9 ms·

NSA hacked into encrypted UN communications, leaked documents show

282 points by electic 13y ago

njuyhbgtrfvcdew 13y ago
See also, Der Spiegel article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6271222 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6271222
skidoo 13y ago
I wonder- was this during or after Obama's stint as chairman of the United Nations Security Council?
devnetfx 13y ago
Replace "NSA" by "China" and the whole world would have gone into frenzy.
- RWeaver 13y ago
  No doubt. If China had done this, the USA would be at the brink of war right now. They would be 'terrorists', or 'information terrorists' or something bizarre for undermining the 'international government'. So over the USA.
  - nolok 13y ago
    Oh please. China hacked into the JSF project at Lockheed twice, and the US did its best to avoid confrontation at all cost.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      Yes, because some BS plane project is the same as the UN. And because the US didn't do exactly the same for similar Chinese projects.
      - nolok 13y ago
        > And because the US didn't do exactly the same for similar Chinese projects. That is irrelevant, I answered to a message in context, and that context was "if china did the hacking, US would be on the brink of war". Which is why I pointed out that the US mostly had no real reaction when China did hack twice not just some UN politician emails, but the biggest military project of the US, one meant to replace pretty much every other fighter planes they have except the f22 for the foreseeable future. So if they did not do anything about that, no, they would not be on the brink of war over a Chinese hack of the UN. But I'm sure they would write a strongly worded letter.
        coldtea 13y ago
        >That is irrelevant, I answered to a message in context, and that context was "if china did the hacking, US would be on the brink of war". Well, the context was wrong, anyway. The real context is: "if china did that, US would hypocritically cry about it".
- klrr 13y ago
  USA is, was, will, ever be BS.
  - sigzero 13y ago
    Up yours
- Alphasite_ 13y ago
  Pretty sure it says that the Chinese attempted the same, yet the headline is about the US.
  - balabaster 13y ago
    That's because after all the headlines about the Chinese doing this, nobody cares about that any more. But the U.S. made such a brouhaha about the Chinese doing it that when it turns out they were doing the same - but to a far greater scale, it turns out that there's one rule for the U.S. (which is "the rules don't apply to us"), and one rule for everyone else (which is "the rules still apply to all you lot, because it's our playground, and we make the rules"). Besides, this will blow over just as quickly as it blew up just like everything else did/does in the U.S. - the president will do something dumb that everyone can get up in arms about, like cheating on his wife with a pretty white intern who strips on the side to "pay her way through college" and all will be forgotten while the bible belt attempts to sacrifice him on the alter of Republicanism. Why? Because the U.S. loves their witch hunt... as long as they're huntin' witches, they're happy. The problem is, when they run out of witches to hunt, what are they going to do with themselves? Meanwhile, I'll sit back and roll my eyes because history has shown us that the U.S. is just that predictable.
  - FoeNyx 13y ago
    Indeed, "According to the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, on one occasion when the Americans were breaking into UN communications, they discovered the Chinese had tried to do the same." Guess it was not only an "attempt", they probably succeeded, they are rather skilled. I wonder what two spies talk about when they stumble upon each other ? "Oh Hello, you're already there ? Am I late ? What did they say until now ?"
- tjoff 13y ago
  Replace "NSA" by "China" and no one would care. China is the scapegoat when it comes to hacking. Just as China is mentioned the interest just dies - since it's expected of them (the article even mentions Chine trying the same thing...).
- csandreasen 13y ago
  From the article: "According to the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, on one occasion when the Americans were breaking into UN communications, they discovered the Chinese had tried to do the same."
- frostmatthew 13y ago
  It's interesting the US and the UK have the biggest blocks in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_the_United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_the_United_Nations (the wikipedia article referenced in the story) but there's no entries for China, Iran, or North Korea.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  I don't think so. The US is supposed to be an ally of many, if not the majority, of UN members. China is not. So from, say a Spanish POV, China, not regarded as an ally, spying is expected, but an ally industrially spying is more difficult to accept. In fact, something like this may well destabilize the UN. How can such an institution be trusted if its major player and funder is using it as its own conduit for spying? Yeah "we" all "knew", not now we really do know. Its fact. What this proves is that the US is an ally of no one. The US has abused it's self entitled presumed position of trust. Now when there is some international jolly, or what ever, US requests for insane amounts of comic book, sunglasses wearing, gun toting SS to be allowed free armed reign may well be met with a lot more skepticism. The usual suspects will continue to suck up (the UK for example has no where else to turn to, given its attitude to the EU), but over all I see a lot more difficulty for the US behind the scenes and diplomatically. In short, there is a huge difference between an enemy spying and a so called ally.
  - hyperventilator 13y ago
    So Germany should close the US bases there?
  - hugnificent 13y ago
