I'm pretty sure Intelligence types say the absolute minimum to politicians already. The trouble is, politicians are on top. When they ask a question, Intelligence is supposed to answer. If you really want politicians to not get information, you wind up with the NSA, an entity that does what it wants and tells lies when asked questions. Imagine if "Jeremy" had won the last election and what might come out after family gatherings with brother Piers!
It's a classic trust balancing act. When we are worried about someone else, we value intelligence actions against them, and politicians who disrupt it are doing harm.
When we aren't afraid of someone else, we become alert that the intelligence actions are being aimed at us and people we like, so we now want politicians to disrupt them.
There is a perfect solution to this: only have politicians who are trustworthy and understand the point--if the actions are warranted, they don't say anything, whereas if the actions are harmful or unjust, the whistle is blown thoroughly. As with every other perfect solution to anything, this one too is completely impossible. Instead, we have politicians doing their best to ensure that we are afraid of someone in order to support intelligence requests which don't actually serve to benefit those politicians.
Meanwhile, intelligence collection systems blatantly lie about obvious things even though they have a robust political bulwark, meaning that nobody trusts them. Why they go to such efforts is anyone's guess.
Supposedly, the briefing that politicians get is stripped of as much information as is safe to do to protect people and methods from politicians getting pissed one evening and telling everybody everything. We are highly confident of this information.
Now if the opposition knew that then they might be able to figure out ways that the information might have been gained back to a person or method, but there is a balance between a need to know the information, and having the information and not sharing it at which point having gone to the trouble and expense of getting the information is wasted. Supposedly the CIA have a random word machine that spews out words from the dictionary at the touch of a button.
Operations and agents are named using this so that there's as little chance as possible for anyone to work out what the operation is from the name. It's more random than flicking through the dictionary and sticking a pin at random on a page. That's allegedly how The Commodores picked theirs and almost ended up being The Commodes. I asked a friend over dinner at his house what activities his firm were doing in a particular country.
He was immediately suspicious of me and asked what I knew. I said that all I'd seen was the title page that has fallen out of the folder he was reading from when I'd arrived. I had inferred from the name that it was probably something to do with Germany possibly a beer company although might not actually be happening in October.
He wouldn't give anything away saying they were just planning a work trip to Oktoberfest that year. Years later he told me it was a client of theirs who was looking at buying a German brewer but hadn't happened. He thought they'd been very clever and calling the companies after national landmarks and the individual people after national footballers. After my comments he'd thought otherwise.
But you're not wrong,witness how Obama has got himself in hot water by acknowledging that he knew all about General Flynn's phone call to the Russian Ambassador to the US The paras marched overnight to a farm within range of the Argentinian position. Carrying up to lb of kit. Since the loss of the helicopters on Atlantic Conveyor, they had to carry all their own mortar rounds. Plan was to sleep that day, and attack the next night. Cue emergency day attack with no sleep - on a garrison that outnumbered them by about 3 to 1!
Some enterprising Argentine mechanic took a ground attack rocket pod, and mounted it on a children's slide from the playground, and started using it as rocket artillery. The storming of the Iranian embassy in London ended up going out on live TV.
As the SAS were already going through the windows. The Falklands war was setup and fought to get Thatcher reelected - the politicians were far more concerned about the winning election than the war so whatever the Tories said in public was just political. Nothing has changed since then. As is almost always the case. So it would have to be a "conspiracy" involving Thatcher without anybody else.
Go and read the Hansard reports from the time. Michael Foot, a Labour Leader who was unfairly maligned by the press, explicitly supported Military Action. Unlike many of the communist morons in his party at the time, Foot had seen in WW2 what would happen when you didn't defend your own people and what dictators could do.
I was a pilot in the RAF at the time of the conflict. Part of our training and pre-flight procedures for operational sorties was to 'sterilise' ourselves of any useful information before 'walking' for the sortie in case of just this sort of eventuality. A pilot wouldn't carry that sort of information in paper form.
Even if he did he wouldn't have the time to look at it in flight so why bother taking it? I bow to your greater knowledge but have always been under the impression that pilots would be given target or intercept details but not told that this has been found from intercepts of enemy communications.
That would not stop the enemy concluding that the only way that that position could be found was if their communications had been intercepted and decoded. During WW2 great effort was taken to ensure that such conclusions could not be drawn and I understand that often photo reconnaissance flights were made over targets identified through ULTRA so that the enemy thought the target had been discovered by other means.
I think is was delicious but have very hazy memories of the place…….. Interesting reading some of the history of this, seems the Germans assumed we could not be decoding their messages because we were not doing it right away sometimes it took a day or two to break the codes and they could not believe the codes could be broken, only "pinched".
So where it was obvious that a communication had been intercepted they assumed it was by some other mechanism than breaking the code e. Oh, and at times we messed up acting on the information which made it look unlikely we knew what was going on this is distinct from intentionally not using the information of course. I highly recommend "Most Secret War by R.
A fascinating insight into technical skulduggery during WW2. I particularly loved Mr Jone's practical jokes in the battle of the beams. Seconded as being very well worth buying. More so when RDFs became mounted on escorts. Part of Gannon's thesis is that German's talked and talked. The RN very early in the war had boarded one sub being scuttle and recovered part of the encryption suite but the USN under Gallery recovered the sub and had to face Adm King about threatening the Enigma secret but the worst leaks came from the activities of the Chicago Tribune whose reporter told all.
Then again some leaks are deliberate with truth value from zero to I met a helicopter pilot who was with the taskforce and he said it got pretty hairy.
They acted as decoys for enemy missiles launched at ships and I can't imagine that's much fun. A Harrier pilot had flown from Ascension with air to air refueling to join the taskforce.
