back to article New GCHQ spymaster: US tech giants are 'command and control networks for terror'

The new head of Britain's equivalent to the NSA – Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) – has used his first day on the job to lambaste US technology companies for daring to improve the security of their products. "However much they may dislike it, they have become the command and control networks of choice for …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "but the GCHQ boss told FT that internet users would welcome a little surveillance. Those online "would be comfortable with a better and more sustainable relationship between the [intelligence] agencies and the tech companies," Hannigan said."

    No, we would not.*

    *of course, I for one am only speaking for myself and a select number of others and don't claim to know what all other internet users think.

    PS: Thanks for that, Evil Auditor

    1. Pete 2 Silver badge

      > the GCHQ boss told FT that internet users would welcome a little surveillance

      And how does he know that? By listening in to our conversations, of course!

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge
      WTF?

      I imagine that Yahoo! IM users will be happy to know that they're already playing their part in a better and more sustainable yadda yadda yadda...

    3. Evil Auditor Silver badge

      You're welcome!

      On second thoughts, who knows, maybe Hannigan was right, even if not for all internet users. Neither you, AC, nor I became chief spook, nor would we ever be considered for such a position - because we lack the ability to know what hoi polloi is comfortable with.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        well said Evil Auditor

        There is one basic fact here - if you are not doing anything you shouldnt be doing, you dont have anything to worry about.

        IMHO there should be a complete social media blackout on the activities of ISIS and other terrorist groups. I have no issue with government surveillance - they dont have time to 'listen' to individual conversations - their activities are highly targetted and have probably benefitted most of us to some extent in recent years by preventing various plots from being enacted.

        If you want to protect the freedoms you have then that means taking the rough with the smooth and accepting these things are a necessary evil. To quote Team America - freedom is not free. Cliche it might be, but its also very true.

        1. The_Idiot

          Re: well said Evil Auditor

          @R69

          "There is one basic fact here - if you are not doing anything you shouldnt be doing, you dont have anything to worry about."

          I question whether that is, in fact, a, um, fact. I'd quote examples, but it gets kind of boring. Never mind getting into all the different views held by different folk on what can be classified as 'doing something you shouldn't be doing'.

          "IMHO there should be a complete social media blackout on the activities of ISIS and other terrorist groups."

          And, of course, you are welcome to your opinion. If, however, such restrictions were put in place on everything to which _anyone_ has a similar opinion and objection, whether that means mothers breast feeding in public or internet cat pictures (yes, some people don't like them and think they're just bandwidth hogs, and surely their opinions are just as valid as yours), we'd have bugger all left to talk about.

          "If you want to protect the freedoms you have then that means taking the rough with the smooth and accepting these things are a necessary evil."

          There is an internet tradition that says at this point I should quote Ben Franklin at this point. I'll play nice, and refrain. However, if the protection of freedom requires the imposition of such an interception policy, I'd like to introduce those who support the idea to a new invention we call 'reductio ad absurdum', where we protect all freedoms by taking them away and locking them up in a nice, secure vault, where silly folk like the public can't mess them up.

          "To quote Team America..."

          I'm sorry - though actually, I'm not. I'd just much rather _not_ quote Team America, thank you very much.

          1. tom dial Silver badge

            Re: well said Evil Auditor

            One more upvote for omitting the Franklin quote.

        2. Evil Auditor Silver badge
          Thumb Down

          Re: well said Evil Auditor

          @R69

          You don't do irony, do you? I had some troubles to decide which parts of your comment are bad and which are worse. I almost agreed to your "If you want to protect the freedoms..." but in my humble opinion, there is no if, there is no option to protecting the freedom. (Just like The_Idiot I shall refrain from quoting Ben Franklin.)

          Yes, freedom is not free. It comes at a cost which I am absolutely willing to pay.

        3. Katz

          Re: well said Evil Auditor

          Oh, wow, where to start. I'm short on time, so I'll keep it brief.

          'if you are not doing anything you shouldn't be doing, you don't have anything to worry about' - Let's put aside the fact that I don't want my every move recorded/watched and focus on the 'if you are not doing anything you shouldn't be doing' bit. Have you considered that once the government has free reign and sufficient control of the internet that the list of 'what you shouldn't be doing' might change? What if they add to that list criticism of current government, whistleblowing, exposing certain facts? Do they really get the benefit of the doubt? This is how governments operate, they creep things in little by little until they've got what they want. It's like NHS charges, people will have said at the beginning, oh well it's only a few pence, the NHS needs all the help it needs blah blah. Next thing we know, it's flying past £8 per prescription. Speed Cameras- oh just for one or two for problem areas... years later, they're everywhere, the fines keep rising and rising. Now you can't go anywhere without passing cameras everywhere. Then there's CCTV, it's now everywhere. Every little thing you do is monitored and the more power they get to scrutinise what everybody does, the more we get screwed over financially and harassed in daily life.

