UK spy agency GCHQ records EVERY INTERNET USER'S browsing history.

Eugene Norman · 29-09-2015 12:05AM

Datallus wrote: »

Abuse their power? Or catch criminals and terrorists?

That's not exclusive.

Why don't we go full Orwell and have cameras in everybody's house, and on every street? That way nobody could plot anything and we'd be safe as, um, houses.

Also GCHQ used to record all phone conversations ( or intercept them at least) so you can see why they are upset with whatsapp.

KomradeBishop · 03-10-2015 02:27PM

On a related topic here - this would lead me to believe, that it's almost a certainty, that much of Ireland's telecoms industry is tapped - given that this is how they did it in Greece:

...
In fact, recruiting a foreign telecom employee as an “inside person” for a major bugging operation was standard operating procedure for both the NSA and the CIA, according to the senior intelligence official involved with the Athens operation. “What the NSA really doesn’t like to admit, about 70 percent of NSA’s exploitation is human enabled,” the former official said. “For example, at a foreign Ministry of Post and Telecommunications, if NSA determines it needs to get access to that system, NSA and/or the CIA in coordination would come up with a mechanism that would allow them to replicate the existing switch to be swapped out. The CIA would then go and seek out the person who had access to that switch — like a Nortel switch or a router — go in there, and then it would be the CIA that would effect the operation. And then the take from it would be exploited by the NSA.”

And according to a highly classified NSA document provided by Snowden and previously published by The Intercept, covertly recruiting employees in foreign telecom companies has long been one of the NSA’s deepest secrets. A program code-named “Sentry Owl,” for example, deals with “foreign commercial platform” and “human asset cooperating with the NSA/CSS [Central Security Service].” The document warns that information related to Sentry Owl must be classified at an unusually high level, known as ECI, or Exceptionally Controlled Information, well above top secret.

“Human intelligence guys can provide sometimes the needed physical access without which you just can’t do the signals intelligence activity,” Gen. Hayden, the NSA head at the time of the Athens bugging, who later ran the CIA, told me.
...

https://theintercept.com/2015/09/28/death-athens-rogue-nsa-operation/

It's pretty incredibly easy to do this, almost anywhere in the world really - all that is needed, is to buy someone out (a relatively low level technician in a company), to replace a very simple piece of equipment.

hatrickpatrick · 03-10-2015 03:08PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

On a related topic here - this would lead me to believe, that it's almost a certainty, that much of Ireland's telecoms industry is tapped - given that this is how they did it in Greece:
...
In fact, recruiting a foreign telecom employee as an “inside person” for a major bugging operation was standard operating procedure for both the NSA and the CIA, according to the senior intelligence official involved with the Athens operation. “What the NSA really doesn’t like to admit, about 70 percent of NSA’s exploitation is human enabled,” the former official said. “For example, at a foreign Ministry of Post and Telecommunications, if NSA determines it needs to get access to that system, NSA and/or the CIA in coordination would come up with a mechanism that would allow them to replicate the existing switch to be swapped out. The CIA would then go and seek out the person who had access to that switch — like a Nortel switch or a router — go in there, and then it would be the CIA that would effect the operation. And then the take from it would be exploited by the NSA.”

And according to a highly classified NSA document provided by Snowden and previously published by The Intercept, covertly recruiting employees in foreign telecom companies has long been one of the NSA’s deepest secrets. A program code-named “Sentry Owl,” for example, deals with “foreign commercial platform” and “human asset cooperating with the NSA/CSS [Central Security Service].” The document warns that information related to Sentry Owl must be classified at an unusually high level, known as ECI, or Exceptionally Controlled Information, well above top secret.

“Human intelligence guys can provide sometimes the needed physical access without which you just can’t do the signals intelligence activity,” Gen. Hayden, the NSA head at the time of the Athens bugging, who later ran the CIA, told me.
...
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/28/death-athens-rogue-nsa-operation/

It's pretty incredibly easy to do this, almost anywhere in the world really - all that is needed, is to buy someone out (a relatively low level technician in a company), to replace a very simple piece of equipment.

