Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Telcos Went Above and Beyond To Cooperate With GCHQ

Posted by timothy on from the gift-wrap-for-that? dept.

An anonymous reader writes with this news from the Guardian: "GCHQ lobbied furiously to keep secret the fact that telecoms firms had gone 'well beyond' what they were legally required to do to help intelligence agencies' mass interception of communications, both in the UK and overseas. GCHQ feared a legal challenge under the right to privacy in the Human Rights Act if evidence of its surveillance methods became admissable in court. GCHQ assisted the Home Office in lining up sympathetic people to help with "press handling", including the Liberal Democrat peer and former intelligence services commissioner Lord Carlile, who this week criticised the Guardian for its coverage of mass surveillance by GCHQ and the US National Security Agency."

59 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. For all the surveillances ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... why can't they prevent that soldier boy Lee Rigby from being chopped to death in the Woolwich area of London, by two Moslems from Africa ?

    In America too ... refugees from Somalia returned to Somalia to become terrorists

    If the surveillances are so effective, why can't they prevent all these from happening ?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:For all the surveillances ... by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What makes you think they can't? Clearly you haven't considered the possibility that despite what they say that isn't actually the agenda. This is about control of the flow of power and money. They couldn't care less how safe the world actually is. In fact they probably relish a bit of bloodshed now and then because scared sheep move much faster, and in predictable directions.

    2. Re:For all the surveillances ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What makes you think they can't?

      Physics?

    3. Re:For all the surveillances ... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      What makes you think they can't? Clearly you haven't considered the possibility that despite what they say that isn't actually the agenda. This is about control of the flow of power and money. They couldn't care less how safe the world actually is. In fact they probably relish a bit of bloodshed now and then because scared sheep move much faster, and in predictable directions.

      What makes you think the government is so powerful that they can stop everything bad from happening? Even things dreamed up between two mates in a coffee shop without using a phone? The power of the government is vaster in potential than what it actually is. They are limited by time, space, and resources. They have a limited number of staff, and must prioritize their efforts like any other organization. Computers are both helpful and powerful in their work, but they can only do what computers do. Computers are not yet omniscient. I think your explanation has more "all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, super competent" government conspiracy theory to it than insight.

      But if you disagree, then I would like to hear your thoughts on the train wreck that is the rollout of the "Affordable Care Act" (AKA Obamacare) in the US? They could avoid it, but just didn't want to? There is no incompetence or poor planning there? Is all of the super competence limited to the intelligence agencies that can prevent anything and everything bad from happening, but "just don't want to"? Or is it a deeper level conspiracy to have as many of the sick poor die off in the coming months before it is fixed so that the gap between their losing their existing coverage and gaining their new coverage both boosts corporate profits by limiting insurance payouts and limits the costs to government? Super competence blended with amoral or immoral behavior, or is it typical human competence with the usual limits of resources, or is it outright incompetence? (Exactly how many of these super competent people have you ever met that never made a mistake?)

      --
      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
    4. Re:For all the surveillances ... by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Cold I think the Snowden news has put the 'limited by time, space, and resources" aspect to rest.
      The 'limited number of staff" seems to have been fixed by many quickly cleared outside contractors over the past 10 years or so :)
      Re "all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, super competent" - that would be a billing database of all calls for life. Something we know about too.
      As for the Affordable Care Act and the GCHQ ... ask the CIA?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:For all the surveillances ... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      They are still limited since it seems that they don't harvest everything for an indefinite period, and yet are drowning in data that they can't process and ciphers they can't crack in real time.

      Leaky boats don't float, at least not very well.

      The billing database is certainly extremely useful, but still limited if you don't know what was said. Talks over coffee or beer are beyond them.

      The ACA was an over-reaching, overweening, scheduled train wreck.

      --
      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
    6. Re:For all the surveillances ... by X.25 · · Score: 1

      ... why can't they prevent that soldier boy Lee Rigby from being chopped to death in the Woolwich area of London, by two Moslems from Africa ?