          Finally, since quotes are the order of the day, here's a more poignant one from somebody, admittedly lacking the prestige of Team America, however, humour me. Benjamin Franklin once wrote: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

          1. tom dial Silver badge

            Re: well said Evil Auditor

            There are xxx problems with hypothetical arguments such as Mr. Katz gives. The first, of course, is that they are hypothetical. The main one, when used to argue against surveillance, is that demands for surveillance are not the cause of creeping legal oppression, but the result. The new, more detailed laws require ever greater oversight, some in the form of general surveillance, and a good deal in the form of required self-reporting, things like income tax forms to be matched with income reports from employers, banks, or securities issuers. Another US example is the requirement on banks to report cash deposits above $10,000 which, to the authorities, suggest drug money laundering. Based on the same law, repeated deposits a bit under $10,000 are considered to be "structuring" of deposits, and therefore also suspect of money laundering and subject to seizure, with the owner required to prove the source legal.

            The fussing over surveillance, while somewhat entertaining, distracts attention from the real problem of too many laws that seem to necessitate it. The often repeated Franklin quote is not relevant to the case. It is oppressive laws against which we require eternal vigilance, and which represent the real choice between liberty and safety. Remove or modify them and reduce the justification for surveillance.

        4. Richard Boyce
          Thumb Down

          Re: well said Evil Auditor

          I think most of the world would disagree with you. Our freedoms in the UK are a very new thing in the UK, by historical standards. We have those freedoms not because of government but despite government.

          Even today, we have a Home Secretary who will abuse our terrorism laws to detain the relative of a journalist who has politically valuable information. I suspect that, if she weren't restrained by publicity and possible legal challenges, she would have held him as long as it took to get what she wanted.

          I view Robert Hannigan's article as a political signal that he's on-message, and equally prepared to abuse and stoke fears of terrorism and child abuse, as if these were the primary physical threats to our people.

        5. Roj Blake Silver badge

          Re: well said Evil Auditor

          "There is one basic fact here - if you are not doing anything you shouldnt be doing, you dont have anything to worry about."

          As a law-abiding citizen presumably you'd have no problems with the government installing cameras in your bathroom and your bedroom. After all, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear.

      2. Uffish
        Big Brother

        Re: "what hoi polloi is comfortable with"

        This particular member of the hoi polloi is comfortable with the idea of Hannigan being a public servant and deeply unimpressed by any notion that a public servant can define policy; we elect politicians for that.

        If Hannigan had taken the time to set out the regulatory structure that he has to operate in (under penalty of being sacked and/or prosecuted for not adhering to the rules), and demonstrated that his organization's activities were effectively regulated and checked for conformity with the law then he would have deeply impressed me; as it is he has demonstrated that he is just a professional mandarin fighting for a bigger budget.

        I'm not impressed and I'm in no mood to hear any veiled threats about privacy being antisocial, unpatriotic, dangerous or probably criminal behaviour.

    4. browntomatoes

      A better and more sustainable relationship

      I for one would be comfortable with a "better and more sustainable relationship". However, I don't think those words means the same thing to me as they do to him - to me that means one regulated by court orders (not ministerial warrants) which are specific to a single specified individual, necessary, proportionate, VERY time-limited and contested in a truly adversarial setting. They should also not violate other rights. I'd also add in that they should not be given blanket permission to break the law in foreign countries and remove all the other loopholes they have like asking foreigners to spy on British citizens to circumvent the need for even a limited ministerial warrant.

      Sadly for them, I think they've demonstrated sufficient bad faith at this point that they wouldn't actually comply with that if it was the law, so I don't see any other option than disbanding them completely. Institutionally, they are morally bankrupt.

    5. James 36

      bombs and stuff

      "but the GCHQ boss told FT that internet users would welcome a little surveillance"

      I assume this is because these internet users assume that the surveillance would be of others, you know the bad people, not me, why would they be interested in me etc

      I expect a different answer to the question "do you mind if the intelligent services look at everything (including your cat videos and emails ) and target based on what they find ?"