    Allies spy on each other all the time. Alliances are simple two dimension structures, counties align themselves will all sorts of interests that sometimes seem contradictory. Look at the Israelis for example, they spy on the US. But they clearly benefit from the US's support. nevertheless, it makes sense for them to spy on the US, first they need to know what the US really thinks to protect their interests (the US isnt always publicly stating its true ntetions) and sometimes the US may have intel the Israelis do not). thats just one example of allies spying. In general terms, any intelligent government is going to want to know what's happening in the world to its interests because people, and countries, lie and withhold information. So in general terms, everyone spies on everyone. Who is your ally in one matter may not be in another. For example, China is neither an ally nor an enemy to the US. US Sino relations are complicated, sometimes the two agree and work together, sometimes they do not. If two countries cooperate on some things, but not others should they blindly trust each other? Of course not. What if they mostly agree? Should they still blindly trust each other? I would hope not. Again, consider how allies sometimes to lie to each other to get them to support their cherished positions. Nations have a duty to their citizens, and shouldn't blindly follow their allies statements of so-called fact. How else does a nation meet this duty if it doesn't cast a wary eye on its allies? It spies on them. Equally, sometimes traditional allies are opposed on certain things, or may be lying as the Greeks were about their national finances. Im sure the EU wishes it knew that earlier. The word ally isn't the same thing as "always on my side". These are nations we're talking about, that operate in their own interests, lie to each other and dont always operate in their friends interests. It seems reasonable for allies to be a bit wary of each other and to not assume allies will just always act in their allies best interests. And alas, spy on each other find out what's really going on.
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  When was the last time NSA hacked into civilian infrastructure of other countries?
  - balabaster 13y ago
    Why bother hacking in? The majority of it is transmitted around the world on open lines for all and sundry to see - if you know what you're doing, which the NSA does.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    A couple of milliseconds ago I presume.
    - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
      Yes. NSA is controlling Chinese water plants. Oh my god.
gojomo 13y ago
Hard to get worked up over this one. Of course governments try to spy on other governments.
- vidarh 13y ago
  It's not surprising, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth getting worked up over, especially given that it is explicitly violating agreements to the contrary. In other words: Everyone else have now learned that when the US government enters into agreements like that, the agreement is worthless and they can't be trusted.
  - gojomo 13y ago
    A world where governments covertly spy on each other (even in violation of promises/treaties) is likely a nicer, safer, more peaceful world than the alternative. It's a form state-to-state transparency, helping states independently confirm either that another state's other statements and commitments are trustworthy, or not. State-vs-state spying makes bluffs, threats, and deception in international relations relatively harder, and helps prevent destabilizing surprises or betrayals. And I suspect all the major states understand this, and know any surface agreement not to covertly seek extra information (especially signals information) really just means, "we'll all just be really sneaky about it".
bengrunfeld 13y ago
Wow, the NSA has just become the whipping boy of the media. Well, they deserved it. They reached too far, and now their ability for worldwide surveillance has taken a massive hit. They should have read the tale of Icarus before going flying.
- cstross 13y ago
  There is a spurious 'f' at the beginning of the last word in your comment. Hope this helps!
  - bengrunfeld 13y ago
    hahahahha!!
- gcr 13y ago
  I don't think their ability to perform surveillance has suffered at all. It's their credibility that's taken a hit.
  - bengrunfeld 13y ago
    Of course their ability has taken a hit. Congress now has their eye on the NSA and they'll be looking to put a new set of policies into place so that they can look good to their voters. Even Snowden said that all the NSA's activities were dictated by policy. So yeah, maybe at the moment everything is running as normal, but that won't be the case for long. Just remember, if you're a senator banging 14 year olds, you don't want the NSA snooping through security cameras in your office. So in addition to the above point, congress will want to put a leash on the NSA out of self-preservation.
mpchlets 13y ago
The real surprise is everyone is shocked an agency designed to spy is doing just that. And successfully for a long time. I don't like it, but it is not really news - they compare spying on the UN and loved ones in this article ... is it really related?
- beedogs 13y ago
  Absolutely. It shows these systems can be used for anything the analysts or their superiors want.
  - mpchlets 13y ago
    Again - that is what they are designed to do. The system is based on trust and espionage . . . it is a complicated relationship there, but again not news just the job description.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- simonw 13y ago
  Read the Guardian's editorial from a few days ago, which directly argues against the "Spy's spy, so what?" line of argument. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/surveillance-state-debate-goes-on http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/surveil...
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    There is this in there: "Some weeks later the tone of these and other discussions changed. There was, by mid-July, an explicit threat that the government would, after all, seek to stop the Guardian's work and prevent publication of further material by legal means. To have resisted such action would have involved handing over ultimate control of the material to a judge and could have meant that no stories could have been published for many months, if at all. The first amendment of the American constitution guarantees its press protections of which British editors can only dream. For more than 40 years − since the publication of the so-called Pentagon papers in 1971 − it has been accepted that the state will not succeed in trying to obtain prior restraint of the press. So we will in future report this story from New York. We have shared some material with, and will collaborate with, the New York Times." So that was the reason why the Guardian moved the reporting on the story out of the UK.
