Slashdot Mirror
Revealed: How the UK Spied On Its G20 Allies At London Summits
Writing "Wow, this is going to really set the cat amongst the pigeons once this gets around," an anonymous reader links to a story at The Guardian about some good old fashioned friendly interception, and the slide-show version of what went on at recent G20 summits in London:
"Foreign politicians' calls and emails intercepted by UK intelligence; Delegates tricked into using fake internet cafes; GCHQ analysts sent logs of phone calls round the clock; Documents are latest revelations from whistleblower Edward Snowden."
That's part of the problem with massive caches of data -- it's hard to secure. So, setting aside all the potential evils that will absolutely certainly occur because of politicians and career bureaucrats having the data, throw in the random security breach by insiders, contractors, script kiddies, whatever.
It is beyond retarded to trust the government with this data.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I would put money on it that he was bought out by the Chinese to put a official US/Western face to the findings of the Chinese hacking. It seems mighty convenient that the NSA story came out right before the Chinese-US talks, and is kind of hard for Obama to say anything when the Chinese can say "look, you are spying on your own people too". And now with the G7 meeting coming up, this comes out...
And why would this guy go to Hong Kong of all the places he could go?
This line is beyond tiresome. Are you too stupid to understand the difference between assuming and knowing?
Assumer: Gov't spies on allies!
Listener: GTFO foil hatter.
Knower1: Gov't spies on allies!
Knower2: We should think about whether we really want to do this.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Live updates on who's calling who? We'll see if it's "just metadata" when it's the government's representatives being spied on.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
The tech was probably shared with them by the NSA.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Because it's one of the few places that provide some decent protection against extradition to a "beacon of freedom" that runs secret prisons, tortures its prisoners and imprisons people for years without a trial
Mr. Snowden may eventually be captured by the U.S. government and be hanged by his balls, he may be a Chinese spy as has been alleged by some in the government, but if his revelations are true he is doing you and I ordinary people a great service by airing all this, at a minimum, naughty, and, at most, highly illegal shit. If this stuff is true, I want to see some high government officials hanging by their balls (or tits for those of the female species) for their actions.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
DUH!
Is anyone really surprised by this?
GCHQ is a British organization. How would Snowden get copies of their plans, if there are in fact legitimate? He seems to be making some mighty big claims for having been employed as an employee of an NSA contractor for three months.
You're really asking this?
It's been well known in public for many years -- certainly since 1996 when it was revealed in Nicky Hager's Secret Power ( the book which made ECHELON a household word, and is available here as a free ebook) that the NSA and its partner agencies in the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ work together as UKUSA or the 'Five Eyes' network, even to the point of agreeing to spy on each others' citizens to get around their respective domestic policy limitations.
Furthermore, it's also well known that a major GCHQ installation, Menwith Hill, is actually staffed by NSA officers. Similar American involvement is true for Australia's Pine Gap. To an unknown but probably lesser extent, New Zealand's GCSB listening stations at Tangimoana and Waihopai are also either staffed by, or run in close consultation with, the GCHQ and NSA.
National sovereignty? What's that? For those of us in non-USA English-speaking countries, the situation is strange. We're not American citizens, we have no vote for the US president or Joint Chief of Staffs, yet our leaders take their orders from your leaders. This means that we've all become very interested in American politics, even though we'd rather not. Because you guys in the State may think you're only electing your own local town mayor and dogcatchers, but you're actually choosing who will run the military and spy infrastructures of the whole Western world. And increasingly, the real power players in your system (the NSA, CIA and DoD) don't seem to even care much about the civilian 'oversight'. They just change the logos on the Powerpoints and keep on doing their thing.
For instance, there's a bill in the NZ Parliament at the moment to give our GCSB increased powers in order to synchronise them with the NSA. Did the New Zealand people really want this? No. But we're getting it anyway. Because the US military industrial complex calls the shots even in countries they have no official democratic authority over. But those who make and sell the guns, and control the wires, have a habit of getting what they want.
tldr: There is no independent 'GCHQ'. It's a subcontracted division of the NSA.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
GCHQ has access to the NSA's data. It would make sense that the NSA would have access to GCHQ's data.
