GCHQ can hack your systems at will – thanks to 'soft touch' oversight Documents released by GCHQ to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal suggest the agency may be allowed to hack multiple computers in the UK under single "thematic" or "class" warrants. Responding to complaints brought by Privacy International and seven global internet and communication service providers, the British spy agency told …
to submit a claim)
seemed a bit borked on the PDF the website generates. I'm sure El Reggers will easily manage to make it happen (seems you need to "upgrade" to Acrobat Reader "DC") but I do wonder if it will have dented the campaign.
"•Overseas hacking does not require authorisations to name or describe a particular piece of equipment, or an individual user of the equipment "
This is how the UK differs from US. The US assumes it can extend its laws permitting security services to "monitor" overseas to any nation. By comparison, the UK doesn't apply any British law limiting monitoring to territory outside the UK.
These terrorists you speak of acting out of Belgium, did these spying powers stop them? 7/7, Marathon bombers, Tunisia etc... etc... etc...
Also if I was a cynical tin foil hat wearing paranoid person then one question I would ask is how come I can't sneak a bottle of spirits into a concert yet someone managed to get in with some serious firepower and now tomorrow we vote to bomb Syria.
/Need a big in your face icon.
"....did these spying powers stop them?....." They have certainly stopped AQ and IS doing the same in the UK. And Britain is a much higher target on the extremists' grievance list than France or Belgium, they have called the UK "the Little Satan" for years.
"....if i was a cynical tin foil hat wearing paranoid person...." Your post makes it clear you are not cynical, but the rest is spot on.
"...sneak in....." Which just goes to show that - being the standard issue tinfoil wearer - you rushed to bleat without having actually read anything about the Bataclan attack, otherwise you would know the gunman didn't sneak in, they drove up to the entrance and got out with AKs ready. Your post has merely exposed your ignorance as well as your gullibility. It is safe to assume your knowledge of anything do with the authorities is just as self-deludingly blinkered. Best you leave the conversation to those actually equipped for a debate, mmmmkay?
Don't be silly.
Yes, I have read all the news stories and digested the information, they turned up in a vw golf if you want to be a smart arse however I see no mention in any news story about the reaction of the door staff. Now either there were none or they legged it, I just find it strange there is no mention whatsoever.
Now forgive me if I don't just believe what the TV/Internet and Government tell me without question and that the world will be a safer place when they have laws that allow them to see what everyone is doing except the people they are actually looking for because they know where said governments are looking.
Security services are often at a disadvantage. They could stop thousands of attacks, all of them in secret, but would still be considered to have failed because one succeeded.
That said, we do need effective judicial oversight of their operations. This means that open-ended warrants (or warrants issued by a minister) should not be allowed. A judge should sign off on every warrant, and it's purpose should be limited in scope and proportional to the risk.
International "hacks" should fall under this if there is a chance of them interfering with British people's data, but should also be subject to international relations policy and international law. What is GCHQ doing attacking Belgium, who are an ally? They could, in theory, take this as an act of war (or at least a hostile act), Britain launching an unprovoked attack on their infrastructure. We should work with the law enforcement and intelligence services of our allies, each sharing intelligence but collecting it under local laws. What I see is the opposite: Each country specifically attacking each other to get around local laws, then providing that intelligence back to the local agencies.
"Yes, I have read all the news stories and digested the information...." Obviously not or you wouldn't have made the sneaking comment. Backtracking much? I also doubt you have read "all" the relevant news items as your grasp of written English seems rather challenged, to the point where I consider it highly unlikely you would have the intellect to have also read the French coverage, or the Belgian, or the German, or the Russian, or the Chinese, etc., etc. Indeed, you would probably need to spend 24 hours per diem just to keep up with coverage in English alone! Your claim of "all" is simply another attempt to hide your lack of knowledge.
"....they turned up in a vw golf...." The Gendarmes have said it was a grey VW Polo. That is reported on many news sites, yet somehow you missed it when you read "all" of them....
