4 ms·

It gets even better: Europol flat out refused to help in the investigation [1] > However, Europol wanted nothing to do with the investigation and refused to as

by 317070 9y ago

It gets even better: Europol flat out refused to help in the investigation [1] > However, Europol wanted nothing to do with the investigation and refused to assist, according to two sources familiar with the interaction. Europol asserted that it would not carry out investigations into other European Union member states – in this case, the U.K. The Belgians were frustrated and believed Europol had stonewalled them for political reasons; they noted with suspicion that the organization was led by Rob Wainwright, who is British. I mean, what are we doing here? How can Europol so blatently refuse a case? Isn't that a clear violation of the trias politica? [1] https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.demorgen.be%2Fnieuws%2Feuropol-weigerde-belgie-te-helpen-na-britse-spionage-bij-telecombedrijf-belgacom-b672662a%2F&edit-text=&act=url https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...

stupidcar 9y ago
Europol as an organisation has no power to act on its own, it relies on the co-operation of the EU member states, and needs permission from the relevant national authorities to conduct investigations and arrest suspects. Regardless of the nationality of its leader, it can't realistically investigate British suspects if the British won't co-operate, and there's no prospect of them doing that here. Furthermore, all large countries, like Britain, France and Germany, engage in this kind of espionage against "friendly" countries, and none of them want an agency like Europol getting involved, because then they would reduce their co-operation with it, and that would harm the fight against organised crime and terrorism. Basically, when it comes to a supranational organisation like Europol, real separation of powers is impossible, because there's always a political calculus involved in a collaboration between sovereign countries with occasionally competing interests.
- fauigerzigerk 9y ago
  >Furthermore, all large countries, like Britain, France and Germany, engage in this kind of espionage against "friendly" countries That may well be, but without having any inside knowledge I'm pretty sure that the extent to which such incidents damage relations depends on more than a yes/no question. How was this done and why? Were any non-public inter-agency agreements or silent understandings breached? Was the UK acting alone on this or with the US? I think all of this could influence the mood in the negotiations now taking place over the future security collaboration between the EU and the UK. This incident will certainly not be the most important consideration by far. That would be just crazy. But it could add to the potential distrust of a UK now desperately dependent on getting into the good graces of the US, which isn't exactly seen as a staunch defender of the rule of law outside US territory.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    The major question isn’t motive, it’s just “did you get caught...” and the modifier, “...publicly?” Even then it might not matter beyond some bad publicity; the UK still copies up to Russia for its gas suppply, and the murder of someone with a radiological weapon on UK soil didn’t stop that. The Israelis stole American nuclear material and secrets, and we’re still close. Countries don’t have friends, they have interests, and allies.
    - fauigerzigerk 9y ago
      >The major question isn’t motive, it’s just “did you get caught...” I'm not in a position to know, but I find that unlikely. Say GCHQ was using Belgacom to spy on some Belgium based terror suspects ignoring Belgian privacy laws. Would that really be the same as if they had been spying on the Belgian government or on EU institutions in Brussels? I think not.
      - IntronExon 9y ago
        Note however that these questions can only arise if they are caught.
        fauigerzigerk 9y ago
        That depends on what you mean by "getting caught". You don't need absolute proof in every single case to cause distrust and affect relations.
- 317070 9y ago
  > none of them want an agency like Europol getting involved, because then they would reduce their co-operation with it, Well, now see it from the point of view of the other side. How will Belgium now see their future cooperation with europol? You are not wrong, but it is a stance which causes supranational organisations to whither until nothing is left.
- Zak 9y ago
  > Furthermore, all large countries, like Britain, France and Germany, engage in this kind of espionage against "friendly" countries Why is this tolerated? Is it, perhaps that surveillance a country cannot legally conduct internally is conducted by its "friends", sometimes resulting in relevant information being shared with its own intelligence services?
  - azernik 9y ago
    It's tolerated because the harm is small and the cost of retaliation is high enough that the target countries aren't willing to go very far to punish it. The spying carried out between allies is often about military information that the target country already has. See, for example, the Jonathan Pollard case, where Israel stole US intelligence on Iran. The spy was imprisoned for almost 30 years (considered a bit extreme by the Israeli system, though that may reflect different norms about incarceration in general). Similarly, an American spy (Yosef Amit) sent information about Israeli troop deployments to the US, and was in prison for 7 years. Both sides worked hard to get their respective spies released, and were stubborn about not releasing the ones they had in custody, but because the countries were allied no one was willing to go to the mat over the issue.
  - mc32 9y ago
    What are they supposed to do, declare war on each other? Spying isn't a new craft. It's also arguably necessary given inter-national opaqueness on certain issues. Knowing what motivates your neighbors allows you to navigate the relationships better
    - Zak 9y ago
      Some options that aren't war include: * Make a very public stink about it. Publicize exactly what was done, how and who was involved. Attempt to attract the interest of the media in the hope that the electorate of the country in question will find spying on allies objectionable. * Raise the issue with the EU parliament or possibly the UN. This may not have hard consequences, but officials having to answer for the behavior of their spy agencies can put pressure on those spy agencies. * Use any of the many cooperative agreements between the countries in question as leverage to demand action against the officials who authorized the spying, evidence that it won't happen again, or compensation. Of course, all of these have potential downsides, and I've ordered them from what I think is low risk to higher risk. The fact that the usual result is a quiet diplomatic protest and sweeping the event under the rug suggests that governments think this kind of spying is acceptable, and the only problem is getting caught.
- mirimir 9y ago
  > Furthermore, all large countries, like Britain, France and Germany, engage in this kind of espionage against "friendly" countries, and none of them want an agency like Europol getting involved, because then they would reduce their co-operation with it, and that would harm the fight against organised crime and terrorism. The UK seems well organized ;)

