6 ms·

> The US does not spy on Five Eyes government leadership or that of Israel. Doubt. > unless there was a compelling national security reason There always is.

EA-3167 4mo ago
Absolutely, and there's the same compelling reason for them to spy on the on the US in turn. I can't emphasize this enough, everyone is spying on everyone else. Close alliances give the impression that they don't because they tend to handle scandals in-house, it's for everyone's benefit to do so in most cases. Snowden's disclosure was a very unusual event and put everyone in a position of needing to act shocked, appalled, and put on a big show for the public; sweeping it under the rug was impossible. For all that many here would wish otherwise, Snowden wasn't a watershed though, it was a blip.
hammock 4mo ago
> Doubt Can you substantiate your doubt with even one piece of hard evidence?
- matheusmoreira 4mo ago
  Sure. The NSA exists, and it routinely violates the rights of the USA's own citizens, the ones that actually have constitutional rights. The idea that it would suddenly draw the line on foreigners is just absurd.
  - jonnybgood 4mo ago
    Yes, the US has an intelligence agency called the NSA, which works with intelligence agencies in the five eyes. There is something called the five eyes agreement that does draw that line.
    - matheusmoreira 4mo ago
      > There is something called the five eyes agreement that does draw that line. Believe such nonsense at your own peril. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_espionage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_espionage_in_the_Unite... > In 1951, Mossad and the Central Intelligence Agency agreed not to spy on each other and US and Israeli services cooperated closely since then. > Nevertheless, there were strong indications afterwards of ongoing Israeli espionage against the United States, confirmed by the 1985 arrest of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, one of the most damaging security leaks in US history. > Israeli espionage reached a high-profile peak in the mid-1980s, shattering assumptions that allies "do not spy on each other".
      - senordevnyc 4mo ago
        I'm curious what peril your cynicism about the five eyes agreement has saved you from.
        matheusmoreira 4mo ago
        The peril of sleeping easy at night, comfortable in the fantasy where no one would ever spy on me just because they pinky promised not to. Not keen on believing evil bits either.
  - MomsAVoxell 4mo ago
    It violates everyones’ human rights - not just the US’ own citizens - because human rights are universal whether some American thinks it or not.
  - hammock 4mo ago
    You can probably share specific evidence of NSA violating U.S. citizen rights. But can you share specific evidence if NSA spying on a five eyes nation or Israel post-Snowden?
- Hizonner 4mo ago
  Can you substantiate your certainty with anything other than the public statements of people whose job is to lie about things like that?
- crewindream 4mo ago
  1. I think burden of proof is on the opposite side. (Previous legislations/directives were circumvented without problem) 2.Asking for hard evidence of top spies secretly spying on heads of other states is … (not sure if there is a word for it; some blend between: unrealistic, unreasonable and oxymoron’ish. If they do their job well, you will not find it out, also it might be illegal or punishable to present such evidence)

EA-3167 4mo ago

Absolutely, and there's the same compelling reason for them to spy on the on the US in turn. I can't emphasize this enough, everyone is spying on everyone else. Close alliances give the impression that they don't because they tend to handle scandals in-house, it's for everyone's benefit to do so in most cases. Snowden's disclosure was a very unusual event and put everyone in a position of needing to act shocked, appalled, and put on a big show for the public; sweeping it under the rug was impossible. For all that many here would wish otherwise, Snowden wasn't a watershed though, it was a blip.

hammock 4mo ago

> Doubt Can you substantiate your doubt with even one piece of hard evidence?

matheusmoreira 4mo ago
Sure. The NSA exists, and it routinely violates the rights of the USA's own citizens, the ones that actually have constitutional rights. The idea that it would suddenly draw the line on foreigners is just absurd.
- jonnybgood 4mo ago
  Yes, the US has an intelligence agency called the NSA, which works with intelligence agencies in the five eyes. There is something called the five eyes agreement that does draw that line.
  - matheusmoreira 4mo ago
    > There is something called the five eyes agreement that does draw that line. Believe such nonsense at your own peril. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_espionage_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_espionage_in_the_Unite... > In 1951, Mossad and the Central Intelligence Agency agreed not to spy on each other and US and Israeli services cooperated closely since then. > Nevertheless, there were strong indications afterwards of ongoing Israeli espionage against the United States, confirmed by the 1985 arrest of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, one of the most damaging security leaks in US history. > Israeli espionage reached a high-profile peak in the mid-1980s, shattering assumptions that allies "do not spy on each other".
    - senordevnyc 4mo ago
      I'm curious what peril your cynicism about the five eyes agreement has saved you from.
      - matheusmoreira 4mo ago
        The peril of sleeping easy at night, comfortable in the fantasy where no one would ever spy on me just because they pinky promised not to. Not keen on believing evil bits either.
- MomsAVoxell 4mo ago
  It violates everyones’ human rights - not just the US’ own citizens - because human rights are universal whether some American thinks it or not.
- hammock 4mo ago
  You can probably share specific evidence of NSA violating U.S. citizen rights. But can you share specific evidence if NSA spying on a five eyes nation or Israel post-Snowden?
Hizonner 4mo ago
Can you substantiate your certainty with anything other than the public statements of people whose job is to lie about things like that?
crewindream 4mo ago
1. I think burden of proof is on the opposite side. (Previous legislations/directives were circumvented without problem) 2.Asking for hard evidence of top spies secretly spying on heads of other states is … (not sure if there is a word for it; some blend between: unrealistic, unreasonable and oxymoron’ish. If they do their job well, you will not find it out, also it might be illegal or punishable to present such evidence)