Revealed: GCHQ's beyond top secret Middle Eastern internet spy base Above-top-secret details of Britain’s covert surveillance programme - including the location of a clandestine British base tapping undersea cables in the Middle East - have so far remained secret, despite being leaked by fugitive NSA sysadmin Edward Snowden. Government pressure has meant that some media organisations, despite …
you're expecting that big brother will implement the sort of tyranny where jackboots press down on your neck and you have to show your 'papers' to an 'official' every time you walk down the street.
not all tyrannies are like that.
maybe ours is the sort where people no longer question why so much of our lives is spent "working" and so little "playing". in that sense, Big Brother has thoroughly done his job.
".....maybe ours is the sort where people no longer question why so much of our lives is spent "working" and so little "playing"....." Bullshit. My grandfather worked sixty hour weeks every week in a draughting office and considered himself lucky. Miners and the like in the Twenties worked much longer hours in much worse conditions for much less pay than the average office "wage slave" of today. Before people start bitching about how they have it tough they really need to go read some history and get some perspective.
You forgot about
C - The government engages in secret activities to spy on other nations and organisations, and mass-monitors millions of citizens, blatantly breaking even the ludicrously generous laws (RIPA etc) that the last Junta passed. Wasting huge amounts of money, to remarkably little actual security improvements (*), but nevertheless threatening democracy. The government also introduces backdoors in systems, and sabotages hard encryption, thus weakening everyone's online security even further.
The point is, simply, governments have to act within the law. And it's the job of the press and the public to make sure that they do, and that the laws aren't bad.
(*) Even the NSA, who are perfectly happy to lie to their Congress, weren't bold enough to point to any evidence their surveillance had actually uncovered any real plots
@ Jim59
B, especially in view of the facts (1) that there seems to be no supporting evidence presented that the secret activities spawned actions to threaten the current largely democratic regime; and (2) the government has plenty of local actors available if they choose to become tyrannical and in consequence have little need or use for internal signals intelligence.
" TRAITORS... ...You people absolutely disgust me.
Perhaps it's real democracy at work! At the time of my reading, the votes were to the tune of 14/193. That's almost 14:1 against your view!
With numbers like that, it's little wonder our supposed democracies have to keep even the very existence of such surveillance secret.
What? Do you honestly think for one moment that your country is the only one who does this? Oh.. and besides the USA? I daresay that every country of any size is engaged in this type of operation. And yes, they spy not only on each other but also on their own citizens. It's not just about national security anymore otherwise they wouldn't spy on their own citizens. It's about power.
As for traitors... I think you need to look around at some of the more "patriotic" types and what they are doing with their power.
you mean that you knew all of this long before it was published...and you didn't tell me, and me being a taxpayer and all, a pensioner to boot, who can't get proper social welfare or a decent pension. Don't you think that calling the Reg a traitor is like yourself looking in mirror?
Some might argue that you should be first up against the wall for supporting secret wide ranging government orders and other extrajudicial activities against their citizens. Governments act on behalf of and are accountable to their citizens. How can the citizens make an informed decision if the government acts against the entire population in secret?
Don't you think it's strange that other law enforcement seems to operate effectively with transparency and an open judicial process?
I don't think it's unreasonable or detrimental for the government to tell their citizens they want to intercept all of their domestic or foreign communications for the specific reasons, then let the public decide what they want in the due course of the normal electoral process.
The issue with secret wide ranging warrants and secret interpretations and obfuscated laws is the function creep. Notice how "serious financial crime" is included. Where does it stop? What are the limits? Why not include murder investigations or even petty crimes? The US has the situation where it's reached the point of the government secretly intercepting communications, using the information in court without disclosure or the rigours of the established legal process.
"The issue with secret wide ranging warrants and secret interpretations and obfuscated laws is the function creep. Notice how "serious financial crime" is included. Where does it stop? What are the limits? "
Given that local councils have (ab)used such powers to spy on people putting out rubbish bins on the wrong day or fibbing about what school they live near, the question has to be rhetorical.
Agree completely. This is appalling. Snowden is a traitor, end of story. Nonetheless, he at least was acting based on his principles, however misguided and naive. This article, in contrast, is just treachery for titillation. And for the titillation of whom? Answer: the ethical retards who unfortunately seem to make up the bulk of Register readership.