      I understand the intelligence services need to look at stuff, as long as a suitable methods of control and monitoring of their activities such as limited warrants are in place. It seems the internet is a bad place thing is still rumbling around , a spade can be used to dig holes and cave in people's heads, of course "bad" people use the internet because people use the internet. The security services need to change the way they do things to meet the challenges around them and stop trying to take rights away to make their job easier. I am not saying this is easy and I do not have a solution but taking rights away is not the answer, the rights were put in place for a reason, those reasons are still valid.

    6. johnnymotel

      This really is where we are going, I have no doubts about it....and just where does 'a little surveillance' start and stop? This is the trojan horse to allow governments to introduce laws that 'censor' the internet, this is the next step and all in the name of enhance security....

      1. Phil_Evans

        A 'little surveillance' gives you (I warrant) enough trust to walk outside your front door in the morning and face the world without undue terror (to cite a misnomer). A 'little surveillance' is what we as complicit citizens allow our governments to undertake in making us feel safe (like CCTV).

        when you walk through said door, unless you quickly jump under a rock and stay there all day, your movements 'can' be known. I don't understand why so many netizens see things any differently...like expecting to police a society where everyone wears masks....I know, lulsec idiots and all that.

        Saying 'I want to be anonymous' is a overarching proviso towards anonymising behaviour. From that standpoint, crime and corruption are but eventualities.

        When I see a copper, I don't try to hide or run away covering my face since:

        1) I've done nothing wrong (that I know of)

        2) I trust them (within tolerances) to protect my interests. And my pancreas. You get it.

        This idiot (for there are plenty about) is scar-showing to the media that he's a bruiser. Nothing more.

        1. Bernard M. Orwell

          "When I see a copper, I don't try to hide or run away covering my face since:

          1) I've done nothing wrong (that I know of)

          2) I trust them (within tolerances) to protect my interests. And my pancreas. You get it."

          hmm...

          1. You know *all* the laws then? Are you certain that the copper does too? If he says he can do X, do you know that you have the right to Y? Do you know the difference between a criminal infraction and a civil offence even? Let me assure you, you are probably about as skilled in such things as the coppers are themselves and if they decide they are going to "get you" for whatever reason, they will find something you've done. If nothing else they will find that you have "made obsence images" on your home computer which they found using RIPA and took using PACE. You will be held for 20+ days under S. 44 and S. 45. Am I right? Wrong? do you know? You going to argue that out with the coppers throwing you to the floor because you are black and in the wrong kind of car? Think that doesn't happen?

          2. They don't trust you. They are told not to. They are trained not to. You are the enemy. They are not your protectors, your bobby or even your police. They belong to the state and the state wants to own you, your thoughts and your proclivities because those are saleable commodities. Not certain? Go take a look at the nature of the City of London Police Force. Not the Met., the City of London. They don't answer to the judiciary, but to an entity known as "UK PLC" - you can thank Gordon Brown for that. Still unsure? Take a look at the newly formed NCA - our very own secret police, answerable to the Home Office and set the task of hunting down TerrorPedos everywhere.

          Still think you've done nothing? You're safe? Really?

    7. Primus Secundus Tertius

      @AC (The First)

      That is a typical computer geek's view, somewhat shared by me.

      But I was in a political discussion group where at least one man argued that a lot of the internet is just plain wrong - obscene, fraudulent, seditious..., and it should be stopped. I have some sympathy with that view also. There are laws against using telephones for those purposes, so why no law against the internet?

      I am British, and there are enemies of my country out there. Even some of our 'friends' need watching. Within reason I am happy to help the authorities. Do I trust the authorities? Only to a limited extent. I was always uneasy when the work of the Security Services was extended from affairs of state to include major crimes. Thin end of the wedge... .

      So Hannigan's arguments seem reasonable to me.

      1. Evil Auditor Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        @1. 2. 3.

        I agree, some things on the internet are wrong, e.g. fraudulent or otherwise criminal. Is it really a lot, i.e. a significant part? I doubt.

        But what is wrong with obscene, or seditious content? You (or the mentioned man) may not like it, but that doesn't make it plain wrong, let alone needed to be stopped.

      2. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        "at least one man argued that a lot of the internet is just plain wrong - obscene, fraudulent, seditious..., and it should be stopped."

