back to article NSA slapdown prompts Privacy Int'l to file new lawsuit against GCHQ

Privacy International has stepped up its battle against GCHQ, and yesterday filed an official legal challenge to the spy agency's mass snooping on net users. Emboldened by new restrictions to the similar programme run by America's National Security Agency (NSA), PI filed the complaint in the UK’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Look! A windmill!

    1. Swarthy Silver badge

      CHARGE!!!!!!

  2. malle-herbert Silver badge
    Big Brother

    How can it be that the US is so much further ahead on this issue?

    They're not... they just have better loopholes...

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: malle-herbert Re: How can it be that the US is so much further ahead on this issue?

      "... they just have better loopholes..." Actually, the Yanks are very envious of the British loopholes. RIPA gives far more cover for the spooks than the Patriot Act ever did.

  3. This post has been deleted by its author

  4. streaky Silver badge

    I'm leaning towards...

    ...these days - there's an easier way to get the public annoyed about this stuff.

    Just point of that it's costing billions of pounds of taxpayer's funds to get no intelligence about anything whatsoever. Apparently the public are not interested in having any privacy so you have to "follow the money" as it were.

    If we can get the government to start hacking and slashing at their budget they might start going back to doing what they're supposed to be doing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Who does all this mass-spying best serve? [Think Davos, G7, WTO, TPP, TTIP...]

      - Fresh news of taxpayer wastage is often met with apathy and fatigue. So as a member of the elite, let me remind you plebs, that the spying-apparatus only benefits us elite. Its paid for by you though, the workers, and your take-home-pay is reduced as a result of it. So work harder, eh?

      - Will plebs ever see the benefits of paying for it? How about catching T's? Watch 'Body of Lies' (2009) to understand the futility of high-tech spying versus on the ground intel.

      - But what about reducing crime then? We don't use our spy-toys for that! But if we did, it would certainly help in cities especially, because that's where plebs are more likely to get hurt statistically.

      - With the elite, its always a case of heads you lose, tails we win, no matter how the news gets spun. We have a long history of furthering our interests from using spying, whether we're talking about business elites, political elites, or well-connected families (see title)...

  5. Oh Homer
    Big Brother

    Slapdown?

    Hardly. Just the same vacuous assurances they completely ignored last time. This time will be no different, on either side of the Atlantic.

    Corrupt systems cannot fix themselves.

  6. Alistair Silver badge
    Windows

    And up here, well.

    Since the americans have signed off on at least appearing to behave, SHarper@notabalancedbudget.ca has decided that our team can step up to the plate.

    PI needs to go after CSIS.

  7. Graham Marsden
    Facepalm

    Waiting for Matt...

    ... to come along and say that we're not important enough for them to bother looking at our data, so we shouldn't worry about this...

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Marsbarbrain Re: Waiting for Matt...

      You're not important enough for them to bother looking at your data, so you shouldn't worry about this. Happy now? You see, deep down you even know it's true, it just bruises your ego to admit it.

      1. Graham Marsden
        Trollface

        Re: Marsbarbrain Waiting for Matt...

        ROFLALAL!

        Hook, line *and* sinker!!

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: Marsbarbrain Waiting for Matt...

          "......Hook, line *and* sinker!!" Aw, you really didn't like it when I was spot on with you knowing you're simply nothing more than a mildly amusing whining sound in the background to their real work, did you? The boys at the GCHQ probably have a great time laughing at your posts during their tea breaks.

          1. Graham Marsden
            Boffin

            Re: Marsbarbrain Waiting for Matt...

            Oh deary, deary me.

            And *still* Matt hasn't a clue about the concept of Presumption of Innocence, no, he'd far rather agree with GCHQ and the NSA that *everyone* should be considered guilty and should be monitored and tracked and recorded and scanned *just in case* they do something bad.

            Of course he also has been unable to understand the fact that you don't find a needle in a haystack by adding many more haystacks in the vague hope that one of *them* might contain a needle.

