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

51–60 of 60 posts

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

#51

Post by UVB-76 »

harrytuttle wrote: post #47
robgough wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd imagine not being able to tell prospective employers about any of the experience you gained or achievements you made in the course of your employment there would also be an issue?

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

#52

Post by tarkin2 »

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…

I often wonder why it's mostly always The Guardian. It's surely not the only left-wing newspaper out there.

I wonder if having the Scott Trust[1] as its backer gives it has more freedom in these matters compared to other papers.

[1] http://www.gmgplc.co.uk/the-scott-trust/

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

#53

Post by tarkin2 »

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.

I fear the Brits are more pessimistic about their government than US citizens.

Which I've always felt dangerous - on a personal, social and democratic level - if combined with isolation from the country's political system.

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

#54

Post by harrytuttle »

UVB-76 wrote: post #51
harrytuttle wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd imagine not being able to tell prospective employers about any of the experience you gained or achievements you made in the course of your employment there would also be an issue?

I will say I used to work for a private sector defence company. It wasn't a great problem as I could demonstrate my skills.

Not that I did anything interesting unfortunately :(

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

#55

Post by fnordfnordfnord »

ToastyMallows wrote: post #46
fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

> Nudity is more accepted in Germany apparently, and it isn't in the US,

That's the impression I get too.

> that's just something we have to live with.

But I differ with you there.

> The Guardian presents itself as a news organization.

It is. Here amuse yourself and learn about the nature of various newspapers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=DG...

>The person that picked out that picture should have considered posting it

Oh, I bet that photo was chosen carefully to draw attention.

> 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).

They have always been so, and I hope they don't begin to pander to social conservatives.

> 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.

I think that's exactly what they've done. For better or worse.

>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.

Not that I necessarily want more breastfeeding in my news but I certainly hope you're in the minority. How bad will it be when they have to pander to even more conservative Islamic sensibilities?

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

#56

Post by b0rsuk »

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."

In other words, they're finding ways to follow the law to the letter, but work around its spirit. What's the point of a safety net if you decide to ignore it ?

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

#57

Post by rwmj »

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…

This is complete nonsense. I know two people who worked at GCHQ who are now employed in the private sector.

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

#58

Post by Daniel_Newby »

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…

> I would not have heard about any of the recent revelations if not for The Guardian.

Once again, this is not news. Joint operations between NSA/CIA and MI5/6 have been thoroughly reported for decades. The Menwith Hill facility in particular has been doing its spy thing for half a century.

Nor is it news that both countries use regulatory arbitrage to evade each other's intel laws.

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

#59

Post by scott_karana »

fnordfnordfnord wrote: post #38
scott_karana wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Oh no, I wasn't weighing in to the argument in that respect!

I was merely pointing out that "going to a disgusting bathroom" is far from the only concealment option.

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

#60

Post by grkvlt »

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."

Well, this partnership has been known for a while now, certainly before Snowden. The _original_ deal was made during World War II (the 1943 BRUSA [1] agreement) and was then superseded by the UKUSA [2] agreement (or Five Eyes) which also included Canada and Australia/New Zealand. This definitely continued until 1956, by which time the Cold War was the main reason for co-operation.

It's been publicly available since June 2010, which is when the full contents of the original document were released to the UK National Archives in Kew, and simultaneously declassified by NSA [4].

It is generally assumed that the arrangement is still active, and is being updated on an ongoing basis by the participating agencies.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1943_BRUSA_Agreement

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

[3] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukusa/

[4] http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ukusa.shtml

Post reply on HN