      In America too ... refugees from Somalia returned to Somalia to become terrorists

      If the surveillances are so effective, why can't they prevent all these from happening ?

      Because that is not why they are doing the surveillance.

    7. Re:For all the surveillances ... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the government is so powerful that they can stop everything bad from happening?

      That's not what's been suggested. While the examples given may not be perfect, the point would be generally that a government that does such massive surveillance would seem to collect enough evidence to stop at least *some* terrorist attacks before they occur. And I don't mean the "and now that people question why we have so much surveillance power, let's make up some cases because obviously until now we didn't feel any need to justify ourselves and we'd never toot our own horn prematurely or exaggeratedly".

      Even things dreamed up between two mates in a coffee shop without using a phone?

      Inherently, no. But if two said mates are already listed as suspects in previous attacks or are believed to be close associates to terrorist elements, then perhaps an agent should be there to overhear their conversation?

      The power of the government is vaster in potential than what it actually is. They are limited by time, space, and resources. They have a limited number of staff, and must prioritize their efforts like any other organization. Computers are both helpful and powerful in their work, but they can only do what computers do. Computers are not yet omniscient. I think your explanation has more "all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, super competent" government conspiracy theory to it than insight.

      Except what you spell out is precisely the Catch-22 of it all. The organizations demand more monitoring abilities, yet it clearly isn't helping them. And if we try to curtail the intelligence monitoring by computers, then conveniently the blame is left on not monitoring enough. Clearly, though, we were already (back before the mass surveillance) at a point where too much information was coming in and not enough analysis was producing useful results, either in the list of suspects wasn't made narrow enough to devote resources or there simply wasn't enough follow-through even when there, at least in hindsight, appeared just cause for specific further monitoring.

      Whether that's more of a conspiracy to not act or simply overly CYOA analysis that makes every potential suspect look like a possible terrorist, it's impossible to know because we're never given any real insight into the files that are possessed on people.

      But if you disagree, then I would like to hear your thoughts on the train wreck that is the rollout of the "Affordable Care Act" (AKA Obamacare) in the US? They could avoid it, but just didn't want to? There is no incompetence or poor planning there? Is all of the super competence limited to the intelligence agencies that can prevent anything and everything bad from happening, but "just don't want to"? Or is it a deeper level conspiracy to have as many of the sick poor die off in the coming months before it is fixed so that the gap between their losing their existing coverage and gaining their new coverage both boosts corporate profits by limiting insurance payouts and limits the costs to government? Super competence blended with amoral or immoral behavior, or is it typical human competence with the usual limits of resources, or is it outright incompetence? (Exactly how many of these super competent people have you ever met that never made a mistake?)

      That's SOP in the government, though. When a large project needs to be done and it's deemed as something the government isn't allowed to do internally, it's outsourced to a private firm and generally is a clusterfuck because (1) the private firm almost always overestimates how well they can deliver and (2) the government (like most managers) doesn't have a fixed design spec early enough that budget and time overruns nearly invariably occur--being in-house doesn't magically solve the problem, but it can allow for more rapid collaboration to resolve issues sooner, rather than lat

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    8. Re:For all the surveillances ... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      They are still limited since it seems that they don't harvest everything for an indefinite period, and yet are drowning in data that they can't process and ciphers they can't crack in real time.

      Leaky boats don't float, at least not very well.

      The billing database is certainly extremely useful, but still limited if you don't know what was said. Talks over coffee or beer are beyond them.

      The ACA was an over-reaching, overweening, scheduled train wreck.

      Leaky boats colonised almost every habitable island in the Pacific! (the classic proa is almost leaky by design).

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    9. Re:For all the surveillances ... by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      ... why can't they prevent that soldier boy Lee Rigby from being chopped to death in the Woolwich area of London, by two Moslems from Africa ?

