What scares me further is that The Guardian seem to be the only publication that are reporting on this. I'm a frequent BBC News reader and generally trust in there neutrality. I would not have heard about any of the recent revelations if not for The Guardian. I didn't even know about Tempora until I saw it on a HN comment and looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently there has been a "D-Notice" to prevent reporting on the matter [1].
The BBC are terrible. Whilst they don't usually outright lie, they cherry pick stories that don't piss off the ruling elite until everyone else has thoroughly jumped on them.
Apart from the guardian, every other news source in the UK is arse paper.
Me too.
Usually the bbc/guardian/telegraph all have the same stories, just with a different slant.
BUT for Snowden leaks there is a black hole, with only the guardian covering it. (Though everyone covers personal gossip about Snowden, of course).
Scary.
> I would not have heard about any of the recent revelations if not for The Guardian.
Once again, this is not news. Joint operations between NSA/CIA and MI5/6 have been thoroughly reported for decades. The Menwith Hill facility in particular has been doing its spy thing for half a century.
Nor is it news that both countries use regulatory arbitrage to evade each other's intel laws.
As well as discussing the funding and various projects in more detail, it also sheds some light on what life is like for the rank-and-file.
It is a world of decoding and cake sales, programming and pub quizzes.
Nobody at Cheltenham is particularly well paid, compared to the private sector at least – a junior analyst might earn £25,000. "We can offer a fantastic mission but we can’t compete with [private sector] salaries," one briefing note lamented.
There are protocols on the clearing of desks at the end of the day, with particularly sensitive documents being locked in special cupboards, the keys to which are then stored in other reinforced –lockers which can only be opened by following a set of complex instructions.
Sweet, so just hang around pubs in Cheltenham till you find the spook pub, then pal up with them, find out who would most likely take a bribe (I don't know, maybe one who plays the puggies[0] a lot would be a good place to start) offer a big wad of cash and boom! you can find out about anything or anyone... Shit, that's probably how the tabloids know who to send PI's after, there must be stuff leaking out of that place :-(
More damning than the headline here is that GCHQ apparently explicitly stated that a major selling point for the partnership is the UK's lax legal regime, which allows them to be "Less constrained by NSA's concerns about compliance."
These allegations have been widely reported since the start of the Snowden leaks two months ago and both General Alexander and DNI Clapper have both claimed that they don't "run around" the Fourth Amendment in this fashion.
It's interesting to see the USG contradictions and hypocrisy coming to light in this fashion, especially since their lies are increasingly egregious and continuous.
There is an image[1] of their operations that is especially interesting, and one can interpret it in multiple ways. For example the colors likely represent intelligence reciprocity, but it could also be construed to identify allies and enemies. Since America is yellow then it could represent weak intelligence gathering effectiveness, and it stands to reason that allies likely spy on Americans for us. I wonder how much legal liability that opens up for them? Perhaps they're leery of spying on Americans.
Of course, it's perfectly fine to circumvent a foundational privacy law of your country by paying a foreign spy agency to do it on your behalf. What could possibly be ethically dubious about that?
Well, this partnership has been known for a while now, certainly before Snowden. The _original_ deal was made during World War II (the 1943 BRUSA [1] agreement) and was then superseded by the UKUSA [2] agreement (or Five Eyes) which also included Canada and Australia/New Zealand. This definitely continued until 1956, by which time the Cold War was the main reason for co-operation.
It's been publicly available since June 2010, which is when the full contents of the original document were released to the UK National Archives in Kew, and simultaneously declassified by NSA [4].
It is generally assumed that the arrangement is still active, and is being updated on an ongoing basis by the participating agencies.
In other words, they're finding ways to follow the law to the letter, but work around its spirit. What's the point of a safety net if you decide to ignore it ?
Nobody at Cheltenham is particularly well paid, compared to the private sector at least – a junior analyst might earn £25,000. "We can offer a fantastic mission but we can’t compete with [private sector] salaries," one briefing note lamented.
Yep. That was a big part of why when I talked to a GCHQ recruiter when I was finishing my doctorate that I didn't bother going any further.
I had a friend who started work there about 3 years ago. Once you're there, you're also 100% unemployable in the private sector immediately thereafter. He tried to get a job outside the place for nearly a year after realising on week two it was a bad move.
I actually ended up writing him a reference from my company for some private work to cover the time he was there and he said he was unemployed for the entire period.
I'm curious as to why you think they're unemployable? Simply because they can't talk about what they've been doing, and you can't ask for a reference - or is it something about the job itself?