So, setting aside all the potential evils that will absolutely certainly occur because of politicians and career bureaucrats having the data, throw in the random security breach by insiders, contractors, script kiddies, whatever.
When the day comes that this information is obtained and used against the same politicians who voted for it, it will be some delicious comeuppance. And better than they deserve. And a minor observation. From the fine summary:
an anonymous reader links to a story at The Guardian about some good old fashioned friendly interception
It's funny the way they phrase things when governments are involved. If you steal your neighbor's car, they won't call it a "friendly theft" just because you were on good terms prior to the theft.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
>When the day comes that this information is obtained and used against the same politicians who voted for it, it will be some delicious comeuppance.
I really don't think you quite get how that day would work.
"Senator, PRISM has discovered an email of you admitting to having a gay lover in college, something that would make you completely unelectable in this country for some reason."
"Ahh. Johnny Ten Inches. Yes, well, I admit to that. How much is it going to cost for this to go away?"
"We have all the money we need, but it would sure be nice if that new NSA data seizure legislation in the pipeline got a yes vote. #211,944 if I recall."
"#211,944? I'm not familiar with it."
"Of course you aren't, senator. We haven't written it yet."
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
"Allies" (at least as far as Governments are concerned) are just partners of convenience. They are not friends, and although they might be allies one day they could easily be enemies the next. Now the Brits might have been acting a bit slimy in their methods (I don't like the idea of well-meaning delegates being tricked into using fake Internet cafes), but it's what's done in the Intelligence business and I d
It is not unusual to spy on your allies - indeed it's expected, plus you'd have to be pretty naive to think your own allies aren't doing the same to you. Again, your allies might end up being your enemies one day, so it's important to keep up with what they are doing. Even with the US/UK alliance, a traditionally strong alliance, the US still felt the need to have its own plan in case war with the Brits became necessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red)
i guess you don't classify rape as torture. dumbfuck
I really don't think you quite get how that day would work. "Senator, PRISM has discovered an email of you admitting to having a gay lover in college...
You apparently have no familiarity with American culture. Homosexuality was once, "The love that dare not speak its name." Now it's, "The love that won't shut up." There have been a number of legislators that have been "out." It doesn't seem to have hurt their careers. They would probably take it as free publicity.
It would almost certainly lead to a real smack down of the NSA were such a thing to happen.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
No one is surprised, idiot. People are angry. You don't have to be surprised to be angry. The scope of what they are doing can not be made legal without constitutional amendments.
"A secret once shared is secret no more."
It's marginally possible to maintain infosec when your operatives are groomed, recruited, trained and thoroughly and frequently tested by counterops, psych, and intel pros who outnumber them hundreds to one. Then only occasionally does a spy get in and get promoted to the top. This is only possible when the people who know the precious things are few. The top end is maybe 5,000. Probably far less.
When your secrets are shared across thousands of subcontractors whose recruiting you don't even monitor? No. You may as well post your own shit to pastebin.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
How times change. And to think that the US Government once prosecuted WWII Japanese Officers over the war crime of waterboarding. We executed some of those convicted, and others spent a long time in prison. Cheney and his ilk though(*), they profit from the chest thumping book sales.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/yes-inational-reviewi-we_b_191153.html
(*) I include those who excuse such War Crimes, such as Obama, in that "ilk"
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Definitely fishy...these are GCHQ documents...British Government...not NSA...
here's one: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/16/1371408003314/GCHQ-ragout-1-002.jpg
They look like more powerpoint slides...maybe that's his trick, his only real *new* info is some ppt slides from a conference he managed to swipe while setting up a workstation...
Then his narcissism and idiocy take over...
If it isn't China it's the military/industrial complex...
Thank you Dave Raggett
And why would this guy go to Hong Kong of all the places he could go?
Six reasons why choosing Hong Kong is a brilliant move by Edward Snowden.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
That's part of the problem with massive caches of data -- it's hard to secure.
There was no intention to secure the data. Each country's intelligence service shares with their counterparts so they have plausible deniability regarding spying on their own citizens.
The Brits can say they got info from the Americans or Australians NZ, etc and vice versa.
