4 ms·

Assuming you actually do work for GCHQ, would you mind elaborating (briefly, and without violating official secrets) why you've chosen to work for GCHQ, and how

Assuming you actually do work for GCHQ, would you mind elaborating (briefly, and without violating official secrets) why you've chosen to work for GCHQ, and how you feel about the Snowden leaks? Does the level of spying targeted at the population bother you, or do you feel it's justified? If you're not able to answer this question -- e.g. it may implicitly confirm official secrets -- then would you mind briefly summing up how happy you are working for GCHQ post-Snowden?

gchqthrowaway 13y ago
The majority of GCHQs recruitment is done at a graduate level and I expect most graduates don't give too much thought to the moral implications of GCHQ's mission. If you ignore the moral questions of GCHQ's role, most of news.yc can see why GCHQ is an interesting place to work. Everything is available there: 'big data', processing data at line speed, security work in CESG, building custom hardware, crypto work, liaison with industry, involvement in operations etc. Hell, there's even lots of J2EE development to keep you occupied. I think the question of targeting populations is perhaps missing the point. Only a tiny minority of GCHQ is actually aware of what we are capable of (and I include myself in the unwashed majority). For example, only a tiny number of people are briefed onto BULLRUN, most analysts are (were) unaware of where that data actually comes from. And an even smaller number are privy to how that data is actually acquired. I perhaps sound like I'm dodging the question but I don't think most employees of GCHQ feel like they are "spying [on] the population". They are simply getting on with their job (something something Godwin). Although Lobban's performance at the ISC public hearing was pretty woeful, his point about needles and haystacks is still valid; we simply haven't got the man hours to find the needles, nevermind go trawling through the haystack. "post-Snowden" is certainly interesting :)
- elohesra 13y ago
  Thanks a lot for the in-depth reply! It's interesting, because I think most people seem to assume that the power dynamics of working at GCHQ is somehow fundamentally different to those of a private company: because GCHQ spies on the public and is above us in power, everyone at GCHQ must also be on some sort of equal 'spy-level' footing and equally aware of what's going on. Of course this obviously isn't true, and I expect it's much as you describe i.e. it's like a regular company where no-one really knows anything above their pay grade. Also -- assuming you've not already thrown the account away -- could I ask how many of the technical people at GCHQ appear to be working there for moral reasons vs working there for the challenge of it? Are there many techies who consider it a moral prerogative to work there?
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  Actually, beyond "something something Godwin", yours was quite an interesting remark on how the State is now maintaining the coherence of its little conspiracy: the people analyzing the data don't know what sort of spying apparatus it comes from, and I'd bet many of the people doing the spying aren't allowed to know where the data goes. The organization is trying to keep people from putting together enough of the pieces so that, lacking a leaker/whistleblower, nobody working there quite thinks they're doing anything wrong enough to refuse orders.

gchqthrowaway 13y ago

The majority of GCHQs recruitment is done at a graduate level and I expect most graduates don't give too much thought to the moral implications of GCHQ's mission. If you ignore the moral questions of GCHQ's role, most of news.yc can see why GCHQ is an interesting place to work. Everything is available there: 'big data', processing data at line speed, security work in CESG, building custom hardware, crypto work, liaison with industry, involvement in operations etc. Hell, there's even lots of J2EE development to keep you occupied. I think the question of targeting populations is perhaps missing the point. Only a tiny minority of GCHQ is actually aware of what we are capable of (and I include myself in the unwashed majority). For example, only a tiny number of people are briefed onto BULLRUN, most analysts are (were) unaware of where that data actually comes from. And an even smaller number are privy to how that data is actually acquired. I perhaps sound like I'm dodging the question but I don't think most employees of GCHQ feel like they are "spying [on] the population". They are simply getting on with their job (something something Godwin). Although Lobban's performance at the ISC public hearing was pretty woeful, his point about needles and haystacks is still valid; we simply haven't got the man hours to find the needles, nevermind go trawling through the haystack. "post-Snowden" is certainly interesting :)

elohesra 13y ago
Thanks a lot for the in-depth reply! It's interesting, because I think most people seem to assume that the power dynamics of working at GCHQ is somehow fundamentally different to those of a private company: because GCHQ spies on the public and is above us in power, everyone at GCHQ must also be on some sort of equal 'spy-level' footing and equally aware of what's going on. Of course this obviously isn't true, and I expect it's much as you describe i.e. it's like a regular company where no-one really knows anything above their pay grade. Also -- assuming you've not already thrown the account away -- could I ask how many of the technical people at GCHQ appear to be working there for moral reasons vs working there for the challenge of it? Are there many techies who consider it a moral prerogative to work there?
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
Actually, beyond "something something Godwin", yours was quite an interesting remark on how the State is now maintaining the coherence of its little conspiracy: the people analyzing the data don't know what sort of spying apparatus it comes from, and I'd bet many of the people doing the spying aren't allowed to know where the data goes. The organization is trying to keep people from putting together enough of the pieces so that, lacking a leaker/whistleblower, nobody working there quite thinks they're doing anything wrong enough to refuse orders.