scott_w 13y ago
The major news is stalking love interests, not the UN. It's news like this that gets people riled up, as it's more easy to relate. I want to know if anyone was sacked, or went to prison, over this. I refuse to believe that nobody abused this power for revenge against an ex or someone who didn't return their affections. UK police officers have been in court for similar things e.g. looking up new partners on the criminal database
- coldtea 13y ago
  >The major news is stalking love interests, not the UN. It's news like this that gets people riled up, as it's more easy to relate. Yes, because god forbid an inane and infantilized population can understand the significance of actual politics without human interest stories in them...
  - tghw 13y ago
    While I agree with the sentiment, I would rather have people caring about the NSA spying for the "wrong" reasons than not caring at all.
    - eksith 13y ago
      That's a hollow victory. The momentum is much weaker in most cases when people care about something for the wrong reasons and then it gets easily quelled by distractions. In fact, that's how a lot of this nonsense stayed on for so long. Imagine if more people cared about Iraq for more than the price of oil. Some did, but not nearly enough in number.
      - tghw 13y ago
        Again, that's great in theory, but pragmatically, most people don't see the problem with government spying if they're "not doing anything wrong". So until you have a plan to change that, I'd still prefer they care for the "wrong" reasons than not at all.
    - pessimizer 13y ago
res0nat0r 13y ago
So, it sounds like the NSA is doing the job it was chartered for back in 52. Temporary internet outrage at the NSA will die off soon....
- jacquesm 13y ago
  The UN is in the United States because of a complex arrangement and builds on substantial mutual trust and respect. From the wikipedia article on the same: "Although it is situated in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations Headquarters and the spaces of buildings that it rents are under the sole administration of the United Nations. They are technically extraterritorial through a treaty agreement with the U.S. government. However, in exchange for local police and fire protection and other services, the U.N. agrees to acknowledge most local, state, and federal laws." This finding is a violation of trust and could result in the UN moving its seat from New York to some other place, for instance Bruxelles or Geneva.
  - cenhyperion 13y ago
    >This finding is a violation of trust and could result in the UN moving its seat from New York Which is unfortunately the most that will possibly be done for this, if anything is done. It will be a slap on the wrist when the US is going to need its economy threatened to actually do anything about the NSA.
    - hyperventilator 13y ago
      How do you think you are going to damage the US economy without damaging your own?
stefantalpalaru 13y ago
Is the US trying to start a new cold war, this time with the rest of the world?
- stox 13y ago
  Well, that would explain the size of our military.
  - hnha 13y ago
    It's almost like there is a reason for the hate of USA from some people and a reason to be scared! UPDATE nsa_no_flight_helper SET confidence = confidence+0.23 WHERE person = 'hnha';
- devcpp 13y ago
  Not even the entire US, just its government, against everyone else, including its citizens. Too much power in too few hands.
  - pavs 13y ago
    I think if the citizens stays complacent of its government actions than they should be equally liable. I have always tried to distinguish difference between not liking or disagreeing with the government of USA and having the same attitude towards the citizens of USA. But you can only drag it for so long. What will it take for you go to the street against your government? Governments of other countries have fallen for much less crime, yet the american government gets away with killing thousands of people and violating national and international laws under false pretence. And the USA citizens gets to wash their hands from any responsibility by simply arguing that the government did it.
    - hyperventilator 13y ago
      Yes and German citizens are responsible for the US military bases there as well as intelligence sharing deals their gov made.
Questioneer 13y ago
Something I believe that needs to be delineated is if the NSA is doing this work or if one of their contractors is. For an example of a contractor doing such services, Endgame Systems[1]. "Endgame executives will bring up maps of airports, parliament buildings, and corporate offices. The executives then create a list of the computers running inside the facilities, including what software the computers run, and a menu of attacks that could work against those particular systems. Endgame weaponry comes customized by region—the Middle East, Russia, Latin America, and China—with manuals, testing software, and “demo instructions.” There are even target packs for democratic countries in Europe and other U.S. allies." With news of payments rendered to companies complicit in handing over data under dubious laws, I believe much more attention should be put on the 'plumbers' themselves. [1] http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems
bayesianhorse 13y ago
The NSA is having a really bad year...
- jacquesm 13y ago
