4 ms·

> as the point of dragnet surveillance is using competitor nations' secrets for economic advantage, not for fighting terrorism. Source / examples? Seems like a

> as the point of dragnet surveillance is using competitor nations' secrets for economic advantage, not for fighting terrorism. Source / examples? Seems like a rather extraordinary claim.

alrs 9y ago
This has been going on for decades, and was an issue before 9/11/2001. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/sep/30/news/mn-16631 http://articles.latimes.com/1999/sep/30/news/mn-16631 http://articles.latimes.com/2000/feb/24/news/mn-2072 http://articles.latimes.com/2000/feb/24/news/mn-2072 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/30/airbus-could-sue-following-allegations-germany-spied-on-them-for-the-us https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/30/airbus-coul...
dreamfactored 9y ago
Private Eye have covered this kind of thing since the 80s and various aerospace, arms, middle eastern infrastructure deals etc. All the countries do this - an explicitly stated aim of security services is to protect economic interests as well as security.
stordoff 9y ago
Likely difficult to find proof or definitive examples of it happening, but Intelligence Services Act 1994[0] states: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/section/3 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/section/3 > [GCHQ shall] monitor or interfere with electromagnetic, acoustic and other emissions and any equipment producing such emissions and to obtain and provide information derived from or related to such emissions or equipment and from encrypted material; [... said functions] shall be exercisable [...] in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in relation to the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands There's very similar language for SIS. [0] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/section/3 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/section/3

4 ms·

> as the point of dragnet surveillance is using competitor nations' secrets for economic advantage, not for fighting terrorism. Source / examples? Seems like a

by TimonKnigge 9y ago

> as the point of dragnet surveillance is using competitor nations' secrets for economic advantage, not for fighting terrorism. Source / examples? Seems like a rather extraordinary claim.

alrs 9y ago
This has been going on for decades, and was an issue before 9/11/2001. http://articles.latimes.com/1999/sep/30/news/mn-16631 http://articles.latimes.com/1999/sep/30/news/mn-16631 http://articles.latimes.com/2000/feb/24/news/mn-2072 http://articles.latimes.com/2000/feb/24/news/mn-2072 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/30/airbus-could-sue-following-allegations-germany-spied-on-them-for-the-us https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/30/airbus-coul...
dreamfactored 9y ago
Private Eye have covered this kind of thing since the 80s and various aerospace, arms, middle eastern infrastructure deals etc. All the countries do this - an explicitly stated aim of security services is to protect economic interests as well as security.
stordoff 9y ago
Likely difficult to find proof or definitive examples of it happening, but Intelligence Services Act 1994[0] states: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/section/3 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/section/3 > [GCHQ shall] monitor or interfere with electromagnetic, acoustic and other emissions and any equipment producing such emissions and to obtain and provide information derived from or related to such emissions or equipment and from encrypted material; [... said functions] shall be exercisable [...] in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom in relation to the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands There's very similar language for SIS. [0] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/section/3 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/section/3