        I believe religion is just plain wrong. I'll give up the internet if we all outlaw religion. I think living in a world where religion is a crime but we don't have the internet is probably going to result in more peace than a world in which the internet is monitored but you can do fucking anything in the name of Jesus.

        Oh, what's that? Religion is somehow "good", and the internet is "bad"? Who the fuck said you get to judge? My opinion's as valid as yours, or "that one man".

        Put up or shut up, eh?

        1. Primus Secundus Tertius

          @Trevor

          Thank you for that comment. As it happens, I largely agree with it.

          But we live in a society where people have different opinions, and we seek the kind of political and social compromises that allow everyone to feel that at least some of their wishes are respected. That was the point I was making about my colleague in that political discussion group.

          I am not a part of what George Orwell referred to as the "Inner Party", and I have my reservations about them. But I am even less attracted to a Guardianista/Anarchist existence which would result if the majority views in this thread became dominant.

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Some people's "wishes" are unconscionable. Your rights end at the exact point where they interfere with the rights of someone else. You do not have the religious, or fear-based right to remove my rights. Period.

            And I'll die to defend that, if I have to. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      voting

      Given their recent history, just imagine how much fun the NSA & GCHQ will have with "networks" once electronic voting becomes prevalent.

  2. Evil Auditor Silver badge

    "would be comfortable with a better and more sustainable relationship between the [intelligence] agencies and the tech companies"

    No.*

    *of course, I for one am only speaking for myself and don't claim to know what other internet users think.

  3. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Want more surveillance?

    No, no and thrice no.

    We don't want more intrusions into our private lives.

    Ironically the Simpson's Movie was on TV over the weekend.

    The scene where the thousands of listeners were recording mostly inane conversations obviously 'in the name of security' comes to mind. Then Homer comes on the line and one listener leaps up with joy at actually finding something useful.

    I guess that my phone conversation with my cousin last tuesday is being scrutinised as I write this. I mentioned the word that sounds like an explosive device but actually refers to a device used (ironically) at BP im WW2. I fully expect to see (See Icon) landing soon. (As those bloody chinooks make enough noise when they fly over 3-4 times a day/night I probably won't notice it)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Want more surveillance?

      Neither do like intrusion into my personal life. However, a bomb tends to intrude more (have you seen the effects they cause?) and has longer lasting effects. Sadly for all the 'freedom loving tards' also known as Neville Chamberlain's brothers after 'peace in our time', those who do us harm love the freedom to operate even more than you, just like a certain Adolf who laughed at the weakness of the UK back then.

      So who is next for a beheading, I guess you all welcome those was well? Answers on the usual postcards please.

      I would happily fire bomb the 'devils psychopaths' until every last one of the was toast at home and abroad. In a sense they have already won as you 'peace in our time' fools march to your destiny with their maker of choice, hint, there is no such thing.

      Oh and stop calling these psychopaths fancy names they are simply deranged psychopathic murderers.

      1. Graham Marsden
        Big Brother

        @AC - Re: Want more surveillance?

        > In a sense they have already won

        You are right, but for entirely the wrong reason.

        It used to be the claim that we would not let terrorists force us to change our way of living, but now it seems that every time one of them says "Boo!" we dance to their tune, surrendering our basic liberties and essential freedoms, giving up our right to "Go about our lawful business without let or hindrence" because our Security Services claim that this is the only way that they can "protect" those liberties.

        If that is what is needed to "protect" us, we have lost already.

        PS Do you *really* not see the irony in your comment "I would happily fire bomb the 'devils psychopaths' until every last one of the was toast at home and abroad"?

        You call them "psychopaths" yet your response fits the classic definition "Psychopathy [...] is traditionally defined as a personality disorder characterized by enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior."

      2. Amorous Cowherder
        Facepalm

        Re: Want more surveillance?

        "I would happily fire bomb the 'devils psychopaths' until every last one of the was toast at home and abroad."

        Well done...you utter nutjob! To quote Bart Simpson, "The ironing is delicious!".

      3. Roo
        Windows

        Re: Want more surveillance?

        "Sadly for all the 'freedom loving tards' also known as Neville Chamberlain's brothers after 'peace in our time',"

        It's easy to put the boot into Neville, but it's far harder to see exactly what Britain could have usefully done in '38 given the state of it's armed forces at the time. A year made a big difference for the better in terms of re-arming. Even then British troops were fighting tanks with entrenching tools, pistols and .303 rifles as they withdrew from Dunkirk...

