Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NSA pays £100m in secret funding for GCHQ

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

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

#41

Post by ToastyMallows »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #30
ToastyMallows wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yesterday on The Guardian I saw in the sidebar a man & woman on a bed, woman topless with just enough hair to cover her chest. I would consider this NSFW. What do you consider as NSFW?

I didn't see the photo, was it something like this [1]? If so, then I do see why some might think it is NSFW but, IMO that is a juvenile, silly, absurd, mindset, and even a bit insulting. The only part of an image such as that which is NSFW is that it is IMO not suitable to spend time gawking at it while at work; but it is only slightly less suitable than wasting time on most any of the other news articles. >What do…

> even a fully nude one isn't NSFW until some person's reaction to it negatively affects themselves or their co-workers, and even then, it isn't really the image that is to blame.

I can understand this notion, but I feel that there is more to consider. I take NSFW to mean "would you read this at work". That is something I wouldn't think of opening at work, just to avoid things that MAY happen. For example:

- My computer isn't in an office, anyone can look and see what I'm doing when walking past. Someone to my boss, "I saw X looking at Y on his computer, I was offended" (in fact I didn't even open your link so that this or something similar doesn't occur)

Why even risk this sort of situation?

I think this is at the very heart of the phrase "NSFW". I'm on a news website, I don't want this to negatively affect me in any way, it's a "safe for work" site.

Back to the breastfeeding image. I will agree that on the whole, a good chunk of people would say that this is a safe for work picture. But because of workplace culture at certain businesses, I feel that this is on the boarder at best.

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

#42

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

ToastyMallows wrote: post #41
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't see the photo, was it something like this [1]? If so, then I do see why some might think it is NSFW but, IMO that is a juvenile, silly, absurd, mindset, and even a bit insulting. The only part of an image such as that which is NSFW is that it is IMO not suitable to spend time gawking at it while at work; but it is only slightly less suitable than wasting time on most any of the other news articles. >What do…

> even a fully nude one isn't NSFW until some person's reaction to it negatively affects themselves or their co-workers, and even then, it isn't really the image that is to blame. I can understand this notion, but I feel that there is more to consider. I take NSFW to mean "would you read this at work". That is something I wouldn't think of opening at work, just to avoid things that MAY happen. For example: - My compu…

> I feel that there is more to consider.

What more?

> I take NSFW to mean "would you read this at work".

Unless you are Brewster Kahle, almost everything on the internet has nothing to do with your work. That goes for nearly all Guardian content.

>Someone to my boss, "I saw X looking at Y on his computer, I was offended"

Well, if your boss searched your internet history, would anything be found to substantiate such a claim?

> (in fact I didn't even open your link so that this or something similar doesn't occur)

I deliberately posted the link to the article (daily mail) so that you wouldn't be afraid I was trying to goatse you or something. The images in the article are no worse than those that can be seen at a grocer's checkout. I am really sorry that you have so little job security that you fear reprisal over a simple image such as that. Incidentally, I've seen full frontal nudity plastered on bus stops in Germany and I don't think anyone batted an eye.

>Why even risk this sort of situation?

Because pandering to this risk-averse approach to never offending anyone ever, even the most socially-repressive of us, even by chance or misunderstanding only encourages more of it?

>I think this is at the very heart of the phrase "NSFW". I'm on a news website, I don't want this to negatively affect me in any way, it's a "safe for work" site.

Well, I have to inform you that not everyone shares your career and that an article on breastfeeding, or even one on marketing with racy photos, or any number of other subjects might very well be pertinent and safe for many peoples' work. You may have to adopt a more forgiving sense of propriety or confine yourself to some much smaller portion of the internet.

Do you suggest that everyone should be forced to obey the most repressive moral standards of all the sub-groups in our culture?

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

#43

Post by wil421 »

northwest wrote: post #14

The general geopolitical trend seems to be that the US is about to take control over Europe. Slowly, but under the radar of the People. Maybe we really could all agree on having 1 big merger. But the idea that "Americope" would then be controlled mainly out of North America is pretty unhealthy/insane.

In a sense "Americope" is already a reality. They have already used their power to divert the Bolivian presidents plane and restrict the airspace that Snowden might have used to get out of Europe.

