back to article Edward who? GCHQ boss dodges Snowden topic during last speech

Sir Iain Lobban's final speech as GCHQ director omitted any mention of that man Edward Snowden, and unlike recent speeches by FBI and law enforcement officials on both side of the Atlantic, the spy boss had no critical words for Apple and Google's plans to roll out improved encryption on smartphones and computers. Instead, an …

  1. Alfred

    They truly think we're all idiots

    "Alongside the blessings ... there are the plotters, the proliferators, and the paedophiles.”

    Every fucking time, they throw about the word "paedophile" and expect us to react like Pavlovian half-wits raised on a diet of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express. Just say "paedophile" and the stupid fucking public will let us do whatever we like to them.

    I cannot be the only person now who automatically discounts anything said by "authority" that uses the term. Even when I don't want to or they might have a sensible point to make, I can't help it; if you say "paedophile", your credibility vanishes.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: They truly think we're all idiots

      Unfortunately, the so-called "public" in its mainstream, ARE, to quote the above, "Pavlovian half-wits raised on a diet of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express", consequently, words such as "pedophiles" and "terrorists" DO work.

    2. Chris Miller

      Re: They truly think we're all idiots

      I think paedophile is rapidly replacing Nazi for the purposes of Godwin's Law.

      1. NumptyScrub

        Re: They truly think we're all idiots

        quote: "I think paedophile is rapidly replacing Nazi for the purposes of Godwin's Law."

        This comment.

        This comment right here.

        This is a good comment.

        (it should be Comment of the Week)

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon

          Re: They truly think we're all idiots

          Can we imagine how the undercurrent of suspicion may have been allayed somewhat if this speech had occurred, say, a year ago.

          Keeping everything secret, including their modus operandi, has done them no good, and whilst I have some confidence in what he is saying, we still do not know anything about this tight framework within which they operate.

          If they want the keys to the system AND our blessing, then OVERSIGHT, OVERSIGHT, OVERSIGHT.

          1. Crazy Operations Guy

            Re: They truly think we're all idiots

            But then who oversees the overseers?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              FAIL

              Re: They truly think we're all idiots

              "But then who oversees the overseers?" If the legislators are the providers of oversight that both GCHQ and the self-same legislators say they are, then we "The People" are their overseers. And since there has been no accountability, nor punishments, to date then what? Look in the mirror.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Pirate

              Re: They truly think we're all idiots

              Me of course (as part of my 12 step plan to world domination)

          2. streaky

            Re: They truly think we're all idiots

            The problem isn't secrecy, the problem isn't them back-dooring kit. The problem is the pervasiveness.

            GCHQ is military intelligence, they probably shouldn't be so eager to go after civilians - criminal or otherwise but it's still besides the point. The point is if you have a communications security problem or think you will in the future you should be able to go to GCHQ for advice (and help) - I know of no network people who would chose to knowingly allow GCHQ staff within a million miles of their core routers or cables given the choice, if this isn't a major problem I don't know what is.

            They talk about pedos found (cue obligatory Monkey Dust link) and attacks stopped, they can list the cases they've been involved with and in what way they actually helped without necessarily giving away the exact methods used - there's been no hint of any potential technical involvement in either attacks (I'd rather talk to Arbor frankly) or arresting people who have had inappropriate dealings with children in the public record so we have no way of assessing the rhetoric. Not that I'm saying it's impossible but there should be made public a list of this stuff somewhere so people can decide for themselves if GCHQ is a) targeting assets correctly and b) is fit for purpose. I personally would rather hear about the success they had in finding Bin Laden but we all know it was a tip-off that led to his capture/killing and the Americans dumped the guy who helped confirm his location in a Pakistani jail to rot.

            Also not for nothing but oversight of a technical field requires technical competence and nobody in authority has any of that so we're all screwed on that front.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Good idea but...it will need a new name

          Excellent point, how about Saville's Law ?

      2. DocJames
        Thumb Up

        Re: They truly think we're all idiots

        > I think paedophile is rapidly replacing Nazi for the purposes of Godwin's Law.