These people in their surveillance communities have far more in common with each other, and more loyalty to each other than to the nations that hire them.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
The full bore surveillance state that has emerged in the US/Great Britten/etc since the 9/11 attacks has an autonomous agenda. Coping with terrorism is not it's primary goal. It's aim is to permanently protect the current ruling clique from all challenges. It is intrinsically anti-democracy and anti-capitalism. Functioning democracy and capitalism reduce the control and economic position of the power elite, so democracy and capitalism must be being suppressed.
This is the inevitable result of an out of control security system. There are secret organizations governed by secret charters overseen by secret courts with elected officials sworn to secrecy. The people running the organizations lie to everyone all the time. They justify their behavior by claiming that since they are the "good guys", it's OK to do evil things. This is literally the road to hell based on good intentions.
Once an unaccountable organization has the ability to spy on anyone for a good reason, it will spy on everyone for any reason.
Why is Snark Required?
I think you miss his point. Homosexuality is ancillary to the problem it was just an example, it's that something- anything- could be discovered and used against the politician or anyone else for that matter. Replace homosexuality with a stay in a mental hospital, a car accident that killed people, a juvenile crime of some sort (property damage or perhaps assaulting someone in high school), an affair with a biographer or anything that the politician thinks will make him unelectable. That is what the point was about, having some sort of dirt over the person that was discovered through this cache of information that was thought to be personal and private.
The worst part about PRISM, IMHO, is that this debate should have taken place ten years ago.
The only (partial) fix that I can imagine this morning is a constitutional amendment saying that any law passed by congress has to be public. Secret laws ought to be unconstitutional, and thus inoperative. It would help.
I've only squished three puppies. That makes it okay, right?
tldr: There is no independent 'GCHQ'. It's a subcontracted division of the NSA.
Bollocks is it. GCHQ was around long before NSA came along, and from my time there, there was no yank anywhere near the place, even government personnel weren't allowed into most of our buildings. The fact both agencies have intelligence sharing and pissing contests, is neither here or there. But keep your tin-foil hat on, though!
Yes, the UK and her colonies were doing the spy game long before the USA, and taught them all their tricks; that's well documented. For example, see the career of William Stephenson from Canada in the inter-war years as he set up British Security Coordination and the OSS.
But it's my impression that at the same time, and particularly after the Tizard Mission of 1940 when the UK traded nuclear secrets to the USA for microwave tubes, the original balance of power - between the UK as the world's spymaster/banker and the USA as merely the "arsenal of democracy" producing the weapons - significantly tilted.
By 1944, at Bretton Woods, the US position had become so strong that they were able to overrule the British desire for a neutral Bank for International Settlements and designate the US dollar as the world's default currency for the entire post-war Western world order. This was no small policy defeat. The British Empire crumbled in the face of the war and the independence movements that followed, and the US became her creditor. American loans to the UK for WW2 expenses were only paid off by 2006, by the way.
So while I'm sure GCHQ remains nominally British, it's not the case the British interests are as separate from American ones as they were in 1939.
There's a reason why George Orwell snarkily demoted Great Britain to 'Airstrip One' of the Anglo-American alliance in 1948. It's been apparent for over fifty years where the world's military-intelligence center of gravity has shifted to since WW2, and where it remains. The 'Special Relationship' points in one direction - as the world saw demonstrated clearly with Tony Blair's increasingly bizarre and desperate kowtowing to Bush in the runup to Iraq in 2003. He had no obvious reason to obey Bush's demand for war, and yet. There it clearly was, the invisible leash around his neck with the other end in Washington.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
And people swallow that 'unlawful combatant' nonsense? Didn't they have the right paperwork? Forgot to get their forms signed by the right people? Or just weren't ready to stand out in the open and be simply blown away by a military that is 100% better equipped than all the other militaries in the world, combined?
Phrases like 'unlawful combatant' are the true banality of evil.
It's going to be a long time before anyone holds another major international meeting in London. Geneva, maybe.