        Tell us genius AC, what would you have done in Neville's place ? Declared war in 1938 and sent troops into Germany armed with shovels & .303s against tanks, 88s & dive bombers ?

        I find it ironic that there are so many dipsticks out there who choose to slam Neville, yet turn a blind eye to Preston Bush who was happily appeasing Hitler to the tune of $millions while arguing against the US entering WW2... Why aren't you slamming the tools who buried news of concentration camps and ethnic cleansing because US high society were so anxious to avoid fighting the Nazis ?

        1. BoldMan

          Re: Want more surveillance?

          Neville Chaimberlain's "peace in our time" did one thing that was much more useful than any warmongering would have done - it gave us one more year to prepare for a war the British Empire in 1938 was totally unprepared for.

          Your arguments a facile and ignorant. You sir are a Troll and I claim my five billy goats!

          1. Primus Secundus Tertius

            Re: Want more surveillance?

            The real problem was the "ten year rule": the doctrine that there would be no major war during the next ten years. This was imposed by the then chancellor of the exchequer, one Winston Churchill (*), and then cynically renewed by the Treasury every year.

            I look at the current British government and its predecessors, and wonder if that rule has been quietly reinstated.

            (*)Also responsible for raiding the Road Fund, a tax that was supposed to be reserved for spenfing on roads. Without Adolf, that is what Winston would be remembered for.

  4. Pete 2 Silver badge

    What was the question?

    This is a potato / tomato issue. If you ask "the public" (i.e. get a couple of vox-pops on the telly) if they want GCHQ to keep them safe from terrorists, the answer will be a resounding yes! Ask them if they are happy for GCHQ to spy on them, personally and the answer will be no. (Apart from the shrinking number who have never heard of mistakes, mistaken identity or impersonation/hijacked accounts and still go by the notion if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide)

    The basic problem is twofold. First, we are much more aware of the extent to which governments surveil their citizens: treating everyone as a potential criminal and secondly, possibly linked, they have lost the moral authority to say "trust us".

    Maybe - just maybe, if there were strong controls that were properly enforced by a truly independent authority which was able to prevent the abuse of data there would be a more sympathetic view. But in the UK it's not possible to say "this law is only for .... " since once a power has been bestowed, it is generally used for whatever the authorities deem necessary or desirable, rather than within the strict boundaries it was originally intended.

    However, the problem with that is that we don't have such a system and also that a lot of this "evidence" never sees the light of day or examination in a trial, so would be unregulatable no matter how well trusted the overseeing authority was.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What was the question?

      "Maybe - just maybe, if there were strong controls that were properly enforced by a truly independent authority which was able to prevent the abuse of data there would be a more sympathetic view."

      Hmmm, I don't know how you would build such a body that would be universally respected as being independent. Certainly no commercial outfit meets the requirement; the likes of Google, Apple, etc. are out to exploit (some might say abuse) your data as much as possible for commercial gain. Yet if it's an outfit appointed by the government it would be perceived by many to be 'governmental'. At least a government body, theoretically, doesn't have a commercial incentive to exploit data gathered in a nefarious way.

      1. big_D Silver badge

        Re: What was the question?

        I think he is talking more about an independent body, not a commercial data gathering organisation.

        Think more along the lines of OFCOM (although you would actually have to bestow them with teeth to actually deal with problems and get the right oversight).

      2. fruitoftheloon

        Re: What was the question? - A good starting point

        Ac,

        good point, what if individuals of said body who had proven to be naughty boys or girls were to be prosecuted as appropriate, then lose their liberty, pension or ideally BOTH?

        I suspect that may make a difference, as any parent knows bad actions that do not have repercussions tend to keep on occurring...

        Just a thought.

        j

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What was the question?

      "this law is only for .... "

      Blairs government specifically have a good deal to answer for in this respect, although the ConDems have done their best to keep up the tradition. Governments have always created laws with unintended consequences (or unannounced bonuses), but from the start Blair and co seemed to take a real pleasure in pushing spectacularly badly worded and conceived legislation with holes large enough to drive a train through, much of it seemingly deliberately done on a 'just in case' basis. Even the stuff that sounded at first glance like something reasonable ended up as another opportunity to exert control once they'd done with amendments.

      Simply depressing, but a legacy we'll live with for a long time, as much in the mindset as the statute book.

    3. Dr. Mouse

      Re: What was the question?