That was a fairly grueling thing as well and when he landed on the carrier he went to the mess for something to eat and drink. Whilst there enjoying his meal he heard news of the Argentine surrender. Basically, the Exocet radar was designed to fly at the centre of a radar return. The boffins came up with the idea of hovering a helicopter say 30 metres off the side of a ship. When the missile comes in, it sees the ship and the helicopter as a single radar return and flies directly at the centre of the resulting radar return; by the time it's close enough to realise it's taken an average of both and flown between the helicopter and the side of the ship missing both.
These days ships have decoy launchers that toss an inflatable decoy over one side to do the same job. Three economists go duck hunting, and find a duck. The first shoots and misses, a meter to the left.
The second shoots and misses, a meter to the right. The third one doesn't shoot, but jumps up and down and shouts, "We got it! Parliamentary privilege. Whilst it may protect idiots it also protects your local MP if they take up some issue on your behalf. The best solution is not to vote in idiots but it seems we're making negative progress at this. He was assuming that GCHQ had been breaking the codes of potential enemies for years - if they hadn't then what was the point of them?
It would also be particularly stupid of the Argentinian military to assume that a major NATO military, that you were about to start a war with, wouldn't be spying on you. Often less clever than military codes, because really secret traffic can go by personal messenger or other means. Earlier in the 70s, maybe more than once, the British government had got word of a possible Argentinian invasion and despatched a submarine, then arranged to leak the info that it was en route.
As that was under the preceding Labour government, he could well have known. Assuming that was the source of the intelligence. Ah, but the Argentinian state led by a military junta didn't think it was starting a war , because it was interpreting actions of the UK Foreign Office with respect to the Falkland Islands in a particular way, and thus thought there would be diplomatic protests, disputed declarations in the UN, yadda yadda, but that they'd end up with de facto sovereignty over Las Malvinas in addition to the de jure sovereignty that they claimed, and still claim to this day.
Even the dimmest General and you don't get promoted to General by being dim would know that Argentina couldn't win a war with the UK.
And indeed, Argentina didn't lose one. And in the 21st Century, all you need are a few compromised bits of backbone infrastucture to read everyone's telegrams Sorry, I'm not clear: are you making an argument against Huawei, or for Huawei and against Cisco?
When you're talking compromised infrastructure kit I think you need to be a bit more specific. First let us work out how to manufacture PPE in volume And find some solid, truly British companies to do the job.
Small UK clothing manufacturers went to the wall by the score with thousands of jobs lost and I didn't notice any retail price reductions, this was just a simple business decision. Over the following years many other UK clothing manufacturers also went overseas. In the current crisis onsite laundry turn around times could have quickly been improved by using high street dry cleaners and any new reusable PPE deliveries would add to the in-use pool.
Instead half the planet joined a bidding war for what was available and hoped it would be fit for use if it arrived in time. Beancounters concentrate on immediate cost savings, the saved 'value' will usually be incurred elsewhere at some point, however in normal time it isn't manifested as a body count on daily TV.
I wish it was as simple as that. Quite apart from this being a dream scenario for scam artists it suggests that the same shipment is flowing virtually through numerous suppliers so it looks like there's a lot more product about than there is.
Just don't actually try to touch any product. It's one of the very few corporate turnarounds of that type that actually worked. More specifically, we use cookies and other tracking technologies for the following purposes:. We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience.
You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.
Skip to Content. About Subscribe Events. By Chase Gunter August 11, Share This:. This website uses cookies to enhance user experience and to analyze performance and traffic on our website. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.
Cookie Preferences Cookie List. Do Not Sell My Personal Information When you visit our website, we store cookies on your browser to collect information. Allow All Cookies. Cookie List A cookie is a small piece of data text file that a website — when visited by a user — asks your browser to store on your device in order to remember information about you, such as your language preference or login information.
Sale of Personal Data We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. Social Media Cookies We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience.
Targeting Cookies We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. FCW uses cookies for analytics and personalization. By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies.
Read our Privacy Policy to find out more. Almost There! Full Name. I Work For Please Provide Your Org. Phone Number. Zip code.
In , the EU Court of Justice struck down the so-called Privacy Shield data protection arrangements between the bloc and the US in what is now known as the Schrems II ruling, which has ramifications for US cloud providers, social media sites, and providers of online tools. Lloyd's, the world's largest insurance marketplace, has contracted DXC Technology to digitise its processes as part of a multi-year effort to move on from a largely paper-based, analogue way of working.
The London insurance market accounts for 7. It is made up of more than 50 insurance firms, plus registered brokers, and a global network of 4, local cover holders.
Updated Microsoft's first Patch Tuesday of has, for some folk, broken Hyper-V and sent domain controllers into boot loops. Tencent CEO Pony Ma Huateng referred to his Chinese multinational company as "ordinary" and replaceable in a leaked company speech given at the end of year employee meeting.
UK tabletop wargames specialist Games Workshop has published the latest chapter in the long-running saga of how mighty IT warriors valiantly battled the intransigent forces of ERP. The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing. Review and manage your consent Here's an overview of our use of cookies, similar technologies and how to manage them. Manage Cookie Preferences Necessary.
Always active Read more These cookies are strictly necessary so that you can navigate the site as normal and use all features. Sign in. Topics Security. Resources Whitepapers Webinars Newsletters. Get our Tech Resources. Share Copy. Similar topics Argentina Falkland Islands. Corrections Send us news. Other stories you might like Federal Communications Commission proposed stricter rules on how telco carriers should report data breaches Customers shouldn't need to wait seven days before being told.
All fixed!
0コメント