When these Snowden leaks first came out I was hoping that Europe would stand up to the US but the fact is that many of the Intel agencies in Europe are either in on the various programs or benefit from them via funding or some sort of data sharing.

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

#44

Post by robgough »

harrytuttle wrote: post #39
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 perio…

I'm curious as to why you think they're unemployable? Simply because they can't talk about what they've been doing, and you can't ask for a reference - or is it something about the job itself?

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

#45

Post by ceeK »

harrytuttle wrote: post #40
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.

Suffice to say I think my source of news has changed into The Guardian's hands.

Funny enough that the news they report and others don't is the only news I really care about.

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

#46

Post by ToastyMallows »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #42
ToastyMallows wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even a fully nude one isn't NSFW until some person's reaction to it negatively affects themselves or their co-workers, and even then, it isn't really the image that is to blame. I can understand this notion, but I feel that there is more to consider. I take NSFW to mean "would you read this at work". That is something I wouldn't think of opening at work, just to avoid things that MAY happen. For example: - My compu…

> I feel that there is more to consider. What more? > I take NSFW to mean "would you read this at work". Unless you are Brewster Kahle, almost everything on the internet has nothing to do with your work. That goes for nearly all Guardian content. >Someone to my boss, "I saw X looking at Y on his computer, I was offended" Well, if your boss searched your internet history, would anything be found to substantiate such a…

> almost everything on the internet has nothing to do with your work

While this is true, I use the internet heavily, being in the tech industry.

> if your boss searched your internet history, would anything be found to substantiate such a claim?

Not if the image was on the Guardian or something similar that just blends in.

> I am really sorry that you have so little job security that you fear reprisal over a simple image such as that. Incidentally, I've seen full frontal nudity plastered on bus stops in Germany and I don't think anyone batted an eye.

Yea, it kind of sucks, but that just comes back to different cultures. Nudity is more accepted in Germany apparently, and it isn't in the US, that's just something we have to live with.

> You may have to adopt a more forgiving sense of propriety or confine yourself to some much smaller portion of the internet.

I guess I do, unfortunate for the Guardian.

> Do you suggest that everyone should be forced to obey the most repressive moral standards of all the sub-groups in our culture?

Of course not, but this is not what I'm claiming at all. The Guardian presents itself as a news organization. The person that picked out that picture should have considered posting it in light of the fact that they are now, with the Snowden leak, a global news organization, with visitors from Germany AND the US (in this example). What they should consider is "Who is going to see this article?" and then take the option that attracts the most people to their site.

Understand that I'm not trying to say that Guardian should change their site up at all, rather I'm saying that it might benefit them to think twice about what they post, because I'm no longer visiting their site at work.

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

#47

Post by harrytuttle »

robgough wrote: post #44
harrytuttle wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 perio…

I'm curious as to why you think they're unemployable? Simply because they can't talk about what they've been doing, and you can't ask for a reference - or is it something about the job itself?

Its about the public sector. Once you've done public sector work in the UK, you are tarnished. This isn't a real barrier, but one put up by management.

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

#48

Post by Amadou »

teamgb wrote: post #5

The linked article only provides the highlights. A more in-depth article is here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/aug/01/gch... As well as discussing the funding and various projects in more detail, it also sheds some light on what life is like for the rank-and-file. It is a world of decoding and cake sales, programming and pub quizzes. Nobody at Cheltenham is particularly well paid, compared to the…

> There are protocols on the clearing of desks at the end of the day, with particularly sensitive documents being locked in special cupboards

FWIW, this sort of thing is standard in every classified facility in the US. It would be messed up if they didn't do that, it is just basic opsec.

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

#49

Post by VladRussian2 »

emhart wrote: post #3

More damning than the headline here is that GCHQ apparently explicitly stated that a major selling point for the partnership is the UK's lax legal regime, which allows them to be "Less constrained by NSA's concerns about compliance."

basically NSA outsources "good government jobs" because of UK lax legal regime. Just like private companies shipping jobs to China :)

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

#50

Post by osbertlancaster »

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…

Me too. Usually the bbc/guardian/telegraph all have the same stories, just with a different slant. BUT for Snowden leaks there is a black hole, with only the guardian covering it. (Though everyone covers personal gossip about Snowden, of course). Scary.
Post reply on HN