      They were black, and they had been to Africa recently, but they were actually from British Christian families.

      Muslims take apostasy very very VERY fucking seriously, maybe christians should too?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    10. Re:For all the surveillances ... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Look at the history of ww2 - where inteligence services could have avoided a number of nasty defeats but didn't because Axis forces would have realised their comms were being decrypted and changed the methods used more frequently - every time that happened there was an effective 3 month blackout on breaking the keys.

      Terrorism is all about asymetric warfare and cell structures to prevent knowledge of the structure being a weakness. They only have to suceed once, while the opposition has to spend massive amounts on trying to prevent them. The problem is that in trying to combat terrorism, the security services have completely gone over the line and their actions have been creating more terrorists.

      Perhaps that was the intention - so that they're never out of work. But It's far more likely to be gross incomptence coupled with massive amounts of hubris.

  2. It's for your own good... by SternisheFan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This morning I saw a British politician claiming that without the ability to tap into all devices, then the public is never going to be able to be safe from terrorism. This argument fails when inevitably, knowing human nature (absolute power corrupts absolutely), the only end result must be a police state.

    1. Re:It's for your own good... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      How did an American cop get to be a British politician? Sounds like the garbage from their mouths. Unless we can violate your rights, we can't keep you safe( as if they ever did before) Perhaps if we found all the like-minded with the same spew from their mouths, we should test their resolve by sending them into battle before anyone else. Then we will see what they are really made of.
                O.K., all you f*cking monkeys who can't figure out that profiling is not only politically correct, but essential to removing the problematic among us, here's your gun, a box of ammo and a ticket to the heart of the conflict. Man up and go protect us and our assets, asshats. We don't even need our rights violated for you to be of actual use. The more like that , there are, the less like that, there'll be. Then we can be rid of terrorists and substandard politicians and police. What brilliance! Further it could be applied in ANY country to their benefit. Send them ALL to the worst of the Mid-East and bang their heads together.
      Hey, want something done right? Elect flyneye to high office and sit back, grab a beer and a smoke, because life is about to get a whole lot better.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    2. Re:It's for your own good... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And in addition, it will do absolutely nothing against terrorism. Not that terrorism is actually a relevant problem in the first place...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:It's for your own good... by fritsd · · Score: 1

      This morning I saw a British politician claiming that without the ability to tap into all devices, then the public is never going to be able to be safe from terrorism.

      Well, that's a half-truth, unless he/she added: "with the ability to tap into all devices, the public is never going to be safe from terrorism either."

      Exercise: take the politician's sentence, and substitute s/tap into all devices/ban all cooking devices/. It makes just as much sense (a non-sequitur, I believe).

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    4. Re:It's for your own good... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Well in his defense he was speaking the absolute truth. The public is never going to be able to be safe from terrorism, and total surveillance would help make us safer, from terrorism at least. I completely agree that the natural tendency of such an infrastructure is toward a police state though.

      The problem is that people have a completely natural desire to be safe, but that's just not possible without completely eliminating free will, or at least restricting it to some sort of Matrix-style virtual realm where the rules are constructed to prevent harm. And consider that even in a world where the worst that can possibly happen to you is a public shunning, that will be a thing of terror to many people.

      So the only real solution is to accept that we *can't* be safe, and then decide how much risk we're willing to accept in one direction to avoid extra risk in another. At present the governing sentiment seems to be "accept massive risk of creating a police state in order to avoid minor risk of terrorism", which is rather predictable given that people subconsciously weigh risk based on how often they see it (even if it's just repeats on the news of something that happened on the far side of the world), and tend to weigh immediate risks far more strongly than long-term ones (there's just not a whole lot of demand in nature for animals to be able to do risk-assessment on a generational timescale - a little "respect the wisdom of the elders" who have the life-experience to judge long-term trends goes a long way in that regard)