            Don't forget to check under your bed and in your wardrobe when you go to bed, Matt, there may be terrorists hiding there...

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Marsbarbrian Re: Marsbarbrain Waiting for Matt...

              ".... Presumption of Innocence...." Presumption of innocence does not stop either the investigation of a possible crime nor the taking of action to prevent a crime even when one is not suspected to be likely to happen. A copper walking the beat is doing so in the hope of preventing crime, not because there is an assumption of guilt in everyone he sees during his patrol. Maybe you should actually learn something about the law before dribbling more buzz-phrases you don't understand? LOL, now that really would be asking the impossible!

        2. Vic

          Re: Marsbarbrain Waiting for Matt...

          Hook, line *and* sinker!!

          You missed both "rod" and "copy of Angling Times"...

          Vic.

        3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Happy

          Re: Marsbarbrain Waiting for Matt...

          "ROFLALAL!

          Hook, line *and* sinker!!"

          Nice work but there's something off about his posts.

          It's like their "Matt Bryant lite."

          or "Matt Bryant one cal."

      2. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge
        Happy

        Re: Marsbarbrain Waiting for Matt...

        Fair play, that was comedy gold Matt. :D

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: Boring Bernie Re: Marsbarbrain Waiting for Matt...

          ".... that was comedy gold...." <YAWN!> That opinion would carry more weight if only your previous postings had not exposed your "interesting" idea of humour. I assume your idea of "comedy gold" include the works of Edvard Radzinsky (I expect that will generate a massive "WHOOOOSSSSHHHH!!!" moment for you)?

          1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

            Re: Boring Bernie Marsbarbrain Waiting for Matt...

            Pointless ad hominem attack.

            Let me know when you're properly awake...

            1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              Happy

              Re: Boring Bernie Re: Boring Bernie Marsbarbrain Waiting for Matt...

              "Pointless ad hominem attack....." Standard Boring Bernie response when he has no counter to offer.

              1. gazthejourno (Written by Reg staff)

                Re: Re: Boring Bernie Re: Boring Bernie Marsbarbrain Waiting for Matt...

                Enough, children.

                1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

                  Re: Boring Bernie Boring Bernie Marsbarbrain Waiting for Matt...

                  ...awww, but daaaaaaad....!

              2. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

                Re: Boring Bernie Boring Bernie Marsbarbrain Waiting for Matt...

                ""Pointless ad hominem attack....." Standard Boring Bernie response when he has no counter to offer."

                ooh, look another ad hominem. Surprise!

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Talking thru their arses

    Show me who the terrorists are and I won't need everybody's communications for review. My job will be much easier. Oh wait, you have no idea who the bad guys are. Well maybe computer scanning of electronic communications for clues isn't such an invasion of privacy after all, especially if it saves you from an early coffin.

    1. Gordon 10 Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Talking thru their arses

      Moron. Do you realise how infinitesimal the likelihood of getting killed by a terrorist is? Hint even at the height of the IRA campaign it was tiny. They could drop their budget by 50% and it barely change the odds. On the other hand those few beellions might appreciably bring a cure for cancer or heart disease a little closer. For sure it would extend the lives of thousands who currently get no access to drugs or new treatments coz the NHS can't afford them.

      If its about saving lives (I think its actually about control) then give the budget to the NHS, Ministry of Transport (road safety), hell even the MOD before GCHQ and their ilk.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: Gordon 10 Re: Talking thru their arses

        "....Do you realise how infinitesimal the likelihood of getting killed by a terrorist...." You obviously failed to realise why there is such a small likelihood, and it is not from the terrorists having either a lack of desire nor attempts.

        1. Graham Marsden
          Facepalm

          Re: Gordon 10 Talking thru their arses

          And I can sell you this magic stone that stops you being bitten by crocodiles...

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            Happy

            Re: Marsbarbrain Re: Gordon 10 Talking thru their arses

            "And I can sell you this magic stone that stops you being bitten by crocodiles..." Going by the gullibility so evident in your posts I'm not at all surprised you baaaaahlieve in that stone.