        Snowden's Corollary (to Godwin's Law)?

        1. DropBear
          Trollface

          Re: They truly think we're all idiots

          "I think paedophile is rapidly replacing Nazi for the purposes of Godwin's Law."

          Exactly. Anyway, why isn't there a browser plugin yet that would automatically replace every instance of the word with either "hairdresser" or "telephone sanitizer" at random, so at least I'd get a good chuckle out of it...? C'mon internet, step up to the plate...!

  2. Semtex451
    Big Brother

    "contrary to reports, it (GCHQ) was only sampling a small amount"

    Yes why would they bother when their friends over at the NSA have the serious kit?

    1. streaky

      All I had on reading that was flashbacks of a postit note attributed to GCHQ staff with "Google no crypto - LOL" scrawled across it. Says everything we need to know about that sentiment really.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Of course "paedophile" isn't quite so scary now ...

    they've decided not to catch them all ....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Paris Hilton

      Re: Of course "paedophile" isn't quite so scary now ...

      that would be a funny kind of Pokemon then?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Alongside the blessings ... there are the plotters, the proliferators, and the paedophiles,

    ...there are the politicians, the special services, and the corporations. Be afraid, be very afraid.

  5. Christoph

    You missed out the bit where he offered to sell everyone a bridge.

    "we strain sinews to locate hostages imprisoned in dark and dangerous places"

    Has he tried searching on "Guantanamo Bay"?

    1. Primus Secundus Tertius

      other searches

      @Christoph

      Or the North Korean People's Reeducation Facilities?

      Or, in the case of ISIL, the Yazidi Womens' Reorientation Centres?

    2. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      "we strain sinews to locate hostages imprisoned in dark and dangerous places"

      What is the point of searching for hostages if HMG will then do bugger all about them and make it look like it is some kind of extremely clever and brave thing to [not] do (when in fact it is just a matter of washing their hands of any responsibility)?

      "Hey Mr Hostage, we've found you! At last! Now, because, as you may very well know, we don't negotiate with or pay ransoms to terrorists, we will await with interest the appearance of the videos of your head being separated from your neck. That will give us a nice propaganda point and will remind the public just how much we care about our citizens, should they get into trouble in a conflict zone which we helped so much to create... Oh, wait a moment - scratch that last one!"

      1. Havin_it

        They don't negotiate, but sometimes they do try a rescue ...

        http://www.hebrides-news.com/linda-norgrove-death-21210.html

  6. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Meh

    How Time Flies

    I didn't realise it was April the first already.

  7. Lars Silver badge
    Happy

    Hmm

    Nothing about people who surf Linux sites, use Tor and/or encryption.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yeah yeah

    “The people who work at GCHQ would sooner walk out the door than be involved in anything remotely resembling ‘mass surveillance’,”

    You can write that across the sky in 30 mile high letters of fire as often as you want, but thanks to the casual contempt with which you and your fellow US poodles have held the UK population, the rule of law and democracy, I doubt you'll find many takers post-Snowden for your 'get the phantom pedoterrorists at any cost' authoritarian fantasies.

    Trust is dead, and I hope you spend long hours during your retirement reflecting on your part in its demise.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Yeah yeah

      "Trust is dead, and I hope you spend long hours during your retirement reflecting on your part in its demise."

      That would be nice, but Sir Iain will spend his retirement reflecting on the fact that like many senior civil servants who did the wrong thing by persuading themselves that black was white, doing the wrong thing, he's got a knighthood and you probably haven't, and he's got a very generous, index linked, tax-payer guaranteed, minimal contribution pension of vast proportions (and again, you probably haven't).

      The dog f*ckers who have made an epic mess of energy policy, with a raised risk of blackouts in future years, and a need to nearly double prices from current levels will likewise be heading into retirement with similar wealth and status, and every other bungling government department is led by similar people.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yeah yeah

        ... who in turn are presided over* by others even lower on the evolutionary ladder, and whose sole talents appear to be comprised of persuading lots of people to put a cross in a box, and breathing during the parts of sentences without commas.

