GCHQ protesters stick it to British spooks ... by drinking urine A number of protesters haranguing UK spies stationed at the country's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) have taken to apparently drinking human urine to publicise their disgust with the eavesdropping nerve centre's surveillance tactics. A video has been posted online that appears to show activists from the We Are …
Er, Cheltenham? West Country? Really?
South-West, just about, but not Westcountry!
West Midlands more likely.
Having lived in the Westcountry, South-West and Cheltenham at various times in my life, I can assure you, they don't get Points West in Cheltenham, the true guide as to whether yer westcountry bauy!
Is this another Public Relations statement about 'could be' laws? Like the 'it could be against the law to watch the beheading video'?
"could be breaking the law if they attempt to take photos of any GCHQ staff."
You're the police, it either IS or ISN'T.
Hasn't it already been fought and won (by pro-photographers & google) that its legal to take pictures in public places where there is no expectation of privacy?
"guiding protesters around the legality of taking pictures outside GCHQ"
The ACTUAL legality? Or the interpretation that suits the senior police officer on duty?
You know, i thought just that too. If the cops can't tell if it's against the law or not, wtf are we paying them for?
I for one would expect someone from their legal team to have advised them, before you know, they doing something they can't and ending themselves in court....
I'm guessing that standing on a public road taking photos of people or things inside the GCHQ site will give the cops the excuse to arrest you for spying under the Official Secrets Act 1911 and 1920. You'd probably never get to court, but you would get to experience the local police station at first hand before getting a caution and your camera back minus the memory card.
Is this another Public Relations statement about 'could be' laws? Like the 'it could be against the law to watch the beheading video'?
"could be breaking the law if they attempt to take photos of any GCHQ staff."
You're the police, it either IS or ISN'T.
You're being too harsh here - they're police, not lawyers. I suspect that someone in the back office is busy working out if taking pictures of GCHQ staff is legal because it's in public, or illegal because it can harm National Security or can create real danger to GCHQ staff (nobody has the right to endanger another IMHO).
I notice that they have been *warning* people who are taking pictures, but AFAIK they have not taken action. This could change, though, especially if staff images show up online.
Having closely followed many cases where police (and others) have illegally ordered people to stop videoing or taking photographs in a public place, followed up with an equally illegal confiscation of equipment and/or wiping of a memory card, it's my understanding that if GCHQ staff are on the public highway, then it is perfectly legal to photograph them. Of course, police may trump up other charges to try and justify an arrest but photography is not a crime.
Sorry to ... erm ... piss on your protest, but for the police to say "could be" may be entirely reasonable.
Technically even if they were shooting GCHQ employees with guns rather than cameras, police could only say it "could be" against the law. It would be for police to prosecute, but the decision would be one for a court.
It would be ironic if it were indeed deemed illegal because it violated someone's right to privacy!
To be honest I find it more refreshing that they are saying could be rather than taking the default "I know the law" police stance. I have been in several situations where the cops were completely wrong about the law, but refused to accept the possibility that someone could know better than them about anything.
If you wandered into the centre of Cheltenham at a weekend, and took a picture of the crowds shopping, you'd probably be taking a picture of a GCHQ employee, or the pictures I took at my friend's wedding, which included his parents who worked at GCHQ. Nieth of these is likely to be illegal, because it's not obvious from the photo what those people do.
However, if you take a photo of the same person as they're walking through the door into the doughnut, it's pretty obvious what they do for a living, and thus they're open to blackmail, etc.
I'm guessing that's why the police can't give a snappy one line answer about which photos are legal.
It will surely come as no surprise that the GCHQ building is Protected Site; I can't remember whether this is under section 128 of the Serious & Organised Crime and Police Act, or whether it's under some Ministry of Defence secret places ruling. There are notices every 50 metres or so on all the fences around the site and its car parks. You can't miss them, and any I sincerely doubt that any protestor bright enough to use a computer could be unable to read and understand those notices.
Therefore if you take a photo with the GCHQ building in the background, it's illegal, regardless of any innocent purpose.
Next up is the law around the intended use of the photographs. If it is reasonable to believe that the photographs might be of use to someone committing acts of terrorism, the photograph is illegal. It doesn't matter whether the photographer is a terrorist or whether the photographer knows any terrorists, it is enough that the photographer intends to publish the useful photos on a website where terrorists might be able to find them, for example posted on a website visible to the general public. Photos of GCHQ cryptographers posted to social media and public forums DEFINITELY count here.
That's where the "could or couldn't" comes in. It's down to the police, the CPS and the courts to make a decision on whether the photos might reasonably get used like that.
