NSA: Paying GCHQ to spy on Americans....

[Clinton Huxley]

It's constitutionally a bit troublesome for the NSA to spy on Americans, in America, so looks like they pay GCHQ in Blighty to do it instead.......

There's always a way around problems like the law....


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013 ... rd-snowden

[pErvinalia]

The paranoid State. Is 1984 on it's way? Can't help but think we are heading in that direction.

[klr]

I wonder where that appears on the balance sheet ...

[Clinton Huxley]

Looks like the NSA is paying GCHQ tens of millions of dollars a year, none of which is mentioned in the UKs public accounts. And this is just the money we now know about, thanks to Snowden. The article observes that GCHQ now serves the NSA first, and UK Govt second. Blighty is paying a high price in terms of sovereignty for its one foreign policy - sucking up to the Yanks .

[Clinton Huxley]

I wonder where that appears on the balance sheet ...

Funnily enough, nowhere.

As it seems GCHQ is an American Govt agency, maybe it's in the US accounts somewhere....

[klr]

I wonder where that appears on the balance sheet ...

Funnily enough, nowhere.

As it seems GCHQ is an American Govt agency, maybe it's in the US accounts somewhere....

As it's a revenue stream for the UK, I should of course have said the Profit & Loss statement*, not the Balance Sheet - silly me.

Unless of course the Yanks owe you some dosh at the end of the year. Then it's an asset, which should appear on the Balance Sheet.

*Or whatever they call it nowadays.

[Babel]

I wonder where that appears on the balance sheet ...

Funnily enough, nowhere.

As it seems GCHQ is an American Govt agency, maybe it's in the US accounts somewhere....

As it's a revenue stream for the UK, I should of course have said the Profit & Loss statement*, not the Balance Sheet - silly me.

Unless of course the Yanks owe you some dosh at the end of the year. Then it's an asset, which should appear on the Balance Sheet.

*Or whatever they call it nowadays.

When I saw your initial comment, the above was actually my first thought. Professional idiot, I guess.

[klr]

In my defence, it's been nearly 25 years since I completed my accountancy studies. I just switched to IT at about the same time.

[Hermit]

Spy agencies breaking the law? Who would have thunk it?

[Babel]

In my defence, it's been nearly 25 years since I completed my accountancy studies. I just switched to IT at about the same time.

Well, I'm actually contemplating the same switch. Currently working on an IT project and quite enjoying it, though I've never had any IT related education which makes me doubt I can pull it off.

[klr]

In my defence, it's been nearly 25 years since I completed my accountancy studies. I just switched to IT at about the same time.

Well, I'm actually contemplating the same switch. Currently working on an IT project and quite enjoying it, though I've never had any IT related education which makes me doubt I can pull it off.

I've not had much either, and it never did me any harm.

[Audley Strange]

No GCHQ pays the NSA exactly the same amount that the NSA pays CGHQ for returning the favour. The same applies in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Britannia likes to know what the serfs and darkies are up to.

[pErvinalia]

You've got to wonder whether some of these agencies think they've become a law unto themselves. I think we need more people like Snowden to shine a light on these cockroaches, and at some point exterminate (metaphorically speaking) a good portion of them.

[Ian]

It’s a stretch to use the term whistleblower when discussing Snowden. A whistleblower publicizes a specific case of wrongdoing. Snowden publicized something controversial, not outright illegal. By the way: the Snowden the public knows is a VERY different character from the one some others know about. If all I knew was what I’d read in the press, I’d simply be saying that he’s a rather naïve but still noble-minded leaker, and what he did deserves some admiration as the benefits likely outweigh the damage done. And isn’t it curious where he ran to? Not unlike what many people here might say about him.

However…

Here’s a hypothetical scenario: let’s say you’re in a position to commit an enormous act of treason against your country, stealing and transferring huge amounts of sensitive information, terabytes in fact, and for some reason you’ve decided to go through with it. This is something that will likely cost your country tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars, will seriously endanger the security of its citizens and international interests, and could very well get a lot of people killed. You already know how your government is going to react: 1) it’ll want to prosecute you (and will actually be obligated to at least request your extradition), and 2) it’ll be desperate to downplay just how badly it has been damaged. In fact, the scale of it will be so big that other countries are going to be reluctant to offer you asylum. What will you need to assist you as you run from prosecution? You’ll need an insurance policy, otherwise you're doomed. And the best policy is publicity; staying anonymous after having done something like this is a sure ticket to prison or worse. So, out of the mountains of data you’ve collected, the vast majority of which is not illegal or even controversial, merely sensitive, you find some program that would sound controversial to the public. That little fraction of the information you have is the part which you hand over to a news reporter. Next thing you know, much of the public hears about this disclosure, figures they have heard plenty about the story and so they understand it well, and they call you a whistleblower and an idealistic martyr for privacy rights. And they’ll shake their fingers at the oppressive government asking for your extradition, as you rather oddly run off to Russia of all places...

This is all strictly hypothetical of course, ok? Got it? Good. Now, let's go back to calling Snowden a noble whistleblower...

Anyway, just focusing on the NSA story (and this little soliloquy I've posted once before): it’s hard for me to get excited about it. Archiving records of telephony metadata? I would’ve been surprised if they hadn’t already been doing that for years. To actually listen in and get a transcript, they still need a warrant. And nevermind that similar stories have been coming out of France, for example. And nevermind the Leahy-Lee bill that's going through the Senate, or how watered-down the Patriot Act is nowadays... cynics are going to remain convinced that Murica is slowly turning into the Fourth Reich. And they'll remain convinced for the rest of their lives I think. People are always on the lookout for something Orwellian as far as government goes… meanwhile, private corporations know FAR, FAR more about exactly who you are and what you spend your time and money on. More than the intelligence community ever could or would even want to. When it comes to privacy rights, I for one don’t worry about Big Brother. I understand the intel community and its oversight too well for that. I worry about Big Business.

[klr]

...

Anyway, just focusing on the NSA story (and this little soliloquy I've posted once before): it’s hard for me to get excited about it. Archiving records of telephony metadata? I would’ve been surprised if they hadn’t already been doing that for years. To actually listen in and get a transcript, they still need a warrant. And nevermind that similar stories have been coming out of France, for example. And nevermind the Leahy-Lee bill that's going through the Senate, or how watered-down the Patriot Act is nowadays... cynics are going to remain convinced that Murica is slowly turning into the Fourth Reich. And they'll remain convinced for the rest of their lives I think. People are always on the lookout for something Orwellian as far as government goes… meanwhile, private corporations know FAR, FAR more about exactly who you are and what you spend your time and money on. More than the intelligence community ever could or would even want to. When it comes to privacy rights, I for one don’t worry about Big Brother. I understand the intel community and its oversight too well for that. I worry about Big Business.

And people are far more willing to let them have it than they would governments. Maybe they just don't see corporations as being so dangerous, but they should be, seeing as that information is likely to get sold on/leaked to other interested parties.