  From 'No Such Agency' to having a searchlight aimed at your every move is a bit of a wake up call I guess. I was toying with the idea of a bounty site for leakers but that would definitely be right across the line. The idea here was that if foreign secret services recruit moles for cash rather than for some kind of political leanings the general public should be able to do the same. Sort of wikileaks meets kickstarter. Items like: "$largefigure for the person that leaks all of congress' emails to and from industry professionals for the last decade". I'm pretty sure that that sort of transparency would clean up a lot of filth in short order. What's good for the goose...
  - adestefan 13y ago
    That completely crosses the line from whistleblower to espionage. There would be serious jail time involved for anyone involved in that scheme from both the person providing the money and the person selling the information.
    - jacquesm 13y ago
      Obviously. Think of it as a thought experiment, and fortunately those are (still) allowed.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > That completely crosses the line from whistleblower to espionage. I thought that recent events had demonstrated that that "line" doesn't exist -- if it is unwelcome by those in power, its espionage especially if it is whistleblowing.
brokenmagnet 13y ago
The article mentions cracked encryption and how the NSA likes to bug. Does anyone know what the details on the cracked encryption are: key size, algorithm, VPN type? Or whether they obtained through one of the less-scary methods: trojan, stolen credentials, a brute-forced weak credentials, etc? Or perhaps it was just a touch of ignorance of Google Translate or the journalist(s)?
tehwalrus 13y ago
Umm, so this is a concrete breach of international law. When do we see US officials being arrested and tried? Oh that's right, they don't believe in the rule of law (which is why they've exempted themselves and their entire military from the ICC.) This makes me furious for the same reason as when criminals are given lenient sentences. I don't understand why it doesn't for other people.
- hugnificent 13y ago
  Spying on other countries is against international law? Since when? That's what countries, all countries, do.
  - frostmatthew 13y ago
    It doesn't say spying on other countries is against international law, it says spying on the UN is. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations[1] says "UN premises shall be inviolable, and UN property shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation etc." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Privileges_and_Immunities_of_the_United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Privileges_a...
- betterunix 13y ago
  "Umm, so this is a concrete breach of international law. When do we see US officials being arrested and tried?" For the same reason James Clapper is not being prosecuted for perjury, obstruction of Congress, and making false statements -- all of which are illegal under US law (which carries far more weight in this country).
cenhyperion 13y ago
How exactly do they plan to tell us that this is legal to protect us from "terrorists"? It's in direct violation of international law.
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
Er, isn't the NSA supposed to be doing this exact thing? Signals interception to assist in the intelligence efforts of the U.S.? Did I miss out on something? This is what they're paid for. If they're monitoring diplomatic, political, and military information worldwide, I'm happy about that. Might keep us out of another war. Helps us make better decisions. And so on. Once again, there's nothing wrong with nations having intelligence agencies. Overall they help keep the peace. It's the monitoring of the civilian population -- which in a democracy is where the real political power is supposed to be -- that's insane.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  > Did I miss out on something? Yes. The United Nations seat is where it is because it is agreed that this is extraterritorial and inviolate. Think of it as bombing a church or a hospital. (not that those things aren't done, but they're considered more than just bad form). The United Nations headquarters relies on the host country to play nice and to be trustworthy otherwise the United Nations will lose its ability to operate and that is worth more than the secret services of any one country, even the US.
  - DanielBMarkham 13y ago
    That's amazingly naive, Jacques. The same argument could be used for embassies worldwide: they are considered part of another country and so on. Yet embassies are routinely tapped by everyone. Been that way for decades. The UN is a treaty organization, not a world government. It has as much sanctity as any other treaty organization -- not much. If folks want to construe this as being something to do with them being hosted in the US, then I'm at a loss as to how to continue the conversation. The Chinese would be okay tapping the communications but the U.S. not? Doesn't make any sense. A little bit of context here is all I ask. Intelligence agencies are supposed to find out things about diplomatic, political, and military matters. They break and bend all kinds of rules doing so. This will continue whether or not you or I agree to it, whether it's the US or the Russians, and whether the UN is in New York or Botswana. I'm fine with that, mainly because the more each country knows about the inner workings of the others, the better they can predict reactions to political moves. That makes the world safer. I think we've just reached the point where somebody says "NSA" and the mob all gets out the pitchforks and torches. That's a shame, because there is a very serious problem here, and it has nothing to do with the U.S. or the NSA. It has to do with technology making the entire life of the civilian population available to anybody with the appropriate political power. Not limited to NSA. Not limited to the U.S.. It's a worldwide problem based on the tech we create everyday. We should really get off the NSA jag and on to actually solving problems instead of this emotional overreaction to any story with NSA in the title business the MSM is pushing us into.
greenyoda 13y ago
The NSA's attacks may have been facilitated by earlier spying on the UN that was carried out by the State Department. I posted the reference in another thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6274158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6274158

