5 ms·

> Why should an agency be allowed to spy on non-americans more anyway? The answer is that most democracies have various fundamental protections against spying

> Why should an agency be allowed to spy on non-americans more anyway? The answer is that most democracies have various fundamental protections against spying on their own citizens (including the USA), because citizens want that. But governments still want to spy on their own citizens anyway, because terrorism and think-of-the-children and the war on drugs and geopolitics and general control of 1%ers over 99%ers. So it's not even really about non-Americans. So what to do? How to get around that, in a way that citizens don't mind? Why, you set up a secretive Five Eyes agreement (also the other "Eyes"). UK spies on USA citizens, USA spies on UK citizens, the USA shares that gathered intelligence with UK, and UK shares their intelligence with USA. Voila! Now each government can spy on all its citizens via trusted foreign proxies. It's legal, and the citizenry is not informed enough to care. Anyway, that is the answer to your question. 1%ers want it, and citizens are not informed enough to care.

ChrisKnott 3y ago
Your understanding of the 5 Eyes agreement is completely wrong. It is in fact an agreement to NOT spy on the citizens of the four other nations.
- kornhole 3y ago
  Are you of this? I have seen examples to the contrary even though most of this activity is very secretive since they are not allowed to disclose activity to third parties per the five eyes agreements. The agreements are about sharing of information. The patriot act explicitly allows spying on foreigners' communications and the five eyes agreements allow sharing by default. If you can share where in the five eyes agreements that spying on people in the five or nine eyes jurisdictions is not permitted, I would really like to see.
  - ChrisKnott 3y ago
    The controversy which caused this misunderstanding is that incidentally collected SIGINT (i.e. not intentionally targeted) of UK citizens, collected by NSA, was shared back with GCHQ. Because this 180 degree myth about skirting domestic law by spying on each other's citizens is so widespread, it actually makes accurate information difficult to find. The Wikipedia page is squatted by editors who refuse to admit they are wrong, but this article is pretty clear [0]; "The partnership has one core rule, that the members agree not to spy on each other." Wikipedia implies this is limited to governments but it is not. [0] https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/we-need-five-eyes-spy-network-oversight https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/we-need-five-eyes...
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Uh oh. I'll need to look into this myself. I thought I've learned enough about keeping track of the provenance and validity of any information I consume, and weighing my beliefs by it - but this one, if true, will be something that completely blindsided me. I'm wondering how I never heard anything like this over what's now few weeks short of a decade.
      - boomboomsubban 3y ago
        How are you going to look into a secret agreement yourself? What the original aim of the agreement is somewhat unknown, but the Snowden documents revealed multiple examples of spying on each others civilians and sharing the results. Such as, https://web.archive.org/web/20140125021330/http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/uk-usa-security-britain-idUKBRE95K10620130621 https://web.archive.org/web/20140125021330/http://uk.reuters... You've never heard anything like this because it's the intelligence agencies responses to the Snowden documents. They're usually mentioned in the same articles but nobody really buys their excuses.
        ChrisKnott 3y ago
        NSA previously hosted the original UK-USA 1946 agreement[0] which was declassified in 2010 i.e. pre-Snowden (seems to 404 now). It is limited to sharing of "foreign communications" which is defined as those not being UK/USA. The Snowden leaks included material acknowledging that this was the purpose of the agreement. The reason the incidental collection was controversial was _because_ it was against a strict reading of the agreement. See this article[1] which I believe is quoting straight from Snowden leaks; "[The March 1946 UKUSA agreement] has evolved to include a common understanding that both governments will not target each other's citizens/persons. However, when it is in the best interest of each nation, each reserved the right to conduct unilateral Comint action against each other's citizens/persons. "Under certain circumstances, it may be advisable and allowable to target second-party persons and second-party communications unilaterally when it is in the best interests of the US." Note that this is saying that they reserve the right to do it unilaterally i.e. without the knowledge of the other, and this is considered against the purpose of the agreement. I stand by the statement that the general understanding of the agreement - that it is a way for countries to request surveillance of their own citizens to skirt domestic law - is 180 degrees wrong. The agreement is the opposite. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120202160554/https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ukusa/agreement_outline_5mar46.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120202160554/https://www.nsa.g... [1] https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/history-of-5-eyes-explainer https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/history-of-5-e...
- andruby 3y ago
  Is the actual working of the intelligence alliance known? I'm sure the PR departments proclaim that this is the agreement, but afaik there are no legal grounds to hold them accountable to that.
- geraldhh 3y ago
  i am reasonable sure that this is not the publicly accepted interpretation. <citation needed!>
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    It is on the other poster, the one making the claim, to provide a citation.
    - crznp 3y ago
      They both made claims. Spy agencies claim that they're not spying on their collective citizens. But it seems that they do, eg: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-surveillance-personal-data https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-d... On the other hand, I'm not sure that the USA has enough protections in place that they feel the need for an intermediary.
      - ChrisKnott 3y ago
        This article supports what I said!
- haroldp 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes#Domestic_espionage_sharing_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes#Domestic_espionage_s...
- belter 3y ago
  U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair, said in 2013: "We do not spy on each other. We just ask." "In recent years, documents of the FVEY have shown that they are intentionally spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each other." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
  - ChrisKnott 3y ago
    The quote from Dennis Blair means the opposite to what you think. If ASIS is interested in a US citizen, they ask the FBI to spy on them. The FBI does this _within US law_, and gives the intelligence to Australia. This is the opposite of what OP claimed.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - lern_too_spel 3y ago
    In order to ask for that data, the US needs to obtain a warrant. Similar laws apply in the other countries. Your quote is just saying that the parties think that any information they could get by spying on each other they could get by directly asking the person they would have spied on instead.
    - hattmall 3y ago
      I mean we are seeing that they didn't even bother with a loophole 280k times, just straight up broke the law. Do you really think they might follow procedure in this situation.
      - lern_too_spel 3y ago
        An individual analyst can't ask another government for data, so yes, of course.
rolandog 3y ago
The Citizens United of Spy laws.

