NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ • Hacker News Board

Re: NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ

#31

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Thu, Aug 01, 2013, 6:03 PM UTC

ToastyMallows wrote: post #28

kmfrk wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breastfeeding is unfortunately still a very contentious issue for a lot of people. Facebook in particular are very embattled by people who - rightly - believe breastfeeding is something that should be regarded as completely normal and appropriate in any context. Some countries are better at dealing with this than others, but I don't think Europeans are perfect on the matter either.

I'll agree with that, usually the pictures are a little more discrete though, but I guess the larger issue is, should they have be more discrete? I think it all depends on context.

The irrational fear of breasts is silly enough on its own, but I find it offensive when people take pains to bother babies and mothers with their weird sense of morality.

>should they have be more discrete?

Like how? Do you want mothers to retreat to a disgusting public restroom to feed baby?

Re: NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ

#32

Post by freeduck » Thu, Aug 01, 2013, 6:06 PM UTC

GCHQ at least on paper, is supposed to protect the British society. But as a wise man once said: You can not serve two masters.

Who does GCHQ serve? The British or the hand that feed them.

Re: NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ

#33

Post by lutze » Thu, Aug 01, 2013, 6:23 PM UTC

swombat wrote: post #21

jivatmanx wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been reported elsewhere that the NSA may uses GCHQ to spy on Americans, as a deliberate run around the fourth amendment. I guess, funding GCHQ makes that worse, as well.

Of course, it's perfectly fine to circumvent a foundational privacy law of your country by paying a foreign spy agency to do it on your behalf. What could possibly be ethically dubious about that?

Look at it from the other way too.

A foreign agency is secretly funnelling money into an institution that's supposed to be looking after my (as a UK citizen) interests.

I think it's well past time this incestuous charade was exposed.

Re: NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ

#34

Post by rhizome » Thu, Aug 01, 2013, 6:24 PM UTC

aspensmonster wrote: post #18

Absolutely disgusting. >When GCHQ does supply the US with valuable intelligence, the agency boasts about it. In one review, GCHQ boasted that it had supplied "unique contributions" to the NSA during its investigation of the American citizen responsible for an attempted car bomb attack in Times Square, New York City, in 2010. >No other detail is provided – but it raises the possibility that GCHQ might have been spying…

One might also wonder whether major US internet and telco providers are pressured to peer solely with UK companies for European traffic.

Re: NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ

#35

Post by scott_karana » Thu, Aug 01, 2013, 6:34 PM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #31

ToastyMallows wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll agree with that, usually the pictures are a little more discrete though, but I guess the larger issue is, should they have be more discrete? I think it all depends on context.

The irrational fear of breasts is silly enough on its own, but I find it offensive when people take pains to bother babies and mothers with their weird sense of morality. >should they have be more discrete? Like how? Do you want mothers to retreat to a disgusting public restroom to feed baby?

> Like how? Do you want mothers to retreat to a disgusting public restroom to feed baby?

Most mothers that I've seen publically breastfeeding have a light cloth that they drape over themselves. Portable, cheap, and effective.

Re: NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ

#36

Post by a3n » Thu, Aug 01, 2013, 6:40 PM UTC

jnbiche wrote: post #19

ToastyMallows wrote: post #7

What is with The Guardian and their NSFW article pictures on the sidebar?

Are you complaining about the breastfeeding picture? In which country are you that this is not safe for your place of employment?

It is NSFW at many or most employers in the US, for prudish or legal reasons or both.

This is not a comment on breastfeeding, it's an acknowledgement of the environment.

Re: NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ

#37

Post by ToastyMallows » Thu, Aug 01, 2013, 6:50 PM UTC

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #31

ToastyMallows wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll agree with that, usually the pictures are a little more discrete though, but I guess the larger issue is, should they have be more discrete? I think it all depends on context.

The irrational fear of breasts is silly enough on its own, but I find it offensive when people take pains to bother babies and mothers with their weird sense of morality. >should they have be more discrete? Like how? Do you want mothers to retreat to a disgusting public restroom to feed baby?

Not at all, I was merely commenting on the state of the argument I've heard the most, i.e. - "Breast feeding is natural, why should this be censored at all"

Re: NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ

#38

Post by fnordfnordfnord » Thu, Aug 01, 2013, 6:56 PM UTC

scott_karana wrote: post #35

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irrational fear of breasts is silly enough on its own, but I find it offensive when people take pains to bother babies and mothers with their weird sense of morality. >should they have be more discrete? Like how? Do you want mothers to retreat to a disgusting public restroom to feed baby?

> Like how? Do you want mothers to retreat to a disgusting public restroom to feed baby? Most mothers that I've seen publically breastfeeding have a light cloth that they drape over themselves. Portable, cheap, and effective.

>Most mothers that I've seen publically breastfeeding have a light cloth that they drape over themselves. Portable, cheap, and effective.

Do you want that to be law? It's what my wife usually did with our children. Our friends' child though, refused to feed under a cloth and would cry or thrash until the cloth was removed.

Re: NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ

#39

Post by harrytuttle » Thu, Aug 01, 2013, 6:56 PM UTC

jgrahamc wrote: post #12

Nobody at Cheltenham is particularly well paid, compared to the private sector at least – a junior analyst might earn £25,000. "We can offer a fantastic mission but we can’t compete with [private sector] salaries," one briefing note lamented. Yep. That was a big part of why when I talked to a GCHQ recruiter when I was finishing my doctorate that I didn't bother going any further.

I had a friend who started work there about 3 years ago. Once you're there, you're also 100% unemployable in the private sector immediately thereafter. He tried to get a job outside the place for nearly a year after realising on week two it was a bad move.

I actually ended up writing him a reference from my company for some private work to cover the time he was there and he said he was unemployed for the entire period.

Re: NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ

#40

Post by harrytuttle » Thu, Aug 01, 2013, 6:59 PM UTC

ceeK wrote: post #16

What scares me further is that The Guardian seem to be the only publication that are reporting on this. I'm a frequent BBC News reader and generally trust in there neutrality. I would not have heard about any of the recent revelations if not for The Guardian. I didn't even know about Tempora until I saw it on a HN comment and looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently there has been a "D-Notice" to prevent reporting on th…

The BBC are terrible. Whilst they don't usually outright lie, they cherry pick stories that don't piss off the ruling elite until everyone else has thoroughly jumped on them.

Apart from the guardian, every other news source in the UK is arse paper.