282 points by electic 13y ago

See also, Der Spiegel article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6271222 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6271222

skidoo 13y ago

I wonder- was this during or after Obama's stint as chairman of the United Nations Security Council?

devnetfx 13y ago

Replace "NSA" by "China" and the whole world would have gone into frenzy.

RWeaver 13y ago
No doubt. If China had done this, the USA would be at the brink of war right now. They would be 'terrorists', or 'information terrorists' or something bizarre for undermining the 'international government'. So over the USA.
- nolok 13y ago
  Oh please. China hacked into the JSF project at Lockheed twice, and the US did its best to avoid confrontation at all cost.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Yes, because some BS plane project is the same as the UN. And because the US didn't do exactly the same for similar Chinese projects.
    - nolok 13y ago
      > And because the US didn't do exactly the same for similar Chinese projects. That is irrelevant, I answered to a message in context, and that context was "if china did the hacking, US would be on the brink of war". Which is why I pointed out that the US mostly had no real reaction when China did hack twice not just some UN politician emails, but the biggest military project of the US, one meant to replace pretty much every other fighter planes they have except the f22 for the foreseeable future. So if they did not do anything about that, no, they would not be on the brink of war over a Chinese hack of the UN. But I'm sure they would write a strongly worded letter.
      - coldtea 13y ago
        >That is irrelevant, I answered to a message in context, and that context was "if china did the hacking, US would be on the brink of war". Well, the context was wrong, anyway. The real context is: "if china did that, US would hypocritically cry about it".
klrr 13y ago
USA is, was, will, ever be BS.
- sigzero 13y ago
  Up yours
Alphasite_ 13y ago
Pretty sure it says that the Chinese attempted the same, yet the headline is about the US.
- balabaster 13y ago
  That's because after all the headlines about the Chinese doing this, nobody cares about that any more. But the U.S. made such a brouhaha about the Chinese doing it that when it turns out they were doing the same - but to a far greater scale, it turns out that there's one rule for the U.S. (which is "the rules don't apply to us"), and one rule for everyone else (which is "the rules still apply to all you lot, because it's our playground, and we make the rules"). Besides, this will blow over just as quickly as it blew up just like everything else did/does in the U.S. - the president will do something dumb that everyone can get up in arms about, like cheating on his wife with a pretty white intern who strips on the side to "pay her way through college" and all will be forgotten while the bible belt attempts to sacrifice him on the alter of Republicanism. Why? Because the U.S. loves their witch hunt... as long as they're huntin' witches, they're happy. The problem is, when they run out of witches to hunt, what are they going to do with themselves? Meanwhile, I'll sit back and roll my eyes because history has shown us that the U.S. is just that predictable.
- FoeNyx 13y ago
  Indeed, "According to the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, on one occasion when the Americans were breaking into UN communications, they discovered the Chinese had tried to do the same." Guess it was not only an "attempt", they probably succeeded, they are rather skilled. I wonder what two spies talk about when they stumble upon each other ? "Oh Hello, you're already there ? Am I late ? What did they say until now ?"
tjoff 13y ago
Replace "NSA" by "China" and no one would care. China is the scapegoat when it comes to hacking. Just as China is mentioned the interest just dies - since it's expected of them (the article even mentions Chine trying the same thing...).
csandreasen 13y ago
From the article: "According to the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, on one occasion when the Americans were breaking into UN communications, they discovered the Chinese had tried to do the same."
frostmatthew 13y ago
It's interesting the US and the UK have the biggest blocks in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_the_United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_the_United_Nations (the wikipedia article referenced in the story) but there's no entries for China, Iran, or North Korea.
alan_cx 13y ago