If you don't like a particular demographic your brain will make a pretty convincing narrative that they're loud, obnoxious, etc. Anything that doesn't fit the narrative is forgotten and anything that fits is noted and reinforces the belief. The joys of human experience.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The 'Special Relationship' points in one direction - as the world saw demonstrated clearly with Tony Blair's increasingly bizarre and desperate kowtowing to Bush in the runup to Iraq in 2003.
The United Kingdom is the only country to which the United States sells nuclear weapons.
If push came to shove in the Falklands, the US government was ready to provide an aircraft carrier to the British government if need be.
American loans to the UK for WW2 expenses were only paid off by 2006 [wikipedia.org], by the way.
What's a little debt between friends?
"In a nutshell, everything we got from America in World War II was free," says economic historian Professor Mark Harrison, of Warwick University.
"The loan was really to help Britain through the consequences of post-war adjustment, rather than the war itself. This position was different from World War I, where money was lent for the war effort itself."
Britain had spent a great deal of money at the beginning of the war, under the US cash-and-carry scheme, which saw straight payments for materiel. There was also trading of territory for equipment on terms that have attracted much criticism in the years since. By 1941, Britain was in a parlous financial state and Lend-Lease was eventually introduced.
The post-war loan was part-driven by the Americans' termination of the scheme. Under the programme, the US had effectively donated equipment for the war effort, but anything left over in Britain at the end of hostilities and still needed would have to be paid for.
But the price would please a bargain hunter - the US only wanted one-tenth of the production cost of the equipment and would lend the money to pay for it. . .
Also, look at the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. The US gave the UK 50 warships, destroyers, in return for basing rights. What do you think that was worth, especially at the time?
Interesting contrast to today:
Lord West 'horrified' at size of navy - 19 March 2012
"I am horrified our naval flotilla now comprises only 19 frigates and destroyers," said Lord West. "In the Falklands, in the first month of fighting, we had four sunk and 14 damaged. That makes you think. We seem to have forgotten that when you fight you lose things.
"Here we are with 19 frigates and destroyers. Are they bonkers? Are they mad? How have they allowed this to happen?"
--------
So while I'm sure GCHQ remains nominally British, it's not the case the British interests are as separate from American ones as they were in 1939.
I have little doubt the Her Majesty's GCHQ intelligence service remains completely and unreservedly British, and that British interests, though often in common, are separate from American interests.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Yeah, this is old news. Spying on diplomats is a great way to figure out how to bribe them into pushing their host nations in your direction.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
That is not the definition of an unlawful combatant, that's the definition of a war criminal. A war criminal is still protected by (and subject to) the Laws of War.
Unlawful combatant means someone who is a civilian who takes part in military combat (with no implications one way or the other about whether they commit any further crimes while doing so). The Geneva Convention is quite clear on what happens to them- if a belligerent captures them, the belligerent can either treat them as a PoW under the regular Laws of War, or they can treat them as a civilian criminal and try them under a "regularly constituted court", subject to the usual international treaties and standards for human rights to justice.
What happens at Guantanamo (detainment without trial, trials by secret military tribunal, water boarding and other forms of cruel and unusual punishment) are illegal (and immoral) however you choose to dice it up.
Sharing of this information has long been rumored (IIRC, in one or more of James Bamford's books/articles [who has been writing about this for decades]). Long before PRISM, there was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON It has a common database amongst all participating countries.
The political hand waving that the U.S. (or England) "doesn't spy on its citizens" is gotten around by having another country do it for them (e.g. England/Canada is free to intercept U.S. citizen communications (e.g. they're "foreigners" to Canada) and vice-versa). It all goes into a common database and/or is shared.
Now, given that as a pretext, there is no way to tell if the data was gleaned by Canada on U.S. citizens [or U.S. on Canadian citizens] or was truly domestic spying on one's own citizens. As a convenience, just do it yourself, but if you get caught, claim it was put in the database by another country.
In the end, does that technicality really matter that much when discussing the merits vs. ethics?
Like a good neighbor, fsck is there
The information often runs contrary to popular opinion, political beliefs, common misbelief, or some other aspect. Sometimes what I post is just inconvenient for a particularly popular rant. No matter.
