Slashdot Mirror


GCHQ Warns It Is Losing Track of Serious Criminals

An anonymous reader writes The Telegraph reports, "GCHQ has lost track of some of the most dangerous crime lords and has had to abort surveillance on others after Edward Snowden revealed their tactics ... The spy agency has suffered "significant" damage in its ability to monitor and capture serious organized criminals following the exposes by the former CIA contractor. Intelligence officers are now blind to more than a quarter of the activities of the UK's most harmful crime gangs after they changed their communications methods in the wake of the Snowden leaks. One major drug smuggling gang has been able to continue flooding the UK with Class A narcotics unimpeded for the last year after changing their operations. More intense tracking of others has either been abandoned or not started because of fears the tactics are now too easy to spot and will force the criminals to "go dark" and be lost sight of completely."

229 comments

  1. Crime Lords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Are the boots of their cars bigger on the inside?

    1. Re:Crime Lords by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Obfuscating the matter with Time Lords won't help.

      I'd say that the abuse of methods used by the authorities against normal citizens was revealed and that has also caused some trouble for the authorities when trying to monitor criminals.

      Of course the criminals are following with interest the ways the authorities can monitor them. But then this will just highlight the need for inventing new methods in crime fighting.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Crime Lords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then this will just highlight the need for inventing new methods in crime fighting.

      Not until you can explain what is wrong with the traditional methods?
      Too much work for you?

    3. Re:Crime Lords by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd say that the abuse of methods used by the authorities against normal citizens was revealed and that has also caused some trouble for the authorities when trying to monitor criminals.

      This is a common syndrome in erstwhile free societies: the police are always complaining that they can't catch criminals, that they need more leeway and exemptions from the law themselves in order to do so.

      And when people believe them, the inevitable result is less freedom and more Big Brother.

      Anybody who thinks Snowden did not ultimately do us all a huge favor isn't seeing straight.

    4. Re:Crime Lords by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This is what those fuckers get for spying on everyone instead of just concentrating on criminals.

    5. Re:Crime Lords by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      You seem to be making a big assumption: that GHCQ was using illegal methods to track drug dealers. Please show me the evidence that they were doing that. This whole "they did x wrong, so y and z must be wrong too" shit is getting really old. For some reason, the people of /. give Snowden a pass on everything because SOME of the things he exposed were of questionable legality, meanwhile ignoring the fact that he also completely fucked over the legal efforts that were going on. I would say it's you and your vast ilk who aren't seeing straight. In the meantime, feel free to enjoy all the new drug addicts and other costs for letting these fuckers get away with the shit they are doing. Next time you see a kid high on heroine, thank Snowden.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    6. Re:Crime Lords by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      The proof is in their incessant whining. The big time drug dealers already knew all the legal ways they could be tracked. If they learned of any new ways then those new ways were illegal. You can lick the boots of the police state all you want, but the rest of us are going to fight it in every way we can.

    7. Re:Crime Lords by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      I'm not licking anything. And how the fuck do you know that all the new ways must be illegal?

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    8. Re:Crime Lords by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Can you not read, or are you incapable of following the logic?

    9. Re:Crime Lords by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I actually read the fucking article. It at no time mentions anything about them using illegal procedures/tech to bust drug lords.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  2. Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If they are criminals just jail them.

    1. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, you're missing sufficient evidence to indict and you're ignoring due process.

    2. Re: Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, you sort of need to have.. you know, *evidence* to do that. You can't just randomly jail people.

      So yes, apparently you are missing something. A lot of something, I suspect. :x

    3. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You won't get admissible evidence by wiretapping and spying.

    4. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You must be thinking of the USA where the following offences merit mandatory jail time:

      (1) driving while Black.
      (2) walking while White.
      (3) possession of a Penis.

    5. Re: Am I missing something? by demachina · · Score: 2

      If they dont have evidence they dont know they are criminals.

      --
      @de_machina
    6. Re: Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually the chasm between "suspected of" and "successfully accused of" is bridged with a ton of surveillance.

    7. Re:Am I missing something? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You won't get admissible evidence by wiretapping and spying.

      That's right, the security/intelligence services here in the UK just do all that wiretapping and spying for the lulz, they have no intention of ever using it in court.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re: Am I missing something? by overshoot · · Score: 2

      You can't just randomly jail people.

      Perhaps not in theory, but in practice? Happens all the time.

      --
      Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    9. Re: Am I missing something? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Also, you'd be surprised at how much police work is shooting unarmed black people and finding out what they did later.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    10. Re:Am I missing something? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You must be thinking of the USA where the following offences merit mandatory jail time:

      (1) driving while Black.
      (2) walking while White.
      (3) possession of a Penis.

      You forgot that
      (1) walking while black and
      (2) selling loose cigarettes while black and, my favourite,
      (3) carrying a toy gun in a toyshop while black
      are punished by on-the-spot execution.

      The hilarious part of (3) is that he was shot for carrying a toy rifle in an open carry state.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    11. Re: Am I missing something? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Knowing something and proving it in a court of law are two different things.

      --
      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
    12. Re: Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      California once had very liberal gun laws. In response to police brutality a group of Black Panthers stormed the California Capitol building armed to the teeth. This was legal, mind you.

      Very quickly Governor Ronald Reagan passed stringent gun laws.

      Now that's funny...

    13. Re:Am I missing something? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      You won't get admissible evidence by wiretapping and spying.

      You will if you have a warrant.

    14. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be thinking of the USA where the following offences merit mandatory jail time:

      (1) driving while Black.
      (2) walking while White.
      (3) possession of a Penis.

      You forgot that
      (1) walking while black and
      (2) selling loose cigarettes while black and, my favourite,
      (3) carrying a toy gun in a toyshop while black
      are punished by on-the-spot execution.

      The hilarious part of (3) is that he was shot for carrying a toy rifle in an open carry state.

      This, the least publicized of the recent events, is the most disappointing. To say that all a person needs to do to be eligible for termination with extreme prejudice is to carry a toy gun around in a store where they sell them, strikes me as simply unconscionable. And I own/carry several guns. The fact that pretty much the entire pro-gun cohort is rallying behind the cops regardless of what they do, makes me worry for the future of gun freedom. Pretty soon it will be legal to carry a gun, but it will also be legal for you to be shot on sight. They will start with just black "suspects", but it won't be long before it's open season on whities too. Cops can never be too safe, don't cha know?

    15. Re:Am I missing something? by xelah · · Score: 1

      Intercept (wiretap) evidence is not admissible in UK courts. (I think there are some exceptions when it comes from other governments, but not if the UK government asked for it).

    16. Re:Am I missing something? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      it's not used in court, it's used to extract confessions.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    17. Re: Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the first one isn't actually knowing but is called "having a hunch".

      Just because you think you know something doesn't mean that it is true.
      That is why we need strong regulation to prevent law enforcement from ruining the lives of innocent people just because someone thinks they know something.

    18. Re: Am I missing something? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Believing something and proving it in a court of law are two different things

      FTFY

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    19. Re:Am I missing something? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Why should they bother to make it legal when they can just decline to prosecute the police? Which they already do.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    20. Re:Am I missing something? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      The fact that pretty much the entire pro-gun cohort is rallying behind the cops regardless of what they do

      This is not true, actually. The hardline conservatives are into cop worship, but libertarians are pretty strong in pro-gun movement as well, and they are generally not a fans of police militarization and excessive use of force.

    21. Re: Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repaired the downmodding by the 'whooshee'

    22. Re:Am I missing something? by quenda · · Score: 1

      Horrible event, but extremely atypical. If a young black man is shot dead, a frequent occurrence in the US, it is almost certainly by another young black man.
      Bad for him, but insignificant to the black population.

    23. Re: Am I missing something? by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Not true at all. If I witness Bob murder Tom, I know Bob murdered Tom. If, however, Bob manages to destroy all physical evidence of murdering Tom, convicting him can't be done on my word alone.

      There are many cases where it is well-known that someone is a criminal, and yet they are not prosecuted for lack of admissible evidence.

  3. so.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    they're losing track of themselves. Got it. /thanks

  4. Lest we forget by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please remember that "serious criminals" included the entire population.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    1. Re:Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're thinking of Australia. That's where UK deported its serious criminals, whereas it deported its religious nutcases to North America.

    2. Re:Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone except the Queen is above the law.

    3. Re:Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And let's also remember that if the proper and justified measures have been used, we would not have seen leaks in the first place.