      One possible solution is that society go transparent - technology is advancing at a rate that will soon make ubiquitous spying so cheap and easy that there's no practical way to prevent it - so make sure that *everyone* has the same unrestricted access to the surveillance network to neutralize the power imbalances that will otherwise inevitably be created (ideally with logging so that you can know *exactly* who has been watching you as well). Essentially killing privacy to preserve freedom. Privacy is after all largely a modern creation, and in fact I imagine eliminating the possibility of backroom deals by our leaders would make democracy far more viable than ever before. Of course total transparency could open a Pandora's Box of other social issues, but we've made great strides in social tolerance and acceptance in the last centuries, perhaps we're ready to tackle some new challenges.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:It's for your own good... by Xest · · Score: 1

      "The public is never going to be able to be safe from terrorism, and total surveillance would help make us safer, from terrorism at least."

      I don't think that's true, the danger is you just end up with more data than you can evaluate and actually miss more threats. I suspect this is exactly what happened with both the Boston bombers and the Lee Rigby killers - in both cases the perpetrators were known to the security services, but they were placed at lower priority - a priority choice that had to be made simply because there weren't enough resources to keep track of every possible threat. If you end up with more potential threats you just end up having to spread your resources even more thinly and risk assigning resources to people who aren't actual threats whilst deprioritising those that are.

      It makes more sense to target your surveillance by infiltrating agents into high risk groups and communities or spying on them specifically.

      Blanket surveillance simply drastically increases the noise and further hides the signal.

  3. Re:Jesus FUCK - Learn to fucking SPELL! by infolation · · Score: 1

    Well The Guardian newspaper, who originally ran this story, also spelled it incorrectly.

  4. Lord Carlisle and his fellow shills... by bazmail · · Score: 3

    should be kicked out of the upper house for assisting in the pro-surveillance propaganda. They helped keep things secret for fear the rule of law would be duly applied. Its a disgrace. Those shills should be locked up.

    1. Re:Lord Carlisle and his fellow shills... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Locking them up won't keep them out of the upper house. Once you're in, you're in for life.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  5. Re:Jesus FUCK - Learn to fucking SPELL! by mrbester · · Score: 1

    That's what the Grauniad is famous for.

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  6. Ohh wait a sec...!!! by bogaboga · · Score: 5, Interesting

    lobbied furiously to keep secret the fact that telecoms firms had gone 'well beyond' what they were legally required to do to help intelligence agencies' mass interception of communications, both in the UK and overseas.

    Had this shoe been on the "other foot" - I mean in those other "non democratic countries", folks here and on other websites would be saying somethig to the effect...

    "What do you expect? We're so lucky here in , where we are democratic and have 'established' rules of engagement..."

    Now that this shoe is on their foot, I am anxuious to see what their rant is gonna be like.

  7. Addicted to surveillance by six025 · · Score: 1

    One of the most telling omissions from the reasons GCHQ cite for keeping the surveillance a secret is the so called War on Terror. It's not mentioned at all.

    Their biggest fear is / was the public finding out, and challenging their right to spy in the courts.

    Something feels very wrong about that ;-)

    Peace,
    Andy.

    1. Re:Addicted to surveillance by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are just being honest. The "War on Terror" is a complete non-issue. For one thing, terrorism is not a relevant threat. For another, surveillance does not help against it at all. And, and that is the real issue, why would the GCHQ do anything about terror? Whenever the population goes stupid because of another overblown terror scare, they get more money and power. While they have not (yet) sunk so deep as to create their own fake terrorists as the US TLAs have, they doubtlessly have thought about it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Addicted to surveillance by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "War on Terror" has not had the jingoistic power in the UK it enjoyed in the USA. The UK was dealing with domestic terror attacks by the IRA in recent decades, and learned harsh lessons on domestic terror involving small weapons or personal explosives. Their civilian security is generally no-nonsense, and has had centuries of dealing with violent protest by under-armed civilians from occupied territories. They have certainly not always _won_ such conflicts: the USA itself was once just such a remote territory, first engaged in guerrilla warfare, later in open revolt, and certainly including what would not be called "terrorist attacks".