            1. Graham Marsden
              Facepalm

              Re: Marsbarbrain Gordon 10 Talking thru their arses

              >> "And I can sell you this magic stone that stops you being bitten by crocodiles..."

              > Going by the gullibility so evident in your posts I'm not at all surprised you baaaaahlieve in that stone.

              WHOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHH!!!!!!

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Happy

                Re: Marsbarbrain Re: Marsbarbrain Gordon 10 Talking thru their arses

                "....WHOOOOOOSSSSSHHHHH!!!!!!" Yes, I did expect that response to be way over your head. Would you like me to explain it to you, maybe in really short and simple words? I mean, it's not that I actually expected you to be able to come up with an original and intelligent response.....

        2. Roj Blake Silver badge

          Re: Gordon 10 Talking thru their arses

          You're far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than you are by a terrorist.

          Maybe there should be a road block on every road manned by a plod with a breathalyser?

          You're far more likely to be killed by a spouse than you are by a terrorist.

          Maybe the police should put cameras in every room of every house to stop domestic abuse?

          You're far more likely to die in police custody than you are as a result of terrorism.

          Maybe the security services should crack down on police brutality rather than read my emails?

          1. LucreLout Silver badge

            Re: Gordon 10 Talking thru their arses

            You're far more likely to die in police custody than you are as a result of terrorism.

            My initial thoughts on reading this were "Bollocks", however, 2 minutes fact checking reveals that in the UK this is nearly always true. I only checked one place, so my research isn't rigorous. Surprised the hell out of me....

            http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: Gordon 10 Talking thru their arses

              "My initial thoughts on reading this were "Bollocks", however, 2 minutes fact checking reveals that in the UK this is nearly always true."

              Yes, I was also surprised. Also, considering the level of "terror awareness" we seem to have shoved down our throats by TPTB, This list shows the enourmous number of terrorist attacks, mainly IRA but not exclusively, up to 2001. Then almost nothing since. You don't even need to read the long list, just scrolling down and skimming the dates gives a good idea of the reality of terrorism in the UK.

              Of course, as the linked Wikipedia article states, verifying the truth of terrorism preventions isn't easy and even those listed may well have come to nothing (as evidenced by the number of arrests with no following charges) but the list of preventions is tiny compared to what we survived through the previous three decades with a far lower intelligence budget and capability.

              1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

                Re: Gordon 10 Talking thru their arses

                You're quite right about attempting to uncover just how many potential terrorist attacks have been prevented by the intelligence and law services, but what we can do is look at the attacks that have "got through". In many of those cases it has become apparent that the services were often aware of the potential terrorist activity before any incident took place, and yet did not act. We can, from these examples, infer that the services allow attacks to take place in pursuit of some higher, often unknown goal (perhaps as simple as finding "bigger fish", perhaps something more clandestine, who knows?).

                So, we can compile a list of failures if not successes, and we can draw conclusions from that. It *may* be that these failures are in our scope of awareness due to the propensity of the media to highlight bad news and failure, and the tendency of the security services to not publicise success (though, there are some notable examples of that too, which places their claimed need to keep success secret in some doubt) would simply reinforce that illusion, but I doubt this is entirely the case.

                If nothing else, we should be keenly aware of the cost of these operations; politically, socially, and economically, and in light of the publicised failures we should, and must, examine the cost/benefit ratio of those operations.

                Simply put, we need evidence that the security operations are *worth* the cost, and right now it appears, from our point of view, that they are not and we are being asked to accept the fact of the threat on trust by a governmental system that has demonstrated, or is at least perceived, that it cannot be trusted.

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: Gordon 10 Talking thru their arses

                  "....from our point of view...." Er, you must have missed the fact that the majority of the electorate in the recent UK elections are not included in your "our". Indeed, I suspect a lot of the "our" is just the voices in your head.