"....I just find it strange there is no mention whatsoever...." Further proof of your limits. A quick Yahoogle of "Batalcan door staff killed" would give you plenty of hits on how the attackers shot at staff and customers smoking outside before they killed the security staff in the lobby, then went into the concert hall and attacked the concert crowd.
Go away, do some actual research, then try again, and stop simply regurgitating what has been spoonfed to you.
@AC
You said...
" I can't sneak a bottle of spirits into a concert yet someone managed to get in with some serious firepower"
Are you suggesting that the perpetrators got into the Bataclan as part of the concert going crowd? I was under the impression that they attacked from the outside and worked their way in, but now you raise the point that was an assumption on my part. Do you have a citation or article that we can look at? If you're right, you raise a very interesting point....
Success is relative. I found some articles from Tom Engelhardt quite enlightening. He outlined how many billions of dollar went into building, dare I say, a police-state? To protect the population from great dangers:
"Take the United States, a place where, in the years since 9/11, the danger of being attacked by an Islamic terrorist could be slotted in somewhere between being “shot” by your dog and being shot by a toddler who has found a loaded, unlocked gun in your house, purse, or car."
Go ahead and read some more from the quoted article, it's quite refreshing.
Do you work for .gov?
Lots of folks exposing the Paris shenanigans on YT. I recommend morris108 for some nice analysis on this and other world events. Or peekay22 if you don't mind swearing and a direct Aussie approach.
Peeps don't believe anymore. You know that old story, the boy that cried wolf? Have you forgotten Mister T B liar already? Or how about the Kuwaiti diplomat's daughter?
There there Mr Bryant. You've had your shots from the nice nurse. Would you like a nice cup of fluorocillic acid to wash that down with?
"Do you work for .gov?....." So anyone that doesn't ape your mindless rebleating of the herd message, but has the experience of the real World you lack and the intelligence to do their own analysis and reading, they just have to be a government stooge? How sad and tiny-minded you are.
"....Morris108....." LOL! You are using that cretin as a reference!?! Seriously!?!?! Just watch his vid on gay marriage in New York, he manages to bounce from homophobia to anti-semitism to conspiracy theory junk in minutes - what a buffoon! Nothing could expose your stupidity more thoroughly than your own admission that you put any value in that clown's "judgement". Seriously, disconnect yourself from the Internet now, you are obviously too stupid to use a computer.
"Watch people die....?" Not in the UK. The Paris attack was not the failure of the GCHQ or NSA but the failure of the French and Belgians, plus the fact the moronic socialist dream of "one Europe" meant the lack of protection built into the Schengen Agreement (which the UK opted out of). Trying reading some facts and forming an opinion of your own for a change.
"....You've lost it." You wouldn't know "it" in the first place.
You see, Matt is *so* ok with ALL Intelligence Services being allowed to do what they like that he's be fine with the idea that if the Belgian Intelligence Services thought there *might* be a terrorist living next door to him then, without the knowledge or consent of the UK Intelligence Services or our Government, they could come into this country, illegally break into his home and plant surveillance devices to monitor what's going on next door to him!
After all, if he's ok with us paying *our* Intelligence Services to target people who don't "pose any legitimate national security concern" in Belgium simply to get access to the customers of Belgacom, then what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, isn't it?
(Waits for Matt's trademark brand of name-calling, obfuscation, evasion and goal-post moving in 3... 2... 1...)
".....Belgian Intelligence Services....." I have travelled through Belgium many times, which makes it highly likely the Staatsveiligheid will have tried slurping my mobile at some point (along with just about every other EU intelligence service). The difference is I realise that years of such surveillance has done me no harm at all. Meanwhile, you will again fail to show me any harm done by such surveillance though you insist such harm must be happening. Yes, yet again I am asking you to show me the harm, and yet again you will dodge the question, probably whitter on about straw men, and completely fail to provide any substance to back up your paranoid fantasies.
".....name-calling...." Well, seeing as I wouldn't want to add to what seems to be an overwhelming sense of disappointment in your life, I'm going to have to stop referring to you as Marsbarbrain as the Mars confectionary company will probably take offence to their product being compared to someone as stupidly delusional as yourself. Enjoy!