While it's no doubt convenient to pigeon hole all your would-be detractors as irrational, with your 'only three waterboarded' post you've indicated quite clearly that you're prepared to cherry pick information/articles to fit your narrative, which is that of the US intelligence services and government being reasonable and honourable when it comes to these matters. (torture etc.)
I would merely suggest that taking what they say at face value is naive in the extreme, given all the stuff they've been shown to have already lied about. That, and the fact that deception is basically their whole 'thing'. ;)
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Wasn't it about the United Kingdom this time? And who cares if this was treasonous or not? What matters is whether it was good or bad, and you haven't made any argument for why it was bad that he exposed this. I live in the UK at the moment, and I certainly found it interesting that the government is low enough to steal login credentials from its allies.
I guess you will say that everybody is doing this, so exposing it serves no purpose other than embarassing the government. Well, nobody should be doing this, and this is providing an incentive for them to stop. It is also informing the people about it, so they can make informed decisions when voting, and helps countries decide where not to participate in meetings, as well as reminding them that they need better encryption etc. I think this is well worth some embarassment for the perpetrator.
Oh yeah? Tell Flanders that.
The entire province? Or just a few people in particular?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
"#211,944? I'm not familiar with it."
"Of course you aren't, senator. "You" haven't written it yet."
Fixed for unfortunate truth
Joy! Beautiful spark of the gods!
Where does this come from? I'm a French and I don't hear around me, everyday, non-stop American bashing. Quite the contrary: people like the Hollywood movies, US pop stars or American brands. France is the second largest fast-food consumer market after the US (per person, of course, since we are only 60-odd million people). You get the usual "Americans are fat" remark, which I think it's just a simple fact.
However as soon as I hop onto a forum, I will systematically end up reading some joke or other about "France surrenders, lol!" or being called "frogs" and whatnot. Not to mention the "we saved them in WW2!" comments, completely ignoring the reasons of that happening, or that without France there wouldn't be a US of A to begin with. But we don't make jokes about that over here. Maybe 50 years following Independance Day the French would do it, I don't know (but I think they were too busy chopping heads off).
Anyway, I travel a lot in Europe and Middle-East (Israel, really) as a network engineering consultant, and the places where I've been that were surprisingly anti-American was the UK and Quebec. These are the only places where people were actually anti-American for more than just jesting (not all of them, but many, and so much more than in the rest of Europe).
So, yeah, I don't think Europe is 'arrogant' towards the US. If anything we don't like you being so arrogant yourself (what with "Land of the Free" and other pre-made propaganda, implying the rest of the West is so bad to live in).
I have no problem with homosexuals, but I do wish they'd shut up from time to time (well, I'm sure other Slashdotters could say the same about me too :) )
I suspect they might feel the same way about heterosexuals.
Seriously, look at all the heterosexual references in media. I think gays have more cause to complain.
The cat's out of the bag now. It won't be long before they're all at it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I think they were just bad apples. My company put down riots at Camp Bucca twice (the USAF was in charge of the base). They somehow cancelled our mission up north and got us moved to Bucca permanently (blah!). Anyways, i spent several months working detention at a facility larger than Abu Ghraib.
The only people that treated the detainees like subhumans were the typical homophobic/xenophobic bunch. They would have done the same to American detainees, i'm sure. Thankfully, shitty soldiers are the minority in a good unit. Good soldiers just treat them like normal people. Blah soldiers are indifferent.
Abu Ghraib was a huge embarrassment for the US Army. Not because of politics or anything like that. But because we had brothers and sisters who were that cruel and stupid. We were all guilty by association. We wanted to kill them. They were no better than the Sunni who were killing the Shia (and vice-versa). Hatred fueled by ignorance.
The US Army is supposed to have one thing that the guards in those prison scenarios don't have. LDRSHIP: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless-service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage. The Army Values. That is the thing that is pounded into everyone's brains since the day they sign up. So not only did those bad apples break the law, they failed the Army core values. That goes for everyone who knew what was happening and didn't speak up. Personal Courage is supposed to cover that one. The US Army wants soldiers who refuse illegal orders. It wants people who are intelligent, thoughtful, tough, trainable, and can quickly murder someone when required.
I'm biased, lol : ) Fuck those guys, glad they are in prison. You're right though. Power corrupts.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman