Not at nine o'clock at night, no.
Probably. And I honestly don't give a shit if they do. The only thing I browse at work are work related sites. The only thing I care about is when the stupid firewall blocks me from getting to a site which I'm only trying to access for work reasons. Still, that does at least let me send sarcastic e-mails to IT.
Technically that's SIS, the Secret Intelligence Service. Also known as MI6.
In Britain we're surprised to learn we have a Secret Service. We have GCHQ, MI5, MI6, and various other things, but I don't think we have a Secret Service.
It just forwards all the e-mails to your @facebook.com address to your reigstered address now.
Why would you store the secret on your hard drive? Why wouldn't you use something like an eToken or any other PKI token?
Given you login to Amazon using your e-mail address...
I don't think Carmack was ever interested in games. He was interested in writing game engines. The games were kind of secondary demonstrations of what the engines could do.
Or more likely Doom; assuming we're discounting the pseudo-3D engines which used ray casting - although Id weren't the first to use those, afaicr.
Meh. It's not like most people pay attention to the domains. They just go to their search engine of choice and type-in "Canon" (or whatever they happen to be looking for) and if they can be bothered they look for the most useful result or just click on the first one if they can't.
You appear to be confusing GCHQ with the Home Office. I very much doubt the instructions for this little bit of theatre came out of GCHQ; it pretty obviously political theatre.
A point the editor even made to the Select Committee. In fact he straight out told them it had been copied elsewhere.
Yes he would, because his job and vetting level allowed him unsupervised access to materials at that level of protection. The flaw in their system was either their vetting - I have no idea if there was anything in Snowden's past that should have given them a reason to consider him unreliable - or that his access was unsupervised.
The problem with requiring supervised access to materials or infrastructure you (potentially) routinely access as part of your job is you've just doubled (at least) the number of people you need to do anything. Basically any system of security is going to require that at some point you have to trust people, otherwise the entire system becomes an unworkable nightmare and no-one can get anything done.
There are very rarely armed military personnel at UK airports. Them being there is highly unusual and worthy of comment. The uniformed armed people you usually see at UK airports are regular armed police. Although that itself is unusual in a national context (though not at airports); our police aren't routinely armed (it's in fact a specialization you have to qualify for).
I suspect The Guardian was mostly thinking "Sure, we'll play along with your little pantomime. It's not like it's actually going to make any difference." I suspect the technicians from GCHQ were thinking the same as well. Possibly with a side thought of "Well, it gets us out of Cheltenham for a day at least".