I don't think so. The US is supposed to be an ally of many, if not the majority, of UN members. China is not. So from, say a Spanish POV, China, not regarded as an ally, spying is expected, but an ally industrially spying is more difficult to accept. In fact, something like this may well destabilize the UN. How can such an institution be trusted if its major player and funder is using it as its own conduit for spying? Yeah "we" all "knew", not now we really do know. Its fact. What this proves is that the US is an ally of no one. The US has abused it's self entitled presumed position of trust. Now when there is some international jolly, or what ever, US requests for insane amounts of comic book, sunglasses wearing, gun toting SS to be allowed free armed reign may well be met with a lot more skepticism. The usual suspects will continue to suck up (the UK for example has no where else to turn to, given its attitude to the EU), but over all I see a lot more difficulty for the US behind the scenes and diplomatically. In short, there is a huge difference between an enemy spying and a so called ally.
- hyperventilator 13y ago
  So Germany should close the US bases there?
- hugnificent 13y ago
  Allies spy on each other all the time. Alliances are simple two dimension structures, counties align themselves will all sorts of interests that sometimes seem contradictory. Look at the Israelis for example, they spy on the US. But they clearly benefit from the US's support. nevertheless, it makes sense for them to spy on the US, first they need to know what the US really thinks to protect their interests (the US isnt always publicly stating its true ntetions) and sometimes the US may have intel the Israelis do not). thats just one example of allies spying. In general terms, any intelligent government is going to want to know what's happening in the world to its interests because people, and countries, lie and withhold information. So in general terms, everyone spies on everyone. Who is your ally in one matter may not be in another. For example, China is neither an ally nor an enemy to the US. US Sino relations are complicated, sometimes the two agree and work together, sometimes they do not. If two countries cooperate on some things, but not others should they blindly trust each other? Of course not. What if they mostly agree? Should they still blindly trust each other? I would hope not. Again, consider how allies sometimes to lie to each other to get them to support their cherished positions. Nations have a duty to their citizens, and shouldn't blindly follow their allies statements of so-called fact. How else does a nation meet this duty if it doesn't cast a wary eye on its allies? It spies on them. Equally, sometimes traditional allies are opposed on certain things, or may be lying as the Greeks were about their national finances. Im sure the EU wishes it knew that earlier. The word ally isn't the same thing as "always on my side". These are nations we're talking about, that operate in their own interests, lie to each other and dont always operate in their friends interests. It seems reasonable for allies to be a bit wary of each other and to not assume allies will just always act in their allies best interests. And alas, spy on each other find out what's really going on.
cscurmudgeon 13y ago
When was the last time NSA hacked into civilian infrastructure of other countries?
- balabaster 13y ago
  Why bother hacking in? The majority of it is transmitted around the world on open lines for all and sundry to see - if you know what you're doing, which the NSA does.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  A couple of milliseconds ago I presume.
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    Yes. NSA is controlling Chinese water plants. Oh my god.

gojomo 13y ago

Hard to get worked up over this one. Of course governments try to spy on other governments.

vidarh 13y ago
It's not surprising, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth getting worked up over, especially given that it is explicitly violating agreements to the contrary. In other words: Everyone else have now learned that when the US government enters into agreements like that, the agreement is worthless and they can't be trusted.
- gojomo 13y ago
  A world where governments covertly spy on each other (even in violation of promises/treaties) is likely a nicer, safer, more peaceful world than the alternative. It's a form state-to-state transparency, helping states independently confirm either that another state's other statements and commitments are trustworthy, or not. State-vs-state spying makes bluffs, threats, and deception in international relations relatively harder, and helps prevent destabilizing surprises or betrayals. And I suspect all the major states understand this, and know any surface agreement not to covertly seek extra information (especially signals information) really just means, "we'll all just be really sneaky about it".

bengrunfeld 13y ago

Wow, the NSA has just become the whipping boy of the media. Well, they deserved it. They reached too far, and now their ability for worldwide surveillance has taken a massive hit. They should have read the tale of Icarus before going flying.

