Privacy and the State

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I've lived with the Met and its shenanigans for over forty years as have millions of other Londoners. The recent stramash over the way police officer may have allegedly acted inappropriately against Andrew Mitchell MP is a current example of police misbehaviour potentially sanctioned by superiors. Corruption amongst the police officers is clear for all to see. Perhaps it's inevitable, but it's certainly never right.

I don't recall you being quite so supportive of Mitchell in the 'Toffs' thread, but I see that that thread has now disappeared for the Platform 3 pages; how very strange.

[amateur51]

I don't recall you being quite so supportive of Mitchell in the 'Toffs' thread, but I see that that thread has now disappeared for the Platform 3 pages; how very strange.

I'm not being supportive of Mitchell am I? I'm being critical of the police.

The evidence that I'm referring to about the three Chief Constables refusing to discipline corrupt officers has only emerged in the last few days.

i suggest that you refer your query about the Toffs thread to the Adminstrator.

[ahinton]

Let's assume the Iranians have some of these competent security people in their employ. How come they didn't spot Stuxnet?

Let's assume GCHQ has all the security skills you describe and they then go through the thought process you describe; what do you think they will conclude?

Well, my intelligent guess is that they keep their main systems off the world-wide web. Completely.

So, the CIA would have developed Stuxnet off-web. That's not to say that they spurned all types of network connections, but if they did use them those networks were private and hidden.

The Iranians were doing exactly the same thing. Stuxnet did not find its target via the web, because the Iranian cyclotrons weren't on the web. Like ANY process industry competently managed, they keep their process computers off the web. In any event, most industrial computers (PLCs) don't use either Windows or Linux as their operating systems.

So no hacking is possible. You need guys like Snowden to spill the beans.

I'm afraid that I cannot agee with your premise here, but I'll go through each of your paragraphs briefly with a view to saying why.

Neither of us is in any position of authority to form credible conclusions about Iranian security staff, their levels of competence, the specific nature of their duties or the extent to which and success with which the Iranian government
monitors such activities.

If by the reference to "the thought processs" in your second paragraph you mean what competent GCHQ employees would think about the risks of hacking of the systems with which they work on a daily basis (and it's not clear if that is the case so, if you mean something else, please say so), it is again not possible for either of us to determine what any one individual member of GCHQ staff would think about this beyond, hopefully, trying to take whatever steps might be within their capabilities to ensure that ways be found and implemented to protect as far as possible the data collected by, stored within and distributed from their systems; that said, they are, in the end, employees of the state and not business owners, so there might be a difference of emphasis in terms of the extent to which their professional lives might depend upon this.

Keeping systems off www is, of course, a vital cornerstone of security, at least in principle, but banks' and other systems, including those of the police, armed services and arms of government aren't exactly open to www users either but are still, as we know, vulnerable to cyber attack and theft.

Private and hidden networks can still be accessed by those capable of doing this; if a network exists, connections with it can be forged. The very fact that those who work with those systems have to know how they work and must have access to them when working with them speaks for itself and the added risk that such an employee might covertly encourage others' hacking thereof is only one aspect of their potential vulnerability. In other words, if systems exist, someone can find them and do what they want to with them; the only and best hope of its owners / managers is to be as vigilant as possible at all times in maintaining their robustness in the full knowedlge that no one can ever be 100% certain of success in this.

The choice of operating system is, of course, crucial but then quite obviously no would-be hacker would try to use Windows, Linux or other such systems designed for the use and benefit of the general public when doing what they want to do; the first thing they have to do is find out which operating systems are used by their targets and, if some of those happen to be provate and internally designed by and/or for the use and benefit of target organisations, the hacker has to access these and either replicate them or design conversion systems such as the kinds of facility that can create cross-currents of compatibility between existing systems.

How do you suppose that, when, for example, US government systems are hacked (as distinct from directly stolen from in the manner of which Mr Snowden is accused), the hackers manage to do what they do?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I'm not at all surprised that banks, Police, etc. have been hacked since they have sprawling networks with almost open access.

Private network: "hacking thereof is only one aspect of their potential vulnerability. In other words, if systems exist, someone can find them and do what they want to with them; "
By which I assume you mean we need employ a method other than hacking. Very good. If I disconnect my router from the telephone line the only way you can access data on my network is by simple theft. You might be able to do that, but that is not hacking. The Iranians didn't manage that for Stuxnet. Yes, given time there might have been a leak, but that didn't happen. Hence the concerns re Snowden.

Government systems may well have been hacked, but I'm not aware of anyone breaching a secret security organization by means of hacking. So again, this points to the significance of what Snowden's done.

Trying to plead mitigation by claiming they (secret service security systems) can be hacked doesn't seem to hold much water.

[ahinton]

I'm not at all surprised that banks, Police, etc. have been hacked since they have sprawling networks with almost open access.

Private network: "hacking thereof is only one aspect of their potential vulnerability. In other words, if systems exist, someone can find them and do what they want to with them; "
By which I assume you mean we need employ a method other than hacking. Very good. If I disconnect my router from the telephone line the only way you can access data on my network is by simple theft. You might be able to do that, but that is not hacking.

Your conclusion here seems therefore to be predicated on an apparent certainty that state security systems can be disconnected in the way that you describe; like no man, GCHQ is not an island and what goes on there does not merely occur in some kind of restricted cocoon. If GCHQ is to collect data and distribute it, its collection and distribution procedures are surely weaker components of its operational facilities than its storage but even that storage facility is hardly likely to get itself "switched off" in the way in which you describe disconnected your router from a telephone line.

Government systems may well have been hacked, but I'm not aware of anyone breaching a secret security organization by means of hacking. So again, this points to the significance of what Snowden's done.

Trying to plead mitigation by claiming they (secret service security systems) can be hacked doesn't seem to hold much water.