    4. Re:Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How would you do that, physically? And more importantly, why would you want to kill two of the greatest heroes of our time?

    5. Re: Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      German and Scandinavian nutcases went to us too.
      The difference is striking.

    6. Re:Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of Australia. That's where UK deported its serious criminals, whereas it deported its religious nutcases to North America.

      Unfortunately all the batshit crazy types couldn't be deported anywhere else so they stayed in the UK.

    7. Re:Lest we forget by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, they are right that serious criminals have gone unpunished in the last year, i.e. the ones working at GCHQ.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re: Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you get your world, well, I guess it will be perfectly fine for them to do this to you for just posting that comment.... becareful what you wish for.

    9. Re: Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer to just put bullets in their heads and be done with it.

      Idiots like you are chattel to the government. I've been in the rooms where your kind
      is discussed. You get the same respect as beef cattle, which is to say that you will be
      used when it is useful and otherwise your life means nothing.

    10. Re:Lest we forget by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      No it doesn't you innumerate racist clown.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    11. Re:Lest we forget by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Well, they are right that serious criminals have gone unpunished in the last year, i.e. the ones working at GCHQ.

      Who are paid agents of a foreign power.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    12. Re:Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And more importantly, why would you want to kill two of the greatest heroes of our time?

      In much the same was as Lord Haw Haw was popular in the Germany but hung in Britain (even if some Britons liked to listen).

      Snowden is just another Kim Philby with better press.

    13. Re:Lest we forget by real+gumby · · Score: 0

      ...whereas it deported its religious nutcases to North America.

      If only it were true. Australia is where the nutcases go when they consider the US intolerant. Case in point: New York-born Mel Gibson, whose nutjob dad brought his brood to Australia looking for the "freedom" to practice his (even more) loony brand of christianity...

    14. Re:Lest we forget by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      there never were natives in England.

      Everyone who can trace their ancestry back far enough will find Eastern European roots.

      (I only have to go back to 1822 and I'm looking at Polack, French, Spanish, German, Greek, black West African and Scandinavian).

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    15. Re:Lest we forget by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      uh... that wasn't it, his father moved the family to Australia in an attempt to help Gibson's brother dodge the draft for Vietnam.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    16. Re:Lest we forget by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      major difference:

      Snowden was a whistleblower who was betrayed by the US Government after he exposed their criminality. Now they want him dead simply because they got shown for what they are.
      Philby was a KGB double agent who stole military secrets for the Soviets.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    17. Re:Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please remember that "serious criminals" included the entire population.

      They lost track of the serious criminals in the crowd.

    18. Re:Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder the UK lost track of their serious criminals. Australia is huge. But at least they got to keep the funny ones.

    19. Re:Lest we forget by real+gumby · · Score: 1

      Darn, another good explanation I learned years ago now smashed.

      However that explanation is odd. Australia also had conscription for the Viet Nam war. My dad wasn't subject to it because he worked for the PMG (and had two small kids). Wouldn't Canada have made more sense?

    20. Re:Lest we forget by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting Georgia (U.S.) which was also a British penal colony.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    21. Re:Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please remember, you're a moron. snowden and assange should be hanged from the same noose at the same time.

      FTFY, and modded you down because grammar nazi

    22. Re:Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh. Everyone who can trace their ancestry back far enough will find African roots. Seems awfully arbitrary to stop in Eastern Europe.

    23. Re:Lest we forget by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      1822. Anywhere outside England. Point is at that time I had no ancestors living in England. Not a single one. Relatively speaking, my lineage is pretty much a recently immigrant one.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    24. Re:Lest we forget by quenda · · Score: 1

      AC might have been thinking of London, where the English are now a minority.
      They have not disappeared, they just moved out of London. I take it Americans are familiar with "White Flight"?
      Though in this case many of the newcomers are whites too.

    25. Re:Lest we forget by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      there never were natives in England.

      Everyone who can trace their ancestry back far enough will find Eastern European roots.

      (I only have to go back to 1822 and I'm looking at Polack, French, Spanish, German, Greek, black West African and Scandinavian).

      Don't be a shithead. Go back far enough, and only Africa has 'natives'.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    26. Re:Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, what did those damn Romans ever do for us? And those bloody Normans...

    27. Re:Lest we forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is it English people or white people who are a minority in London now, according to you?
      And there are now many more people - of all colours - living in central London than there used to be...

    28. Re:Lest we forget by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Georgia (U.S.) which was also a British penal colony.

      As were many of the other American colonies, until some bunch of terrorists insurrectionists rebelled against their seigneurs and closed off that dumping ground for the rejects of society. Only after that did Britain start to export trouble-makers to the Great Sandy.

      If I remember my "Moll Flanders" (by the satirist Swift, admittedly) at least Maryland and Virginia were also penal colonies, at least in part. Though it's been a few years since I read that deeply debauched tale of theft, murder and incest. (Not that I'm promoting it at all - just an exemplar that the reading habits of the nation haven't really changed that much over the centuries.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  5. FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fear, uncertainty and doubt

  6. Cry me a river! by jawtheshark · · Score: 0

    Cry me a river!

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  7. Relevant quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "We can't do our jobs, while obeying the law."

    --Gang leadership, er, correction, GCHQ leadership

    1. Re: Relevant quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You mean the criminals of Ghcq who are infamous of hacking phone companies outside britain are complaining they don't know what there felow criminals are up to?

  8. Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by artlu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a former federal inmate (Read my story via The Market is Not Random), I was able to witness the expanding overcrowding of the system. The United States Sentencing Commission has been stating for many years that prison sentences are too long, and that non-violent criminals (like me) are prime candidates for alternative sentencing. In fact, regardless of crime, the majority of Americans believe a prison sentence of 2.6 years is long enough.

    That said, I don't see that as the complete problem. Once released, federal inmates are subject to supervised release sometimes in excess of 10-15 years. The ability to track the ever expanding populous of inmates does a disservice to tracking the non-reformed. If one was to believe that prison did not lead to reform, then the proper conclusion is that all prisons (including myself) should be executed, regardless of crime.

    --
    -------
    artlu.net
    1. Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's off-topic for way more reasons than that, but try to keep the conversation civil, if you can.

    2. Re: Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do. Now what?

    3. Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Informative
      Claim:

      Despite Mr. Klatch’s success, his young age led to some reckless decisions. Mr. Klatch was indicted in 2011 by the federal government, and he subsequently accepted a guilty plea to four felony counts: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Securities Fraud, Wire Fraud, and Money Laundering. Mr. Klatch acknowledges that he engaged in deceptive marketing tactics, which led to some investor losses during the 2008-2010 financial crisis. However, he accepted responsibility for his actions, and successfully served a five-year federal prison sentence. Today, he is actively pursuing various avenues in order to make full restitution to his victims.

      FBI:

      Kenyen Brown, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, is pleased to announce that Anthony J. Klatch, II, of Tampa, Florida and Sugarloaf Township, Pennsylvania, has pled guilty to one count each of conspiracy, securities fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. These convictions all stem from his involvement in a fraudulent investment scheme involving the TASK Capital Partners hedge fund. All the TASK fund investors were located in either the Mobile area or in Florida. Combined, they lost a total of $2.3 million. In addition to spending time in prison, Klatch will be required to forfeit assets associated with his fraudulent activities. As part of his plea agreement, Klatch also agreed to the following facts about his involvement:

      In January 2009, Anthony J. Klatch, II and Timothy Sullivan created the TASK Capital Partners, LP hedge fund, with Klatch serving as the fund’s Senior Managing Director and Chief Investment Officer.

      After creating TASK, Klatch, Sullivan, and others solicited individuals to invest in the fund. This was done through a variety of means, including, but not limited to, providing potential investors with investment prospectuses, which contained material misrepresentations and material misleading omissions. At least one potential investor received this prospectus via e-mail.

      From April through October 2009, seven investors invested approximately $2.3 million in the TASK hedge fund. Along with the seven investors, Klatch and Sullivan each invested $1 in TASK. Once investors agreed to invest money in the TASK fund, the investors used interstate wires to transfer, or to authorize a transfer of, money from their accounts into accounts managed by TASK. Wire transfers, or the authorizations to transfer money, for three of the TASK investors originated in the Southern District of Alabama.

      Between April 2009 and December 2009, Klatch and Sullivan managed the $2.3 million of investment capital in TASK. However, only about 60 percent of this amount was ever actually invested. This 60 percent was lost over the course of eight months through a series of investments. In December 2009 and January 2010, all TASK investors were told by Klatch, Sullivan, and others that their entire investment had been lost in a single bad trade.

