
Snowden reveals GCHQ spy programme with link to Scottish police - ghosh
http://www.thenational.scot/news/us-whistleblower-snowden-reveals-gchq-spy-programme-with-secret-link-to-scottish-police.18661
======
liquidise

      Metadata includes who a surveillance target is calling,
      emailing, what websites they visit, and, when location
      data is available, a person’s movements.
    

That an impressive definition of "metadata". To the defenders of these efforts
i continue to point to the common trend among these agencies: expansion. First
the definition of terrorist expanded without merit. Then the application of
spy tracking data expanded similarly. Now metadata, the comfy term these
agencies have used to limit public outcry, is expanding as well.

This is a frustrating time we live in. Far too few are taking the necessary
steps to prevent this serial erosion of, what just some years ago, was common
privacies and judicial rights.

~~~
dasunbekannte
Let's say you tear down the FVEY agencies. Enemy nations can then go rampant.
If we collect, then it's obvious they must as well and they have less laws
than we do limiting what we can do.

Having been on both sides, it is difficult to see the good they are doing,
because they are shrouded in secrecy due to necessity.

~~~
hackenthorpe
Indeed. It's true to say that there would have been a lot more terrorist
attacks, and more serious organised crime, were our security services not
using the bulk surveillance data sets for their analyses.

Of course, none of the details can be revealed for operational reasons, so the
more paranoid fill in the blanks with 1984-style dystopian fantasy. It's
unfortunate, as they really are doing good work.

~~~
lqdc13
"It's true to say that there would have been a lot more terrorist attacks"

Why is it true to say? I doubt there would have been more terrorist attacks.
They definitely would have mentioned at least one such planned attack that was
stopped as it is in their best interest to change public perception.

[https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-
ha...](https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/u-s-mass-surveillance-has-no-
record-of-thwarting-large-terror-attacks-regardless-of-snowden-leaks/)

~~~
buttcoin
Would they? Acknowledging attacks could give clue to operations in play.
They're certainly not going to risk sources and or collection that's proven
valuable. And to be fair there have been a good amount of publicly
acknowledged plot disruptions.

[http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/09/05/german-police-
arrest...](http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/09/05/german-police-arrest-3-in-
plot-to-attack-americans.html)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrorist_plots_in_the_United_States_post-9/11)

~~~
lqdc13
Except for this German one, I haven't found another story on that Wiki page
that wasn't clearly some other source.

~~~
buttcoin
Except you can't prove that. Are they going to directly say, Satelite XYZ in
geostationary orbit was monitoring data link 111322, during which we captured
intelligence on platform 2342342 which resulted in a lead then passed on to
domestic intelligence agencies. Nope, not going to happen. Everyone here likes
to talk about the government and their parallel construction when it supports
a negative notion, yet forget that it's also a legitimate tool to protect
origination sources.

~~~
hobs
There is no need to prove someone's claim false, they must prove it true.

eg: Except that the government has claimed that they have foiled attacks and
those claims have been shown to be bullshit.

So, given that they have made these claims and they are false, what
conclusions should we draw?

A. The government gave us false information to reassure us that their blanket
information gathering programs work, they cant tell us operational details or
made some other mistake(even though operation details of various programs leak
like a sieve.)

B. Their argument is specious, and someone made a list to prop up a program
they do not have evidence for.

~~~
086421357909764
Should by your own logic of There is no need to prove someone's claim false,
they must prove it true." apply to their comment to?

Just trying to understand as Point A and B lack the same evidence.

~~~
hobs
All claims need evidence to support them, its just that the poster said that
the government is doing great work, too bad we cant show or prove that they
are(citation needed, big time.)

There is no need to argue for balance in the discussion to protect our
government, they clearly can operate these programs without our approval or
understanding.

------
Velox
One of the more concerning matters on this is that the BBC, for some reason,
are choosing not to report on this at all. Gone are the days when the BBC were
the most trusted and reputable news source.
[http://www.bbc.com/news/scotland](http://www.bbc.com/news/scotland)

~~~
duncanawoods
Meh. Its not clear to me this is news - its secondary reporting about an
Intercept article that doesn't appear on the intercept front page nor on any
other Scottish newspaper.

~~~
notahacker
And it's not even the main theme of the Intercept article, which focuses far
more on the intelligence agencies collecting far more data than they actually
had the capability to use and failing to read harvested emails of identified
suspects. [https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/mi5-gchq-digint-
surveill...](https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/mi5-gchq-digint-surveillance-
data-deluge/)

------
rl3
> _... and more serious organised crime, were our security services not using
> the bulk surveillance data ..._

In the unlikely case these aren't pranks, they would almost certainly be GCHQ
astroturfing accounts. Of course, the astroturfing itself is of so poor
quality that they probably outsourced the job to either some apathetic social
media/perception management firm, or clueless interns.

I could easily see a social engagement platform that's primarily used to spam
Disqus comment sections also having support for HN, just for the sake of
ticking the box.

~~~
hackenthorpe
Anyone who disagrees with you must either be joking or astroturfing? How
impolite.

~~~
rl3
> _Anyone who disagrees with you must either be joking or astroturfing? How
> impolite._

More like anyone who creates two fresh accounts within minutes of each other,
one replying to the other in agreement—is either astroturfing, or trying to
make it appear as if they are.

Personally, I think you're just a decent troll. If so, at least it was
creative.

~~~
hackenthorpe
There was nothing trollish at all in my earlier comment - you just wish not to
believe it.

~~~
rl3
> _There was nothing trollish at all in my earlier comment - you just wish not
> to believe it._

You're correct in that I do not wish to believe that astroturfing either
directly or indirectly commissioned by GCHQ could be so incompetent. It
sullies their good name.

Granted, what you're doing would actually qualify as somewhat competent if the
goal was to simply to derail meaningful discourse.

~~~
hackenthorpe
All these accusations of trolling and astroturfing are completely off topic.
If anyone is trying to derail the discussion here, it's you.

~~~
086421357909764
it seems like a lot of people here are in a feedback loop, only upvoting /
listening to what they think fits. Everyone's quick to believe they know it
all, when in fact that is the very issue the arguments are about.

I get why you used a throw away. I'm not against civil discussions, I just
hate when people don't use logic and take all evidence with a grain of salt. I
don't for a second doubt parts of the govt. are hiding valid evidence for the
conversation any more than the media is lying to sell their narrative too.
Bottom line is the media has the upperhand, they can make baseless claims and
choose what to say knowing damn well that the Govt. can't refute it.

~~~
rl3
There's nothing wrong with throwaway accounts or opposing views; both are
perfectly welcome.

What's problematic is when there's two throwaway accounts created at the same
time, replying to one another in agreement, using the same writing style, and
advancing same the narrative that's worded as if it's straight out of a public
relations office.

HN has seen at least one NSA employee and one American intelligence community
member posting in the wake of Snowden, and both were overwhelmingly treated
with respect by the community despite their views. I myself often express
views here that are staunchly anti-Snowden in nature.

The throwaway accounts you're defending received such hostility because they
were perceived as being insincere due to their suspicious posting behavior. It
was not due to their views or opinions.

------
pjc50
It would have been interesting if this had come out before the Indyref. What
_did_ happen to Willy McRae, anyway?