Its about the public sector. Once you've done public sector work in the UK, you are tarnished. This isn't a real barrier, but one put up by management.
I'd imagine not being able to tell prospective employers about any of the experience you gained or achievements you made in the course of your employment there would also be an issue?
>Snowden warned about the relationship between the NSA and GCHQ, saying the organisations have been jointly responsible for developing techniques that allow the mass harvesting and analysis of internet traffic.
>"It's not just a US problem," he said. "They are worse than the US."
Interesting. The Brits care less about privacy than the U.S.
Brits generally care as much (or as little) about privacy as Americans. However, they don't have the strong constitutional protections to privacy that the US has.
Not that these are proving to be all that strong, as things go...
>When GCHQ does supply the US with valuable intelligence, the agency boasts about it. In one review, GCHQ boasted that it had supplied "unique contributions" to the NSA during its investigation of the American citizen responsible for an attempted car bomb attack in Times Square, New York City, in 2010.
>No other detail is provided – but it raises the possibility that GCHQ might have been spying on an American living in the US. The NSA is prohibited from doing this by US law.
I'd say that's more than a possibility. That's a reasonable inference. And there's nothing that any of the citizens of our respective western democracies can do about it. Our own governments aren't representing our interests. We can't flee to other governments because they're the ones doing our own government's dirty work. It's corruption all the way down to protect us from a nebulous threat, even though the panopticon presents a far more pervasive and persistent threat than any terrorist could ever dream of, and whose motivations are typically a response to our own foreign policies to begin with. It's a nasty positive feedback loop that I want no part in, but have no substantive say in regardless.
Breastfeeding is unfortunately still a very contentious issue for a lot of people. Facebook in particular are very embattled by people who - rightly - believe breastfeeding is something that should be regarded as completely normal and appropriate in any context.
Some countries are better at dealing with this than others, but I don't think Europeans are perfect on the matter either.
I'll agree with that, usually the pictures are a little more discrete though, but I guess the larger issue is, should they have be more discrete? I think it all depends on context.
The irrational fear of breasts is silly enough on its own, but I find it offensive when people take pains to bother babies and mothers with their weird sense of morality.
>should they have be more discrete?
Like how? Do you want mothers to retreat to a disgusting public restroom to feed baby?
>Most mothers that I've seen publically breastfeeding have a light cloth that they drape over themselves. Portable, cheap, and effective.
Do you want that to be law? It's what my wife usually did with our children. Our friends' child though, refused to feed under a cloth and would cry or thrash until the cloth was removed.
Not at all, I was merely commenting on the state of the argument I've heard the most, i.e. - "Breast feeding is natural, why should this be censored at all"
Yesterday on The Guardian I saw in the sidebar a man & woman on a bed, woman topless with just enough hair to cover her chest. I would consider this NSFW. What do you consider as NSFW?
I didn't see the photo, was it something like this [1]? If so, then I do see why some might think it is NSFW but, IMO that is a juvenile, silly, absurd, mindset, and even a bit insulting.
The only part of an image such as that which is NSFW is that it is IMO not suitable to spend time gawking at it while at work; but it is only slightly less suitable than wasting time on most any of the other news articles.
>What do you consider as NSFW
In general, the mere presence of an image, even a fully nude one isn't NSFW until some person's reaction to it negatively affects themselves or their co-workers, and even then, it isn't really the image that is to blame. But still, gross and or gratuitous pornography are out [2], as are most images of penises, vaginas, and anuses.
> even a fully nude one isn't NSFW until some person's reaction to it negatively affects themselves or their co-workers, and even then, it isn't really the image that is to blame.
I can understand this notion, but I feel that there is more to consider. I take NSFW to mean "would you read this at work". That is something I wouldn't think of opening at work, just to avoid things that MAY happen. For example:
- My computer isn't in an office, anyone can look and see what I'm doing when walking past. Someone to my boss, "I saw X looking at Y on his computer, I was offended" (in fact I didn't even open your link so that this or something similar doesn't occur)
Why even risk this sort of situation?
I think this is at the very heart of the phrase "NSFW". I'm on a news website, I don't want this to negatively affect me in any way, it's a "safe for work" site.
Back to the breastfeeding image. I will agree that on the whole, a good chunk of people would say that this is a safe for work picture. But because of workplace culture at certain businesses, I feel that this is on the boarder at best.
> I take NSFW to mean "would you read this at work".
Unless you are Brewster Kahle, almost everything on the internet has nothing to do with your work. That goes for nearly all Guardian content.