ChrisKnott 3y ago

Your understanding of the 5 Eyes agreement is completely wrong. It is in fact an agreement to NOT spy on the citizens of the four other nations.

kornhole 3y ago
Are you of this? I have seen examples to the contrary even though most of this activity is very secretive since they are not allowed to disclose activity to third parties per the five eyes agreements. The agreements are about sharing of information. The patriot act explicitly allows spying on foreigners' communications and the five eyes agreements allow sharing by default. If you can share where in the five eyes agreements that spying on people in the five or nine eyes jurisdictions is not permitted, I would really like to see.
- ChrisKnott 3y ago
  The controversy which caused this misunderstanding is that incidentally collected SIGINT (i.e. not intentionally targeted) of UK citizens, collected by NSA, was shared back with GCHQ. Because this 180 degree myth about skirting domestic law by spying on each other's citizens is so widespread, it actually makes accurate information difficult to find. The Wikipedia page is squatted by editors who refuse to admit they are wrong, but this article is pretty clear [0]; "The partnership has one core rule, that the members agree not to spy on each other." Wikipedia implies this is limited to governments but it is not. [0] https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/we-need-five-eyes-spy-network-oversight https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/we-need-five-eyes...
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Uh oh. I'll need to look into this myself. I thought I've learned enough about keeping track of the provenance and validity of any information I consume, and weighing my beliefs by it - but this one, if true, will be something that completely blindsided me. I'm wondering how I never heard anything like this over what's now few weeks short of a decade.
    - boomboomsubban 3y ago
      How are you going to look into a secret agreement yourself? What the original aim of the agreement is somewhat unknown, but the Snowden documents revealed multiple examples of spying on each others civilians and sharing the results. Such as, https://web.archive.org/web/20140125021330/http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/uk-usa-security-britain-idUKBRE95K10620130621 https://web.archive.org/web/20140125021330/http://uk.reuters... You've never heard anything like this because it's the intelligence agencies responses to the Snowden documents. They're usually mentioned in the same articles but nobody really buys their excuses.
      - ChrisKnott 3y ago
        NSA previously hosted the original UK-USA 1946 agreement[0] which was declassified in 2010 i.e. pre-Snowden (seems to 404 now). It is limited to sharing of "foreign communications" which is defined as those not being UK/USA. The Snowden leaks included material acknowledging that this was the purpose of the agreement. The reason the incidental collection was controversial was _because_ it was against a strict reading of the agreement. See this article[1] which I believe is quoting straight from Snowden leaks; "[The March 1946 UKUSA agreement] has evolved to include a common understanding that both governments will not target each other's citizens/persons. However, when it is in the best interest of each nation, each reserved the right to conduct unilateral Comint action against each other's citizens/persons. "Under certain circumstances, it may be advisable and allowable to target second-party persons and second-party communications unilaterally when it is in the best interests of the US." Note that this is saying that they reserve the right to do it unilaterally i.e. without the knowledge of the other, and this is considered against the purpose of the agreement. I stand by the statement that the general understanding of the agreement - that it is a way for countries to request surveillance of their own citizens to skirt domestic law - is 180 degrees wrong. The agreement is the opposite. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120202160554/https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ukusa/agreement_outline_5mar46.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20120202160554/https://www.nsa.g... [1] https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/history-of-5-eyes-explainer https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/history-of-5-e...
andruby 3y ago
Is the actual working of the intelligence alliance known? I'm sure the PR departments proclaim that this is the agreement, but afaik there are no legal grounds to hold them accountable to that.
geraldhh 3y ago
i am reasonable sure that this is not the publicly accepted interpretation. <citation needed!>
- edgyquant 3y ago
  It is on the other poster, the one making the claim, to provide a citation.
  - crznp 3y ago
    They both made claims. Spy agencies claim that they're not spying on their collective citizens. But it seems that they do, eg: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-surveillance-personal-data https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-d... On the other hand, I'm not sure that the USA has enough protections in place that they feel the need for an intermediary.
    - ChrisKnott 3y ago
      This article supports what I said!
haroldp 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes#Domestic_espionage_sharing_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes#Domestic_espionage_s...
belter 3y ago
U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair, said in 2013: "We do not spy on each other. We just ask." "In recent years, documents of the FVEY have shown that they are intentionally spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each other." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
- ChrisKnott 3y ago
  The quote from Dennis Blair means the opposite to what you think. If ASIS is interested in a US citizen, they ask the FBI to spy on them. The FBI does this _within US law_, and gives the intelligence to Australia. This is the opposite of what OP claimed.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  In order to ask for that data, the US needs to obtain a warrant. Similar laws apply in the other countries. Your quote is just saying that the parties think that any information they could get by spying on each other they could get by directly asking the person they would have spied on instead.
  - hattmall 3y ago
    I mean we are seeing that they didn't even bother with a loophole 280k times, just straight up broke the law. Do you really think they might follow procedure in this situation.
    - lern_too_spel 3y ago
      An individual analyst can't ask another government for data, so yes, of course.

rolandog 3y ago

The Citizens United of Spy laws.