      The remaining 40 percent of money in TASK was used for non-investment related expenditures. This includes $180,592.45 which ended up in Klatch’s personal bank account. Before ending up in his personal account, this money was moved through different bank accounts, via a series of transactions, which Klatch knew were designed in whole or in part, conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of the proceeds.

      In addition to his involvement in the TASK scheme, Klatch admits that he was also involved in similar fraudulent investment schemes involving American Private Equities, LLC, ARM Capital Management, LLC, and Vigilant Capital Management, LLC. Furthermore, Klatch agrees that the total fraud amount associated with these other funds will be included as relevant conduct for sentencing purposes. The parties agree that

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    4. Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "successfully served a five-year federal prison sentence"

      I love how even going to prison can have a positive spin if you just throw the term "Successfully" in front of it.

      I successfully took a shit that stunk so bad I had to hide in the garage for a while. My, that sounds lovely.

    5. Re: Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dont tease them or executions may still come. It is US after all.

    6. Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      That is basically how the legal code of law in the Qin kingdom in China worked. The Chinese believed back then that it was a waste of time and resources to jail men so the most common sentences were either death or corporal punishment.

    7. Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to figure out how the man also controls time. He was indicted in 2011, and successfully served a 5 year prison sentence. That means it's 2016 man!!! Where did the last two years go?

    8. Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The same accounting that brought us the banking crisis?

      My guess is that he was given credit for time in custody, and he's now on parole after serving 1/2 of his sentence, so he hasn't "served a 5 year prison sentence."

      And for those who wish to argue this is slightly off-topic, white collar crime has ruined his victims' lives. Surveillance of known white-collar criminals should be fairly easy, since many of them depend on the internet for at least a portion of their scams, and you know who you need to keep an eye on.

      "Oh, but he needs to make a living."

      Sure, but not in anything that can allow him to commit more white-collar crimes while out on parole. Let him pick up garbage, learn how to lay bricks, whatever.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by artlu · · Score: 1

      I have done everything possible to show my remorse. I have forfeited every asset. I have accepted my responsibility, and I am working on my books in order to make full restitution to my victims via my "Five Mill to Freedom Campaign."

      The misconception that my criminality did not lead to immense knowledge is wrong. I worked 3am-4pm every single day, as provable by my trading records. That information resulted in me writing, "The Market is Not Random.", and the forthcoming fictional portrayal of how to save our debt situation, "The White Swan."

      Only by reaching an audience of hundreds of millions will I be able to make things right to those I have harmed.

      --
      -------
      artlu.net
    10. Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by AqD · · Score: 1

      Yet it works. Better than one which doesn't work at all.

    11. Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Whoa, cowboy. You did not "forfeit every asset." Those assets weren't yours to begin with, since they were got with stolen money. If you had stolen a car, you couldn't say "well, I got caught and I forfeited my car." If you had fenced that car, and bought a big-screen TV, it's still not something that you rightfully own - it's the proceeds of crime.

      Also, "The misconception that my criminality did not lead to immense knowledge is wrong." Sure, you had to be knowledgeable to defraud people out of millions. Too bad you couldn't do it legally - guess you didn't have enough knowledge or smarts on how to do it right. You set out from the beginning to defraud people, So, why should anyone trust your "immense knowledge", when others in all walks of life make it without resorting to multi-million-dollar frauds?

      Thinking you can just sit on your arse and write a couple of books and that will solve the problem is like the frequent posters here who ask slashdot "I just got laid off and I hear there's big money in programming." You have less credibility in finance than an Ouija board.

      I'm not trying to be mean or anything - but you, and people who thought like you - that they could "take lots of money out and we'll cover it with huge profits" - were part of the reason for the financial crisis. Time to turn to "sweat of the brow" work, even if it will never give you the lifestyle you used to have. Certainly your victims are in the same position because they trusted you.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    12. Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, it didn't work. If you make every offense a capital one, even minor offenders are now faced with a choice of obeying the law (and dying), or revolution. When every minor offender is suddenly a recruit for a rebel army, well, that tends to undermine the authority of the state rather than increase it. It's probably worth noting that the Qin dynasty was one of the shortest in Chinese history.

    13. Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at this douche's posting history. He's constantly advertising his books here.

    14. Re:Overpopulation and Length of Sentencing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded up for being the funniest comment on the internet today!

  9. Just arrest them then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they know they are criminals why have they not been arrested?

    1. Re:Just arrest them then? by ihtoit · · Score: 2

      there's this thing called evidence.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    2. Re:Just arrest them then? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      But if they don't have evidence, then they are not criminals. So, either they're willfully letting known criminals commit crimes so they can use it to justify spying on innocent people, or they are labeling people criminals without evidence.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    3. Re: Just arrest them then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there is no evidence that they committed crimes then how are they criminals? What the hell is going on in the world?

    4. Re:Just arrest them then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, I never realized this ! This changes everything ! Police cannot spy on people until they are judged guilty by a trial, They cannot search their houses, interrogate them, they can't even keep files on them unless they've been convicted.
      Or maybe you are just stupid. I don't know.

    5. Re:Just arrest them then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, apparently there is not. So I wonder why GCHQ seem to be so convinced these are actually criminals.

    6. Re: Just arrest them then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we really that thickheaded here on /.?? I've already several of these comments in just 14 seconds. There's this thing called suspicion, and reasonable cause, usually based on one or more witnesses, or some degree of observation or circumstantial evidence that hasn't quite led yet to enough evidence to satisfy a court, but which strongly suggests a smoke trail to criminal activity, such that a little more surveillance is called for to get enough solid evidence so that the perp doesn't walk out of court if arrested because of some legal technicality or lingering doubt. After all, you don't want people arrested if there isn't sufficient evidence on them, do you? Boy, those criminals, it's just so rude of them not to openly advertise their illicit activities on a billboard or classified ads.

    7. Re:Just arrest them then? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      So if a cop gets a warrant to search your home and finds nothing, that automatically makes you a criminal?

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    8. Re:Just arrest them then? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2

      Evidence != Conviction.

      1. You suspect someone of a crime based on some evidence you obtained legally, either by accident,by witnessing something in a public place, by a witness statement, by a confession, or some other method, but regardless, it's without a warrant, but using a method that's legal to obtain evidence without a warrant.
      2. Based on this evidence, you obtain one or more warrants and use them to gather more evidence.
      3. If the totality of evidence points to a crime being committed, you arrest and charge the target with a crime.

      The problem with the NSA/GCHQ, etc, is that they're not following this pattern. Instead, they're doing this:

      1. Perform surveillance on everybody without warrants.
      2. If you find anything pointing to a crime committed by an individual, then, well, repeat step 1.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  10. I thought the surveilance was about terrorism by ggraham412 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought the enhanced NSA and GCHQ surveilance was about combating terrorism. Or is that rationale just given in the United States?

    1. Re:I thought the surveilance was about terrorism by Jerry+Atrick · · Score: 1

      You misspelled irrational...

    2. Re:I thought the surveilance was about terrorism by Solandri · · Score: 2

      You think the folks working at the NSA and GCHQ sat around doing nothing before terrorists showed up on the scene? Their job (at least what they're supposed to be doing) is surveillance of criminal operations and foreign powers, of which terrorists are a subset. What got them into trouble was they started pointing their monitoring apparatus at people outside those categories - i.e. their general population.

    3. Re:I thought the surveilance was about terrorism by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Terrorists, paedophiles, organized crime, bad drivers... Any of the usual suspects can be used interchangeably to justify more powers and surveillance.

      I remember the bad old days, before criminals used the internet for communication and we were unable to spy on them. You could hardly walk down the street without being blown up by a terrorist, and every child was molested by at least two paedophiles on a typical day. It wasn't until GCHQ started monitoring everyone that we could live our lives in relative peace.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:I thought the surveilance was about terrorism by gsnedders · · Score: 1

      before terrorists showed up on the scene

      GC&CS (Government Code and Cypher School, which gives a very clear idea about what the aim was!), the forerunner to GCHQ, was started in 1919, by which time the IRA had already come into being after the Easter Rising. OK, so GC&CS was primarily concerned with SIGINT pertaining to diplomatic communications, but it's worthwhile noting that there was a serious terrorist threat to the UK at the time it was formed (the Irish War of Independence had been under way since the start of 1919, when GC&CS came into being only at the end of the year).