        *A rather labyrinthine set of terms, conditions, caveats and 'not me guv' clauses may apply. Randomly.

  9. Anomalous Cowshed

    this guy

    Told the audience about spying over the past 31 years...from the second world war to the cold war...is he trying to confuse us paedophilesterrorists?

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Define "mass surveillance"

    There are approximately 7.2 billion people in the world and 64.1 million people in the UK. Monitoring 0.004% is indeed a very small percentage of "what is out there" but equates to around half the population of the UK.

    Remove the people that are "off grid" due to location, infrequent use of technology or age and suddenly monitoring 30-35 million people's phone calls (certainly mobile and international, unsure about land line for local calls), texts and International Internet traffic is a significant portion of the UK population.

    Assuming the UK prison population (around 85,600) represents at least a 1% sample of the bad guys, I'd say that we have reached the stage of mass surveillance. And throwing the information away after a short period of time (48 hours for persons that are not of interest?) doesn't eliminate the risk.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Define "mass surveillance"

      Ummm.. your maths is a little suspect .... 0.004% of 7.2 billion is 288,000. Nowhere near 'half the population of the UK'. And only a small fraction of the world's population has internet access anyway (about 1-2 billion I think ?). And he said "And the vast majority of those criminal threats to the UK are posed by groups or individuals based overseas". So your multiplier is looking a little shabby, to be honest. I'll bet they're not monitoring more than a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand individuals in the UK. And the cops probably regularly do more than that.

      As to whether they catch paedos? They quite probably do - they have a mandate on 'Serious and Organised Crime' which would seem to fit. And I know, as a father, my children are far more at risk from crossing the road than paedos, but actually I'm glad if they do help to nick the odd one or two. Just because others like the Daily Fail like to sell papers by shouting about paedos, at least this organisation might be, quietly, trying to do something about it.

      1. Buzzby
        Devil

        Re: Define "mass surveillance"

        I like what you say. I would just make 1 correction. The Daily Wail for Daily Fail.

        My other press names are The Sin, The Grauniad, The Whines, The Stir and The Daily Fascist ( express ) for now.

        1. Roj Blake Silver badge

          Re: Define "mass surveillance"

          "I like what you say. I would just make 1 correction. The Daily Wail for Daily Fail.

          "My other press names are The Sin, The Grauniad, The Whines, The Stir and The Daily Fascist ( express ) for now."

          You left out The Torygraph and The Libdependent

  11. Wensleydale Cheese

    "British values"

    "My staff are the embodiment of British values, not a threat to them," the spy chief was due to conclude.

    Whether one can interpret that as positive or not depends on his meaning of "British values".

    Pass the port please Carruthers.

    1. Red Bren
      Mushroom

      Re: "British values"

      For most of its history, British values consisted of going round sticking a flag in the ground, stealing all the resources and oppressing and enslaving the local population, all under the guise of spreading civilization and culture. Only through blinkered, Daily Mail tinted spectacles was it ever about freedom, fair play and community spirit, which sound rather similar to those pesky French values.

      But that's all in the past - now we can bomb freedom and democracy into our enemies. After all, an enemy is just a friend who stopped doing what you want.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "British values"

      Ahh yes. Previously defined as "waging war against people armed only with sharpened fruit".

      G+T please old man.

    3. beep54

      Re: "British values"

      I was just thinking about how the British can make the most errant crap sound so ... elegant. Our politicians here across the pond are nowhere near as adept.

  12. Mark 85

    What's missing....?

    If these "agencies" are there to protect us, they say nothing of the malware authors and proliferators. Or those who break in to systems and take the personal data contained therein?

    I guess it's all about perception. The buzzwords of terrorist, paedophile that get attention and keep them asking and receiving more money and more power.

    And I suppose there's also a symbiotic relationship that exists. They use the malware authors goods for their own purposes.

