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."
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.
>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.
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).
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.
[+] [-] ceeK|12 years ago|reply
[1]http://order-order.com/2013/06/08/d-notice-june-7-2013/
[+] [-] harrytuttle|12 years ago|reply
Apart from the guardian, every other news source in the UK is arse paper.
[+] [-] tarkin2|12 years ago|reply
I wonder if having the Scott Trust[1] as its backer gives it has more freedom in these matters compared to other papers.
[1] http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/
[+] [-] osbertlancaster|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Daniel_Newby|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] teamgb|12 years ago|reply
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/aug/01/gch...
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.
[+] [-] Amadou|12 years ago|reply
FWIW, this sort of thing is standard in every classified facility in the US. It would be messed up if they didn't do that, it is just basic opsec.
[+] [-] willyt|12 years ago|reply
Edit: [0] Slot machines for gambling.
[+] [-] emhart|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jivatmanx|12 years ago|reply
I guess, funding GCHQ makes that worse, as well.
[+] [-] grkvlt|12 years ago|reply
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.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_BRUSA_Agreement
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement
[3] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukusa/
[4] http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ukusa.shtml
[+] [-] b0rsuk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VladRussian2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jgrahamc|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] harrytuttle|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] JonSkeptic|12 years ago|reply
>"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.
[+] [-] swombat|12 years ago|reply
Not that these are proving to be all that strong, as things go...
[+] [-] tarkin2|12 years ago|reply
Which I've always felt dangerous - on a personal, social and democratic level - if combined with isolation from the country's political system.
[+] [-] freeduck|12 years ago|reply
Who does GCHQ serve? The British or the hand that feed them.
[+] [-] aspensmonster|12 years ago|reply
>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.
[+] [-] nsns|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rhizome|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] znowi|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ToastyMallows|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jnbiche|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnordfnordfnord|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colin_jack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] northwest|12 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] northwest|12 years ago|reply
But it is extremely worrisome to see this culture of corruption swapping over to Europe.
[+] [-] agilord|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] northwest|12 years ago|reply
Maybe we really could all agree on having 1 big merger.
But the idea that "Americope" would then be controlled mainly out of North America is pretty unhealthy/insane.
[+] [-] wil421|12 years ago|reply
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.