This thread is inspired by a GCHQ-related story in the news thread.

Personally, I find the purpose and existence of GCHQ completely abhorrent; we're talking about an organisation whose mission is to spy on all our electronic communications with no evidence or justification. I have done nothing wrong so I see no reason why I should have my communications actively monitored.

How long do we have to live under this incredibly vague, anti-terror fear blanket?

Thoughts?

Keep reading Hello! magazine. Do not concern yourself with such matters. All will be well.

My father worked for gchq (He actually worked for CSO which is a divsion) . We were based in many different countries including Hong Kong and Ascension Island, much of the 'listening' was of foreign nationals and communications. You would probably figure out the areas of interest based on where we lived!

The problem as i see it is that all the 'good' things they do, i.e. stopping terrorist attacks etc are rarely reported. And long may that continue.

Personally, i don't like the idea of my comms being intercepted but I don't like the alternatives much either.

Didge,

Simple answer is OH YES.

Is this a trick question?

I guess it is a two edged sword. There's no real technical difference between our communications and 'their' communications, so any system/organisation that can intercept the latter can by definition intercept the former. And in the real world we have no friends, as project Echelon proved quite aptly. So we probably do need to know what 'they' are up to.

The problem is of course with GCHQ, as with any government branch, is the brakes on it's activities are the morals of the people we choose to lead us. Oh, wait...

Courtesy of Armstrong & Miller

A relation of mine flies the Nimrod R1 - a mobile version of GCHQ (yes, there are still a few Nimrods flying). Just being in an area prevents 'the customers' from using any form of electronic communication device - if they do then their location can be traced and monitored further.

GCHQ is necessary IMHO - there are those who would wish harm on us just because we don't hold their beliefs and without GCHQ they would be able to plan and exercise their campaign with impunity.

Al

They can anyway. They just have to do it in person. In fact, they're far better at communicating in person than us 24/7 digital, connected Westerners.

Now you see, it's this kind of mentality that has Prime Ministers running scared. After all, who wants to be the Prime Minister that slashed funding for the intelligence services, only for a bomb to go off in Covent Garden?

This is why, really, we need experienced ministers in the job. According to Private Eye, when MI5 tried the "national security" shenanigans with the Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, he was having none of it - probably because as a veteran Home Office minister he knows it's all [LIFTED].

I would reply but my GCHQ mouse mat is watching what I'm doing and will report any descent immediately

Yes, sadly, we need GCHQ.
What we also need are people who are capable of translating the information they gather into meaningful policy.

I do think that GCHQ are [CENSORED by GCHQ] and while we have no idea what they are up to. They could be [CENSORED by GCHQ] for all we know. I doubt that the PM has any idea of [CENSORED by GCHQ] or that [CENSORED by GCHQ] or even [CENSORED by GCHQ]

So am I [CENSORED by GCHQ]. Yes.

Please elaborate...

Not having GCHQ gathering intelligence and expecting that we can adequately understand the greater lay of the land (so to speak) at home and abroad is rather like suggesting that a university without a library on campus is well equipped for producing graduates.

Or, even more simply, would you trust a deaf person to cross a busy road safely on a blind corner?