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."

27 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. 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: 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?

    2. 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
  2. Relevant quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --Gang leadership, er, correction, GCHQ leadership

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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 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)
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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: 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.

  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.