    3. Re:Addicted to surveillance by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      Tell that to people in the UK and you will get told to F off if your lucky 7/7 killed 52 people the UK has been dealing with bombings and terrorist incidents for well over 100 years (Anarchists, IRA, Mosad, PIRA, UDA Al Kaida and lone nutters are just some of the many examples).

      And thats not counting NI I know 6 people who worked for one of my ex employers from NI 2 of them are going through the truth and reconciliation process as they have had close relatives killed thats 33%

    4. Re:Addicted to surveillance by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The GCHQ always held the view that letting people know they are been watched changes everything and went to great lengths never to be seen in the press or courts too much.
      Better to get info out as to ensure a flow of intel was always safe for much larger issues.
      The UK political class wanted action - over Soviet embassy staff before WW2, in WW2, with spies in the cold war, in Ireland. The GCHQ always seemed able to keep from been seen too much until the 1980/90's with new crime fighting efforts. The UK police, press and courts noted something amazing - EU wide tracking, complex computer logs and strange new 'experts' with no pasts.
      The people been watched quickly found out thanks to 'friends' in the police/gov/press and the GCHQ was proven right - don't use the data in such a direct way.
      The political class is addicted to the ~"GCHQ" like files they read as they have been since the 1930's. The real mystery is the feelings of the big telcos 'brands".
      The big telcos are no longer just UK exchanges owned by the UK public with technicians helping with a phone or a duplicate new UK/US telco satellite system.
      If the long term top telco staff have two hats - on for the UK gov and one with the 'brand' as a day job - what else was reported on internal to the 'brand'?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    5. Re:Addicted to surveillance by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, jingoism is not a disease that readily affects many people in Britain. There's a reason (and a good one at that) that we view flying the Union Jack or Flag of St George with distaste except in specific sets of context (sporting events, royal things, etc.), contrasted with the idolisation of the flag in the States.

      Being happy with and supportive of your country is a wholly different thing to being a Nationalist. Thank god we have the sense in this country to keep the two separated.

    6. Re:Addicted to surveillance by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Yeah except that we've rejected it too much, gone too far. So much so that the whole British identity is crumbling and various elements of the UK like Scotland are going for independence.

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    7. Re:Addicted to surveillance by gweihir · · Score: 1

      As I said, the population goes stupid. Can also be well observed in your statement.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    8. Re:Addicted to surveillance by Alioth · · Score: 1

      You say that as if it is a bad thing. If the Scottish want to be independent, it's their right, they ought to have the right to self-determination. "National identity" is grossly overvalued.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    9. Re:Addicted to surveillance by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      You want to tell that to one of my ex coworkers to his face whose father was killed by the IRA ?

    10. Re:Addicted to surveillance by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Various elements, just like various elements in the USA want various states to cede from the Union.

      In the USA those elements are treated as domestic terrorists. In the UK they're tolerated and allowed to put their reasoning in public, where it can be torn apart in public.

      Yes, the SNP has a majority in the scottish parliament, but that doesn't mean they'll pull off a referendum to cede from the UK. The vast majority of scottish are far too pragmatic about the economic consequences to even consider it.

    11. Re:Addicted to surveillance by Xest · · Score: 1

      National identity is nonsense anyway. You have no more kinship with the guy you've never spoken to down the road than you do some random bloke over in Sao Paolo.

      Just because you live in the same country is meaningless. My whole family line is as English as they come, we've always lived here, my family has always lived here but I frankly associate more with the Scandinavian way of thinking on most issues than I do middle England with their Daily Mail and UKIP fascism.

      National identity is exactly the kind of nonsense jingoism being spoken about above. It's a tool of populism for the simple minded, those who vote BNP and UKIP. You are who you are, you live in the country you live in and you want it to be run the way you want it to run, you want it to be a good country in what in your eyes constitutes good, and that's okay. You can even keep your national history and be proud of it or not. None of that needs the great mythical national identity though. National identity is just a way of pretending you're special as a person as opposed to those of other nations. You're not.

