That is certainly a clear headed and reasonable explanation of why it might be tabled as an option... but I can't fathom who thought deploying a nation state level intelligence agency (in a western democracy) against the communications infrastructure of political dissidents was proportionate. Or even a good idea.
I would love to see how the DDoS was argued as being "legal". Whose bandwidth was used? Where was the target server hosted? Is it legal for an intelligence agency to launch a denial of service attack against civilian infrastructure in another sovereign state to disable dissident political speech? And if it is legal for GCHQ to do it, then why is it not legal for MSS to do the same thing? If GCHQ can DDoS Anonymous, then MSS can DDoS Falun Gong. If GCHQ can hack Anonymous' laptops, then the PLA can hack Tibeten government in exile's laptops.
Allowing GCHQ to be used like this undermines the ability of the UK to be a force for good in the world. Losing the moral high ground for something as pathetic and petty as this? It is embarrassing to see Western Democracies behaving like script kiddies.
> That is certainly a clear headed and reasonable explanation of why it might be tabled as an option... but I can't fathom who thought deploying a nation state level intelligence agency (in a western democracy) against the communications infrastructure of political dissidents was proportionate. Or even a good idea.
Using special branch to infiltrate political groups is commonplace. So much so that there are recent scandals from officers living false lives having children with the people they are surveiling, and trials collapsing.
GCHQ have to obey the laws of England. They are usually mentioned in law to give specific exemptions.
I have no idea how they handle the laws of other nations. I'm guessing that they obey those laws where they align with English law.
It's not the first time they've done "script kiddie" antics. Hacking terrorist information websites to replace bomb making instructions with the recipe for cupcakes is another example.
I realize this sounds snarky, but I'm just a North American from the middle of that continent...
Who is deemed capable of deciding which political groups to infiltrate? It seems to me that there's a narrow line between manipulating politics the way you want them to go and observing threats.
I agree with you that it is fantastically problematic to infiltrate political groups.
In theory all of them get scrutiny.
The UK has had considerable trouble with things like employers compiling blacklists of political activists and union activists in order to deny them employment.
Some of the police infiltration scandals have been bad - police either get converted and refuse to provide evidence (while still being paid to gather evidence) or they encourage law breaking amongst legal groups.
I can understand monitoring all political groups (although I don't agree with it) but the UK does this poorly.
If we are worried about "Losing the moral high ground" then we've got a lot more to be worried about than a few civil servants acting as script kiddies.
I would love to see how the DDoS was argued as being "legal". Whose bandwidth was used? Where was the target server hosted? Is it legal for an intelligence agency to launch a denial of service attack against civilian infrastructure in another sovereign state to disable dissident political speech? And if it is legal for GCHQ to do it, then why is it not legal for MSS to do the same thing? If GCHQ can DDoS Anonymous, then MSS can DDoS Falun Gong. If GCHQ can hack Anonymous' laptops, then the PLA can hack Tibeten government in exile's laptops.
Allowing GCHQ to be used like this undermines the ability of the UK to be a force for good in the world. Losing the moral high ground for something as pathetic and petty as this? It is embarrassing to see Western Democracies behaving like script kiddies.