An entry in the March\/April 2019 newsletter, produced by GCHQ, which outlines its officers entry into one primary school to set up a \u201ccode club\u201d.<\/p><\/div>\n
Spying on children?<\/b><\/h2>\n
Declassified<\/span><\/i> has seen evidence that GCHQ\u2019s project is closely supported by the police\u2019s regional cyber crime unit, with police officers involved in the programme entering schools to provide \u201cfun sessions around ethics\u2026 and the Computer Misuse Act\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe NCSC notes: \u201cOn several occasions this has been done as a tag team with NCSC providing insight into the role of both GCHQ and NCSC, and the associated career opportunities if students stay on the right side of the law.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nOn one occasion, the West Midlands police cyber crime unit was called in to a school in Hereford, which is not mentioned as being part of the CSH programme, because there was a \u201cvery talented student that the teachers were worried may be about to cross the line with his online cyber activities\u201d. The child had expressed interest in working for GCHQ.<\/span><\/p>\nThe NCSC team suggested a \u201cjoint tag team event\u201d with the police, where they would \u201cemulate the sessions\u201d they had previously run with the police. The school acceded and a session was run for a morning with the individual and his classmates. \u201cHopefully a clear and correct pathway [was] highlighted to the talented student,\u201d notes the newsletter. It is unclear if the student was at a primary or secondary school.<\/span><\/p>\nDespite putting on the event, the NCSC told <\/span>Declassified<\/span><\/i>: \u201cWe don\u2019t have any information on this\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\nAn entry in the June 2019 newsletter, produced by GCHQ, which outlines the activities in its schools programme, suggesting it is being used to spy on children.<\/p><\/div>\n
One newsletter notes another event for girls held at a school close to GCHQ headquarters and includes Ella and Chloe in Year 8 (i.e. 12-13 years old) together proffering the quote: “Diversity in perspectives, leadership and experience is good for Cyber. The wider variety of people and experience we have defending our systems, the better chances of keep [sic] the UK safe”.<\/span><\/p>\nBut this quote may not be genuine since, aside from sounding more like language used by GCHQ media relations than a Year 8 pupil, the same quote is attributed to a different 13-year-old pupil \u2013 \u201cEvie\u201d \u2013 on another CSH blog post.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe NCSC told <\/span>Declassified<\/span><\/i>: \u201cTeachers provide the quotes from students.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nA suspicious quote praising GCHQ\u2019s schools programme, which in the first CSH blog post is attributed to 13-year-old pupil \u201cEvie\u201d and in the CSH newsletter below is attributed to two different pupils: \u201cElla and Chloe in Year 8\u201d.<\/p><\/div>\n
A visit to the schools<\/b><\/h2>\n
Before the coronavirus crisis hit the UK, I took a 25-minute drive west from GCHQ\u2019s headquarters in Cheltenham to Newent Community School. Driving through lush countryside and quaint villages, it felt far away from the world of high-stakes surveillance by the time I\u00a0 arrived in Newent, a village of around 5,000 people.<\/span><\/p>\nBut Newent School is at the centre of attempts by GCHQ to cultivate the next generation of cyber-competent spies and expand into Britain\u2019s educational system. The school is one of just two \u201chub schools\u201d which are the centrepiece of the CSH programme.<\/span><\/p>\nMy email and phone requests for interviews to Newent and its sister hub, Cleeve School, were initially answered, but then ignored.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nWhen I arrived unannounced in person, the Newent principal Alan Johnson acceded to speaking to me. Initially, he said he would give me an interview on the record, but then said he would only speak on background.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nHe could tell me nothing tangible that being a \u201chub school\u201d has done, saying it has brought no investment or new facilities. The programme, he said, has simply made the school focus more on \u201ccyber security\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nA CSH newsletter, however, outlines that the NCSC team funded two companies to run sessions for 50 11-year-olds on \u201ce-textiles\u201d at Newent School. \u201cThe school is now looking to run a regular wearable tech focused lunchtime club,\u201d the newsletter continued.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nJohnson pointed to a shelf in his office which has toys for toddlers and explained that all of them are potential surveillance devices. This is the big lesson he wants his pupils to imbibe, he told me.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nJohnson took me on a tour of the school and judging by the peeling paint and sparse facilities, the reason for his contention that he will take investment from anywhere he can get it became obvious.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nShelves full of electronic toys in the office of Alan Johnson, the principal of Newent Community School, which Johnson uses to demonstrate the dangers of surveillance to the children in his school. (Photo: Matt Kennard)<\/p><\/div>\n
National security schools<\/b><\/h2>\n
Cleeve School, which is the lead hub school in the GCHQ programme, and located just a 10 minute drive from its headquarters, provides a different picture. From the outside it looks state-of-the-art architecturally, and as you walk to reception, well-equipped computer rooms run along the side of the building.<\/span><\/p>\nThe receptionist initially looked proud when I asked if it is a cyber \u201chub school\u201d and said she would go to get some information and ask about an interview.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nShe returned after speaking to someone on the phone for a couple of minutes. She said there was no information on the programme she could give me and the person who runs it was in a meeting and wouldn\u2019t be out until the end of the school day. When I returned I was told he was still not available.<\/span><\/p>\nI requested basic information about what the GCHQ programme is promoting at Cleeve using the Freedom of Information Act provisions, but the IT teacher running the programme, Martin Peake, wrote back, stating \u201cthat the information requested is exempt under section 23(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which relates to information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nHe added that this is \u201can absolute exemption and does not, therefore require the application of the public interest test in favour of disclosure\u201d.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nJen Persson, director of Defend Digital Me, told <\/span>Declassified<\/span><\/i>: \u201cIf I were a parent at a school that cited a national security \u2018exemption\u2019 to a question about what GCHQ is promoting to my child, I\u2019d be on the phone to the governors to find out why, and want a very thorough and public explanation of their purposes. I\u2019d ask, is my child being groomed?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nPeake joined Cleeve as head of computer science in September 2017, the month before the tenders to NCSC were submitted. He <\/span>says<\/span><\/a> he is \u201ccurrently working with NCSC to develop the Cyber Schools Hub\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\nPeake has a <\/span>history<\/span><\/a> working in the arms industry, from 1988-1994 as a software developer for \u201cdefence communications projects in the air defence sector\u201d where he \u201csuccessfully bid for new contracts in the UK and France\u201d. Before that he had been a software engineer on the head-up displays for the military jet fighters Sea Harrier and Tornado.<\/span><\/p>\nEmail and telephone requests to the NCSC have yielded next to no further information about the CSH programme. <\/span>Declassified<\/span><\/i> tried both press numbers on the agency\u2019s website and neither worked. An email was eventually answered and a request for a school visit and an interview with someone running the programme was put in.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nDespite saying that a visit could be arranged, nothing was heard for several months, and requests for updates were not forthcoming. No interview with any administrator at the NCSC was granted.<\/span><\/p>\n