Deuterium or tritium though, perhaps. But again, where have I "tried to plead mitigation"? I did nothing of the kind! As I noted above, snooping on other people's and corporations' systems to collect data therefrom and distributing data to systems outside GCHQ involves a need for GCHQ to be connected to systems outside of its own (and in all references above to "GCHQ" I refer by implication to all such security systems, not only its own).

[Mr Pee]

My antennae were alerted by the 'convenient' conjunction of the political row over the possible impact of the Guardian's Snowden revelations and how this might have an impact on the task of preventing attacks by terrorists on the one hand, and a nice meaty 'protecting you from terrorism' story given to the London Evening Standard by the Met.

You're right, this is all supposition on my part, I have no 'evidence' as such.

But as you say, let's let the story pan out.

And it IS odd that a group who were apparently under such close surveillance for so long now have to be kept in custody for additional time before charges can be brought. What triggered this rush to arrest?

I'm glad you at least admit that there is not a shred of evidence to back up your theory.

As for the so-called rush to arrest, in case you have forgotten, they had been under surveillance for a long time......

[An_Inspector_Calls]

If GCHQ is to collect data and distribute it, its collection and distribution procedures are surely weaker components of its operational facilities than its storage but even that storage facility is hardly likely to get itself "switched off" in the way in which you describe disconnected your router from a telephone line.

Yes, you know that, I know that, GCHQ knows that. So they find alternatives.

[amateur51]

I'm glad you at least admit that there is not a shred of evidence to back up your theory.

As for the so-called rush to arrest, in case you have forgotten, they had been under surveillance for a long time......

I've been making the point about the extended surveillance from the start of this thread. So why, having taken so long to watch them and learn about their plans, choose the moment when it is politically expedient to make the move to arrest them, just as the PM, Head of MI5 etc are all moving in on The Guardian as being naive and irresponsible - behold! We have uncovered a terrorist plot! And then to find that you need extra time (a full week in total, apparently) to find evidence before charging them. The haste (implying confidence) and then the delay (implying lack of confidence) do not add up.

It may not be evidence to you but to me stinks like a box of ten-day old mackerel.

[Mr Pee]

I've been making the point about the extended surveillance from the start of this thread. So why, having taken so long to watch them and learn about their plans, choose the moment when it is politically expedient to make the move to arrest them, just as the PM, Head of MI5 etc are all moving in on The Guardian as being naive and irresponsible - behold! We have uncovered a terrorist plot! And then to find that you need extra time (a full week in total, apparently) to find evidence before charging them. The haste (implying confidence) and then the delay (implying lack of confidence) do not add up.

It may not be evidence to you but to me stinks like a box of ten-day old mackerel.

It may seem politically expedient to cynics like you, but you are not aware of the facts or any intelligence that may have been picked up suggesting that an attack may have been imminent.

And why do you find it so suspicious that the police have requested extra time to question the suspects? That is hardly uncommon, especially in cases such as this. And as they have been under surveillance for a long time, there is no doubt plenty that they wish to question them about. As far as you know, those being questioned mght yet not have answered a single question that has been put to them.

A judge has looked at the evidence and decided that there are grounds to detain these men for longer. All you have to go on is a couple of news reports and your own cynical, complacent outlook.

[amateur51]

It may seem politically expedient to cynics like you, but you are not aware of the facts or any intelligence that may have been picked up suggesting that an attack may have been imminent.

And why do you find it so suspicious that the police have requested extra time to question the suspects? That is hardly uncommon, especially in cases such as this. And as they have been under surveillance for a long time, there is no doubt plenty that they wish to question them about. As far as you know, those being questioned mght yet not have answered a single question that has been put to them.

A judge has looked at the evidence and decided that there are grounds to detain these men for longer. All you have to go on is a couple of news reports and your own cynical, complacent outlook.

Oh Mr Pee I always defer to you where complacency is concerned.

And I understand now that it was a magistrate rather than a judge who sanctioned the extra time.

And if you can't see that the conjunction of events is dodgy well ... we'll have to leave it at that.

[amateur51]

An interesting piece by Jonathan Freedland about the distinction between how USA & Ukpoliticians have reacted to the Snowden revelations about NSA/GCHQ - we should be ashamed of our MPs' reaction

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/18/gchq-scandal-guardian-parliament-mps

Here Tom Watson MP attacks the knee-jerk reaction of said MPs to shoot the messenger rather than reflecting on their own system of supervising the spooks:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/18/gchq-revelations-mass-surveillance-tempora

[Mr Pee]

An interesting piece by Jonathan Freedland about the distinction between how USA & Ukpoliticians have reacted to the Snowden revelations about NSA/GCHQ - we should be ashamed of our MPs' reaction

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/18/gchq-scandal-guardian-parliament-mps

Here Tom Watson MP attacks the knee-jerk reaction of said MPs to shoot the messenger rather than reflecting on their own system of supervising the spooks:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...llance-tempora

Yet MORE Guardian links.....

Come on, own up. You're on commission, aren't you?

[ahinton]

Yet MORE Guardian links.....

Come on, own up. You're on commission, aren't you?

"A" mission, perhaps, but not "com"mission...

[amateur51]

Yet MORE Guardian links.....

Come on, own up. You're on commission, aren't you?

As The Guardian is leading on this discussion I'm afraid it's inevitable that the preponderance of links will come from there.

Maybe you could check in Motor Sport and Mivvi Monthly and post any relevant links you might find there.

[ahinton]

As The Guardian is leading on this discussion I'm afraid it's inevitable that the preponderance of links will come from there.

Maybe you could check in Motor Sport and Mivvi Monthly and post any relevant links you might find there.

Or The Field, perhaps - or even, God forbid (which I imagine He will), This England...