      But in the UK it's not possible to say "this law is only for .... " since once a power has been bestowed, it is generally used for whatever the authorities deem necessary or desirable, rather than within the strict boundaries it was originally intended.

      Actually, it is possible for the government to say, in the wording of the law, that it is only for use in specific cases X Y and Z, put in sufficient judicial oversight to ensure this remains the case, and punish those who abuse the powers.

      The problem is the laws are never written that way. We get spun the line of "we will only use this to catch terrorists/paedophiles", without any legal backing to control it's use. Then function creep comes in, and we are stomped into the ground, often with a "why are you complaining, we are catching criminals, if you have nothing to hide..." yada yada yada.

      In addition to this, most people just don't care. I know here, on a tech site, we think about these things, but the man on the street will often just say "They are doing it for our own good". It is certainly not high on their "reason to vote" list. They would rather listen to knobs telling them that all the worlds ills are caused by Europe, or work-shy scroungers, or bankers, or whatever other group is being scapegoated today to distract us from what is really going on.

      As pointed out in a famous poem, they will not speak out until the government come for them, and by then there will be noone left to speak out for them.

    4. dogged
      Headmaster

      Surveil?!?

      Stop doing that.

      "Survey" is perfectly adequate.

      1. Sixtysix

        Re: Surveil?!?

        Been good enough for the Army for many years - don't see in common use much tho.

        1. dogged

          Re: Surveil?!?

          > Been good enough for the Army for many years

          From experience, the Army is a bugger for making up stupid words.

          "Surveil" though, is particularly ugly and unnecessary and leads to abominations like "we surveilled him for five days" which is not only ugly but also effectively unpronounceable.

          1. Pete 2 Silver badge

            Re: Surveil?!?

            > "Surveil" though, is particularly ugly and unnecessary and leads to abominations like "we surveilled him for five days" which is not only ugly but also effectively unpronounceable.

            Heh, heh. Try it in french (from where the word comes) nous surveillions.

            Though it is a fair point. However, "survey" doesn't really carry the ominous overtones I was aiming for and although it comes from the same root doesn't have as strong a link to surveillance. The more common "watch" suffers from the same lack of sinister intent.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Surveil?!?

              Surveillance is a good, general term for overseeing in a surreptitious, general way. But the nearest verb is "spy" as that is what it means in this context, or possilby "monitor" if it is not totally secret. One could use, "survey", as in to survey the landscape, the scene, the circumstances. But to use "surveil"? Despite working in several countries in several, unrelated fields of work including some where surveillance was carried out, I've never seen it (including military).

              Americans make up a lot of words because most have an historical or family background from a foreign (to English) language. So they retain some archaisms, they adapt the grammar to fit their original language forms, drop words that seem less obvious to a non-native speaker and make up words for concepts where the vocabulary is outside that of most non-native speakers. Added to this, a new land may present conditions and features for which the original language of the settler has got no, simple expression as it was rarely or never encountered "at home" or because there are enough indigenous people to make their name dominant or just because the settler made mistakes (misidentifying Bison as Buffalo or renaming Elk as Moose or applying "robin" to a different species). When enough do this, often and loudly enough, it becomes the norm - look at the media-driven americanisation of British English and even of German and French. English has got its share from the fusion of Celtic, Germanic, Norse, Norman French, Latin, Greek and more over the last millenium. But, with some 4 million words already in our language, let's say enough is enough.

            2. gloucester

              Re: Surveil?!?

              According to Chambers, survey and surveillance come from different latin via french roots.

              survey: 14c: from French surveoir, from Latin videre to see.

              surveillance: 19c: French, from veiller, from Latin vigilare to watch.

          2. hplasm
            Big Brother

            Re: Surveil?!?

            How about Stalk.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Easy Solution

    I wonder what would happen if Google, Twitter, Facebook and Microsoft found that they were now liable for the content that their users publish?

    For a start it would make them party to any terrorist conspiracy conducted with the aid of their services.

    It's plausible that a terrorist attack will happen in the US, UK or Europe that is later shown to have been organised through Facebook, Google or some such service. Legally liable or not, the publicity would be fairly damaging to their reputation. Hypothetical headlines such as "Google Helped the New 9/11 Happen" would probably spoil Schmidt's breakfast.