  11. Brought it on ourselves by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe if our police forces hasn't been so overbearing in their surveillance methods they wouldn't have had this problem.

    It isn't so much that people are upset that police have the ability to listen in to phone calls or track us. Rather, they are upset that increasingly these powers are being used on everyone all the time, usually without needing a warrant or having any oversight. These powers have been, are and will continued to be abused by the authorities. The citizens - including whistle-blowers like Snowden - are making a fuss because they don't want everyone to be treated like a crook. Had the police and security apparat contented themselves with appropriate measures, there would have been much less impetus for Snowden and Assange to make the great revelations they did.

    But no, we have cameras on every corner, our communications are bugged, our every movement and behavior tracked and analyzed. Don't try to shift the blame onto the people who helped make us aware of your overreach. Stop labeling everyone a criminal, stop depending on gadgets to do your work for you, and stop misusing the tools and powers we-the-people already gave you (and then demanding even more). Only then can you talk about how the bad whistle-blowers are making your job more difficult.

    1. Re:Brought it on ourselves by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      It isn't so much that people are upset that police have the ability to listen in to phone calls or track us. Rather, they are upset that increasingly these powers are being used on everyone all the time, usually without needing a warrant or having any oversight. These powers have been, are and will continued to be abused by the authorities.

      Came here to say this, and you said it better than I could. Thanks!

    2. Re: Brought it on ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gfy

    3. Re:Brought it on ourselves by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, yes. You also seem quite wedded to the idea that the world is a simple matter of "who's to blame" and that you can just stick simple labels on people, like Snowden is a "whistle-blower" (and not, therefore, a traitor of the highest order). Sadly for this naive view, Snowden didn't blow any actual whistles, he just dumped a ton of documents and ran. So while some of those documents may have happened to "blow the whistle" on some things, some of those documents may also have happened to cripple our intel capabilities and threaten national security. Snowden didn't distinguish those two things, so he may well be both a whistle-blower and a traitor of the highest order, and he may well be to blame for some real problems in law enforcement that have nothing to do with overreach.

      This is wrong, wrong, wrong. Edward Snowden chose the reporters he talked to very carefully and asked them to be responsible with their disclosures. He did not just dump documents and run, and he did take steps to distinguish between necessary and unnecessary disclosure.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    4. Re:Brought it on ourselves by cardpuncher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't forget that the Telegraph is an extremely conservative newspaper which is very cosy with the British establishment.

      The key phrases in the article, "the Daily Telegraph can disclose", and "a senior security official said", imply that the Telegraph has been explicitly briefed knowing that it will big up the story. You know the quotation:

      "You cannot hope to bribe or twist
      (Thank God!) the British journalist.
      But, seeing what the man will do
      Unbribed, there's no occasion to."

      Mind you, the fact that they're talking about drug gangs is especially significant as on the one hand it's an attempt to deflect attention from the political nature of GCHQ spying whereas on the other it's suggesting that GCHQ has a routine role in what would normally be considered police work. They're obviously proud of their mission creep.

    5. Re:Brought it on ourselves by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You also seem quite wedded to the idea that the world is a simple matter of "who's to blame" and that you can just stick simple labels on people, like Snowden is a "whistle-blower" (and not, therefore, a traitor of the highest order). Sadly for this naive view, Snowden didn't blow any actual whistles, he just dumped a ton of documents and ran.

      Exposing corruption is not being a traitor, no matter how many times you try and claim it. I realize that in propaganda school they teach you to lie until people believe it, but in this case we never will. Snowden did not release names of agents or criminals, he exposed the high level slide shows used to train people to perform illegal surveillance. These documents demonstrated that the agency is not worried very much about "Drug Gangs" as TFA tries to claim, it's worried about people who question what their own Governments are doing.

      If the GCHQ was not having agents sift through email and tweets looking for people trying to organize for protests (you know, exercising free speech) they could actually focus on crime. If they were not trying to silence journalists questioning policies, they may be able to catch drug gangs. They could do so legally because they would have the resources available to do so. Instead, you have these agencies working to stifle free speech and collaborate with other countries to help them stifle free speech in their countries as well.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    6. Re:Brought it on ourselves by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly for this naive view, Snowden didn't blow any actual whistles, he just dumped a ton of documents and ran.

      This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

      Also, perfect is the enemy of good. If one expects someone in his position to be utterly perfect in every way, then you'll still be languishing in the dark. As a Brit, I'm glad this happened. GCHQ can go screw themselves, frankly. They had no business spying on all of us and if they've made their own lives harder---it's their fault.

      I'd rather take a few more ciminals than big brother.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Brought it on ourselves by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not just that they spy on everyone, it's that they actively abuse these powers for their own benefit. For example, in the recent "Plebgate" scandal a police officer was shown to have lied, and was convicted. The police responded by using their RIPA powers to get the phone records of the journalists who exposed them, in order to find out who their confidential sources were.

      I'm afraid that human nature being what it is the security services can't be trusted with these powers. No amount of oversight will fix it, they just can't have them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Brought it on ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems the problem is that sometimes you can't just spy on some guys, you have to spy on lots of people to be able to spy on these few guys. Of course it doesn't mean that anybody actually listen/read what the non-criminal are saying, just that it is being captured. Of course there is a need to prevent abuse of these data.
      Times are changing, nowadays you can commit crimes without even going out of your house, real-time encrypted communication with your whole gang. Police methods and laws need to keep up with the technology and their use by criminals.

    9. Re:Brought it on ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't so much that people are upset that police have the ability to listen in to phone calls or track us. Rather, they are upset that increasingly these powers are being used on everyone all the time, usually without needing a warrant or having any oversight. These powers have been, are and will continued to be abused by the authorities.

      I'd tend to argue it's worse than that. That the authorities who abuse their power is often considered an acceptable trade-off if they'd actually do their job. But, when it's as vague as "keep us safer" and not as strict as "keep us safe", then just about anything would qualify technically as them doing their stated job while the people don't really live on the edge of accepting technicalities.

      Put another way, the biggest complaints I have about the coverage of the whole affair involving 9/11 and the subsequent invasions, security theater, etc is (1) how long it took to get bin Laden to even acknowledge his involvement, (2) how tenuous his involvement was (as leader, he merely okayed an idea put forth and wholly execute by other people), and (3) how it took 10 YEARS to find him and execute him (as if capture was ever really a consideration) which seemingly only happened because of old-style detective work.

      The most important part of (3) is precisely that bin Laden knew to avoid telecommunication directly because of, minimally, Tora Bora but most likely it was just a presumption when it was made clear that the US would hunt terrorist using whatever means and telecommunication is heavily if not wholly US company owned. It makes the mass monitoring nearly moot (except if one believes that searching for a needle in a hay stack is any sort of actual plan to fight terrorism) from a use perspective and clearly only useful as an abuse tool.

      So reaching this conclusion, why the FUCK is it that we don't heavily criticize the NSA/CIA/FBI/GCHQ for being such colossal fuck ups to take 10 years to find the most wanted man? Why do we even begin to accept any sort of explanation that justifies their continued existence? Why would we even begin to pretend that Snowden's actions have done anything except perhaps give a heads up to criminals who, legally, should not be covered under the "at all costs" provisions and as such there's no way in which Snowden legally helped them--again, terrorists already knew that our definition of "legal surveillance" apparently went out the window after 9/11?

      The conversation is so utterly warped to give the benefit of the doubt to organizations that, at best, have applicably in war-time standards of law that rest on might makes right and not code of law. A constant state of war is no way to keep us safer less alone keep us safe.

    10. Re:Brought it on ourselves by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I expect that eventually you'll get more than you think you bargained for. However it's too late, somebody else made an irrevocable decision for you.

      --
      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
    11. Re:Brought it on ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      somebody else made an irrevocable decision for you

      And how was I supposed to make that decision for myself?

    12. Re:Brought it on ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I would rather live in a modern, peaceful society with people who play by the rules and don't hurt others. Not some wild west third world country where the powerful drug cartels and human traffickers rule.

      And since there was very little evidence of the government using the data the intel agencies got wrongly, this is the blowback that we knew was going to happen. The civil libertarians, Snowden, and the media reporters own it, 100%.

    13. Re:Brought it on ourselves by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Times are changing, nowadays you can commit crimes without even going out of your house, real-time encrypted communication with your whole gang.

