5 ms·

I'm not. I think questions about the actions of GCHQ merit a serious response.

by nsgi 11y ago

AnkhMorporkian 11y ago
Do they? There's no reason to think that anything creepy was going on. Surely one of GCHQ's legitimate missions is simple OSINT, and certainly forum trawling. Someone posts a copy of the supposed manuscript to some forum, some GCHQ minion sees it, off-handedly mentions it to a supervisor who is a Harry Potter fan, the supervisor calls the publisher, mentions he's from GCHQ, and 11 years later it's mentioned in a retrospective story. When I was in the military, I discovered a vulnerability in a website while I was browsing the web bored at work. I did mention I was an airman. If somehow that resulted in a news story, I don't think it would be fair to demand a response from the Air Force. Sure, they were technically paying for me to do that, but it wasn't really the mission.
- techdragon 11y ago
  There's a difference between "organisation helps corporate entity" and "employee of organisation helps corporate entity". One suggests possible altruism existing inside the organisation the other suggests the organisation is prepared to aid corporations either as its mission or views such operations as acceptable use of the organisations resources.
  - OJFord 11y ago
    There is, a bit. But: a) We don't know which this is b) An organisation might choose to stand behind its - as you say, altruistic - employee
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Then it should have been referred to the police. GCHQ is a security and intelligence organisation tasked by Government to protect the nation from threats. A leaked copy of the Harry Potter novel is not a national security threat in any way, shape or form. GCHQ are not there to enforce copyright.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Is it so terrible that GCHQ referred it to the publisher rather than the police? I'm sure the publisher could have handled contacting the police if it had been legitimate.
    - newjersey 11y ago
      It is terrible they saw it at all. It is terrible they acted on the information. As much as I dislike the tea party, I'd rather not have people targeted for auditing based on their (flawed) political affiliation or connections with wealthy donors. GCHQ is way out of line here. I am very concerned that the agency will eventually use these capabilities to blackmail our elected leaders. As much as I'd like to have leaders who aren't corrupt, we have what we have. I'd still not want our corrupt politicians to be slaves to shadowy organizations.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        The story is pretty vague. For all we know, they spotted it in a public forum or something.
  - nl 11y ago
    A leaked copy of the Harry Potter novel is not a national security threat in any way, shape or form. True. Good thing that GCHQ's mission is (and has always been) much broader than national security. For example, they have an arm which provides Information Security advice[1]. GCHQ are not there to enforce copyright. Fire departments aren't there cats out of trees. This is a cat. [1] http://www.gchq.gov.uk/what_we_do/Information_Security/Pages/index.aspx http://www.gchq.gov.uk/what_we_do/Information_Security/Pages...
    - chris_wot 11y ago
      I've been thinking about this for a bit now. I read up on the Act that details the duties of GCHQ, and whilst I'm pretty uncomfortable about it (also, I'm not a UK citizen) it looks like this was indeed within their purview.
- DanBC 11y ago
  That supervisor would be subject to pretty harsh disciplinary action. If GCHQ did want to alert the publisher there are very many ways they'd do this without calling and saying "oh hi semi-secret spy agency here".

I'm not. I think questions about the actions of GCHQ merit a serious response.

by nsgi 11y ago

I'm not. I think questions about the actions of GCHQ merit a serious response.

Do they? There's no reason to think that anything creepy was going on. Surely one of GCHQ's legitimate missions is simple OSINT, and certainly forum trawling. Someone posts a copy of the supposed manuscript to some forum, some GCHQ minion sees it, off-handedly mentions it to a supervisor who is a Harry Potter fan, the supervisor calls the publisher, mentions he's from GCHQ, and 11 years later it's mentioned in a retrospective story. When I was in the military, I discovered a vulnerability in a website while I was browsing the web bored at work. I did mention I was an airman. If somehow that resulted in a news story, I don't think it would be fair to demand a response from the Air Force. Sure, they were technically paying for me to do that, but it wasn't really the mission.

techdragon 11y ago
There's a difference between "organisation helps corporate entity" and "employee of organisation helps corporate entity". One suggests possible altruism existing inside the organisation the other suggests the organisation is prepared to aid corporations either as its mission or views such operations as acceptable use of the organisations resources.
- OJFord 11y ago
  There is, a bit. But: a) We don't know which this is b) An organisation might choose to stand behind its - as you say, altruistic - employee
chris_wot 11y ago
Then it should have been referred to the police. GCHQ is a security and intelligence organisation tasked by Government to protect the nation from threats. A leaked copy of the Harry Potter novel is not a national security threat in any way, shape or form. GCHQ are not there to enforce copyright.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Is it so terrible that GCHQ referred it to the publisher rather than the police? I'm sure the publisher could have handled contacting the police if it had been legitimate.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    It is terrible they saw it at all. It is terrible they acted on the information. As much as I dislike the tea party, I'd rather not have people targeted for auditing based on their (flawed) political affiliation or connections with wealthy donors. GCHQ is way out of line here. I am very concerned that the agency will eventually use these capabilities to blackmail our elected leaders. As much as I'd like to have leaders who aren't corrupt, we have what we have. I'd still not want our corrupt politicians to be slaves to shadowy organizations.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      The story is pretty vague. For all we know, they spotted it in a public forum or something.
- nl 11y ago
  A leaked copy of the Harry Potter novel is not a national security threat in any way, shape or form. True. Good thing that GCHQ's mission is (and has always been) much broader than national security. For example, they have an arm which provides Information Security advice[1]. GCHQ are not there to enforce copyright. Fire departments aren't there cats out of trees. This is a cat. [1] http://www.gchq.gov.uk/what_we_do/Information_Security/Pages/index.aspx http://www.gchq.gov.uk/what_we_do/Information_Security/Pages...
  - chris_wot 11y ago
    I've been thinking about this for a bit now. I read up on the Act that details the duties of GCHQ, and whilst I'm pretty uncomfortable about it (also, I'm not a UK citizen) it looks like this was indeed within their purview.
DanBC 11y ago
That supervisor would be subject to pretty harsh disciplinary action. If GCHQ did want to alert the publisher there are very many ways they'd do this without calling and saying "oh hi semi-secret spy agency here".