17-03-2017, 04:43 AM
I wrote the following on the Guardian's page, under a story reporting denials of GCHQ wiretapping -
............
It's somewhat surreal following this story. Trump has offered no proof yet, and this unnamed sources' stuff from both sides, Trump on the one, CNN/NBC/Associated Press on the other, really should stop. It does no side any favours.
That said, GCHQ wiretapping from the UK was certainly doable if they wanted to do it. In the US, FISA court rulings from 2005 gave the National Security Archives access to the mainframe computers of all Stateside telecom providers, and to all digital traffic carried through fiber optics in the U.S. Telecommunications within the USA are tapped via that method.
Meanwhile, in the UK, GCHQ has 24/7 access to those same databases and computers from the NSA. If Obama, or anyone working for him, requested transcripts from GCHQ, as a favour', they could be sent quite easily, with no court orders or Obama administration fingerprints anywhere to cause trouble. In response to all this, the Guardian has run another story today where a spokesman for GCHQ' popped up to make a rare public statement' that the claims are utterly ridiculous', but I'm not sure if they could have made the denial less persuasive if they tried. Guardian readers, help me with this one. Does this spokesman for GCHQ' have a name? I've checked the variations of this same story today from Sky News, The Guardian, the Daily Mail, and the BBC. All of them leave this spokesman' completely anonymous. The most recent press release on the GCHQ website is from March 3rd, noting an unrelated staff appointment, so the 'statement' by the 'spokesman for GCHQ' remains officially unstated on the page where GCHQ usually make their statements, which is a funny way for GCHQ to make a statement. Out of interest, I read yesterday's related story on this topic from The Independent, by writer Mark Hosenball, titled MI6 DENIES SPYING ON DONALD TRUMP DURING AND AFTER US ELECTION. The first two paragraphs of that one read "A UK spy agency did not eavesdrop on Donald Trump during and after last year's US presidential election, a British security official has said, denying an allegation by a US television analyst. ---- The official, who is familiar with British government policy and security operations, told Reuters that the charge made on Tuesday by Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano was totally untrue and quite frankly absurd." Googling that Reuters story, I get the same piece by Mark Hosenball, and it again quotes the same British security official' who remains unnamed. So each denial of GCHQ wiretapping I can find this week, through every mainstream story, throughout all of the online press, either quotes a spokesman for GCHQ' who doesn't want to be named and who doesn't want to put his comments in writing on the GCHQ website, or alternatively quotes a British security official' who again doesn't want to be named. Each of these anonymous folk go out of their way to ridicule the claims, but aren't troubled enough by them to deny those claims on camera, to put their name to a comment, or even to put out a desultory, unnamed, official statement on GCHQ's record of press releases. Just vague shrugs and insults and assurances that we should take their word for it, honest whoever they' are.
The Minister currently in charge of GCHQ is Boris Johnson. The Agency Executive currently in charge of running GCHQ is Robert Hannigan. Neither of those men have made a statement denying that GCHQ was involved in the alleged wiretapping. Why not? They should each know by now if the allegations are true. If they can't be arsed appearing in front of a camera, they could just put out a press statement of their own. It'd take five minutes.
Hannigan in particular should know what GCHQ was or wasn't up to. A statement from him would surely put the matter to bed. If he doesn't want to do it, maybe his imminent successor could make a statement? Since Hannigan unexpectedly resigned three days after Trump's inauguration to "spend more time with his family", I gather he's not long for the job.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017...igan-quits
............
It's somewhat surreal following this story. Trump has offered no proof yet, and this unnamed sources' stuff from both sides, Trump on the one, CNN/NBC/Associated Press on the other, really should stop. It does no side any favours.
That said, GCHQ wiretapping from the UK was certainly doable if they wanted to do it. In the US, FISA court rulings from 2005 gave the National Security Archives access to the mainframe computers of all Stateside telecom providers, and to all digital traffic carried through fiber optics in the U.S. Telecommunications within the USA are tapped via that method.
Meanwhile, in the UK, GCHQ has 24/7 access to those same databases and computers from the NSA. If Obama, or anyone working for him, requested transcripts from GCHQ, as a favour', they could be sent quite easily, with no court orders or Obama administration fingerprints anywhere to cause trouble. In response to all this, the Guardian has run another story today where a spokesman for GCHQ' popped up to make a rare public statement' that the claims are utterly ridiculous', but I'm not sure if they could have made the denial less persuasive if they tried. Guardian readers, help me with this one. Does this spokesman for GCHQ' have a name? I've checked the variations of this same story today from Sky News, The Guardian, the Daily Mail, and the BBC. All of them leave this spokesman' completely anonymous. The most recent press release on the GCHQ website is from March 3rd, noting an unrelated staff appointment, so the 'statement' by the 'spokesman for GCHQ' remains officially unstated on the page where GCHQ usually make their statements, which is a funny way for GCHQ to make a statement. Out of interest, I read yesterday's related story on this topic from The Independent, by writer Mark Hosenball, titled MI6 DENIES SPYING ON DONALD TRUMP DURING AND AFTER US ELECTION. The first two paragraphs of that one read "A UK spy agency did not eavesdrop on Donald Trump during and after last year's US presidential election, a British security official has said, denying an allegation by a US television analyst. ---- The official, who is familiar with British government policy and security operations, told Reuters that the charge made on Tuesday by Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano was totally untrue and quite frankly absurd." Googling that Reuters story, I get the same piece by Mark Hosenball, and it again quotes the same British security official' who remains unnamed. So each denial of GCHQ wiretapping I can find this week, through every mainstream story, throughout all of the online press, either quotes a spokesman for GCHQ' who doesn't want to be named and who doesn't want to put his comments in writing on the GCHQ website, or alternatively quotes a British security official' who again doesn't want to be named. Each of these anonymous folk go out of their way to ridicule the claims, but aren't troubled enough by them to deny those claims on camera, to put their name to a comment, or even to put out a desultory, unnamed, official statement on GCHQ's record of press releases. Just vague shrugs and insults and assurances that we should take their word for it, honest whoever they' are.
The Minister currently in charge of GCHQ is Boris Johnson. The Agency Executive currently in charge of running GCHQ is Robert Hannigan. Neither of those men have made a statement denying that GCHQ was involved in the alleged wiretapping. Why not? They should each know by now if the allegations are true. If they can't be arsed appearing in front of a camera, they could just put out a press statement of their own. It'd take five minutes.
Hannigan in particular should know what GCHQ was or wasn't up to. A statement from him would surely put the matter to bed. If he doesn't want to do it, maybe his imminent successor could make a statement? Since Hannigan unexpectedly resigned three days after Trump's inauguration to "spend more time with his family", I gather he's not long for the job.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017...igan-quits