      When has this not been true? Invite a bunch of neighbours over with some balloons tied to the front porch, and a sign up that says "Happy Birthday Son!"
      Then, sit in the kitchen talking about your plans to blow up some local municipal building, while some co-conspirator dresses as a clown and entertains the kiddies in the front room that you can see through the window from the street. (Ok, so you probably had to leave the house to buy the balloons, but still.)

      Police methods and laws need to keep up with the technology and their use by criminals.

      Provide evidence to a judge, receive a warrant. That's the process. Period. As technology progresses, the types of evidence you can present to a judge also progress. That right there is now they keep up with the technology.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    14. Re:Brought it on ourselves by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I expect that eventually you'll get more than you think you bargained for.

      So far you've told me to be afraid and backed it up with the word of those with a strong vested interest in bolstering their own power. If there really is a threat, you can convince me better than that.

      My grandfather died a couple of years ago. It wasn't tragic: he was 93. He was Jewish and lived and fought through WWII. There was a real existential threat there. The islamic terrorists are not.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    15. Re:Brought it on ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh spooky. Indeterminate FUD... gives me the shivers.

      Could you scratch a little to the left, please?

    16. Re:Brought it on ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily, the 'old' GCHQ were figuring out how to beat this real existential threat at Bletchley Park. Good job some a-hole didn't decide to tell the world back then, eh?

  12. What a load of bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Intelligence officers are now blind to more than a quarter of the activities of the UK's most harmful crime gangs after they changed their communications methods in the wake of the Snowden leaks.

    So the intelligence officers let three quarters of the UK's most harmful crime gangs operate peacefully in spite of being in on their communications? If they are not doing anything about them, it can't be that important.

    At any rate: if the criminals avoid the eavesdropping anyway, how about stopping the eavesdropping on the law-abiding citizens?

    1. Re: What a load of bullshit. by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      He certainly didn't get one from you!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    2. Re:What a load of bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you know, there is this pesky things called rights and laws, that prevent police to just jail anyone they don't like without evidences, even if they know they are drug lords. It is usually easy to jail small-time drug dealers, but it is equally easy for the gang bosses to replace them. The gang bosses however, knows how to avoid incriminating themselves (especially when they know what the police can do and how they do it), so it takes time to gather enough good evidence to actually have a chance to put the gang boss in jail.

    3. Re:What a load of bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You couldn't be more wrong. Before the Snowden leaks, you could not buy recreational drugs in the UK. Nobody in the entire country did any drugs because they were impossible to get.

    4. Re: What a load of bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense, but are you actually retarded? Just wondering. Not sure whether you're expecting serious replies.

      No, it's a good question. If they were watching them so closely, why couldn't they do anything? Is the intel useful or not? If I had to guess, they allowed a certain level of criminal activity, because it was politically expedient. They'd watch it and only mess with it when it became a problem. Like the bullies on a school bus. The bus driver allows them to keep order.

  13. Oh please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The country with a camera on every streetcorner, who follows and tracks the population everywhere?

    https://medium.com/matter-archive/how-britain-exported-next-generation-surveillance-d15b5801b79e

    Bullshit and fear mongering.

    1. Re:Oh please by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OF course, if you are tracking everyone, how the hell are you going to keep track of a few measly criminals?

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Oh please by zlives · · Score: 2

      some how the bankers are still free.

  14. Nothing to see here. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't worry, while they may have lost track of serious criminals, silly criminals are still being closely monitored.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  15. I doubt it by koan · · Score: 2

    I really doubt it, if anything this shows the inability of the police to adapt to changing situations, and for those already busted the word got out how it was done so if anything the Snowden revelations drew a line under it, not actually revealing anything unknown.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  16. Whose fault is this? by rot26 · · Score: 1

    Intelligence officers ... changed their communications methods

    So they foolishly abandoned whatever they were doing to make a point and it's biting them in the ass. Waaaah. Let the stupidest lose.

    --



    To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    1. Re:Whose fault is this? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Intelligence officers ... changed their communications methods

      So they foolishly abandoned whatever they were doing to make a point and it's biting them in the ass. Waaaah. Let the stupidest lose.

      You may want to work on your reading comprehension a little. Unless you work for a politician or one of the 24 hour news networks. In which case you took things out of context just about perfectly.

      From TFS: Intelligence officers are now blind to more than a quarter of the activities of the UK's most harmful crime gangs after they changed their communications methods in the wake of the Snowden leaks.

      The pronoun, "they" refers to the criminal gangs. As in the criminal gangs are the ones who changed their communication methods.

    2. Re:Whose fault is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intelligence officers ... changed their communications methods

      So they foolishly abandoned whatever they were doing to make a point and it's biting them in the ass. Waaaah. Let the stupidest lose.

      Bahahaha do you have any idea what you cut out with that ellipsis? RTFS again.

  17. O No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who will protect us now????!!

  18. So What Else is New? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > One major drug smuggling gang has been able to continue flooding the UK with Class A narcotics unimpeded

    And how is this different from the last 40 years?

    1. Re:So What Else is New? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > One major drug smuggling gang has been able to continue flooding the UK with Class A narcotics unimpeded

      And how is this different from the last 40 years?

      If you want to stop that, kill off the addicts. From whom all the money in the drug business comes from. No market, no smuggling.

    2. Re:So What Else is New? by granaiogeek · · Score: 1

      More like the last 240 years. Why do you think the Brits keep invading Afghanistan? The old money has to keep the opium flowing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

  19. Boohoo by Vlijmen+Fileer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Damn.
    That's exactly like criminals whining that police is interrupting the normal flow of their criminal operations.
    Disgusting. And very easy to see through, what a nonsense.

  20. some reclues for GCHQ by ihtoit · · Score: 3, Informative

    the BBC
    Parliament
    Buckingham Palace

    Just three of many places where criminals operate with impunity.

    Evidenced and in the public domain.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  21. It Is Losing Track of Serious Criminals by rossdee · · Score: 4, Funny

    But its keeping a close eye on the humourous ones.

    1. Re:It Is Losing Track of Serious Criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They are still able to monitor the Joker, the Riddler and the Penguin without much difficulty. But when it comes to Two-Face and Ra's Al Ghul, they are screwed!

    2. Re:It Is Losing Track of Serious Criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By 'criminals' we know they mean human-rights organisations, journalists, all non-whites, Free software users (so-called extremists), and the file sharers.

      What the GCHQ/NSA gives a pass are, Boston-bombers, big bankers, the copyright-maffiaa, neocons, corrupt police forces, etc.

  22. reliant on one form of intelligence by sce7mjm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This just shows that gchq have lost track of some of the criminals it knew about but had not gained enough intelligence to form a case (or the crimes were not considered serious enough). It has not lost track of the criminals that weren't using the communications channels it had a viewport on because it didn't have them tracked in the first place.

    Seems like they became complacent and sat waiting for the evidence to appear in front of them. Rather than following up the leads in the old school methods.

    Essentially: c+ must try harder.

    1. Re:reliant on one form of intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      CGHQ is about espionage and terrorism. Since when have they been chasing dealers and red-light jumpers?

    2. Re:reliant on one form of intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Snowden let us know that GCHQ was busy carrying out DDOS attacks on websites suspected of being used by Anonymous. Without due process, without any tested proof of wrongdoing, without any judicial oversight of what they were doing or consideration of collateral damage. Legal only because GCHQ has pretty much carte blanche to do whatever they want. Maybe if GCHQ spent more of their time doing what most people think they should be doing, instead of playing script kiddy and DDOSing random chat rooms, they would get more sympathy. Personally I think in this case they're just using Snowden as a convenient excuse for their failures.

    3. Re:reliant on one form of intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's talking about red-light jumpers ? I mean, apart from you of course.

    4. Re:reliant on one form of intelligence by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      This just shows that gchq have lost track of some of the criminals it knew about but had not gained enough intelligence to form a case (or the crimes were not considered serious enough). It has not lost track of the criminals that weren't using the communications channels it had a viewport on because it didn't have them tracked in the first place.

      Seems like they became complacent and sat waiting for the evidence to appear in front of them. Rather than following up the leads in the old school methods.

      Essentially: c+ must try harder.

      Seems like they became complacent and sat waiting for the evidence to appear in front of them. Rather than following up the leads in the old school methods.

      GCHQ are signals intelligence, not human intelligence. If MI5 and National Crime Agency aren't following up it isn't on them.