Oh look:
Name Calling? Check
Obfustication? Check
Evasion? Check
Goalpost Moving? Check!
Matt Bryant BINGO!!
And, no, I'm not going to use the Straw Man Fallacy because you actually managed to post a reply which *didn't* use one (if you'd understood what a Straw Man is, you'd have known that you hadn't done that), I will, instead, refer you to the Burden of Proof Fallacy where someone (ie you) makes the claim that this "Does No Harm" and then demand that the rest of us prove that it *does* before you'll believe it.
Of course, as past experience has shown, despite all the examples which you have been presented with, you will then repeatedly dodge, evade, move the goalposts etc etc because nothing will *ever* convince you to *your* satisfaction that harm can possibly arise from the Intelligence Services performing mass surveillance and intrusions on people who have committed no crime and who are not a threat to National Security, since you clearly believe that we should all be happy to be snooped on *just in case* one of us might do something bad or might know someone who might do something bad...
Still, please keep calling me "delusional" if it makes you feel better.
PS Matt, again I'll offer to sell you this magic stone which protects you against being bitten by a crocodile. It must work because I've had it for years and I've *never* been bitten by a crocodile!
Hi Graham,
I've called MBs bluff on this "show me the harm" question a few times and each time he has dismissed the evidence presented. My latest evidence comes from the very same edition of El Reg as his latest rant, and he has failed to answer it at all, in any way, despite me challenging him in several threads. Assuming that he doesn't bother to read replies in those threads (because he thinks he's "won" already), do you mind if I post here?
MB ~ Here is some actual, substantive evidence of direct harm to social liberties and the course of justice, here in the UK, as a result of anti-terror legislation. I look forward to your response.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/30/police_scotland_taken_tribunal_former_detective_unlawful_snooping/
Bernard, I'm obviously on your side, against the schill/troll/authoritarian follower or whatever MB may be. But your example is illustrative of the problem we have in spelling out the harm. In short, that story is an example of abuse of process but, in the end, the actual harm will probably be limited to a bit of intimidation which, in this instance, will fail. One or two cops will be disciplined (but almost certainly keep their jobs). No great threat to the man in the street (as they see it).
As a privacy fundamentalist, I have tried, for years, to construct an argument that makes the "if you've nothing to hide" brigade wake up and smell the coffee. The reason it's almost impossible is that all the potential harms remain exactly that - "potential" - for the vast majority of the herd. How many Wildebeest refuse to cross the river, on the annual migration, despite the fact that, last year, about 2 dozen of their number were eaten by crocodiles?
Very few citizens get to see their neighbours and friends victimised by the bully state. And in the tiny communities where the victimisation reaches more visible levels, a relatively small amount of targeting is enough to intimidate the rest of them back into toeing the line.
The real and lasting harm is to the Social Psyche, which learns to internalise the new restrictions and repressions and when to kowtow to authority. This is particularly obvious in the USA, where the level of real harm caused to citizens by the State is vastly greater than any other "first world" nation but still hasn't created the kind of backlash which is required to make the bastards back down.
That "successful" model of naked authoritarianism is encouraging all the other "civilised" nations to tread, more or less warily, down that same path. But until we start seeing more of our own innocent citizens gunned down in the street by steroid pumped uniformed bullies, (which I genuinely do not think will happen in most of Europe) the average Joe is going to remain content with the "soft authoritarianism" we have adopted and consider it a fair price to pay for our perceived security in the street.
And if we had a couple of Paris style attacks in the UK, my guess is that the populace would bend over and allow themselves to be further butt-fucked for the sake of "keeping us safe"
"...Here is some actual, substantive evidence of direct harm to social liberties and the course of justice, here in the UK, as a result of anti-terror legislation. I look forward to your response...." The story indeed is about the use of RIPA by the Scottish Police to allow them to investigate a leak of case information (a disciplinary and possible criminal offence) without applying for a warrant, and whilst it says the Police acted "recklessly" it says nothing about illegality or harm. It also does not mention anything to do with the NSA or GCHQ, the spooks, or any of the people YOU insist are spying on EVERYONE with ACTUAL HARM. Once again, you have failed to show what you claimed, just as you have failed at every previous attempt. Where you have succeeded is in deluding yourself (again) into baaaahlieveiung you had proved anything. Try again! Just remember to do some research, mmmkay?