I had a high opinion of The Register's editorial maturity prior to this article but no more.
If the Adult video industry ever gets around to naming their performers with keywords such as "Plutonium", then all the world's adult entertainment, making up 75% of the world's traffic, will be redirected through the spooks' servers and sent for human Analyst review. At that point the entire iSpy system will simply collapse.
I have to say that I would be more shocked if our 'security services' were not doing this.
The long term problem I see is that it has just got out of hand and your (RIPA enabled) local council can delve into your comms at will if they can come up with some law breaking (wrong rubbish, wrong bin) activity that you are involved in.
It is one thing to 'spy' upon potential enemies and quite another to use that as an excuse to monitor your home population in order to help some local council fuckwit in its upcoming court case.
Mi(?) monitoring 'foreign activities' I can live with. Who wants some IRA bomb exploding in my local shopping centre?
But ... The ability of 'Sir' Cyril Smith (via his contacts in Government and 'The Party') or Savile (via his local council and BBC contacts) being allowed to monitor the activity of anyone who gets close to their 'activities'... Well now we see the problem in giving any 'government' employed wank stain (on childrens bed sheet) the ability to shut down any 'journalist or 'victim' that might come close to exposing them.
This post has been deleted by its author
i don't think it's a huge loss.
A lot of the cabling can be reused/turned transparent and create better backbone for the internet. As for the locale , you can make like a school or something useful out of it. the agents, make them promote good business and economic/social ties between the countries so as to not need spying at all.
But I hate people who pretend to be offended on the behalf of Secret Service, If you want a more gaping example of waste of taxpayer money , look at all the fucking wars started in the region.
you sir are a complete buffoon.
The people doing this spying are the traitors.
That is the thing. When those in government and military service put loyalty to unit, division, department or ministry ahead of loyalty to the nation and its people they become the most vile form of traitors.
"these installations cost tens of millions to design and build"
That's tens of millions of dollars spent by the most traitors acting against the interest of the British public.
I have to agree with luke11. I am intrinsically linked to the work our government security services provide and it is careless for a UK publication to publish this. I am hugely disappointed. If you don't don't think that every single government across the world with any capability does not do as much secret spying as possible then you are a fool. Reg, you are upsetting important political balances that our country has spent hundreds of years cultivating. Whilst we are small we still have a bit of clout and I for one want it to stay that way. To publish this so you can get a few more hits and flog a bit more advertising space to IBM/MS/HP is frankly disgusting.
I actually thought when I read this, talk about secrecy creep! Why on earth do we need 3 levels about top secret, top secret was supposed to be the top (hence the name) and there are already levels lower than that! Tells you all you need to know about how well the various secret organisations manage to keep things secret.
> classified 3 levels above Top Secret
Looks like the good old Top Secret isn't quite so "top" any more.
A case of inflation or just using the "onion" strategy of having layer upon layer?
It does make you wonder, though. At what level are things really kept secret, so that only those who need to know, actually *are* the only ones who do know. And what is it that they seriously don't want us (or The Guardian) to know about.
We should be told!
"It does make you wonder, though. At what level are things really kept secret, so that only those who need to know, actually *are* the only ones who do know."
Classified.
ALL Classified+ information is need to know. Beyond all classification levels is the idea that the information is disseminated only to those who need to know it. If one has TS clearance, one cannot just read everything that's classified as TS, because one does not need to know.
They don't want us know all the dirty little deals that were done in our name, that quite possibly were not in our collective interest and were definitely done without our knowledge or informed consent. And they are fully cognisant that if we had known, we would have vociferously objected.
They know perfectly well that the public will be incandescent when they fully realise what has been going on. They fear that.
>If only. The UK public would stain to reach a dim red glow, unless it's about TV or sport- on TV.
Bread and Circuses have always been used to control the public. Just as spying has been used probably since people started to form complex societies and structures such as villages, towns, cities and then countries. They are three tools used keep the people in power in power.
Luke 11 could be a Troll or one of the most naive readers of El Reg - after all most people who read this site know of Echelon and are smart enough to understand bread and circuses references. Luke please see Duncan Campbell's 1988 article in the Newstatesman for some of the earliest info on data gathering. Oh and I think people said similar things of Campbell as they are saying of Snowden.