    All in all, a sad state of affairs of all the 5-eyes.

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      Ah, but malware is a purely civilian issue. There are no numbers on how much time is wasted by civilians recovering from malware, reinstalling their machines and wiping their private data in the process. Figures concerning losses due to identity theft are, in practice, a secret, veiled as they are by police proceedings and awaiting judgement limbo.

      Oh, and it's illegal to go and put software on a civilian PC to prevent him from getting malware or to remove it - without the owner's consent.

      Of course, when covered by the activity of "looking for paedorrists", then it's no-holes-barred we'll-do-whatever-it-takes. And if that means hijacking a malware package, well it's for The Greater Good (tm), so that's that.

  13. Paul Johnson 1

    Mission Shift

    Note the mission shift here. GCHQ was originally created as a descendant of Bletchly Park, with the mission to eavsdrop on foreign nations that intended us harm (meaning Russia). Now its morphed into a part of the law enforcement system, but one that doesn't need warrants or articulable suspicion before hoovering up your private information and poking its nose in yor business.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Mission Shift

      The mission shift presumably happened because of the threat shift. The Soviet Union no longer exists (although Putin is doing his best) and the only people who have actually attacked this country in the last 30 years have been terrorists. Yes, they killed less than the weekly toll from smoking, but so what? The victims didn't choose to risk their lives, as smokers essentially do.

      I'd imagine, and hope, they were watching Russia fairly closely now, as we're members of NATO, as well as the crazies in Syria (ISIS and Assad both). I can't imagine they give a toss about 99.9% of the UK population. I can't imagine they could even attempt to listen to or read that many phone calls, emails and banal facebook postings. I don't give a stuff if they hold metadata on me, after all the credit card companies do, as do Tescos, my phone company, google and god knows how many random web advert sites. The cops have ANPR to read my number plate as I drive around. So what? I'm glad they do - those systems bin the info as long as it's no longer needed, and it sounds like GCHQ do the same. They may keep it for a bit longer, but if that helps, then that's fine by me. I guess it's hard to find a needle in a haystack unless you're actually allowed to look in the haystack.

      1. Red Bren
        Stop

        Re: Mission Shift

        "The mission shift presumably happened because of the threat shift”

        But when the mission shifts to spying on your own population, that suggests a government that regards its own people as the threat.

        “[the terrorists] killed less than the weekly toll from smoking, but so what? The victims didn't choose to risk their lives, as smokers essentially do.”

        The victims of reckless drivers didn’t choose to risk their lives either, and they also outnumber the victims of terrorism. If you want to save innocent lives, there are better ways of doing it than blanket surveillance.

        “I can't imagine they could even attempt to listen to or read that many phone calls, emails and banal facebook postings.”

        That only proves you have a limited imagination! Sorry, that was a cheap shot, but how much resource is required to hold a picture of who communicated with whom, or to apply Bayesian analysis to flag communications as “interesting” (in a similar way to spam filters) and then focus on the communications between groups of “interesting” people, where “interesting” could mean paedophiles, terrorists, or peaceful protesters being a thorn in the side of a corrupt and authoritarian regime.

        “I don't give a stuff if they hold metadata on me, after all the [assorted corporations] do”

        How private companies collect, store and use data about you is subject to various legal protections, you generally have to opt in (sometimes just by using their services) and are free to opt out. I never opted in for state surveillance and I’d like to know how do I opt out?

        “The cops have ANPR to read my number plate as I drive around. So what? I'm glad they do - those systems bin the info as long as it's no longer needed”

        As I recall, the cops also have a DNA database with a sample from everyone ever arrested for a recordable offence, even if they were never charged, let alone convicted and they are VERY reluctant to “bin the info”. I would wager they have the same attitude about any data they collect.

        "I guess it's hard to find a needle in a haystack unless you're actually allowed to look in the haystack.”

        Adding more hay doesn’t make finding the needle any easier, and asking for permission to look for the needle would be fine. The problem is the security services don’t want the oversight of asking for permission, justified by probable cause. They want the ability to go on warrant-less fishing trips, where they can redefine the needle based on whatever they find.