"Oh look:
Name Calling? Check
Obfustication? Check
Evasion? Check
Goalpost Moving? Check!
Matt Bryant BINGO!!...." Oh look, still no proof of harm. This is my surprised face, honest! It is amusing how the request for proof of harm so reduces you to incoherent rage you that you rattle off reams of just about any blather you can think of to avoid admitting you have no proof of the harm you insist is being done daily to EVERYONE! ROFLMAO!
Congratulations, Matt! You managed to completely fail to quote the bits from my post which addressed the issue which you raise.
Here, let me quote them for you again:
I will, instead, refer you to the Burden of Proof Fallacy where someone (ie you) makes the claim that this "Does No Harm" and then demand that the rest of us prove that it *does* before you'll believe it.
Of course, as past experience has shown, despite all the examples which you have been presented with, you will then repeatedly dodge, evade, move the goalposts etc etc because nothing will *ever* convince you to *your* satisfaction that harm can possibly arise [...]
Now, boys and girls, do you think he's going to ignore this once more and keep going for the Burden of Proof Fallacy?
I'll give you three guesses...
All the usuals from him, Graham. He's a lost cause, refusing to think outside the box he lives in. In his world, the powers that be never, ever do anything wrong and never, ever will.
No point in arguing with him any further. His lack of logical education, critical thinking and social skills combine to make him utterly unapproachable.
> No point in arguing with him any further. His lack of logical education, critical thinking and social skills combine to make him utterly unapproachable.
I know. It's a shame, because, just occasionally, Matt *does* actually come up with some intelligent and pertinent comments, but he can't resist his habits of name-calling, goal-post shifting and absolute inability to admit that he might be wrong at all.
Ah well, it's fun occasionally to bait the troll, but now I think it's time to trit-trot along again...
"....Burden of Proof Fallacy...." The only fallacy here is your often made claim of harm, which you have AGAIN failed to prove. Making up junk with capital letters is not substitute for being able to actually demonstrate what you claim. You have made an hysterical claim, you cannot show any actual evidence to substantiate that claim. There is no unfairness in being asked to provide proof for a claim so your insistence that it is a "burden" or a "fallacy" is simply false. You do know that baaaaahlief without any supporting proof is called religion, right? I asked you to stop your whining about "strawman arguments" and you have merely switched to another playground-lawyer non-argument instead. Don't worry, it is very clear to all you cannot provide anything to backup your delusional claims, but that you simply want to blindly baaaaaahlief in them rather than admit their completely fantasy basis. You fail, again, yet again!
/SL&P
"Don't you just H8 it when the intellyjunce services have known all about the latest group of nutters for months and don't bother to tell any other intellyjunce service?...." Again, the failure to act is on the part of the politicians, not the spooks. Sometimes the politicians grasp the nettle, more often as not they are happier to sit back and wait rather than acting. The Paris attacks show the timidity of the Belgian and French politicians, not the failure of their spooks.
@BRYANT: STFU you useless tw@t.
On the odd occasion that you make an intelligent suggestion, you subsequently and regularly completely undermine any hope of your redemption in the eyes of any sane, thinking person. Your asinine, repetitive non-joined up thinking with respect to human rights and civil liberties vs overreach by the authorities makes Cameroon look like Ghandi.
Only a complete cretin could keep repeating the verbal diarrhoea that you insist on excreting in your posts and replies.
Thank you for your submission for Rant Of The Week, but I have to inform you are not going to win any prizes. For a start, whilst you did manage to project the right level of unthinking and hysterical rage in your post, you need to rant all in caps and without punctuation. I'm sorry but the failure to meet even such basic requirements as all-caps means your submission is destined for filing in the circular receptacle. Please do try harder in future.
