TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

My Life Unmasking British Eavesdroppers

309 点作者 aarkay将近 10 年前

14 条评论

guimarin将近 10 年前
Back when I was a kid, Enemy of the State was not a documentary.<p>But really, if you cared about Privacy&#x2F;Security at all since the 80&#x27;s you&#x27;d&#x27;ve known about Echelon, Echelon II, etc. You&#x27;ve also read up on ThinThread and Trailblazer.<p>My favorite is the No Such Agency adjunct that pulled like $200m a year in funding with 3 people in the division. Well and this patch: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;upload.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wikipedia&#x2F;commons&#x2F;c&#x2F;cb&#x2F;Logo_of_Infrared_Space_Systems_Directorate.png" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;upload.wikimedia.org&#x2F;wikipedia&#x2F;commons&#x2F;c&#x2F;cb&#x2F;Logo_of_...</a> quite literally the greatest US Gov&#x27;t Patch of all time.
评论 #10001110 未加载
评论 #10000868 未加载
评论 #10000971 未加载
评论 #10001071 未加载
评论 #10001049 未加载
评论 #10001246 未加载
评论 #10002299 未加载
teh_klev将近 10 年前
I remember the Zircon affair quite vividly. At the time I was a 20 year old student union activist, CND member (still a member) and involved in the Scottish independence movement (SNP member when it was unfashionable).<p>A couple of days after BBC Scotland was raided by Special Branch a bunch of us attended a viewing of the &quot;banned&quot; Secret Society &quot;Zircon&quot; programme in Edinburgh in the City Chambers (I think). Duncan Campbell was present and gave a short introduction. It was a positively electrifying event. I managed to get hold of a copy of the episode for distribution and viewing at my college. It was handed to me in a jiffy bag, the VHS video cassette was labelled &quot;Mickey Mouse&quot;, I think I have it in a box somewhere.
评论 #10001882 未加载
sandworm101将近 10 年前
The problem with Echalon-type programs today is cultural. They were&#x2F;are intelligence operations. But today &quot;intelligence&quot; has grown to encompass criminal investigations and targeted, violent, operations such as drone strikes.<p>An intelligence operation does not need to be 100% accurate. Huge volumes of less-than-perfect data are examined by experts who then issue reports, opinions, on what is actually happening. The top report would be the sort of things included in a president&#x27;s daily briefing. That was basic cold-war intelligence.<p>Today&#x27;s leaders expect surveillance to be absolute. They don&#x27;t want &quot;and increased likelihood of attack&quot;, they want &quot;Mr. Smith will be onboard flight 123 at 2pm&quot;. That&#x27;s the level you need to send a bunch of cops to lawfully and publicly arrest a specific person and take them to a court for prosecution. Such things require very different methods, methods for which ECHALON was never designed.
评论 #10002285 未加载
mirimir将近 10 年前
The Intercept: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;firstlook.org&#x2F;theintercept&#x2F;2015&#x2F;08&#x2F;03&#x2F;life-unmasking-british-eavesdroppers&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;firstlook.org&#x2F;theintercept&#x2F;2015&#x2F;08&#x2F;03&#x2F;life-unmasking...</a><p>There&#x27;s lots of 1998-2001 stuff on cryptome.org :)<p>Total TFH then. Now, not so much :(
评论 #10000904 未加载
评论 #10005806 未加载
评论 #10000832 未加载
evilhaskeller将近 10 年前
I remember an IRC channel about security in the early 2000s. Somehow we started discussing government surveillance, and someone mentioned ECHELON. People&#x27;s reactions were interesting: most people immediately dismissed it as being &quot;impossible&quot;, or &quot;another conspiracy theory&quot;.<p>It makes me sad.
评论 #10001276 未加载
评论 #10001487 未加载
throwaway81922将近 10 年前
A somewhat philosophical question: what is the endgame here?<p>Cracking codes was no doubt fundamental to winning the Second World War (and I would imagine all wars since the invention of the Caesar cipher) - but since then the motivation for surveillance appears to have from safeguarding the freedoms and rights of the people to an full-scale assault.<p>We now have nation-wide surveillance of the British public (and no doubt the people of most other countries), who for the most part couldn&#x27;t be of less interest if they tried. So what is the motivation for this? What is it about you or I that is so interesting to GCHQ&#x2F;NSA?
评论 #10002360 未加载
评论 #10002376 未加载
sr_banksy将近 10 年前
Great insight into how free-speech, freedom of press and privacy laws work and have evolved on both sides of the Atlantic. Having lived on either end of the pond as an average citizen, I know the American Press enjoys greater and truer freedom. They hold the legislators accountable. The British press, on the other hand, felt malleable, made to bend any which way the government choose. The BBC creates invaluable programming, but also is bound to the government by the purse. It always felt like the government meddled with its affairs. And now some great to get some historical context into it as well!
shahryc将近 10 年前
&quot;Since then, the program has largely been presented to the public only through posts on government surveillance&#x2F;conspiracy forum...&quot; ------ I guess the conspiracy theorists weren&#x27;t that crazy after all.
signaler将近 10 年前
First learned about ECHELON in Robert Ludlum&#x27;s Bourne series: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;bourne.wikia.com&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;ECHELON" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;bourne.wikia.com&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;ECHELON</a> The key difference being that this is trunk VOIP ingestion, not the more sinister PRISM and TURMOIL stuff which is much more invasive
superkuh将近 10 年前
This page will reliably kill X.Org X Server 1.7.6 regardless of the browser used to render it.
评论 #10002170 未加载
twic将近 10 年前