    Ok so that's a hypothetical situation that may never happen. But if it ever did happen the commercial risk to such a company is staggeringly high. The public would certainly have an opinion that someone should have done something to stop it happening. Google, Facebook, MS, etc. are by their actions all inviting that "someone" to be perceived to be themselves. It would be very difficult to avoid:

    Google/Apple/Facebook/MS/etc: "We're encrypting everything so that the NSA can't read your stuff"

    :BANG:

    Public: "Who knew this was going to happen?"

    NSA: "Not us, no one lets us read anything these days"

    FBI: "But we did find this incriminating content on the terrorist's computer and in his Google account afterwards"

    Google: "Er, uurrrrmmm..."

    Lawyers for the victims: "I invite you to respond to this law suit"

    Apple/Facebook/MS, sotto voce: "Phew, it wasn't us, we're not involved"

    FBI: "And it turns out he had an iCloud account too which we want to look in"

    Apple: "Crap"

    To avoid that the companies need to be seen to be in a position where their content has been adequately policed.

    Arguably, pre-Snowden, one could say that the content held by these companies was policed for them for free by the NSA. Never mind the legality of it, in effect that is what was happening (though who knows how effective it was?). Post-Snowden, Google, MS, etc. are saying that they'll be encrypting everything and the NSA presumably are having difficulties carrying out that policing. I'm guessing that Google, Facebook, etc. aren't doing it themselves. That would be like they're taking a commercial bet that it would never happen to them. Which in today's world environment is a little bit like sticking their fingers in their ears, shutting their eyes and going "la la la".

    1. Dr. Mouse

      Re: Easy Solution

      Would you also like to make phone companies liable for criminals who spoke to each other on the phone?

      What about the gardening supply store who sold a bag of fertiliser to one of them?

      The car manufacturer for selling a car to the man who ran someone over?

      Amazon for despatching a clock to someone which was used as a timing device on a bomb?

    2. James Micallef Silver badge

      Re: Easy Solution

      "make them party to any terrorist conspiracy conducted with the aid of their services."

      This is absolute bollocks. It's like saying the US postal service is party to the 'anthrax' envelopes, or that the US department of transportation or phone companies are party to any terrorist that drives on a US road / makes a phone call while planning an attack.

      Infrastructure is by nature multi-use, it's not up to the infrastructure owners to police it. That's why we have police, FBI and all the other 3-letter organisations. It ALREADY is the case that police, FBI etc have the authority within given restraints i.e. judicially-issued warrants, that they can intercept phone calls and letters. It already is is the case that terrorists can encrypt their phone calls or their letters, but I don't see any intelligence agency wanting to open every single letter the US postal service delivers and copy the content 'just in case'.

      With phone and internet from the spooks' side it's a case of "we have the technical ability to do this so we want to do this" rather than there being any current legal impediment for them.

    3. The_Idiot

      Re: Easy Solution

      Mr AC. I'd like you to just walk this way - not, it's OK, just follow me over here - and sit down with these nice American folk. Oh, don't worry about those gun manufacturer reps, they're just folks, just like us. Now let's try that again. Tell all these nice people how all the nice gun companies should be held to account for every event in which a gun was used to the detriment of law, or to endanger the public.

      Yes, sir. I'll be back to clean up the pieces later.

      1. Bernard M. Orwell

        Re: Easy Solution

        I broadly agree with everything you've said in your posts so far, but let me take this up for a second as I don't hold with the "right to bear arms" thing as an expression of liberty. (Incidentally, thats the word we should be using in this thread instead of the word freedom. Worth looking up that rather subtle distinction.)

        A gun only has one function: to kill. Especially automatic assault weapons. These are not suitable for hunting.

        Other forms of infrastructure, such as the postal service, cars, fertilizer and alarm clocks *may* be used for acts of violence by imaginative persons, but guns *will* be by their nature and purpose. The two are not comparable.

        If someone sold alarm clocks on the basis that they are the very best alarm clocks for timing explosives, or an ISP sold its services based on fast, secure bandwidth for the discerning terrorpedo shopper then I might well, if I were the Authorities, question the motivation of that reseller and the nature of his customers. In fact, I may well agree that probing that relationship with electronic surveillance might well be prudent.

        If someone is selling automatic weapons, rocket launchers and phospherous ammunition then I'm not going to give them an automatic pass on the basis that its "probably ok".

        Thing is, the persons selling that sort of kit to the terrorpedos happens to be our own governments. There's almost no law regulating the international arms trade but these clowns want to regulate my internet usage? If something needs to be investigated, probed and surveilled (watched?) then it's there we need to be looking. Not my internet history.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like