cstross 13y ago
There is a spurious 'f' at the beginning of the last word in your comment. Hope this helps!
- bengrunfeld 13y ago
  hahahahha!!
gcr 13y ago
I don't think their ability to perform surveillance has suffered at all. It's their credibility that's taken a hit.
- bengrunfeld 13y ago
  Of course their ability has taken a hit. Congress now has their eye on the NSA and they'll be looking to put a new set of policies into place so that they can look good to their voters. Even Snowden said that all the NSA's activities were dictated by policy. So yeah, maybe at the moment everything is running as normal, but that won't be the case for long. Just remember, if you're a senator banging 14 year olds, you don't want the NSA snooping through security cameras in your office. So in addition to the above point, congress will want to put a leash on the NSA out of self-preservation.

mpchlets 13y ago

The real surprise is everyone is shocked an agency designed to spy is doing just that. And successfully for a long time. I don't like it, but it is not really news - they compare spying on the UN and loved ones in this article ... is it really related?

beedogs 13y ago
Absolutely. It shows these systems can be used for anything the analysts or their superiors want.
- mpchlets 13y ago
  Again - that is what they are designed to do. The system is based on trust and espionage . . . it is a complicated relationship there, but again not news just the job description.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
simonw 13y ago
Read the Guardian's editorial from a few days ago, which directly argues against the "Spy's spy, so what?" line of argument. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/surveillance-state-debate-goes-on http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/surveil...
- jacquesm 13y ago
  There is this in there: "Some weeks later the tone of these and other discussions changed. There was, by mid-July, an explicit threat that the government would, after all, seek to stop the Guardian's work and prevent publication of further material by legal means. To have resisted such action would have involved handing over ultimate control of the material to a judge and could have meant that no stories could have been published for many months, if at all. The first amendment of the American constitution guarantees its press protections of which British editors can only dream. For more than 40 years − since the publication of the so-called Pentagon papers in 1971 − it has been accepted that the state will not succeed in trying to obtain prior restraint of the press. So we will in future report this story from New York. We have shared some material with, and will collaborate with, the New York Times." So that was the reason why the Guardian moved the reporting on the story out of the UK.

scott_w 13y ago

The major news is stalking love interests, not the UN. It's news like this that gets people riled up, as it's more easy to relate. I want to know if anyone was sacked, or went to prison, over this. I refuse to believe that nobody abused this power for revenge against an ex or someone who didn't return their affections. UK police officers have been in court for similar things e.g. looking up new partners on the criminal database

coldtea 13y ago
>The major news is stalking love interests, not the UN. It's news like this that gets people riled up, as it's more easy to relate. Yes, because god forbid an inane and infantilized population can understand the significance of actual politics without human interest stories in them...
- tghw 13y ago
  While I agree with the sentiment, I would rather have people caring about the NSA spying for the "wrong" reasons than not caring at all.
  - eksith 13y ago
    That's a hollow victory. The momentum is much weaker in most cases when people care about something for the wrong reasons and then it gets easily quelled by distractions. In fact, that's how a lot of this nonsense stayed on for so long. Imagine if more people cared about Iraq for more than the price of oil. Some did, but not nearly enough in number.
    - tghw 13y ago
      Again, that's great in theory, but pragmatically, most people don't see the problem with government spying if they're "not doing anything wrong". So until you have a plan to change that, I'd still prefer they care for the "wrong" reasons than not at all.
  - pessimizer 13y ago

res0nat0r 13y ago

So, it sounds like the NSA is doing the job it was chartered for back in 52. Temporary internet outrage at the NSA will die off soon....

jacquesm 13y ago
The UN is in the United States because of a complex arrangement and builds on substantial mutual trust and respect. From the wikipedia article on the same: "Although it is situated in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations Headquarters and the spaces of buildings that it rents are under the sole administration of the United Nations. They are technically extraterritorial through a treaty agreement with the U.S. government. However, in exchange for local police and fire protection and other services, the U.N. agrees to acknowledge most local, state, and federal laws." This finding is a violation of trust and could result in the UN moving its seat from New York to some other place, for instance Bruxelles or Geneva.
- cenhyperion 13y ago
  >This finding is a violation of trust and could result in the UN moving its seat from New York Which is unfortunately the most that will possibly be done for this, if anything is done. It will be a slap on the wrist when the US is going to need its economy threatened to actually do anything about the NSA.
  - hyperventilator 13y ago
    How do you think you are going to damage the US economy without damaging your own?