                  1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

                    Re: Gordon 10 Talking thru their arses

                    "you must have missed the fact that the majority of the electorate in the recent UK elections are not included in your "our". "

                    I see you share Mr. Cameron's idea of "majority". You know, the one that's not.

                    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                      Happy

                      Re: Boring Bernie Re: Gordon 10 Talking thru their arses

                      "....I see you share Mr. Cameron's idea of "majority"...." Ah, you're still in denial I see! Honest, I'm not surprised. The fact of the matter is the majority of the population chose not to vote for what you baaaahlieve, otherwise the result of the election would have been different. Deny it any way you like, it will only make it sound like you're accusing Dave of stealing one of your shoes.

                      1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

                        Re: Boring Bernie Gordon 10 Talking thru their arses

                        Dave probably would steal my shoes. Well, one of them, just to maximise the annoyance.

                        Again, you assume you know my politics, and assume I am a labour voter. You'd be wrong.

                        The fact of the matter is that the majority of the population chose NOT to vote. That still makes you wrong in saying that the majority voted FOR the conservative agenda.

    2. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Talking thru their arses

      To a first approximation, the number of actual terrorists is about six orders of magnitude lower than the number of "everybody". Your scanning needs to be more than 99.999% accurate to avoid even as few as ten times as many false positives as hits. Only the real bad guys are actually trying to hide, but many of the false positives will use encryption on a daily basis for legitimate purposes. It beggars belief that you really think there is a snowballs chance in hell of catching bad guys by screening everyone, but even if you are determined to believe that you can eliminate false positives entirely, perhaps we can remind you that various *actual* terrorists in recent years were already on the radar of the intelligence services and yet still managed to slip the net.

      tldr; You are utterly and tragically innumerate.

      1. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: Talking thru their arses @Ken

        It beggars belief that you really think there is a snowballs chance in hell of catching bad guys by screening everyone

        I believe the point in trawling everyones data is so that once a terrorist reveals themselves, the intelligence services can back track to trace everyone they interacted with, everyone those people interacted with etc etc Anyone who can't envisage why that may be useful simply isn't applying rational thought to the process.

        Now, whether that is worth violating everyones perceived rights to privacy is a wholly seperate matter and certainly should be debated more widely than it is. Outside of El Reg, and possibly the groan forums [I don't read them so I don't know], you'd almost never know this was an issue. It literally never gets mentioned on any other forums I read. I genuinely believe that if you stopped 10 people at random in the street 9 or 10 of them wouldn't know who Ed Snowden was, much less have a reasoned and informed view on his actions.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Stop

          Re: Talking thru their arses @Ken

          the problem is that if you trace back just a short way you hit the Kevin Bacon effect and could probably prove the Queen belongs to a terrorist group

    3. Cynic_999 Silver badge

      Re: Talking thru their arses

      "

      Show me who the terrorists are and I won't need everybody's communications for review. My job will be much easier. Oh wait, you have no idea who the bad guys are. Well maybe computer scanning of electronic communications for clues isn't such an invasion of privacy after all, especially if it saves you from an early coffin.

      "

      And what else are you going to justify with that argument? ID cards that must be produced for any journey or transaction? Mandatory government-monitored GPS in all private vehicles? Random body searches of people going about their normal business? Random house searches? Dusk-to-dawn curfews? Or how about mandatory government-monitored CCTV in every room of every house? All the above could be justified using your argument.

      1. LucreLout Silver badge

        Re: Talking thru their arses @Cynic

        Mandatory government-monitored GPS in all private vehicles?

        Is that not what Galileo is for? I know more about cars than anyone else I know, but I certainly couldn't guarantee you that a given cars ECU didn't have a GPS chip within it.

        Considering that further, a SatNav, which are fairly ubiquitous, must have such embedded within it.

        1. Cynic_999 Silver badge

          Re: Talking thru their arses @Cynic

          "

          Is that not what Galileo is for? I know more about cars than anyone else I know, but I certainly couldn't guarantee you that a given cars ECU didn't have a GPS chip within it.