We already have definitive evidence that our infrastructure is tapped. The NSA has an XKEYSCORE data centre here somewhere.

http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/NSA-X-Keyscore-slide-002.jpg

Mother Brain · 03-10-2015 03:42PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

That's not exclusive.

Why don't we go full Orwell and have cameras in everybody's house, and on every street? That way nobody could plot anything and we'd be safe as, um, houses.

Also GCHQ used to record all phone conversations ( or intercept them at least) so you can see why they are upset with whatsapp.

Let's all just get chipped and be done with it!

Notavirus.exe · 03-10-2015 11:25PM

"UK spy agency GCHQ records EVERY INTERNET USER'S browsing history"

So does Google.

Question. Is GCHQ going to be punished for this?

Mother Brain · 04-10-2015 09:47AM

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

"UK spy agency GCHQ records EVERY INTERNET USER'S browsing history"

So does Google.

Question. Is GCHQ going to be punished for this?

That's possibly not an accurate comparison though.

Google for instance has no access to what you put on facebook for example.

It knows the url for your facebook profile, but when you go in to facebook you're on their servers not Google's, and their application logic is running.

So companies all have their own private stash of data which is a sub set of all of your data, much of it duplicate such as name, address, email etc.

But all of that data, and more besides, travels along the same main network infrastructure around the web at large. If you get at these pipes you can get absolutely everything. That's why the reports of things like security services onsite in verizon or at&t are so shocking really. Which is just a single program revealed in these leaks remember.

Notavirus.exe · 04-10-2015 12:41PM

Mother Brain wrote: »

But all of that data, and more besides, travels along the same main network infrastructure around the web at large. If you get at these pipes you can get absolutely everything. That's why the reports of things like security services onsite in verizon or at&t are so shocking really. Which is just a single program revealed in these leaks remember.

The bastards... :eek:

Every internet user should sue these guys. Is there anything going to be done?

If someone told me that the US government kept records of our browsing history I'd believe them. Can we really be sure that these aren't the only guys?

Capt'n Midnight · 04-10-2015 09:05PM

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

The bastards... :eek:

Every internet user should sue these guys. Is there anything going to be done?

If someone told me that the US government kept records of our browsing history I'd believe them. Can we really be sure that these aren't the only guys?

see my earlier posts about known back doors and vulnerabilities in software and hardware.

Anything other than end to end encryption means you have the same privacy as sending postcards.

Even end to end is no use if the site you are connecting to is compromised or you've got malware on your computer, or have leaky hardware like the LED's on old routers.

Add there's always Van Eck phreaking where someone could sniff your keyboard or display from a distance.

Or bounce a laser off your window to hear your keystrokes.

How paranoid do you want to be ?

You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere,

wakka12 · 04-10-2015 09:08PM

I'd rather they didnt know but really who cares..Im not doing anything illegal so whats the worst that can happen

Ulysses Gaze · 04-10-2015 10:20PM

wakka12 wrote: »

I'd rather they didnt know but really who cares..Im not doing anything illegal so whats the worst that can happen

hatrickpatrick · 04-10-2015 11:35PM

wakka12 wrote: »

I'd rather they didnt know but really who cares..Im not doing anything illegal so whats the worst that can happen

You're not a whistleblower. They are the people I'm primarily concerned about - whistleblowers and journalists.
This is a tool capable of doing two things which are undesirable in democracy. (a) - give wrongdoers in high places advance warning that someone is about to expose them.
(b) - dig up embarrassing information about a person and use that to blackmail them.

We already have a document, for example, from GCHQ's JTRIG branch which talks of using political dissidents' porn browsing habits to blackmail them into silence. Now nobody is going to kick up a fuss because it's radical muslim clerics they're discussing, but there's nothing to stop them using this technology against others, and regardless a lot of what they target is unpleasant but nonetheless protected free speech.

What they have is nothing more than a tool of social control. They have also been known to use it to hack in to online polls and discussions to make it look like a particular side is losing when in reality they are not. Can you imagine what the Irish establishment would have done if it had access to this technology during the water protests?