      --
      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
    5. Re:reliant on one form of intelligence by zlives · · Score: 1

      you are clearly not uptodate on your bond movies (live and let die, license to kill)

    6. Re:reliant on one form of intelligence by Matheus · · Score: 1

      C- ... shows distinct lack of ability coupled with severe behavior issues and a complete lack of respect for authority.

    7. Re:reliant on one form of intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      c+ must try harder.

      You mean, c++?

  23. Waaaaaaaa! by Nexion · · Score: 2

    We have to actually work instead of sitting back and letting the computer do our jobs, boohoo.

    Yeah, respecting the rights of the people makes tyranny difficult. Maybe you shouldn't have partnered with the colonies. :P

    I know! Lets throw a pity party for the oppressor!

    1. Re:Waaaaaaaa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So now the agencies will have to grow 5 to 10 times their size to do it with manpower instead of computers. They will need 10 times more lawyers and judges too. If you think it is going to stop, you are naive. If you want it to stop, move to Mexico and see what happens when there is no oversight.

      And you can be sure that all of those employees will have to sign away any rights they have and will be monitored like never before.

  24. Yes? by bickerdyke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    a) They shouldn't have overdone the surveillance to an extent that made it neccessary to have a Snowden to restore protection of those who the three letter agencies are supposed to protect and

    b) this is based on the fallacy that before Snowden, criminals did not know about the surveillance protocols. Well, obviously, SOME didn't know. But those criminals who managed to bribe or blackmail a someone on a Snowden-like position into sharing their Snowden-like knowledge wre never monitored by the GHCQ.

    --
    bickerdyke
    1. Re:Yes? by mikael · · Score: 1

      The information disclosed by Snowden can be reduced down to "The three letter agencies can convert any electronic device with a microphone into a hidden tape recorder" and "anything sent down The Tubes can also be recorded". So they meet in person and just leave their smartphones in the room outside.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Yes? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Which is what the really clever criminals did even before Snowden.

      --
      bickerdyke
  25. Class A Narcotics by sudon't · · Score: 1

    "One major drug smuggling gang has been able to continue flooding the UK with Class A narcotics..."

    What do they want, Class B narcotics?

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  26. Question: by dargaud · · Score: 1

    If they had been monitoring all their drug and other illegal activities... why haven't they arrested them long ago ?

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:Question: by Jerry+Atrick · · Score: 2

      To jail a criminal you have to provide real proof then win in court.

      To harass innocent citizens they just have to avoid going anywhere near a court.

  27. Fucking by spacefight · · Score: 2

    fearmongering. Stop it, thanks.

  28. This information is old information and irrelevant by idji · · Score: 2

    Ongoing GCHQ & MI5 operations in December 2014 are not related to this info. This is out of date info thrown into the public arena to gain political support for new policies, that will cover what they are really after.

  29. No arrests? by stedlj · · Score: 1

    What, they don't arrest the "most dangerous crime lords" they just watch what they do and track them just in case????

    1. Re:No arrests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Movies/TV are not very realistic, but you could still have picked up that it takes time to get all the evidences you need to put these guys in jail. Or maybe we could ignore this whole rights business, and just let the police put in jail whoever they like (or don't) without this pesky evidence business.

  30. You reap what you sow! by MagickalMyst · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Had GCHQ/NSA, etc. been spying ONLY on terrorists, drugs dealers, etc., then we wouldn't be reading this.

    But they broke the law and got caught. Don't blame Snowden for having some integrity and doing the right thing. These agencies could learn a lot from Snowden.

    As for the 'war on drugs', the Taliban declared opium poppy cultivation illegal just before the US/UK invasion of Afghanistan. Opium production - and by extension heroin production - was reduced to almost nothing.

    In effect, the Taliban dealt the single most effective blow to the so-called "war on drugs" since its inception decades ago.

    Since then the UK/USA invaded and allowed opium to be produced again - and now they produce record levels of opium and heroin. Billions of dollars of drugs. All controlled by UK/USA.

    Now it seems that GCHQ can't monitor all of the drug dealers they'd like to. Are they worried that someone might be taking a slice of their pie?

    You reap what you sow.

    --
    Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    1. Re: You reap what you sow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In view of all this, I wonder whatvdobtheyvwant now. Is it to be able to shoot random people with impunity? In US they havecthat already albeit limited to blacks.

    2. Re:You reap what you sow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, declaring production illegal and burning a few kilo did not prevent the stored product to be sold. And nothing prouved that the taliban would keep production illegal and keep enforcing. It's to big a part of the economie over there.

      Hell, taliban today force opium production to finance themselves.

      So much for holy decre...

      We really need to make opium unattractive as a crop. As long as opium pays more than food it's going to be planted somewhere, somehow. As long as they are buyers the drugs will flow.

         

    3. Re:You reap what you sow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me get this straight, you think the taliban should have stayed in power because they actually reduced opium production to nothing, yet you object gray-area spying to catch drug-lords ? You are aware of how the taliban achieved this victory against opium (among other things like female education and lots of other evil stuff like it) right ? hint: they didn't just asked nicely. So you are saying fuck the afghans as long as I have my rights, they can live in a medieval-era system where rights do not exists.

    4. Re:You reap what you sow! by MagickalMyst · · Score: 1

      > "you think the taliban should have stayed in power..."

      I do? I did not say that.

      You took the wrong pill. Go back to sleep.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
  31. Re:Possible solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you decide you want to reproduce because you deserve it, you will be denied permission. Sure you can find some back alley "ducter" to reverse your sterilization without government approval. But by the time you try to flee society to the nearest hippie commune to raise your unauthorized spawn, you will find there are no more hippie communes left.

  32. Good. Now spend unused resources on prevention by cloud.pt · · Score: 2

    So, (potentially) a quarter more class A narcotics entered the country due to (potentially) a quarter of the communications intercepted no longer being so. For one, I highly doubt those numbers translate to effective raise in class A narc. consumption or even availability. Let's not forget Snowden's actions also alerted the criminals, so they are EFFECTIVELY more aware, and thus LESS active since.

    In any case, the number of drug addicts does not always increase with availability. Some studies actually indicate consumption is most influenced by other factors such as popularity/public opinion, novelty or ease of access (it's still socially difficult to contact dealers, thankfully). Some pioneer regions are proof availability is a deterrent for substance abuse, or induce more responsible use (Netherlands anyone?).

    But even if I'm totally wrong, I'm personally happy with the trade off. I'll give in a few communications between criminals going undetected, for the assurance of private, universal communications any day.

    Just spend the extra money on proven deterrents of narcotic use. Like prevention

    1. Re:Good. Now spend unused resources on prevention by cloud.pt · · Score: 1

      Oh and don't forget to thank GCHQ. Now that they disclosed they have reduced tapping into communications, they pretty much gave carte blanche to criminals. Just imagine: if they had disclosed illegal tapping before, they would have actually prevented a lot more crime than they actually detected with it secretively. Then again, they might be bluffing this time. In any case good job GCHQ...

    2. Re:Good. Now spend unused resources on prevention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What could possibly go wrong if we let the gangs run free ? Probably nothing, I hear mexico is doing fine.

  33. can't they just pick up the trail again by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    The spy agency has suffered "significant" damage in its ability to monitor and capture serious organized criminals

    can't they just pick up the trail again when they come out of the mosque?

  34. Of course, by Richy_T · · Score: 2

    The cops who blew the OJ case probably thought they were doing a good job too.

    The best way to avoid getting caught (and ruin everything you're working towards) is not to break the law.

    1. Re:Of course, by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      I'll be sure and tell Melanie Shaw that. She tried to expose systemic child abuse during her time in Beechwood Children's Home, last week she was convicted by a directed jury of causing a shed fire that did not happen and sentenced to time served (in horrific conditions during which time she developed a stage 3 ulcer on her leg which also threated her foot) and three years probation.

      The State fucking hate it when people try to expose their criminality, they can and will pull every dirty trick imaginable (and surprise you with new ones) to put them down and keep them down. Stitching them up with phantom arson charges is a favourite.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    2. Re:Of course, by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      If she didn't do it, she was framed, not caught.

  35. Here's a thought by koan · · Score: 2

    Lets take this complaint by the GCHQ, and lets assume that the NSA/FBI may have similar issues, if indeed it's really a problem.
    Then lets look at the Google/Apple/Microsoft complex offering up encryption for their users, as though to say "you're safe with us now".