I'm at a loss to understand why the protestors don't get this. Maybe because I've lived around Cheltenham for twenty years I just assumed everybody knew this. However, there are notices on the fences, it's not difficult, just read the bloody signs and ask a policeman if you're not sure.
That Street View data's from 2010. I wonder why that is?
It's been raining ever since? Did you notice that all Google Streetview imagery is sunny? It must have taken some time to get Scotland mapped that way too :)
If it is reasonable to believe that the photographs might be of use to someone committing acts of terrorism, the photograph is illegal
Wow. Does this mean you should feel unsure of the legality of the picture unless you are 100% sure that no matter the conditions, the picture will never be useful to anybody committing an act of terrorism? Gotta love those open-ended laws…
quote: "Next up is the law around the intended use of the photographs. If it is reasonable to believe that the photographs might be of use to someone committing acts of terrorism, the photograph is illegal. It doesn't matter whether the photographer is a terrorist or whether the photographer knows any terrorists, it is enough that the photographer intends to publish the useful photos on a website where terrorists might be able to find them, for example posted on a website visible to the general public."
That sounds like it potentially covers every photograph on Facebook, Instagram, and Flickr that shows a location inside the UK. Is there a government department that I can send every single photograph I take inside UK borders to, so they can pre-check and vet each one and let me know which ones won't be useful to terrorists and thus won't open me up to prosecution for terrorism?
Obviously photos inside/of Tube stations are going to be illegal (Tube bombers can use those to plan more Tube bombings), as are photos taken inside/of airports, and I'd probably include schools, shopping centres, High Streets, and any places where enough members of the public gather and are thus potential bomb targets. Also, some people I know may or may not be important enough that they could be considered targets for kidnapping, so I'd need guidance on those even if they are taken inside my own house.
Man, it sounds like I need to just stop taking photos, because if any found their way onto the internet I could be in some pretty hot water :'(
...One of the first things i'll be doing is shutting down GCHQ. I'll also make sure that the ex staff would only be able to get employment as fluffers for Bukakke videos. But in the meantime i'm going to pop over soon and superglue the locks on the front and backdoors...mind you i'll have to get quite a few tubes of glue as these twats have thousands of backdoors.
GCHQ (the NSA, et al) have two broad functions. Firstly, to devise ways to protect the interests of their home nation. The (secret) invention of public key cryptography at GCHQ, and the NSA involvement to improve DES. These are good things and should carry on - especially if they make this stuff more public.
Their second function is keeping an eye on ne'er-do-wells. Again, this is all good stuff.
The problems arise when the spooks assume *everyone* is a ne'er-do-well, or when they interfere with the things that are supposed to be secure and actually make them less secure (so their snooping on everyone is made easier)
If GCHQ & the NSA are anything like any standard business (which they're probably not) these broad policy decision are made by senior managers trying to empire build and protect their own jobs/departments/budgets and not by the grafters at the bottom of the pile. It's these senior people who we need to get shot of.
"It's these senior people who we need to get shot of."
Considering that you can now be subjected to an international man-hunt and arrested for trying to get medical treatment for your child, this comment could be construed as incitement to terrorism. Gotta be careful there old sport, remember 'they' aren't afraid of criminals, 'they' are afraid of YOU.
I'm Sparticus and so's my wife.
"But then facts are never as emotional as fiction, now are they."
Oh that's right, because they haven't done anything illegal. However, they were still arrested for an unknown charge and face extradition back to the UK, leaving their sick child in a Spanish hospital and half a dozen others at a loose end.
The only reason I can see for this whole fiasco is to push the Rotherham 1400 scandal off the news lists so that someone very high up can bury it completely (until the next time the public gets reminded).
you comment should have read
"As GCHQ is part of the Civil Service broad policy decision are made by senior managers trying to empire build and protect their own jobs/departments/budgets and not by the grafters at the bottom of the pile."
not to mention statements by ministers in parliament that the civil servants have to deliver on which also provide for empire building opportunities mostly to counter or capitalise on Daily Mail headlines.
Interesting in their background of their picture is a big stack of barriers, all ready just in case (!) a lot of protestors turned up - no doubt we'll get the usual claims of "hundreds" or "thousands" of protestors from people who support it, when the reality looks to be about a dozen!
Points to GCHQ for being prepared, negative points to the protestors for failing to find anyone that actually cares!
The police spent my money (a taxpayer) feeding scumbags protesting against the state protecting our national interests? That more than anything else is what irritates me, let the scum starve. I for one will be launching an official complaint. How dare they feed them.