We have to assume that since Bread, Circuses and Spying are fundamental to human existence then these will evolve in complexity as society does. Echelon has evolved into today's data gathering and data mining. The question then is not "do they monitor us?" - but "is that power evidently being abused?" Snowden so far has only told us what a reasonably intelligent person could have guessed in that governmental powers use technology to spy on people.
So we should consider that monitoring can be done, and worry about the controls around that monitoring. Whilst the argument from some quarters would be that they don't abuse the power, and that those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear - I would question that view. Society without proper checks and balances is not a good society. If people have a reason, based on a sound suspicion or evidence, that someone's communications need monitoring, then take that evidence to a person appointed to be an independent arbiter. If the arbiter signs off then monitor and analyse, but if it turns up nothing then destroy the collected information. We need to ask if the approach we appear to be allowing our security services to indulge in; ie monitor and analyse everything, is acceptable. That approach wouldn't have been out of place in Stalins Russia or Hitlers Germany and isn't something we should just accept.
They know perfectly well that the public will be incandescent when they fully realise what has been going on. They fear that.
I don't think they do. They won't welcome it but they certainly won't fear it. The worst which will happen in Britain is they get pushed out of office but the system will endure and they will find their way back in after a few years or decades. Meaningful outrage, revolution and fundamental change is for other countries.
In fact it's a fundamental part of the elected dictatorships the west calls democracy and is what makes those a success. Governments can fall on their swords to appease the citizens but the system and establishment remains untouched.
Big Brother isn't running the show from parliament nor Downing Street. You are simply looking at puppets there.
"Big Brother isn't running the show from parliament nor Downing Street. You are simply looking at puppets there."
Right. I can remember the time when Tony Blair's government was about to come into existence. Blair or one of his cohorts made the promise that they'd reverse the onus of the FOI laws--meaning that all government documents would, by default, be unclassified and available and that public servants etc. would have to apply to have them classified otherwise.
At the time I thought this was a deliberate election promise for the truly gullible or they were just damn stupid if they actually believed they could pull it off.
Of course 'Big Brother isn't running the show from parliament nor Downing Street', but his stronger-than-spider's-web strings firmly extend back to HQ (as they've always done).
>They know perfectly well that the public will be incandescent when they fully realise what has been going on. They fear that.
I think you overestimate the public. Consider the number who voted for UKIP, apparently believing that a former commodities trader with a history of creative expense claims is a political novelty item.
Pre-Snowden and barring the odd leak the first most people would hear about TOP SECRET material was when it was officially released 30 (or sometimes more) years after the event, so marking something TOP SECRET would have done the job.
Contrary to popular belief (and Register headlines) there's nothing 'above' TOP SECRET. Material may be compartmentalised and have a limited distribution, as is the case here, but it's actual classification will still be TOP SECRET.
Aside from these details, is anyone really surprised that GCHQ has assets in the Middle East? Really?
So the spooks can monitor international fibre.. and they have to have a warrant? and they are not allowed to store every communication? sounds reasonable powers to me...
Oh, but David Miliband basically gave the carte blanche to do what they want?
I am perfectly happy with the capability to exist for monitoring, as long as there are courts in place that decide whether a 'tap' is valid!
One of the many points is that thanks to #Labour's authoritarian #RIPA, no judicial oversight is required.
Magna Carta? She died in vain.
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Ed Miliband - they essentially gave any "authorised person" (Senior Scotland Yard Counter-Terrorism officer, Senior Police Officer, Local Authority Dog Muck Warden!) - the legal right to snoop on all your electronic communication.
Without
so
much
as
the
mention
of
any
legal
f*cking
process
Not
even
a
tame
judge,
Nope.
You read that right.
No
Legal
Oversight
Whatsoever.
So wake up. There is *NO* judicial oversight as to whether a "tap" is valid. Labour essentially passed an enablement act that means whatever *any* authority taps into is legal.
Didn't complain at the time? Voted Labour? Gee, you only have yourself to blame.
Oh, if you really want to get into the infamy of #RIPA - see what happens with encryption keys..and if you were to disclose that you had to hand them over. I'm sure the money launderers and terrorists are quaking in their boots, while civil society and democracy (and online security) won't be affected at all.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