by 317070 9y ago

stupidcar 9y ago

Europol as an organisation has no power to act on its own, it relies on the co-operation of the EU member states, and needs permission from the relevant national authorities to conduct investigations and arrest suspects. Regardless of the nationality of its leader, it can't realistically investigate British suspects if the British won't co-operate, and there's no prospect of them doing that here. Furthermore, all large countries, like Britain, France and Germany, engage in this kind of espionage against "friendly" countries, and none of them want an agency like Europol getting involved, because then they would reduce their co-operation with it, and that would harm the fight against organised crime and terrorism. Basically, when it comes to a supranational organisation like Europol, real separation of powers is impossible, because there's always a political calculus involved in a collaboration between sovereign countries with occasionally competing interests.

fauigerzigerk 9y ago
>Furthermore, all large countries, like Britain, France and Germany, engage in this kind of espionage against "friendly" countries That may well be, but without having any inside knowledge I'm pretty sure that the extent to which such incidents damage relations depends on more than a yes/no question. How was this done and why? Were any non-public inter-agency agreements or silent understandings breached? Was the UK acting alone on this or with the US? I think all of this could influence the mood in the negotiations now taking place over the future security collaboration between the EU and the UK. This incident will certainly not be the most important consideration by far. That would be just crazy. But it could add to the potential distrust of a UK now desperately dependent on getting into the good graces of the US, which isn't exactly seen as a staunch defender of the rule of law outside US territory.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  The major question isn’t motive, it’s just “did you get caught...” and the modifier, “...publicly?” Even then it might not matter beyond some bad publicity; the UK still copies up to Russia for its gas suppply, and the murder of someone with a radiological weapon on UK soil didn’t stop that. The Israelis stole American nuclear material and secrets, and we’re still close. Countries don’t have friends, they have interests, and allies.
  - fauigerzigerk 9y ago
    >The major question isn’t motive, it’s just “did you get caught...” I'm not in a position to know, but I find that unlikely. Say GCHQ was using Belgacom to spy on some Belgium based terror suspects ignoring Belgian privacy laws. Would that really be the same as if they had been spying on the Belgian government or on EU institutions in Brussels? I think not.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      Note however that these questions can only arise if they are caught.
      - fauigerzigerk 9y ago
        That depends on what you mean by "getting caught". You don't need absolute proof in every single case to cause distrust and affect relations.
317070 9y ago
> none of them want an agency like Europol getting involved, because then they would reduce their co-operation with it, Well, now see it from the point of view of the other side. How will Belgium now see their future cooperation with europol? You are not wrong, but it is a stance which causes supranational organisations to whither until nothing is left.
Zak 9y ago
> Furthermore, all large countries, like Britain, France and Germany, engage in this kind of espionage against "friendly" countries Why is this tolerated? Is it, perhaps that surveillance a country cannot legally conduct internally is conducted by its "friends", sometimes resulting in relevant information being shared with its own intelligence services?
- azernik 9y ago
  It's tolerated because the harm is small and the cost of retaliation is high enough that the target countries aren't willing to go very far to punish it. The spying carried out between allies is often about military information that the target country already has. See, for example, the Jonathan Pollard case, where Israel stole US intelligence on Iran. The spy was imprisoned for almost 30 years (considered a bit extreme by the Israeli system, though that may reflect different norms about incarceration in general). Similarly, an American spy (Yosef Amit) sent information about Israeli troop deployments to the US, and was in prison for 7 years. Both sides worked hard to get their respective spies released, and were stubborn about not releasing the ones they had in custody, but because the countries were allied no one was willing to go to the mat over the issue.
- mc32 9y ago
  What are they supposed to do, declare war on each other? Spying isn't a new craft. It's also arguably necessary given inter-national opaqueness on certain issues. Knowing what motivates your neighbors allows you to navigate the relationships better
  - Zak 9y ago
    Some options that aren't war include: * Make a very public stink about it. Publicize exactly what was done, how and who was involved. Attempt to attract the interest of the media in the hope that the electorate of the country in question will find spying on allies objectionable. * Raise the issue with the EU parliament or possibly the UN. This may not have hard consequences, but officials having to answer for the behavior of their spy agencies can put pressure on those spy agencies. * Use any of the many cooperative agreements between the countries in question as leverage to demand action against the officials who authorized the spying, evidence that it won't happen again, or compensation. Of course, all of these have potential downsides, and I've ordered them from what I think is low risk to higher risk. The fact that the usual result is a quiet diplomatic protest and sweeping the event under the rug suggests that governments think this kind of spying is acceptable, and the only problem is getting caught.
mirimir 9y ago
> Furthermore, all large countries, like Britain, France and Germany, engage in this kind of espionage against "friendly" countries, and none of them want an agency like Europol getting involved, because then they would reduce their co-operation with it, and that would harm the fight against organised crime and terrorism. The UK seems well organized ;)