          "

          My ECU can gather all the data it wants, but so long as there is no means to upload that data to the government I am unconcerned (and if garage mechanics had been instructed to upload ECU data during car servicing, that fact would be leaked almost immediately). I'm fairly certain that there is no GPS chip inside it - if there were it would only get a lock when I open the bonnet, so it would be pretty useless (I am reasonably certain I would have spotted an aerial feed cable). I'm not too worried about Galiaeo either, because while it *could* be used to upload position data continuously, someone would be bound to spot the fact that it is making frequent cellphone calls when they had not had an accident - many devices emit characteristic buzzing noises when close to a transmitting cellphone.

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Gimp

        @Cynic_999

        "And what else are you going to justify with that argument? ID cards that must be produced for any journey or transaction? Mandatory government-monitored GPS in all private vehicles? Random body searches of people going about their normal business? Random house searches? Dusk-to-dawn curfews? Or how about mandatory government-monitored CCTV in every room of every house? All the above could be justified using your argument."

        Exactly

        It's the all purpose justify any measure, beloved of data fetishists everywhere.

        it is in fact complete bu****it.

    4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Talking thru their arses

      I spent over a decade dealing with terrorism amongst other crimes. My place of work was car-bombed. I survived handling an item that turned out to have been booby-trapped with explosives. So when I tell you that I think due process of law and presumption of innocence are right and unconstrained trawling wrong I think my arse is reasonably well informed. And yours?

  9. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    1. dephormation.org.uk
      Holmes

      "First you need to parse obtaining phrases from clauses"

      Before that you need to intercept private/confidential communications without consent from either party.

      That's where the privacy intrusion starts.

      The rest of your cunning theory is irrelevant thereafter.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: "First you need to parse obtaining phrases from clauses"

        ".....That's where the privacy intrusion starts...." Actually, no. By legal definition, for your privacy to have been intruded upon the data would have to have been read/heard/viewed by an actual person - there has to be actual reading and understanding of your private matters deduced from the material captured. It all they did was store metadata then your privacy has not been intruded into one jot. Indeed, should the actual digital record of one of your communications sit on a storage device unread/unheard/unviewed by human eyes for years and then be deleted, still no privacy intrusion, as it has never been passed through a human brain. Otherwise you'd have to also complain about your communication passing through the buffers on every switch on every means of electronic communication since we ripped out analogue phone lines.

    2. Vic

      I discovered and patented how to structure any data

      You've spammed us with this before. It was bollocks then, and doesn't improve with repetition...

      Vic.

  10. Gray
    Black Helicopters

    Swap space

    NSA is free to spy on everybody outside the US, gathering and storing it all. GCHQ is free to spy on everybody outside the UK, gathering and storing it all. Both are free to swap with each other ... so where's the restraint?

  11. dephormation.org.uk

    Not sure who I trust less...

    ... GCHQ or Privacy International... while PI's director remain silent about his involvement in Phorm.

    So far the net effect of the PI action against GCHQ has been to make "lawful" anything that GCHQ do. (Great, thanks for that PI, with friends like you...).

    NB... Lawful in quotes because mass surveillance by GCHQ is clearly illegal under the ECHR article 8.

  12. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge

    I have an idea...

    Perhaps we could have, I dunno... an election or something? Then we (i.e. the concerned public) could force each party to ensure that any manifesto must have a core statement to ensure that these rogue state agancies are dealt with as per the will of the people? Plus a forced review of the foreign policies or something that make us a terrorist target in the first place?

    Because it's our government right? And these wankers are supposed to manage the country on the mandate of the people right? And being informed on how your privacy is being eroded gradually by "your" government is a core concern of everyone right? Rather than just wanking off over internet porn and watching chat shows?

    Oh...

  13. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

    Listen carefully...

    ... I shall say this only once...

    ...PI said that GCHQ is starting to see itself as “above the law”....

    The security apparatus of this country (which includes GCHQ, Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service) is a hangover from WW2.

