the tools are typically used. Perhaps you can infer how often a certain tool is used, or against what kind of person, from the information you have. For example, with "honey trap," are they targeting business executives with two exwives and three mistresses, or are they targeting bullied teenagers and college students in computer science programs with horrible gender balance? To me, "honey trap" means an extremely attractive chinese woman in the hotel bar, and reminds me of the advice "don't engage with the surveillance." That's not the attack you described which suggests a different target.

    "Is any of this new?" might not actually mean the article is old news. It might mean you've not provided enough context on practical uses, details about the methods, and informed inference about the agency's habits to stop readers from summarizing it as "ya ya, we saw all the movies. spiez gonna spy." There should be more to the story than that.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Works 4 me

    Any means to catch crims and place them in prison is good.

    1. Roj Blake Silver badge

      Re: Works 4 me

      A lot of crime takes place in bedrooms. I assume that you'd be happy with MI5 putting cameras in everyone's bedrooms (including your Mum's and your own) because it might catch a few crims?

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Roj Blake Re: Works 4 me

        "....I assume that you'd be happy with MI5 putting cameras in everyone's bedrooms...." Firstly, the GCHQ and NSA are NOT reading every email or Tweet or whatever means you dribble by, so the comparison is very obviously flawed. Secondly, if the security services do get a warrant to bug your house (which probably will include video surveillance devices) then they almost definately WILL put recording devices in the bedroom. Duh! But in your case I suspect any chance of bedroom activity, other than paranoid delusional fantasies, is extremely remote.

        ".....including your Mum's...." My mother worked in secure environments so I expect she assumed a certain level of monitoring. But then she was an educated woman and patriotic, something your mother obviously didn't know enough about to pass on to you.

        1. Pseudonymous Coward

          Re: Roj Blake Works 4 me

          > Firstly, the GCHQ and NSA are NOT reading every email or Tweet or whatever means you dribble by, so the comparison is very obviously flawed.

          Installing a camera in everyone's bedrooms doesn't mean they would be watched 24/7 either. So the comparison does hold in the very respect you criticise here.

          And it's definitely, not definately, Matt, just like it's lackey, not lakkey. It's ok though.

          Of course cameras in everyone's bedrooms would be an exciting opportunity for some thrilling LOVEINT.

          > Secondly, if the security services do get a warrant to bug your house...

          That's very different. Especially if it's a proper judge-issued warrant for a particular person. Dragnet-style surveillance is the issue.

          I'm glad to see you at least respect your Mum, Matt. Tears in me eyes.

  24. Yugguy

    Spies in doing illegal stuff shocker.

  25. Arachnoid

    Cameras in every ones bedrooms

    Well given the technology is going the way of putting cameras in all devices for social media connectivity Id say our Government ........sorry I`ll rephrase that"Chinese hackers", have nearly reached that pinnacle of connecting with all end users in the West.

  26. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Reality check for Mr Snowden....

    Oh dear, bad news for Snowdope - the US does prosecute wannabes under the Espionage Act! Even attempted ones, which makes Snowdope's actual traitorous actions likely to a loooooong stretch of not bending over for the soap! Those of you with the socio-political blinkers may require an adult to help you understand the following news article. Now, I wonder if the FBI got a tip-off from the NSA about Mr Hoffman?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26130842

    /Dear Sheeple, when you are hammering your keyboards bleating and whining about there being no common ground between Mr Hoffman and Snowdope, please do check your "Idiots' Guide to being a Revolutionary" for the correct spellings of such terms as lackey, Imperialist running dog, etc. Enjoy!

    1. Pseudonymous Coward

      Re: Reality check for Mr Snowden....

      > please do check your "Idiots' Guide to being a Revolutionary" for the correct spellings of such terms as lackey, Imperialist running dog, etc.

      Spelling is your strength, isn't it, Matt?

      "buzzowrds", "abnout" and "definately" from your post yesterday are surely now legitimate alternative spellings on their way into the Oxford Language Dictionary.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        WTF?

        Re: Pstupidlyevaisve Re: Reality check for Mr Snowden....

        So you want to try switching attention by suggesting spelling mistakes by highlighting a part of my post with no spelling mistakes? I mean, I can understand why you'd want to switch the topic seeing as you have lost the argument, but surely you'd want to do so by highlighting an actual error? Even your evasions are childishly ineffectual. Seriously, give up, you just make yourself look more stupid with every post you make.

