5 ms·

International spying on your allies, including corporate espionage against countries like Germany. That angered your allies much more than it endangered them. W

International spying on your allies, including corporate espionage against countries like Germany. That angered your allies much more than it endangered them. Whistleblowers like Snowden are the mechanism that keeps that spying from happening in the first place. Edit -- And yes, this harmed America by undermining the trust that those countries had in it. But to be clear, it wasn't Snowden's disclosure that broke that trust, it was the spying. It's hubris to think that if not for Snowden it would never have been discovered, and the longer it went on, the more harm that would have been done between America and its allies when it eventually got found out. So by revealing it early, Snowden really minimized the damage, rather than causing it.

tw04 6y ago
I feel like people forget that leading up to the Iraq war, France and Germany were aligned with Russia and very much against US interests. They were a frenemy at best. I'm not saying it's right - we were in the wrong on Iraq and that was obvious before it started. But just like the US has had a HARD turn towards fascism, there's nothing stopping that from occurring to our allies as well. I'd argue it's dereliction of duty if you aren't spying on your allies, they're spying on us. What you DO with the information gathered, in my opinion, is what determines whether you're violating your ally's trust.
- jbay808 6y ago
  I'm curious about what interpretation of events leads you to the conclusion that, say, France was aligned against US interests? What about Canada? Edit: And it's one thing (not necessarily a great thing) if you and your allies are knowingly and willingly exchanging intelligence about suspicious activities you pick up in each other's countries to tip off law enforcement. Exfiltrating corporate industrial and technological secrets is a different matter and there's no way an allied government would be OK with that happening, even as an under-the-table arrangement.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    It was reported that before the Iraq war, Germany and France advisors told Saddam Hussein that the US would not possibly invade. They were acting as soothsayers in support of arms sales. (This is kind of expected, since EU members were/are too cowardly to even engage in Bosnia, a country of 4 million people, so cannot conceive of the military will of the US.) What's less well-known is that a single US "envoy" flew to Iraq to broker/demand a last-minute surrender deal, but the Iraqis wouldn't accept a thuggish level of statesmanship (protocol), so declined to talk to him. There were also attempts by Iraq, the Arab community and the UN at various times to broker a peace, but none of those parties had the authority and decisiveness to speak on behalf of Hussein essentially. (ie. talk is cheap.) If you remember Baghdad Bob, then you know that developing countries are very prideful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf
  - tw04 6y ago
    I literally just said that France and Germany were against the war. Assuming you were old enough to be an adult leading up the war literally EVERYTHING leads me to that conclusion. Their populations protested, they were very vocal and it was obvious to anyone watching international news broadcasts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_the_Iraq_War_prior_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_the_...
slg 6y ago
But it wasn't just our allies. Snowden revealed details about NSA spying on Syria during their civil war. That is the exact type of thing that our spy agencies should be doing. If you object to that, you object to the entire nature of intelligence gathering. That is a perfectly acceptable stance to have, but it obviously isn't one that is held by the US's or most nation's government and therefore they wouldn't want to tacitly endorse it by issuing a pardon.
- handelaar 6y ago
  If you actually believe it was news that the NSA is intercepting signals from and in Syria, I may have a bridge for sale you'd be interested in.
  - slg 6y ago
    Are you arguing that you should only get in trouble for leaking if the information you leaked is surprising?
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    How about a list of compromised Chinese telecommunications systems? It's not surprising that the NSA would infiltrate those systems in order to complete some of its objectives, but the list of which systems were compromised when is sensitive information that Snowden leaked right after revealing he was in Hong Kong in a misguided attempt to gain asylum there.
    - jbay808 6y ago
      Maybe if the US had proper protections for whistleblowers, they wouldn't need to seek asylum or take such sensitive information with them as insurance.
Supermancho 6y ago
> International spying on your allies, including corporate espionage against countries like Germany. I expect the US to be spying on ALL nations, not just enemy-of-the-week or communist ones.
- gambiting 6y ago
  Expect, as in - you want them to spy? Or just accept it as an inevitable fact of life?
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    It's both because it's good policy. I "want" insofar as I would expect any government to maximize our position via basic game theory. It's inevitable because those who maximize their position are going to be the dominant player over time.
    - jbay808 6y ago
      (I posted a similar comment elsewhere but it's short, and relevant here too). That's not what game theory says. Defecting against everyone you meet is a losing strategy in an iterated multi-actor prisoner's dilemma. Tit-for-tat does much better. Establishing and maintaining mutual trust, to cooperate with those who are willing to cooperate with you, is in a nation's interests.
      - Supermancho 6y ago
        > Defecting against everyone you meet is a losing strategy You are changing the topic, subtly and importantly. Maintaining an operative network to support an information network and flexible operations (either to help or hinder a nation-state) is THE winning strategy. > Tit-for-tat does much better. That is incorrect, in context.
ThrowawayR2 6y ago
> "And yes, this harmed America by undermining the trust that those countries had in it" That seems unlikely. At the international level, it's well understood that alliances aren't permanent as de Gaulle's famous quote "[Nations have] no friends, only interests." illustrates. For example, Russia, Japan, and the US were allies during the First World War but were on opposing sides in the Second.
- jbay808 6y ago
  Defecting against everyone you meet is a losing strategy in an iterated multi-actor prisoner's dilemma. Establishing and maintaining mutual trust, to cooperate with those who are willing to cooperate with you, is in a nation's interests.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    > "...everyone you meet..." As the old joke goes "Don't anthropomorphize countries; they hate it when you do that." There is no guarantee of continuity in leadership or national policy because of periodic leadership turnover (elections, etc.) so exactly what would a country be extending trust to?
    - jbay808 6y ago
      This seems like a fairly accurate model of North Korea's approach to international relations, but not most others. Would you say that they've found the optimum strategy?
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      There's even less of a guarantee when a nation's unsupervised services have a century of experience replacing uncooperative foreign leadership with "more friendly" puppets. Unfortunately such regime change doesn't seem to ever benefit the people of either the interfered or interfering nations...