    At the end of WW2 our military was not completely disbanded, but switched into providing defence during the 'Cold War'. Essentially, much of the military structure was kept going, which was good for those who had a job in it. So Britain ran these services, essentially as in WW2, right up to the middle of the 1990s, which was when the Cold War ended.

    Since then, the people working in this area have been frantic to keep their jobs, and have tried to justify them by looking for other things to do - crime, or terrorism.

    At this point it is instructive to look at the position that a Secret Service holds in a democracy. Normally, democratic institutions HAVE to be open - you can't run a democracy any other way. But in times of crisis - during a war when there is a danger of invasion, for instance, even democracies need systems to provide immediate executive action with no democratic balances. They may need to lock someone up who has committed no crime, for instance. The bodies set up to do this are by definition 'above the law' - they have no requirement to have democratic oversight or to abide by any legal restrictions. They can't be challenged in the courts. This is where the SS, SIS and GCHQ were born.

    It is not true to say that these organisations are "starting to see themselves as above the law”. They were always above the law from their inception. The oddity is that, in the absence of any critical threat to the existence of the nation, these bodies are still trying to justify their existence, and laws are being bent to achieve this.

    If you need an illustration of this, look at the court cases which the Security Service has tried to bring. Even with the benefit of draconian legislation and administrative banning orders, they usually fail. The way Security Service works is completely alien to the way, for instance, that the Police work. The Police investigate a case, suspect a person, amass evidence, arrest someone and pass the accused to a court. Security Service suspect someone, imprison them, and then try to extract information from them with no interest in due process.

    There is certainly a current terrorist threat - though considerably less than the Irish threat in the 1970s. At that time the Police, suitably staffed and supported, were quite capable of dealing with it. That is what should be put in place today, and the wartime security apparatus closed down. We no longer maintain a Bomb Targeting Committee - in the same way we should no longer maintain an extra-legal state enforcement arm.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Dodgy Wheezer Re: Listen carefully...

      "....Security Service suspect someone, imprison them, and then try to extract information from them with no interest in due process....." Fail! The Secret Service does not have the power to arrest or detain. To do so in the UK they call on the Police, usually Special Branch, who then follow all the evidence gathering and rule of law you were wittering on about earlier. In allied foreign lands they call upon the local police, who follow whatever the local laws are (not the SIS's creation nor problem). It seems you were too busy hyperventilating yourself into a state of paranoia to note that, when it is reported that a terrorist suspect has been detained in the UK, the bods doing the kicking down of doors and detaining are Police, not spooks.

      1. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

        Re: Dodgy Wheezer Listen carefully...

        ""....Security Service suspect someone, imprison them, and then try to extract information from them with no interest in due process....." Fail! The Secret Service does not have the power to arrest or detain."

        Take a look at the remit of the newly formed NCA then. Covers that "judicial gap" very nicely.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: Boring Bernie Re: Dodgy Wheezer Listen carefully...

          ".....Take a look at the remit of the newly formed NCA then...." FAIL! The National Crime Agency is a law enforcement agency, not a spook agency. They have the legal power to arrest, just like the FBI. Once again, please go and do some actual research before posting - http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/

  14. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

    Best of luck, PI.....

    "PI said that GCHQ is starting to see itself as “above the law”.'

    "“There are no legal penalties for misuse of this information..."

    And the governments response to these criticisms, the ISC findings and other commentary?

    This....

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/15/case_against_gchq_scrambled_by_under_the_radar_legislation/

    Good luck, PI, but I think you're scuppered right out of the gate.

  15. Cynic_999 Silver badge

    Even if the data interception is benign ...

    and I am extremely sceptical that the reason for the interception is what the government says it is, the data can be stored for many years, and used by future governments in ways that were not intended by this government.

    Something as expensive as GCHQ is however far more likely to be used to benefit the government than to benefit the population. ISTR the US government was once suspected of intercepting confidential communications from big businesses in order to profit.

  16. This post has been deleted by a moderator

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

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019