    These Snowden revelations crippled the "security" agencies, so what's the natural response?
    "How do we get users to become complacent again?"

    Easy, have the Google/Apple/Microsoft complex offer up encryption, then have the FBI come out publicly and complain about it, as though it (the encryption) were really going to be a problem for them, to trick people into thinking the encryption is actually solid.

    http://time.com/3437222/iphone...

    How valid this hypothesis appears to you is a direct measure of what you believe is the truth of our World today.
    Are the corps, media and agencies complicit? Or aren't they.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Here's a thought by koan · · Score: 1
      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  36. But they're not using child porn as the excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually surprised. Usually the complaint from police involves a "for the children" defense. They really need to improve their game if they're going to fish for sympathy...

    1. Re:But they're not using child porn as the excuse by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      they don't have the right to use that one any more, they have been exposed as having failed to protect children in some very high profile exposures: Beechwood, Wood Nuck, Coventry, Rochdale, Savile, Elm, Jersey, Brym Estyn. Historically, they have taken actual actionable complaints by survivors and buried them, and in some cases persecuted the survivors to the point of rendering them legally unreliable (Melanie Shaw, for the most recent example).

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  37. BooHoo by TallahassZ · · Score: 1

    Fook BIG BROTHER in the butt!

  38. More lies which attempt to justify surveillance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These governments exist to perpetuate their own power, period.

    If you believe any government has ANY interest in protecting its average citizens,
    you have the naiveté of a child.

    All the bullshit about "terrorists" spewed by the US and the UK is largely propaganda
    which has the intent of getting the general population of these countries to go along with
    wars of aggression which are conducted to secure access to resources like oil. That's the truth
    and the next time you fill up your gas hog SUV think about how many thousands of lives
    have been violently taken so you can have inexpensive fuel while you drive your fat ass to
    the fast food "restaurant".

    .

    1. Re:More lies which attempt to justify surveillance by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      I don't call £6 a gallon inexpensive.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  39. contradictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "lost track" and "year unimpeded" don't go well
    If you lost track, how do you know they're still shipping?

    1. Re: contradictions by snowsnoot · · Score: 1

      I was going to post the same thing but as I was typing I realized they just assume that the drugs are coming in, "unimpeded" now that the have no track of them. But anyway this is FUD which will be used to influence public opinion (which the Brits seem to be generally vulnerable to).

  40. Re:This information is old information and irrelev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did we really expect anything different, this is a smokescreen for more laws and more spying. RIPA is being closely examined right now in the commons, this may be the propaganda they're looking for at getting it past without any alterations.

    Typical of a corrupt UK government, using subterfuge and ulterior motives to advance their grip on the criminally stupid masses.

  41. 404 - Sympathy Not Found by rockabilly · · Score: 1

    Time to call the Whaambulance...

  42. Mission Creep by duckintheface · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The warrantless wiretap surveillance of citizens was originally justified as a national security necessity to fight terrorism. But it is ostensibly being used for a different purpose.... law enforcement against drug crimes. And you can be sure that it will also be used for surveillance of political enemies and for industrial espionage. There is a reason the Constitution guanantees that no search can be made without a warrant. It's because the power to snoop is a drug in itself, addicting those who have it to abuse those who don't.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:Mission Creep by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      There is a reason the Constitution guanantees that no search can be made without a warrant.

      You do realize this article is about England not the US? They don't have to fallow our Constitution.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re: Mission Creep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The warrant requirement originated in England. Although Parliamentary Supremacy means the political party due jour is able to gut hundreds of years of civil rights protections.

      Even worse is the erosion of the House of Lords. Having a group of stodgy old men and women with veto power over such abuses is not such a bad thing. More often than not they'll go along with the House of Commons, but in the breech their veto can really matter.

      Actually, the worst is the move of the Supreme Court from the House of Lords to a separate institutions. England never adopted the idea of judicial review. However, when the House of Lords wasn't the highest court you didn't need.the concept: the Lords through their judicial power could overrule the House of Commons on important matters of Constitutional law without violating Parliamentary Supremacy. Now that the highest court no longer rests with the Lords, there is no check on the power of the elected politicians. Except, of course, elections, because we all know elections are so effective...

    3. Re:Mission Creep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, but countries that call themselves democratic have to follow certain customs or they aren't really democratic. Unfortunately most countries aren't really democracies as they do things like: murder (death penalty), restrict voting (ie deny prisoners the right to vote, those under a certain age, etc), target dissidents and make "examples" out of those who they oppose.

      Do I have to remind people of: Silk Road founders, Aaron Swartz of reddit fame, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange who did nothing illegal, Jacob Applebaum founder of Tor who did nothing illegal (constantly harassed at airports apparently), Kevin Mitnick, Bernie S who didn't even commit a crime, Dot Kom who probably didn't commit a crime within the scope of the law as it was written, Jon Lech Johansen for DeCSS fame who also did nothing illegal), among many others. Most haven't even been found guilty of a crime- but many have / are being harassed, locked up, and intimidated, or died at the hands of government.

    4. Re:Mission Creep by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The "War on Drugs" has been as serious, if not moreso, of a driver in the infringement of civil liberties than terrorism. Terrorism may have been the angle to push through many of the changes, but the "War on Drugs" is where it's being put to use. See Parallel Construction, Civil Asset Forfeiture, and similar topics. That this particular article focuses on the UK shouldn't distract from the fact that we're facing the same thing here in the USA.

    5. Re:Mission Creep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a case from the US: We already have peaceful political protesters being targeted for IRS audits, and the incriminating IRS e-mails "get lost". Nobody goes to jail. Then suddenly a few years later they get found on a backup tape somewhere. Now, things have gotten bad enough economically due to the shilling and shenanigans and oligopoly going up, we've got blacks rioting and we've got cops ending up dead.

      People forget when a black lady is crying during the Obama election screaming "we ain't go to pay no mo rent", that's a throwback from the cottin' pickin' days; rent is synonymous with slavery to them, usury is synonymous to slavery to them. We dumb cracka's could learn a few things from the brotha's in the room as to what is and is not acceptable behavior by society on that one.

      So yeah, nobody has any sympathy for GCHQ. No police is better than a police state.

    6. Re:Mission Creep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop being misogynist.

  43. I suppose ... by PPH · · Score: 2

    ... if you've got all your cops surrounding the Ecuadorian Embassy, you don't have time for anything else.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  44. Also possibly no Christmas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the sidebar on the article page the Telegraph reports that there may be no Christmas as Santa was arrested.

  45. Please by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

    One major drug smuggling gang has been able to continue flooding the UK with Class A narcotics unimpeded for the last year after changing their operations.

    As if Class A narcotics weren't available in the UK when these excuse-stuffed buffoons did have unimpeded access to everyone's private communications.

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    1. Re:Please by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      what's ironic is the following:

      Opium production in Afghanistan is at a 20 year high while food production in the same region is at a 20 year low.
      The "war on drugs" seems to be focussed on inhibiting movement of opium out of the region to legitimate outlets in the West (ie for prescription pharmaceuticals), where even at "street" prices, codeine and other opiates would be far cheaper and quite possibly "cleaner" than their boxed counterparts.
      Licences are being issued by the UK Gvernment for certain secure facilities to cultivate opium poppies locally. Poppies don't do so well here, it's too wet.
      One of the world's biggest banking institutions, HSBC, was founded on the side of the Khandahar Highway, the densest heroin artery on the planet and the first project of the New Afghan Democracy's rebuilding programme. Yeah, fuck the starving people, let's make sure this three hundred mile stretch of road can handle the 40 ton trucks blasting up and down it, laden with weapons and heroin.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  46. Gone "dark"??? by advocate_one · · Score: 1

    The serious ones were already "dark" on the internet and phone networks... they had already taken steps to secure their comms channels... what the GCHQ are really complaining about is that a lot of the slow ones have now wised up and changed their ways...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:Gone "dark"??? by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Which means that GCHQ need to make a lot of noise about it now, to secure funding. In 10 years time these guys and people like them working for governments around the world will have driven up the level of security in criminal (and foreign gov.) communications so high that they are unable to figure out what messages are passing back and forth, so governments will have to rely on actual police/spy work instead of electronic eavesdropping and that makes GCHQ practically obsolete, or at least subject to being scaled back if all they have to do is listen to the radio and note bearing, frequency and time of day.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    2. Re:Gone "dark"??? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The GCHQ and NSA faced that with Soviet Union in the 1950's when better use of one time pads was introduced. GCHQ got less and less from the Soviet Union for a while. Then all the messages returned as the Soviet Union needed a complex, real time command and control system and understood the UK and US was getting all networked messages.
      The GCHQ is hoping that all the UK and EU networks of interest will go back to the telecommunications networks soon too.
      The problem for the UK is that the people of interest dont need telecommunications networks. They have family, village, city, tribe, cult, faith, generational, professional person to person connections.
      A message takes a week and might have the courier identified. A phone call will be identified every time.
      With voice prints global tracking is easy. With cell phones been tracked, computers compromised and junk encryption standards why would anyone interesting risk a phone call? The GCHQ had all phone networks for decades. The idea that the rest of the world does not need the tame Western networks is not a new one.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  47. Don't mention the open borders! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a joke! It's recently been revealed that the so-called "United" Kingdom's borders are now so porous that the alleged "Security" Services have found large numbers of illegal immigrants just disappearing without trace. Even when they do manage to notice someone sneaking in they invariably lose them once they've been absorbed by the grey-market.

