4 ms·

Are you sure? I find it very convincing that NSA would not betray the trust, as it also says in the article. > "I can not at all imagine in my imagination that

Are you sure? I find it very convincing that NSA would not betray the trust, as it also says in the article. > "I can not at all imagine in my imagination that the NSA would betray that trust. I consider it completely and utterly unlikely. If the NSA had a desire to obtain information about Danish citizens or companies, the United States would simply turn to [the domestic security service] PET, which would then provide the necessary legal basis." I definitely think it would make more sense to give up on using the system on the citizens of a single small country, in exchange for not risking the extensive access to citizens of many other countries, including China and Russia. If they want to investigate danes, they still have all their other methods at disposal.

colordrops 6y ago
A statement is not a scientific fact. The head of the NSA lied to the American public about their extra-legal monitoring. What has changed since the Snowden revelations? Why would Danes be more respected by the NSA than US citizens themselves? This makes absolutely no logical sense.
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  To your point, the IC trades in misinformation and distraction as much as it trades in truth and fact. When any of those acronyms make a statement it's fitting to wonder if there's a broader arc, a bigger picture. Their responsibilities and mission are clear. There are no style points. They'll do whatever it takes to accomplish that mission. History is very clear about this M.O.
  - colordrops 6y ago
    An interesting thing is no one is willing to say "lies" anymore. It's always "misinformation" because it gives the perpetrator a way out to claim it wasn't intentional. The NSA and CIA do LIE.
- aliceryhl 6y ago
  This has nothing to do with scientific fact? It's about risk/reward for NSA. If Denmark finds out that they were deliberately using the system on Danish citizens, the NSA risks losing access to the system. Not taking that risk in exchange for having to use other methods to investigate Danes sounds like a perfectly reasonable risk/reward calculation from the NSA's point of view, especially considering how small Denmark is. I mean, sure, they can lie about it, but that always carries a risk of being found out. Especially considering it sounds like from the article that FE can see who the NSA is searching for (and even has to approve the search queries).
lgl 6y ago
> (...) NSA would not betray the trust (...) While I find the above quote hilarious, you're probably right since the article also hints that they have a similar setup in Germany and most likely also in Sweden, Norway and many other surrounding countries. And since most of their comms probably also go through those, they'll just eavesdrop on the next hop and bypass all that trust and save themselves any potential political repercussions.
Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
> (...) NSA would not betray the trust (...) German BND did nothing to verify any selectors asked by the NSA and just ran them without any safeguards. During the investigation into those practices it turned out the NSA used that trust to run over forty thousand selectors that are in violation of german interests. From what can be cobbled together from media reports that includes german industry, german government, other european governments, the EU itself, multiple european defense industries, every single foreign embassy in Berlin, delegates to the UN, NGOs like Human Rights Watch, and multiple Universities, among others. More then two thirds of all targets were friendlies within EU or NATO. We joke that "german secret service" is the service that tells the usa about german secrets.

colordrops 6y ago

A statement is not a scientific fact. The head of the NSA lied to the American public about their extra-legal monitoring. What has changed since the Snowden revelations? Why would Danes be more respected by the NSA than US citizens themselves? This makes absolutely no logical sense.

chiefalchemist 6y ago
To your point, the IC trades in misinformation and distraction as much as it trades in truth and fact. When any of those acronyms make a statement it's fitting to wonder if there's a broader arc, a bigger picture. Their responsibilities and mission are clear. There are no style points. They'll do whatever it takes to accomplish that mission. History is very clear about this M.O.
- colordrops 6y ago
  An interesting thing is no one is willing to say "lies" anymore. It's always "misinformation" because it gives the perpetrator a way out to claim it wasn't intentional. The NSA and CIA do LIE.
aliceryhl 6y ago
This has nothing to do with scientific fact? It's about risk/reward for NSA. If Denmark finds out that they were deliberately using the system on Danish citizens, the NSA risks losing access to the system. Not taking that risk in exchange for having to use other methods to investigate Danes sounds like a perfectly reasonable risk/reward calculation from the NSA's point of view, especially considering how small Denmark is. I mean, sure, they can lie about it, but that always carries a risk of being found out. Especially considering it sounds like from the article that FE can see who the NSA is searching for (and even has to approve the search queries).

lgl 6y ago

> (...) NSA would not betray the trust (...) While I find the above quote hilarious, you're probably right since the article also hints that they have a similar setup in Germany and most likely also in Sweden, Norway and many other surrounding countries. And since most of their comms probably also go through those, they'll just eavesdrop on the next hop and bypass all that trust and save themselves any potential political repercussions.

Jon_Lowtek 6y ago

> (...) NSA would not betray the trust (...) German BND did nothing to verify any selectors asked by the NSA and just ran them without any safeguards. During the investigation into those practices it turned out the NSA used that trust to run over forty thousand selectors that are in violation of german interests. From what can be cobbled together from media reports that includes german industry, german government, other european governments, the EU itself, multiple european defense industries, every single foreign embassy in Berlin, delegates to the UN, NGOs like Human Rights Watch, and multiple Universities, among others. More then two thirds of all targets were friendlies within EU or NATO. We joke that "german secret service" is the service that tells the usa about german secrets.