Here's a real-world example for you. Maurice McCabe is about to go to press with his Garda allegations. Martin Callinan digs into his record and discovers that he smokes weed, watches hardcore porn, is having an affair with his current partner and is seeing a psychiatrist for a mood disorder.

None of the above things are illegal, but they could easily (a) bully him into silence because he doesn't want his life ruined, or (b) be used by the media and the establishment to discredit him after he makes his allegations ("sure can you believe the word of an adulterous perverted pothead who's a bit messed up in the head?")

Anyone who believes that the establishment would not stoop to those levels quite frankly is far, far too naive for the 21st century. They can, and they do.

colossus-x · 05-10-2015 06:19PM

Heads up: Snowden: Smartphones can be taken over! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34444233 YIKES !

BBC One on Monday, 5 October at 20:30 BST

FloatingVoter · 05-10-2015 06:36PM

You're all online and vocal therefore immediately in the "not of interest" pile.

PopePalpatine · 05-10-2015 08:50PM

colossus-x wrote: »

Heads up: Snowden: Smartphones can be taken over! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34444233 YIKES !

BBC One on Monday, 5 October at 20:30 BST

I'm watching it right now. I feel like it's leaning towards the pro-surveillance side of this debate, even though both sides are being presented.

hatrickpatrick · 06-10-2015 10:30AM

Indeed, the Panorama guys were seriously pushing the "encryption is bad" agenda.

They didn't ask the basic question which I feel is at the heart of that particular issue - if we have a choice between the government not being able to read the emails of criminals, and the government being able to read the emails of all of us, all the time, which would you prefer?

Personally I'd gladly give up a little security if that's the only way to make sure the government cannot read the communications of non-criminals.

Joshua J · 06-10-2015 11:08AM

People still seem to be confused. Your information is their priority not catching terrorists. I thought this was blatantly obvious.

hatrickpatrick · 06-10-2015 11:36AM

Joshua J wrote: »

People still seem to be confused. Your information is their priority not catching terrorists. I thought this was blatantly obvious.

GCHQ literally have documents proving that their primary targets over the last number of years were activists like Wikileaks supporters, Occupy, Anonymous, Reddit etc. They had an entire division dedicated to hacking into online polls to make government policies seem more popular than they really were and therefore discourage political dissidence.

This stuff is just insanely dangerous.

Public opinion manipulation - https://theintercept.com/2014/07/14/manipulating-online-polls-ways-british-spies-seek-control-internet/

Real-world example in Latin America: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/02/gchq-argentina-falklands/

Destroying reputations: https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

Targeting Wikileaks: https://theintercept.com/2014/02/18/snowden-docs-reveal-covert-surveillance-and-pressure-tactics-aimed-at-wikileaks-and-its-supporters/

Targeting Anonymous: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_anonymous_nbc_document.pdf

None of the above is in any way related to terrorism. At the very least it's using surveillance powers for domestic law enforcement in ways which the police are, for good reason, banned from doing. At worst, it's using surveillance powers to control public discourse about politically sensitive topics.

In no way, as far as I can see, can any of this be described as being good for the public or good for democracy.

melissak · 06-10-2015 11:44AM

Very true. I was going to say who cares. I'm not hiding anything, better cancel my subscription to online terrorism.com...

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're not a whistleblower. They are the people I'm primarily concerned about - whistleblowers and journalists.
This is a tool capable of doing two things which are undesirable in democracy. (a) - give wrongdoers in high places advance warning that someone is about to expose them.
(b) - dig up embarrassing information about a person and use that to blackmail them.

We already have a document, for example, from GCHQ's JTRIG branch which talks of using political dissidents' porn browsing habits to blackmail them into silence. Now nobody is going to kick up a fuss because it's radical muslim clerics they're discussing, but there's nothing to stop them using this technology against others, and regardless a lot of what they target is unpleasant but nonetheless protected free speech.

What they have is nothing more than a tool of social control. They have also been known to use it to hack in to online polls and discussions to make it look like a particular side is losing when in reality they are not. Can you imagine what the Irish establishment would have done if it had access to this technology during the water protests?