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: Mission Shift

          (Something tells me this is going to attract more down- than upvotes.)

          I don't have the actual numbers to hand, but I'm pretty sure a lot more gets spent on traffic law enforcement than on counter-terrorism. So "the victims of reckless driving" aren't being ignored.

          where “interesting” could mean paedophiles, terrorists, or peaceful protesters being a thorn in the side of a corrupt and authoritarian regime.

          Yes, it could mean that. But this bloke, who is in a position to know far better than you or I, claims that doesn't happen, and couldn't happen without an enormous culture shift at GCHQ.

          Of course we don't have to take those claims at face value. But in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to give them some weight. Your mileage may vary.

          "State surveillance", by definition, is not something you opt in or out of, any more than you can "opt out" of being in your timezone or your weather. If you, through the established political process, can put together enough support for the proposition that "this should be done differently", then you can change it. Until then, you can either put up with it, or emigrate.

          What you don't get to do is decide unilaterally that "I should be immune to what the government decides to do to me". That's not how democracy works.

          1. streaky

            Re: Mission Shift

            "in the absence of any evidence to the contrary"

            You'd have to completely not understand the medium *and* have been living under a rock for the last two years *and* be extraordinarily naive to reach that conclusion. They're hoovering up enough data for the whole argument to be nonsense.

            Lets be clear here, of all the things that have been said about Snowden - nobody has ever said he's a liar or has fabricated anything.

            1. Sir Runcible Spoon

              Re: Mission Shift

              Post-Snowden there has (justifiably) been a large focus on the negative (both potential and actual) impact of mass state surveillance and the subsequent loss of trust.

              Is anyone currently discussing how best to gain that trust again at a process level?

              Without the overarching guidelines having trust models built into them, we will never get the spooks and/or other busybodies to adhere to them.

              What I am trying to say is that there comes a time when it's more productive to start talking about how to fix the problem.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Mission Shift

          "But when the mission shifts to spying on your own population, that suggests a government that regards its own people as the threat."

          OK, Pop quiz:

          Nationality of 7/7 bombers

          a) Venezualan

          b) Polish

          c) UK

          Nationality of the murderers tof the soldier run down & beheaded in London

          a) Armenian

          b) Thai

          c) UK

          Nationality of the atackers at Glasgow airport

          a) Finnish

          b) Panamanian

          c) UK

          How's your score doing?

      2. Mark 85

        Re: Mission Shift

        Ah... you missed the bit sometime back about hovering up all the Yahoo! Chat/Messaging images? I somehow don't think that group you think they're watching does selfies.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Mission Shift

        "The mission shift presumably happened because of the threat shift."

        Cant disagree with that, but the point is when the threat they were created to combat went, why didnt they get shut down?

        The problem with organisations like this is that is that they keep finding threats for them to defend against.

        "Yes, they killed less than the weekly toll from smoking, but so what? The victims didn't choose to risk their lives, as smokers essentially do."

        Ok, how about getting them to spend their resources targeting dangerous drivers. They kill more victims than terrorists and the victims havent chosen to risk their lives.

        For me, this would be a much better way of spending the tax money I provide them with, rather than inflating the threats of bogeymen who, on the whole, will pose less of a risk to my way of life than a future government backed by the agencies we are currently funding and empowering.

  14. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out

    “The people who work at GCHQ would sooner walk out the door than be involved in anything remotely resembling ‘mass surveillance’,” he claimed. Then: "...You can’t pick and choose the components of a global interception system that you like (catching terrorists and paedophiles) and those you don’t (incidental collection of data at scale): it’s one integrated system."

    And there he goes walking out the door, because he's involved in something that not only "remotely resembles" but in fact *is* mass surveillance. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

  15. tfewster
    Joke

    ...the proliferators...

    I agree, spammers rank with plotters and paedophiles, and GCHQ must fight this scourge that affects me every single day

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    He needs to add the bureaucrats, busybodies and deceivers...