  8. I'm shocked! by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

    I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! Who would have thought they would bend over backwards to help the spooks? /sarcasm>

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    1. Re:I'm shocked! by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      In parts of the UK telecoms employees where considered "crown" employees and where targeted just as Police and prison service where and until recently telcoms employees where civil servants - Postwar GCHQ was formed partly by transfers from the GPO.

  9. What about the rest of the story? by rcamans · · Score: 1

    China, Russia, Japan, Korea, Israel, Egypt, Syria, Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, Italy, Greece? These guys have been intercepting phone conversations, bugging people,following people, and spying / surveiling a very long time. At least some of them started out doing it to "criminals", alleged and otherwise, but you got to know the programs had spillage and collateral damage right from the start. And what gov operation didn't grow? What gov operation didn't stay clean? Most all of these guys are dirty, it is just a question of how dirty.

    --
    wake up and hold your nose
  10. Re:Jesus FUCK - Learn to fucking SPELL! by RamiKro · · Score: 2

    Both "admissible" and "admissable" are correct according to the OED.

  11. Re:For all the surveillances: zero sucesses by davecb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Rick Falkvinge points out that "with 100% absolute certainty [we know] that the wiretapping industry – NSA, GCHQ, FRA, etc – has stopped a total of exactly zero terror plots". See http://feeds.falkvinge.net/~r/Falkvinge-on-Infopolicy/~3/0uW0HpNnG-k/

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  12. State of play over State snooping. by auric_dude · · Score: 1

    We may know what happened last year https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211553/31176_HC_547_ISC.PDF and may have some idea of what is happening of late http://isc.independent.gov.uk/ all of which might add some background to articles published by TheGuardian.

  13. Re:Are these the same Lords by flyneye · · Score: 1

    " There's a reason I resent people calling me sir: I am not such a scoundrel as to have ever recieved a british title."

              Equivalent to the U.S. Marine drill Sargents mantra " Don't call me Sir, you fucking scumbag, I work for a goddamn living, now drop and give me 100 ! "
    In the U.S. officers are called "Sir",ordinary men are called by rank.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  14. Re:Jesus FUCK - Learn to fucking SPELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sorry, you're wrong. It is a bit more rare, and it is dropping off as people like you try to stamp out alternate spellings (invention of spell-check and all that -- the reason why I spell modeling with one 'l' now, instead of two like I used to, even though both are correct)... but there is a long precedent.

  15. Or: by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    "I could care less, but only just barely."

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  16. Re:Jesus FUCK - Learn to fucking SPELL! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

    Don't they have a pill for anal retentive people yet?

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  17. Re:Are these the same Lords by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    You err. Extraordinary men are called by rank - ordinary men are called "civilian".

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  18. Re:Jesus FUCK - Learn to fucking SPELL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If somebody is committed to their particular spelling, then people really shouldn't complain, IMNSHO. Some of the world's greatest authors spent an inordinate amount of time tweaking spelling, grammar, and punctuation rules. No doubt many of the world's worst authors did the same thing, but stature shouldn't matter.

    Whether a particular spelling is "correct" according to a dictionary is not definitive. It never can be, because language is an organic, living thing. If somebody is willing to stand their ground, good for them. That's far more interesting than somebody who reflexively changes their spelling the moment a person or machine tells them to.

    A stupid spelling or a stupid rule of grammar can be challenged on its own merits.

  19. Re:For all the surveillances: zero sucesses by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    Not really. The more likely chain is that the police would receive information about the plot and would fabricate the start of the evidence chain. The common hypothetical is that they'd pull someone over for a traffic violation and 'discover' something in their car that would then give probable cause for a search of other things.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  20. Re:Jesus FUCK - Learn to fucking SPELL! by turgid · · Score: 1

    Whether a particular spelling is "correct" according to a dictionary is not definitive. It never can be, because language is an organic, living thing. If somebody is willing to stand their ground, good for them. That's far more interesting than somebody who reflexively changes their spelling the moment a person or machine tells them to.