Here's a real-world example for you. Maurice McCabe is about to go to press with his Garda allegations. Martin Callinan digs into his record and discovers that he smokes weed, watches hardcore porn, is having an affair with his current partner and is seeing a psychiatrist for a mood disorder.

None of the above things are illegal, but they could easily (a) bully him into silence because he doesn't want his life ruined, or (b) be used by the media and the establishment to discredit him after he makes his allegations ("sure can you believe the word of an adulterous perverted pothead who's a bit messed up in the head?")

Anyone who believes that the establishment would not stoop to those levels quite frankly is far, far too naive for the 21st century. They can, and they do.

melissak · 06-10-2015 12:03PM

Very true. I was going to say who cares. I'm not hiding anything, better cancel my subscription to online terrorism.com...

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're not a whistleblower. They are the people I'm primarily concerned about - whistleblowers and journalists.
This is a tool capable of doing two things which are undesirable in democracy. (a) - give wrongdoers in high places advance warning that someone is about to expose them.
(b) - dig up embarrassing information about a person and use that to blackmail them.

We already have a document, for example, from GCHQ's JTRIG branch which talks of using political dissidents' porn browsing habits to blackmail them into silence. Now nobody is going to kick up a fuss because it's radical muslim clerics they're discussing, but there's nothing to stop them using this technology against others, and regardless a lot of what they target is unpleasant but nonetheless protected free speech.

What they have is nothing more than a tool of social control. They have also been known to use it to hack in to online polls and discussions to make it look like a particular side is losing when in reality they are not. Can you imagine what the Irish establishment would have done if it had access to this technology during the water protests?

Here's a real-world example for you. Maurice McCabe is about to go to press with his Garda allegations. Martin Callinan digs into his record and discovers that he smokes weed, watches hardcore porn, is having an affair with his current partner and is seeing a psychiatrist for a mood disorder.

None of the above things are illegal, but they could easily (a) bully him into silence because he doesn't want his life ruined, or (b) be used by the media and the establishment to discredit him after he makes his allegations ("sure can you believe the word of an adulterous perverted pothead who's a bit messed up in the head?")

Anyone who believes that the establishment would not stoop to those levels quite frankly is far, far too naive for the 21st century. They can, and they do.

melissak · 06-10-2015 12:03PM

Very true. I was going to say who cares. I'm not hiding anything, better cancel my subscription to online terrorism.com...

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're not a whistleblower. They are the people I'm primarily concerned about - whistleblowers and journalists.
This is a tool capable of doing two things which are undesirable in democracy. (a) - give wrongdoers in high places advance warning that someone is about to expose them.
(b) - dig up embarrassing information about a person and use that to blackmail them.

We already have a document, for example, from GCHQ's JTRIG branch which talks of using political dissidents' porn browsing habits to blackmail them into silence. Now nobody is going to kick up a fuss because it's radical muslim clerics they're discussing, but there's nothing to stop them using this technology against others, and regardless a lot of what they target is unpleasant but nonetheless protected free speech.

What they have is nothing more than a tool of social control. They have also been known to use it to hack in to online polls and discussions to make it look like a particular side is losing when in reality they are not. Can you imagine what the Irish establishment would have done if it had access to this technology during the water protests?

Here's a real-world example for you. Maurice McCabe is about to go to press with his Garda allegations. Martin Callinan digs into his record and discovers that he smokes weed, watches hardcore porn, is having an affair with his current partner and is seeing a psychiatrist for a mood disorder.

None of the above things are illegal, but they could easily (a) bully him into silence because he doesn't want his life ruined, or (b) be used by the media and the establishment to discredit him after he makes his allegations ("sure can you believe the word of an adulterous perverted pothead who's a bit messed up in the head?")

Anyone who believes that the establishment would not stoop to those levels quite frankly is far, far too naive for the 21st century. They can, and they do.

UK spy agency GCHQ records EVERY INTERNET USER'S browsing history.

Comments