Of course, I apologize profusely if that actually was what passes for a comment in your circles, and in no way mean to denigrate what must have been a Herculean mental effort on your part. If so I salute your effort and give thanks to the special ed teachers that have helped you on the way to becoming a productive member of society. At this rate, in only a few years you should be fully-qualified to write for The Guardian.
/SP&L
"The Intelligence and Security Committee Report in March 2015 called MI5's and SIS's failure to keep accurate records of their overseas hacking activities "unacceptable", [ISC report, p.66] as it makes effective oversight impossible[71L]."
And that folks, is exactly why they do it.
"Above the law?"
They have no need as this supine so-called government is more than willing to move the goal-posts at any time if it suits the "security services."
And they reckon that WE are the enemy within!
>And they reckon that WE are the enemy within!
What makes you think you are not? In the battle for the monopolisation of the worlds resources there are the chosen elite and the useless eaters. The general consensus is that 6 or 7 billion people is too many and that 500 million is probably about the right for a sustainable use of resources, assuming the slaves are happy to eat their own recycled excrement. What service can you provide to the elite to justify the ongoing consumption of you and yours.
The practice of applying for ridiculously broad warrants and then only using the bits one needs is obviously an attempt to comply with reduction of paperwork statutes in line with government mandates on the subject.
As for the "scary" Pacemaker aspect, well, "Everyone here gets [a heartplug]".
You get to name whole classes of people, grab their data and then extract the ones you actually want. Of course the whole process for doing this is completely opaque and nobody knows who or how many the security services are actually looking at, and for what reasons.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/01/gchq_privacy_international_investigatory_powers_tribunal/
Claimants
Privacy International
GreenNet Limited (UK)
Riseup Networks, Inc (US)
Mango Email Service (Zimbabwe)
Korean Progressive Network aka "Jinbonet" (South Korea)
Greenhost (Netherlands)
May First/People Link (US)
Chaos Computer Club (Germany)
In a previous life I had a slight involvement with Jinbonet. I rate as nothing but these people are 'on side' and quality. Their Government also pays attention to them. Perhaps that might be 'when it suits'..
Jinbonet Down?
http://s4.postimg.org/wb4ewnf9p/Screenshot_Mozilla_Firefox_4.png
By the sound of things, we have to consider every ISP and CSP to be potentially compromised by state actors - if not GCHQ, then the NSA, PLA, FSO, RSPB or whomever.
By their own admission, they engage in CNE against deliberately nebulous targets and without proper judicial or ministerial oversight whilst simultaneously failing to keep adequate records of who or what they were exploiting or to what end.
Therefore, any device which has ever been connected to the internet must be assumed to be compromised; any data contained therein could have come from anywhere and could not be considered as evidence in court. Seems like an own-goal to me.
Go for it EU privacy commissioner the swathes of fines that are going to smack into these idiots is epic, nobody will touch or buy there technology whilst they're busy trying to weaken the security of it all in a prolific, "we need to do it to make you safer" manifesto, we need to behave like communist Russia with "SORM" we need to behave like communist China and Korea spying on it's own citizen's because it makes us all safer to weaken the security upon which you all rely. Hacking into huge telecoms providers is nothing, after all according to the home secretary's own admission "we've been doing it for 30 years!", I'll bet that doesn't swing well with the European Union whilst they prolificly hack into there systems and exclaim we're allowed to back-door 16 bit 32 bit and 64 bit systems, because we appreciate that 7 bit systems with 1 floating bit have no weaknesses and we'll use that whilst we operate some kind of sinister "Specter" manifesto and let holly-wood publicly put our 9 eye's spying manifesto into a movie, just like they did with the "Matrix" and we'll use this brain-washing to recruit more idiots that believe nobody should have any privacy except US because we deserve it and you don't!
If ever security services bulk scanning efforts had resulted in a single arrest of a single terrorist or pedophile or bomber or shooter or other provisioner of mass terror.
It would have been in 48 point bold block capitals on every single TV, Newspaper, social media site, etc that the Matt Bryant's of the world manage to connect to.
So Matt, Go back into your corner, eat your porridge and SHUT THE #$%# UP.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