    I never used to get 100% on the daily spelling tests in primary school either. And my teacher was a right-wing bigoted, joyless puritan. She was the only teacher in the school never to go on strike when Maggie Thatcher's thugs started the destruction of the modern, progressive state education system.

    A stupid spelling or a stupid rule of grammar can be challenged on its own merits.

    If only.

    --
    Stick Men
  21. Re:Are these the same Lords by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    " There's a reason I resent people calling me sir: I am not such a scoundrel as to have ever recieved a british title."

              Equivalent to the U.S. Marine drill Sargents mantra " Don't call me Sir, you fucking scumbag, I work for a goddamn living, now drop and give me 100 ! "
    In the U.S. officers are called "Sir",ordinary men are called by rank.

    Whatever happened to the drill sargents instructions "The first and last thing that will come out of your mouth will be 'sir' do you understand me?" "Sir yes sir!"

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  22. Re:Tinfoil, eh? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

    Yes, why would I use a VPN or Tor to buy something from a website? I'm so silly. Why, that's just like wearing a stocking over your head when you go to the grocery store. Idiots.

    At least to get my CC history they have to go through my CC company or bank.

    Your CC history is AUTOMATICALLY routed through GCHQ so if you use TOR or VPN to use your credit card you are just revealing to them that you are an idiot. Maybe that makes you less worth watching? Dunno. Its terribly naive though.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  23. Re:Jesus FUCK - Learn to fucking SPELL! by Svartormr · · Score: 1

    Don't they have a pill for anal retentive people yet?

    There's a suppository for that. >:)

  24. I'm sure Lord Carlile had no choice... by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    ...but to co-operate because GCHQ probably has a compiled a blackmail dossier full of juicy shit on him.

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  25. Re:Jesus FUCK - Learn to fucking SPELL! by Alioth · · Score: 1

    And this is why the Guardian's nickname is "The Grauniad"

    --
    Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
  26. Re:Are these the same Lords by flyneye · · Score: 1

    It disappeared into a mist of Hollywood script anxiety.
    Likely it wasn't Bootcamp and was probably AIT or some specialist training after boot.
    They don't waste officers on newbs.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  27. Re:Jesus FUCK - Learn to fucking SPELL! by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    I was trying hard not to see that coming . . . .

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  28. Re:For all the surveillances: zero sucesses by davecb · · Score: 1
    I rather disagree: two counter-arguments might be
    • - that's something the security services would wish to trumpet to the skies, especially now, and
    • - we can check and see if any accused terrorists were pulled over at a traffic stop (or something equally bland)

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  29. Re:For all the surveillances: zero sucesses by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    - that's something the security services would wish to trumpet to the skies, especially now, and

    Not if it would prevent prosecution.

    - we can check and see if any accused terrorists were pulled over at a traffic stop (or something equally bland)

    People have done already, and there are a lot of things that look like this is at least possible.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  30. Re:For all the surveillances: zero sucesses by Xest · · Score: 1

    I have to agree to some extent, there have been a number of incidents in the news over the years that just seem all too convenient to be the result of mere chance.

    The problem is that we can't even tell if "an anonymous tip off from a member of the public leading to his capture and conviction" isn't a security services agent just tipping off the police with knowledge gained from interception.

    It's quite possible that the police wouldn't even know the security services had tipped them off.

  31. Re:For all the surveillances: zero sucesses by davecb · · Score: 1

    A late comment: In Canada, they need not convict someone in court to hold them in custody, merely get a Ministerial order, so there is no risk in publicising putative terrorist plots detected by illegal wiretaps.

    As with the EU, there have been none.

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net