tw04 6y ago

I feel like people forget that leading up to the Iraq war, France and Germany were aligned with Russia and very much against US interests. They were a frenemy at best. I'm not saying it's right - we were in the wrong on Iraq and that was obvious before it started. But just like the US has had a HARD turn towards fascism, there's nothing stopping that from occurring to our allies as well. I'd argue it's dereliction of duty if you aren't spying on your allies, they're spying on us. What you DO with the information gathered, in my opinion, is what determines whether you're violating your ally's trust.

jbay808 6y ago
I'm curious about what interpretation of events leads you to the conclusion that, say, France was aligned against US interests? What about Canada? Edit: And it's one thing (not necessarily a great thing) if you and your allies are knowingly and willingly exchanging intelligence about suspicious activities you pick up in each other's countries to tip off law enforcement. Exfiltrating corporate industrial and technological secrets is a different matter and there's no way an allied government would be OK with that happening, even as an under-the-table arrangement.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  It was reported that before the Iraq war, Germany and France advisors told Saddam Hussein that the US would not possibly invade. They were acting as soothsayers in support of arms sales. (This is kind of expected, since EU members were/are too cowardly to even engage in Bosnia, a country of 4 million people, so cannot conceive of the military will of the US.) What's less well-known is that a single US "envoy" flew to Iraq to broker/demand a last-minute surrender deal, but the Iraqis wouldn't accept a thuggish level of statesmanship (protocol), so declined to talk to him. There were also attempts by Iraq, the Arab community and the UN at various times to broker a peace, but none of those parties had the authority and decisiveness to speak on behalf of Hussein essentially. (ie. talk is cheap.) If you remember Baghdad Bob, then you know that developing countries are very prideful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf
- tw04 6y ago
  I literally just said that France and Germany were against the war. Assuming you were old enough to be an adult leading up the war literally EVERYTHING leads me to that conclusion. Their populations protested, they were very vocal and it was obvious to anyone watching international news broadcasts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_the_Iraq_War_prior_to_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq#France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_positions_on_the_...

slg 6y ago

But it wasn't just our allies. Snowden revealed details about NSA spying on Syria during their civil war. That is the exact type of thing that our spy agencies should be doing. If you object to that, you object to the entire nature of intelligence gathering. That is a perfectly acceptable stance to have, but it obviously isn't one that is held by the US's or most nation's government and therefore they wouldn't want to tacitly endorse it by issuing a pardon.

handelaar 6y ago
If you actually believe it was news that the NSA is intercepting signals from and in Syria, I may have a bridge for sale you'd be interested in.
- slg 6y ago
  Are you arguing that you should only get in trouble for leaking if the information you leaked is surprising?
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  How about a list of compromised Chinese telecommunications systems? It's not surprising that the NSA would infiltrate those systems in order to complete some of its objectives, but the list of which systems were compromised when is sensitive information that Snowden leaked right after revealing he was in Hong Kong in a misguided attempt to gain asylum there.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    Maybe if the US had proper protections for whistleblowers, they wouldn't need to seek asylum or take such sensitive information with them as insurance.

Supermancho 6y ago

> International spying on your allies, including corporate espionage against countries like Germany. I expect the US to be spying on ALL nations, not just enemy-of-the-week or communist ones.

gambiting 6y ago
Expect, as in - you want them to spy? Or just accept it as an inevitable fact of life?
- Supermancho 6y ago
  It's both because it's good policy. I "want" insofar as I would expect any government to maximize our position via basic game theory. It's inevitable because those who maximize their position are going to be the dominant player over time.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    (I posted a similar comment elsewhere but it's short, and relevant here too). That's not what game theory says. Defecting against everyone you meet is a losing strategy in an iterated multi-actor prisoner's dilemma. Tit-for-tat does much better. Establishing and maintaining mutual trust, to cooperate with those who are willing to cooperate with you, is in a nation's interests.
    - Supermancho 6y ago
      > Defecting against everyone you meet is a losing strategy You are changing the topic, subtly and importantly. Maintaining an operative network to support an information network and flexible operations (either to help or hinder a nation-state) is THE winning strategy. > Tit-for-tat does much better. That is incorrect, in context.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago

> "And yes, this harmed America by undermining the trust that those countries had in it" That seems unlikely. At the international level, it's well understood that alliances aren't permanent as de Gaulle's famous quote "[Nations have] no friends, only interests." illustrates. For example, Russia, Japan, and the US were allies during the First World War but were on opposing sides in the Second.

jbay808 6y ago
Defecting against everyone you meet is a losing strategy in an iterated multi-actor prisoner's dilemma. Establishing and maintaining mutual trust, to cooperate with those who are willing to cooperate with you, is in a nation's interests.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  > "...everyone you meet..." As the old joke goes "Don't anthropomorphize countries; they hate it when you do that." There is no guarantee of continuity in leadership or national policy because of periodic leadership turnover (elections, etc.) so exactly what would a country be extending trust to?
  - jbay808 6y ago
    This seems like a fairly accurate model of North Korea's approach to international relations, but not most others. Would you say that they've found the optimum strategy?
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    There's even less of a guarantee when a nation's unsupervised services have a century of experience replacing uncooperative foreign leadership with "more friendly" puppets. Unfortunately such regime change doesn't seem to ever benefit the people of either the interfered or interfering nations...