    To blame this on Snowden reminds of blaming Goldstein in 1984 for all problems.

  48. Yeah, right... by silviuc · · Score: 1

    - Oh noes, we can't spy on people so now we don't have enough to blackmail politicians, companies and business owners to do our bidding. Quickly, prep a press release about crime-lords and terrorists!
    - Should we add a "think of the children" type paragraph in it sir?
    - Neah, not this time.

  49. Look for the gaps, GCHQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every hole in your monitoring efforts contains a criminal enterprise. Analyze the borders and you get the shape of the fat bastards. You know what you have to do to accomplish this.

  50. Big Britter by js096467 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The UK has probably done more than the US in terms of spying on it's citizens and now they are running a piece to place blame on the person who literally just said "what you are doing is illegal, i'm going to tell" It's not surprising that the original telegraph.uk article names the overlords as "spy bosses" because they have been illegally spying.

  51. GCHQ has lost focus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    GCHQ was designed to monitor national security threats...not drugs and pedos.

    If there is that little to do, cut-backs are overdue.

  52. More blame for them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, I'll blame them for over-surveillance and the consequences of that, like needing to leak the information AND the fall-out from the leak. Still putting the blame where it belongs here.

  53. Welcome to the new world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until recently, intelligence-gathering government agencies could rely on secrecy to get their job done. That's not the case any more. They will of course kicks, scream and use their considerable (but finite) resources to change things so that they can rely on secrecy again. But, they won't pull it off, unless they turn western style democracies into copies of the stalinist societies of Cold War Europe or modern North Korea. Thus, welcome to the new world.

  54. Get rid of the incompetent top guys at GCHQ ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since they are clearly idiots.
    "GCHQ has lost track of some of the most dangerous crime lords and has had to abort surveillance on others after"
    I mean, how many "most dangerous crime lords" are there in the uk , 30 ?

    So instead of getting 30 justified surveillance warrents signed by a judge, ( a few man days work for each ? ) , and everyone is happy, they just bungle on collecting data on everybody, which not only turns the public against them , but gives foreign Governments a lot of info with which to bribe people later.
    ( If Snowden could get and release stuff for free in the public good, you can guarantee that someone will sell it for $millions... and you won't hear about that )

    The guys at the very top at GCHQ must be living in a bubble not to see this, and are therefore not the right people for the job.

  55. Well, according to the current paedophile frenzy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the bad old days, every child WAS molested by at least two paedophiles on a typical day, and according to one of the tabloids this morning, at least FIVE high level paedo-rings were functioning in the 70s-80s. Aren't our intelligence and police services just wonderful nowadays!!!

  56. Gotham Ciy PD by eepok · · Score: 1

    I read the headline as "GCPD Warns It Is Losing Track of Serious Criminals" and immediately thought to myself "Damn it! Someone call Batman!". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotham_City_Police_Department)

  57. Simple and Disallowed by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    One major drug smuggling gang has been able to continue flooding the UK with Class A narcotics unimpeded for the last year after changing their operations.

    Simple: legalize it all. Now, you've removed the massive profits, reduced the associated violence of the sellers, the theft and robbery crimes of the users, while also reducing the amount of ODs, allied health costs, and even deaths, ala Portugal.

    But they have no idea of allowing these solid, provable benefits to society, as it would be a detriment to their power and money (i.e., they're just another criminal organization).

  58. An admission? by jools33 · · Score: 1

    So it seems to me that GCHQ are admitting that mass surveillance is no longer effective after Edward Snowden.

  59. No one but themselves to blame! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The GCHQ and the other "5 eyes" members have no one but themselves to blame for this. They are trying to sift a few nuggets from a mass of data (every one on earth's communications), instead of being logical and targeting their resources on those "of interest". Surely a case of the pot calling the kettle black...

  60. Re:Well, according to the current paedophile frenz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    every child WAS molested by at least two paedophiles on a typical day

    And three on Sundays. Nowadays, they mostly make do with Sunday and take the rest of the week off, except for those employed as government babysitters. They work a regular work-week, with extra tutoring afterward. ;)

  61. Don't blame Snowden.. by jjn1056 · · Score: 1

    ..Blame yourselves for abusing dangerous power that we the people entrusted you with. Now we don't trust you and the power is gone. If you had used it sparingly and for real need you'd still have it. Now the world is indeed more dangerous because you failed to constrain yourselves.

    --
    Peace, or Not?
  62. Re:Edward Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US could trade Snowden for and end to all sanctions.

  63. Poor babies.... by ogdenk · · Score: 2

    Awww... cry me a river. UK cops actually have to engage in police work to catch criminals instead of resorting to outright criminal or at least very shady methods to catch them. I guess the UK and US govts shouldn't have abused the power we entrusted them with.

    Want an easier time catching criminals? Stop BEING criminals.

  64. Easy solution by Livius · · Score: 1

    These kinds of claims are always about laziness, and police not wanting to put in the effort their job requires, and not even caring if they do their jobs properly or not.

    Surveillance should happen *after* getting a warrant.

    A warrant is not an imposition, it is a rudimentary form of quality control, and a warrant is laughably easy to obtain. Not having enough evidence for a conviction (of the right party) is one thing, but not having enough to take to a judge for a warrant can only mean the case is embarrassingly weak, and they need to do some actual police work before continuing.

  65. Bullshit. by Anonanonaon · · Score: 1

    Hold on...

    The drug trade is one of the big sources of spy agency funding. (The kind of funding where you don't have to explain to any ministers what you're going to spend it on.)

    Everybody remembers Ollie North, right?

    The out of control secret government agencies never stopped selling drugs. So blaming Snowden for their lack of ability to catch.., themselves I suppose, is a bit unfair.

    But everybody here seems to be wise to the fact that this story is a nonsense sales pitch for cameras in your bedroom. In case there are terrorists under your bed.

  66. cold fjord alert by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Oh look, it's vague admonoshment from the token pro-establishment troll cold fjord. Are you going to tell me that i'm on the list too? But i'm happy you just post your silly disinfo aboit snowden as AC now--that means it has absolutely failed otherwise on slashdot.

  67. What they really mean is... by matbury · · Score: 1

    The Telegraph reports, "GCHQ has lost track of some of the most prolific investigative journalists and has had to abort surveillance on others after Edward Snowden revealed their tactics ... The spy agency has suffered "significant" damage in its ability to investigative journalists following the exposes by the former CIA contractor. Intelligence officers are now blind to more than a quarter of the activities of the UK's most prolific investigative journalists after they changed their communications methods in the wake of the Snowden leaks. One major publication has been able to continue flooding the UK with Class A news unimpeded for the last year after changing their operations. More intense tracking of others has either been abandoned or not started because of fears the tactics are now too easy to spot and will force the journalists to "go dark" and be lost sight of completely."

    Are perhaps you could think of more entertaining and creative substitutes for "serious criminals" in this non-story?

  68. Reason for crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stopping the war on drugs would stop in its tracks the very criminal activity being pursued, on both sides of the law.

  69. Other reasons by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    GCHQ as well as the US three letter agencies are so hell bent on snooping on everyone that they are totally overwhelmed by useless data. They need to find the needle in the hay stack and with all the warrantless spying they only make the hay stack bigger. It is this self-serving ineptitude that leads to these colossal failures. But sure, it is all Snowden's fault, how easy!