    To the proliferators, paedophiles and plotters. Then we'll have a fair account of the real dark side of the internet looks like.

    1. Ole Juul

      Re: He needs to add the bureaucrats, busybodies and deceivers...

      At the very least he should add himself . . . or does he need a warrant for that.

  17. Rich 11

    Blinded by his own rhetoric

    Like all utopian visions, it was flawed because it failed to account for the persistence of the worst aspects of human nature.

    ...

    “The people who work at GCHQ would sooner walk out the door than be involved in anything remotely resembling ‘mass surveillance’,” he claimed.

    Does he not see how the first statement can also be applied to the second?

  18. Ilmarinen
    Big Brother

    British values

    "My staff are the embodiment of British values, not a threat to them"

    Bla bla bla, they go shopping, have a drink down the pub and "help children in local schools".

    As I expect did Stasi operatives, the NKVD, thoes lovable German folks and indeed, any of the tools of rogue states throughout history. That didn't make the work they were doing good or right.

    As a Brit, I would not agree that spying on the population 24/7 is the embodiment of British values, and I *do* think that it is a threat to them.

  19. g e
    Black Helicopters

    FTFY

    "We continue to look for the patterns, connections and abnormalities that indicate Illuminati hostile capability and intent"

    Cos everyone enjoys a good conspiracy

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    “The people who work at GCHQ would sooner walk out the door than be involved in anything remotely resembling ‘mass surveillance’,”

    he claimed..... As he walked out of the door.......

  21. Infernoz Bronze badge
    Devil

    I want freedom, not liberty, especially from mealy mouthed gangsters like him!

    Pedos, fraudsters and other sociopaths/psychopaths seem to concentrate more in (protected) authority, often gangster, positions than anywhere else, so that persons excuses fall flat.

    The emergent anarchistic behavior of the internet is a good thing, not bad, because it allows us to bypass these gangsters' control and the reveal their wrongs.

    We need less authority; the church is largely irrelevant now, but we still need to make the guilds (the 'worshipful' etc. asses still exist), the banksters (including the BIS and central banks), the neo-feudalist 'democratic' state, and the other corporations (fraud businesses) including the NGOs like the UN, the IMF etc. irrelevant too!

  22. Ian Holton
    Pint

    Recipe

    1) Get new senior "oversight" politicians to go native (not to do so is gross negligence and will lead to dismissal. No-one has failed in this regard for 15 years.)

    2) Draft laws with loopholes invisible to the public which allow us to Do What We is Know Is Best For Everyone without the public knowing what is that hidden agenda (going through the underwear drawers of those who are Not One of Us. Hell - anyone's underwear drawer.).

    3) Present draft law to tamed "oversight" politcians, taking care to outline the alternatives (mass paedophile rape/invasion by Al Qaeda/rise in house prices/whatever). Explain to now-native "oversight"politicians about bait for the public ("terrorism"/"paedophiles"/"organised crime"/whatever).

    4) Wait until RIPA is passed "for your protection".

    5) Bob's yer uncle! "We comply scrupulously with the law".Fill your boots: snoop in private citizens' lives at will.

    Best of all - no judicial involvement!

    PS Offer, as a friendly gesture of goodwill to "the oversight" politician, to show which hole in his laptop is for the power plug. (Be sure to explain he should plug in the other end too.)

    1. Ian Holton

      Re: Recipe

      PS Article in today's Times "BBS uses anti-terror laws [RIPA] to chase licence fee evaders"

  23. cortland

    Before

    Before one dissects a frog, one must pith it, presumably with perfect precision.

    Before the experiment, you need to render the frog insensitive to pain. Pithing is one procedure to accomplish this. Pithing will destroy the brain. (For some experiments, double pithing will include severing/destroying the spinal cord.) Pithing is relatively painless to the frog.

    http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/pdeeble/BIO354/Web/Lab%20PDFs/Pithing%20a%20Frog.htm

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like