&gt; The next morning, as the New Statesman hit newsstands, I went early to Parliament to meet a friend and supporter, an MP named Robin Cook. He led me to a sanctuary in Parliament, where I could stay long enough to avoid being served by the authorities and get our story out safely.<p>Robin Cook was one of the good guys.<p>Interesting to know about a remaining enclave of asylum after our discussion recently: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9951283" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9951283</a>
keithpeter将近 10 年前
Historically GCHQ has had a strong relationship and support from British government and politicians at government level probably reinforced by the &#x27;troubles&#x27;. Mrs Thatcher altered the culture of the rank and file GCHQ staff by removing union representation and replacing it with a &#x27;staff association&#x27;.
acqq将近 10 年前
The original source link with the new content:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;firstlook.org&#x2F;theintercept&#x2F;2015&#x2F;08&#x2F;03&#x2F;life-unmasking-british-eavesdroppers&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;firstlook.org&#x2F;theintercept&#x2F;2015&#x2F;08&#x2F;03&#x2F;life-unmasking...</a>
评论 #10001069 未加载
1arity将近 10 年前
A Moral Thesis in Defense of Surveillance<p>People talk about civil freedoms, and they incorrectly attribute lack of surveillance the status of a civil freedom. Freedom from observation is not freedom, freedom from incorrect enforcement is freedom.<p>Observation does not alter the moral scope of the individual, or the moral scope of the society. The individual&#x27;s choice to limit their own moral scope under observation is what limits their scope. Surveillance does not affect the effective moral scope. Enforcement defines the ( effective ) moral scope ( the scope of actions that individuals can do without expecting hindrance from society ).<p>More comprehensive surveillance, leads to more clear enforcement, and more clear enforcement preserves in clearer definition those freedoms which are expressly not prohibited under the moral scope of a society. Surveillance is a tool of freedom. Specifically, a tool that contributes to preserving the freedom of action of individuals by contributing to more effective enforcement.<p>Without surveillance the machinery of enforcement can be more messily and liberally applied.<p>The fake left doctrines complain about surveillance as a tool of oppression.<p>Surveillance is seen in fact a tool of freedom, it is the light shone upon. The fake left doctrine has framed the entire debate incorrectly. Absence of surveillance is not a civil freedom, it is in fact an assurance of imprecisely applied enforcement.<p>Surveillance is a civil freedom.<p>Lawful enforcement is a civil freedom.<p>The remaining civil freedoms, known as &quot;civil liberties&quot; are those things permitted by an individual&#x27;s effective moral scope.<p>Civil liberties, like morals in general, are not absolute, they are the choices made by societies to define themselves at a particular time and place. ( The color of absolutism is invoked because that promotes harmony -- if something is absolute it is beyond question. This is not a real admission of absolute, simply a shorthand for a society saying the debate about this way we define ourselves is complete, for now. )<p>Civil freedoms are distinguished from civil liberties in that civil freedoms include those acts, two of which are defined above, which effect whatever civil liberties are chosen. Civil freedoms include the machinery of creation of civil liberties.<p>The relationship between the state and the individual is somewhat akin to that between a parent and a baby. A baby is many things, and it is also helpless and chaotic without the governance of the parent. The parent&#x27;s attentive observation ( surveillance ) of the baby presents the baby from harming itself. The state&#x27;s attentive surveillance of the individuals presents them from harming themselves and others.<p>If large groups of individuals were capable of governing themselves in an ad-hoc fashion then...the internet, reddit, all of these places would be domains of inclusion, tolerance, peace, and respect. In fact, moderators, and moderators of moderators, and policies, and a central authority are required to prevent chaos and harm.<p>These things ( observations and controls -- surveillance and enforcement ) are the very enablers of the same liberties that the fake left doctrine purports they destroy.<p>The fake left doctrines complain about surveillance as a tool of oppression. They use &quot;freedom&quot; in an intangible, absolute sense. A mythological &quot;Perfect Freedom of the Individual&quot;, a delusion that fails to acknowledge the social context in which any freedom of action exists.<p>These fake left doctrines are founded on a delusion of a freedom unhindered by a social context. They are the fake left&#x27;s dream of the mythical Powerful Individual, a delusion to compensate for the collective belief of the fake left of the powerlessness of the individual against some mythical oppressive force. In fact, for an individual exposed only to lawful restriction of their action, their only powerlessness is their fabrication of their own powerlessness.<p>The mythical oppressor of the fake left is in fact, not the lawful surveillance state, it is the individual that chooses to believe itself powerless. Surveillance is not oppression, incorrectly applied enforcement is the very definition of oppression. And as the net of surveillance is narrowed, a broader net of enforcement must be cast to protect individuals from themselves. The fundamental that the fake left has not grasped is that the trade off is not between &quot;broader freedoms and broader surveillance&quot; it is between &quot;broader surveillance or broader enforcement&quot;, and broader enforcement, without the information, is going to be incorrectly applied.
评论 #10001550 未加载
评论 #10001536 未加载
评论 #10001098 未加载
评论 #10002250 未加载
评论 #10000949 未加载
评论 #10001448 未加载
评论 #10001326 未加载