>Someone to my boss, "I saw X looking at Y on his computer, I was offended"
Well, if your boss searched your internet history, would anything be found to substantiate such a claim?
> (in fact I didn't even open your link so that this or something similar doesn't occur)
I deliberately posted the link to the article (daily mail) so that you wouldn't be afraid I was trying to goatse you or something. The images in the article are no worse than those that can be seen at a grocer's checkout. I am really sorry that you have so little job security that you fear reprisal over a simple image such as that. Incidentally, I've seen full frontal nudity plastered on bus stops in Germany and I don't think anyone batted an eye.
>Why even risk this sort of situation?
Because pandering to this risk-averse approach to never offending anyone ever, even the most socially-repressive of us, even by chance or misunderstanding only encourages more of it?
>I think this is at the very heart of the phrase "NSFW". I'm on a news website, I don't want this to negatively affect me in any way, it's a "safe for work" site.
Well, I have to inform you that not everyone shares your career and that an article on breastfeeding, or even one on marketing with racy photos, or any number of other subjects might very well be pertinent and safe for many peoples' work. You may have to adopt a more forgiving sense of propriety or confine yourself to some much smaller portion of the internet.
Do you suggest that everyone should be forced to obey the most repressive moral standards of all the sub-groups in our culture?
> almost everything on the internet has nothing to do with your work
While this is true, I use the internet heavily, being in the tech industry.
> if your boss searched your internet history, would anything be found to substantiate such a claim?
Not if the image was on the Guardian or something similar that just blends in.
> I am really sorry that you have so little job security that you fear reprisal over a simple image such as that. Incidentally, I've seen full frontal nudity plastered on bus stops in Germany and I don't think anyone batted an eye.
Yea, it kind of sucks, but that just comes back to different cultures. Nudity is more accepted in Germany apparently, and it isn't in the US, that's just something we have to live with.
> You may have to adopt a more forgiving sense of propriety or confine yourself to some much smaller portion of the internet.
I guess I do, unfortunate for the Guardian.
> Do you suggest that everyone should be forced to obey the most repressive moral standards of all the sub-groups in our culture?
Of course not, but this is not what I'm claiming at all. The Guardian presents itself as a news organization. The person that picked out that picture should have considered posting it in light of the fact that they are now, with the Snowden leak, a global news organization, with visitors from Germany AND the US (in this example). What they should consider is "Who is going to see this article?" and then take the option that attracts the most people to their site.
Understand that I'm not trying to say that Guardian should change their site up at all, rather I'm saying that it might benefit them to think twice about what they post, because I'm no longer visiting their site at work.
>The person that picked out that picture should have considered posting it
Oh, I bet that photo was chosen carefully to draw attention.
> in light of the fact that they are now, with the Snowden leak, a global news organization, with visitors from Germany AND the US (in this example).
They have always been so, and I hope they don't begin to pander to social conservatives.
> What they should consider is "Who is going to see this article?" and then take the option that attracts the most people to their site.
I think that's exactly what they've done. For better or worse.
>Understand that I'm not trying to say that Guardian should change their site up at all, rather I'm saying that it might benefit them to think twice about what they post, because I'm no longer visiting their site at work.
Not that I necessarily want more breastfeeding in my news but I certainly hope you're in the minority. How bad will it be when they have to pander to even more conservative Islamic sensibilities?
The leaked papers reveal the UK's biggest fear is that "US perceptions of the … partnership diminish, leading to loss of access, and/or reduction in investment … to the UK".
Talk about being bent over.
Maybe it's time to cut losses now and discuss UK's expulsion from the EU (unless of course the other EU members are able to exert heavy pressure upon the UK, which I honestly doubt).
That's not what I think. Corruption is a problem every human being is prone to.
I'm talking about the scale of corruption. In this regard, DC is the sickest known example in the western world, I'd say. And now this kind of scale seems about to be extended further.
You haven't really visited Eastern-Europe or any post-Soviet country, have you? :)
Corruption was always high-scale, but usually with low visibility or even lower accountability (as long as you bribe the watchers too). I think the major change is the visibility of these actions, and the expectations around them: people now hope (and not just dream) for better.
In a sense "Americope" is already a reality. They have already used their power to divert the Bolivian presidents plane and restrict the airspace that Snowden might have used to get out of Europe.
When these Snowden leaks first came out I was hoping that Europe would stand up to the US but the fact is that many of the Intel agencies in Europe are either in on the various programs or benefit from them via funding or some sort of data sharing.
[1]http://order-order.com/2013/06/08/d-notice-june-7-2013/