Pepper spray and Alsatians is what the protesting scum deserved.
The Concrete Doughnut is not in the middle of Cheltenham. It's on the Western edge (though I've never gone that way with a compass. Anyway, the M5, Gloucester and the gateway to Wales are beyond). On the almost polar opposite edge of Cheltenham is what was GCHQ Joint Technical Language Fla-doo-boing-boing. Around the high barbed wire perimeter at regular intervals are (or were - don't know if they're still there) signs saying that it is (was) a site protected under the Serious and Organized Crime and Speckled-Flea-Be-Doo Act and that taking photographs is (was - but possibly still is) forbidden. I always meant to take my phone out and pretend to be receiving a call while taking photos, but in the end I couldn't be arsed. I figured if anyone really wants photos of it there's really nothing to stop them taking them themselves. Same goes, obviously, for staff at the Doughnut. I did wonder why it was verboten to take photos and for some time figured they'd regretted admitting GCHQ existed despite everyone in Cheltenham, even my old Gran, not only knowing full-well it did, but as often as not knowing people who worked there. Apparently a couple of gay Americans who worked there rented an old and well-known property about 50 yards from where I type. And where I lived three years ago I briefly had a neighbour who worked there. Anyway, I figure they don't like people taking photos because of a vague feeling that not liking people taking photos is what you do, coupled with a vague belief that they can resecretize it. And where GCHQ is concerned I get this slightly disturbing feeling that I'm actually Arthur Dent.
I walked past ex-GCHQ ex-JTLFDBB this afternoon. The Red Arrows flew over. And I don't even have a mobe anymore!
You realise that by posting the location of GCHQ you 'may' have just become a terrorist.
Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000 <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58>:
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
Just out of interest I googled HCHQ and Cheltenham ( The error was not intentional)
Have a look at that URL, it actually contains my last research details as well.....merci for the privacy Google.
The traitor protester scum shouldn't be allowed to take pictures of the buildings or any of the staff full stop. They're scum and should allow the government organisation I pay good money for freedom to go about their business of protecting our national intertests.
Investigate each and ever attendee and make sure they're not claming benefits.
So you can get arrested for a birthday or wedding group photo with GCHQ staff in the background?
How far does this extend from GCHQ? Does this make all photography in the UK illegal, unless you ask all subjects, "are you employed by GCHQ?" first?
At least it should make it difficult for the police to take photos or videos of the protesters (who might just be staff waiting for a bus).
Of course not. But I think you knew that.
It is all about context. Joe Blow walking into a pub in the High Street is one thing; Joe Blow wearing an ID tag and walking into GCHQ is quite another.
Further I suspect that the GCHQ canteen is good enough so that the workers are not forced to drink urine. And that GCHQ does not employ people so violently ugly that they have to wear a mask - coincidentally, the same mask as worn by the protesters.
As much as we might like to laugh at our police, I think they should be able to tell the difference.
EssEll, I used the pedant icon, would the joke alert have been more helpful?
Yes, I do think the police can tell the difference, but crimes should not be defined in a subjective and arbitrary way. Anyone who wants photos of the buildings or staff to do bad things can probably think of many less-obvious ways of getting them. If such a person was caught, the photos could still be used in court to demonstrate who they were targeting, and linked to other evidence showing their bad intentions (e.g. stockpiles of explosives and weapons), regardless of whether taking the photos was illegal. The heavy-handed, "You're not allowed to do that" is to intimidate people who might ask awkward questions.
I suggest that perhaps you are wrong. A photo of Joe Blow in a High Street pub is harmless but this photograph could then be matched to another photograph (perhaps not yet taken) showing him working for GCHQ. At that time the photograph in the pub becomes targeting data, i.e. where he goes to relax and possibly depending on what else is in the photo what time and day of the week you could expect to find him there. Publishing information like this is certainly in breach of the law.
With facial recognition software I guess this is not very difficult.
Not in this case. Depending on the photograph contents the two laws that might apply are:
The Official Secrets Act (OSA)
Counter-Terrorism Act
The OSA could (would in fact) apply to photographs of GCHQ (and I think within 50 metres of perimeter). The Counter-Terrorism Act could apply to photographs of employees.
Taking pictures of staff entering and leaving and putting it on website saying GCHQ staff is wrong
Taking pictures of your friends who happen to work there and putting them on an online album as pictures of your mates is perfectly normal.
As to secrecy - you can know quite a bit about the place without breaking secrecy laws.
As for the staff the lower ranking they are the more officious they are.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
