GCHQ Follows NSA Into Paranoia -- Just As Julian Assange Predicted
from the cognitive-decline dept
One of the knock-on effects of Snowden's leaks is that the NSA is terrified there might be more whistleblowers, and has taken extreme action in an attempt to reduce the risk of that happening by stripping 100,000 people of their security clearances. In other words, it no longer trusts huge swathes of the people it works with -- hardly a healthy situation. Now it seems that GCHQ has succumbed to a similar paranoia about its employees:
GCHQ is sponsoring ways of identifying disgruntled employees and those who might go on to be a security threat through their use of language in things like office emails.
The article in the Gloucestershire Echo -- the English county where GCHQ is located -- explains how potential whistleblowers will be identified:
"research will investigate the use of techniques from the field of natural language processing to detect the early indicators of an insider’s threat."
Of course, what this also means is that people working at GCHQ will become more self-conscious, start to watch their words, and probably think much more carefully about how they share their insights and analyses. That will inevitably lead to a loss of spontaneity, and of efficiency; the more GCHQ starts hunting down potential whistleblowers, the more it is likely to diminish its own effectiveness.
That means changes in the way a person communicates can give a clue that they are unhappy and perhaps prepared to do something to harm the organisation.
What's interesting about this development on both sides of the Atlantic is that it was predicted as far back as 2006:
The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive "secrecy tax") and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption.
Those words were written by a certain Julian Assange before he became (in)famous. Say what you will about him, you have to given him credit for being spot-on here -- and well ahead of his time.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: gchq, julian assange, nsa, paranoia, snitching
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
While that would suck for those working for them(though considering who they're working for, my sympathy for them is rather low), if it decreases the effectiveness of the spy agencies to violate the rights and privacy of the public, that seems like a good thing to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Sheeple, there are too damn many!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good ol' Guvnah Tarkin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Add the sentence:(including ourselves)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gee, perhaps they now have some idea how WE feel
How can NSA/GCHQ folk go home & kiss their kids each night, knowing that they will be surveilled by their 5-eyed buddies, and have their kids' nude pix used for god-knows-what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Down w/ the system...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Colossus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone is disgruntled and a potential whistleblower, firing them or demoting them (by killing their clearance) hardly reduces the chance of them speaking out. They now have even less to loose. It pisses the person off even more and makes the organization look vindictive and spiteful.
Confronting the person may keep them quiet but will basically kill any motivation the person had. It's not like that is magically going to improve moral and make the person a model employee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obvious question: given their general disregard for personal privacy, why are they only analyzing office e-mails for signs of future leakers? Shouldn't they be sifting all the personal communications of their employees too? Once they make that leap, then obviously they also need to keep a close watch on anything to or from an account that their employees might have ready access to, meaning spouses, parents, children, and close friends.
From parent poster:
I think the theory is that you remove their access to sensitive documents while they are at most mildly disgruntled, so that once they become seriously disgruntled and willing to begin leaking, they no longer have the access to leak anything juicy. This assumes, perhaps falsely, that (1) the Internal Security Service will identify future risks in a timely manner, (2) the efficiency loss caused by losing that access is outweighed by the perceived improvement to the organization's overall secrecy, and (3) individuals thus stripped will consistently not have archived copies of juicy content. Assumption #3 can be reasonable, depending on how much the stripped individual fears the rules about unauthorized possession of classified material.
Secondarily, the mass stripping may be intended to counter the morale hit. If one guy loses his clearance, everyone will wonder why. If the entire department gets hit, it can be blamed on institutional paranoia, rather than the conduct of the employees in the department.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not trying to say the entire concept is unworkable but implementation is critical to it not sinking the organization. They really need to understand whistleblower mentality and their workforce.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whistleblower mentality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Celine's First Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celine%27s_laws#Celine.27s_First_Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I expect that after a major failure of the system, they will have 'reforms' and crack down harder... and then the real failures will come. They will try to hide that they failed to protect the country because they were to busy watching themselves. People will finally grasp that for everything they gave up/had ripped away was for nothing.
The system is sick, and if someone being a whistle blower about what they are doing is so fear causing it is time to stop the system. It has outlived its usefulness.
People can't blow a whistle & get a response if you aren't breaking the law or exceeding what you were allowed to do. You don't have to have every program in the open, but the levels of paranoia these systems now operate in... they are doing much more harm than good and the world would be safer if we stopped them and started over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GCHQ employees
and the people who they are targetting include high level experts in these very fields.
Good luck with that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear NSA and GCHQ
Haven't you heard?
If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Illinois legislature
Haven't you heard?
If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear CIA and CIA fan club
Haven't you heard?
If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First impementation of koalang?
There also was a computer that was trying to analyse language I wonder if this will lead to first implementations of 'koalang'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good
You mean the very same effects the surveillance apparatus seek to instill in our societies are the very same effects now affecting them? Good! Let the beast consume itself I say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, the irony!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McCarthy Was Right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]