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

21–30 of 60 posts

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

#21

Post by swombat »

jivatmanx wrote: post #10
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."

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?

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

#22

Post by swombat »

JonSkeptic wrote: post #8

>Snowden warned about the relationship between the NSA and GCHQ, saying the organisations have been jointly responsible for developing techniques that allow the mass harvesting and analysis of internet traffic. >"It's not just a US problem," he said. "They are worse than the US." Interesting. The Brits care less about privacy than the U.S.

Brits generally care as much (or as little) about privacy as Americans. However, they don't have the strong constitutional protections to privacy that the US has.

Not that these are proving to be all that strong, as things go...

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

#24

Post by tesmar2 »

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?

A ton of places, I'm sure, would consider pictures of half or near naked women not appropriate for the workplace.

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

#25

Post by ToastyMallows »

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?

I usually consider any nudity in a picture NSFW. Not sure why this is strange.

Living in the US.

Downvoters: Rebutal?

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

#26

Post by ToastyMallows »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #23
ToastyMallows wrote: post #7

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

The breastfeeding mother and baby? That's not NSFW. Some of us are just too prudish in the US.

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?

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

#27

Post by kmfrk »

ToastyMallows wrote: post #25
jnbiche wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I usually consider any nudity in a picture NSFW. Not sure why this is strange. Living in the US. Downvoters: Rebutal?

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.

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

#28

Post by ToastyMallows »

kmfrk wrote: post #27
ToastyMallows wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I usually consider any nudity in a picture NSFW. Not sure why this is strange. Living in the US. Downvoters: Rebutal?

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.

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

#29

Post by nsns »

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…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukusa

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

#30

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

ToastyMallows wrote: post #26
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The breastfeeding mother and baby? That's not NSFW. Some of us are just too prudish in the US.

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 you consider as NSFW

In general, the mere presence of an image, 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. But still, gross and or gratuitous pornography are out [2], as are most images of penises, vaginas, and anuses.

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2295906/Lara-St...

[2] Unless you are a pornographer, of course.

Post reply on HN