Mastering the Internet

[Peter Fairbrother]

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> Ian Batten wrote:

> So my contention is that GCHQ should not be trusted - not because they 
> are untrustworthy, but simply because there is no need to trust them!

Being a bit kinder: GCHQ should not be trusted - not because they may 
or may not be untrustworthy, but simply because there is no operational 
requirement to trust them.


>> Hint: there's only been one documented case of mass interception and 
>> modification of traffic in the UK.  Was it carried out by (a) spooky 
>> people from Cheltenham or (b) an ISP seeking additional advertising 
>> revenue?  What makes you believe that ISPs are the ones wearing the 
>> white hats?
> 
> Maybe that's because access to the data is, at present, physically in 
> the control of the ISP, not GCHQ.

And I'm sure no ISP in the UK has been affixing black boxes to the net 
under direction or "polite request" from the national codebreaking 
agency - unlike in the US, where recent illegal domestic interception by 
the national codebreaking agency has been a major political scandal.


Actually, come to think of it, I'm not so sure of that after all - Roland?


Remember Rule 30: A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the 
further you'll go.




-- Peter F

(thanks Caspar, for the kickinthebutt!)