        1. Bernard M. Orwell

          Re: Pstupidlyevaisve Reality check for Mr Snowden....

          "So you want to try switching attention by suggesting spelling mistakes by highlighting a part of my post with no spelling mistakes?"

          I think it was you that started that particular bun fight, Matt, with the quote below:

          "please do check your "Idiots' Guide to being a Revolutionary" for the correct spellings of such terms as lackey, Imperialist running dog, etc."

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: Boring Bernie Re: Pstupidlyevaisve Reality check for Mr Snowden....

            LOL, one again you are desperate to avoid the actual point of the post! What, don't you want to post how you baaaah-lieve Mr Hoffman was actually "doing it for The People" and that he's actually a hero for World Peace? Maybe he was just gender-confused when he tried to sell secrets to what he thought were Russian spies, right, or missed having a pole dancer? LMAO!

        2. Pseudonymous Coward

          Re: Pstupidlyevaisve Reality check for Mr Snowden....

          > So you want to try switching attention by suggesting spelling mistakes by highlighting a part of my post with no spelling mistakes?

          I don't know why you get off on lakkeys vs lackeys but in this very post you certainly did. I thought I'd point out to you that many people struggle with always perfect spelling. I'll include myself in that. But what better example than you making a fool of yourself right in this article's comments by first taking someone else to task for a spelling error, then failing so spectacularly yourself?

          > I mean, I can understand why you'd want to switch the topic seeing as you have lost the argument, but surely you'd want to do so by highlighting an actual error?

          Those are actual errors, Matt. Yours. It seems ever so slightly delusional of you to think because you made them in a different post they are unreal.

          I'm not sure how I could have lost an argument that I had no part in. It seems you started a separate thread in which you delighted in someone being prosecuted for attempting to sell classified material to the Russians and being caught. And you know what, I feel he deserves everything he gets.

          And if I'm following you think that has implications for Snowden, presumably because - as you've previously made clear - you're convinced Snowden is a Russian operative and has been all along.

          You're certainly free to believe that with all your heart.

          1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

            Mod hat on

            As the more astute of you will see, posts have been deleted from this thread. Some of you have also earned yourself lengthy trips to the pre-moderation naughty step.

            Keep it reasonably civil and on-topic. If you just want to shout naughty words at each other get yourselves an IRC channel.

            1. M Gale

              Re: Mod hat on

              irc.theregister.co.uk:6667? What a wonderful idea.

              You not got a spare RasPi and an effernet socket to run it off?

              1. gazthejourno

                Re: Mod hat on

                You know, I might just ferret about in the cupboard and see if we've got a spare knocking about. Though I'm not sure how our techies would like being DoS'd by GCHQ every day...

      2. Bernard M. Orwell
        Trollface

        Re: Reality check for Mr Snowden....

        Shows that he is typing quickly; Probably with a sweat, flushed cheeks and occasional twitches in his chair.

  27. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Facepalm

    And right on cue.....

    Another one of those AQ-loving UK jihadis that Pstupidonymous and Blinkered Bernie want to pretend don't exist (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-26181501). Bet they'll be very quiet about this one too. Wait, is that Pstupidonymous's imaginary kids calling him out to play football?

  28. David 45

    Statement

    Their boiler-plate comment is getting a little tedious and more than a little wearing by now. How can any of their cyber-shenanigans (if true) possibly be legal? A head or two needs to roll but who's going to do the rolling if all the powers-that-be are all in this together? Seems that certain judges have deemed some recent nefarious acts legal and the question has to be......... whose pockets are they are in?

  29. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Oh dear, even the UN disagree with the sheeple!

    One for Blinkered Bernie, Mad Wannabe, dogged, BlueGreenLoser and associated sheeple to put their woollie heads together to try and discount - the UN think AQ-linked jihadis in Syria not only exist but are a threat to the rest of the World too (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26281231). Please note the bit about ninety countries (not just Iraq and Afghanistan) having suffered bombings linked to AQ. I await their desperate and confused bleatings with a certain wry resignation.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh dear, even the UN disagree with the sheeple!

      If anyone claims that terrorists don't exist or are not a threat or should not be fought then I'll agree with you, Matt. Who has? When? Where?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like