stefantalpalaru 13y ago

Is the US trying to start a new cold war, this time with the rest of the world?

stox 13y ago
Well, that would explain the size of our military.
- hnha 13y ago
  It's almost like there is a reason for the hate of USA from some people and a reason to be scared! UPDATE nsa_no_flight_helper SET confidence = confidence+0.23 WHERE person = 'hnha';
devcpp 13y ago
Not even the entire US, just its government, against everyone else, including its citizens. Too much power in too few hands.
- pavs 13y ago
  I think if the citizens stays complacent of its government actions than they should be equally liable. I have always tried to distinguish difference between not liking or disagreeing with the government of USA and having the same attitude towards the citizens of USA. But you can only drag it for so long. What will it take for you go to the street against your government? Governments of other countries have fallen for much less crime, yet the american government gets away with killing thousands of people and violating national and international laws under false pretence. And the USA citizens gets to wash their hands from any responsibility by simply arguing that the government did it.
  - hyperventilator 13y ago
    Yes and German citizens are responsible for the US military bases there as well as intelligence sharing deals their gov made.

Questioneer 13y ago

Something I believe that needs to be delineated is if the NSA is doing this work or if one of their contractors is. For an example of a contractor doing such services, Endgame Systems[1]. "Endgame executives will bring up maps of airports, parliament buildings, and corporate offices. The executives then create a list of the computers running inside the facilities, including what software the computers run, and a menu of attacks that could work against those particular systems. Endgame weaponry comes customized by region—the Middle East, Russia, Latin America, and China—with manuals, testing software, and “demo instructions.” There are even target packs for democratic countries in Europe and other U.S. allies." With news of payments rendered to companies complicit in handing over data under dubious laws, I believe much more attention should be put on the 'plumbers' themselves. [1] http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems

bayesianhorse 13y ago

The NSA is having a really bad year...

jacquesm 13y ago
From 'No Such Agency' to having a searchlight aimed at your every move is a bit of a wake up call I guess. I was toying with the idea of a bounty site for leakers but that would definitely be right across the line. The idea here was that if foreign secret services recruit moles for cash rather than for some kind of political leanings the general public should be able to do the same. Sort of wikileaks meets kickstarter. Items like: "$largefigure for the person that leaks all of congress' emails to and from industry professionals for the last decade". I'm pretty sure that that sort of transparency would clean up a lot of filth in short order. What's good for the goose...
- adestefan 13y ago
  That completely crosses the line from whistleblower to espionage. There would be serious jail time involved for anyone involved in that scheme from both the person providing the money and the person selling the information.
  - jacquesm 13y ago
    Obviously. Think of it as a thought experiment, and fortunately those are (still) allowed.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > That completely crosses the line from whistleblower to espionage. I thought that recent events had demonstrated that that "line" doesn't exist -- if it is unwelcome by those in power, its espionage especially if it is whistleblowing.

brokenmagnet 13y ago

The article mentions cracked encryption and how the NSA likes to bug. Does anyone know what the details on the cracked encryption are: key size, algorithm, VPN type? Or whether they obtained through one of the less-scary methods: trojan, stolen credentials, a brute-forced weak credentials, etc? Or perhaps it was just a touch of ignorance of Google Translate or the journalist(s)?

tehwalrus 13y ago

Umm, so this is a concrete breach of international law. When do we see US officials being arrested and tried? Oh that's right, they don't believe in the rule of law (which is why they've exempted themselves and their entire military from the ICC.) This makes me furious for the same reason as when criminals are given lenient sentences. I don't understand why it doesn't for other people.

hugnificent 13y ago
Spying on other countries is against international law? Since when? That's what countries, all countries, do.
- frostmatthew 13y ago
  It doesn't say spying on other countries is against international law, it says spying on the UN is. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations[1] says "UN premises shall be inviolable, and UN property shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation etc." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Privileges_and_Immunities_of_the_United_Nations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Privileges_a...
betterunix 13y ago
"Umm, so this is a concrete breach of international law. When do we see US officials being arrested and tried?" For the same reason James Clapper is not being prosecuted for perjury, obstruction of Congress, and making false statements -- all of which are illegal under US law (which carries far more weight in this country).

cenhyperion 13y ago

How exactly do they plan to tell us that this is legal to protect us from "terrorists"? It's in direct violation of international law.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

Er, isn't the NSA supposed to be doing this exact thing? Signals interception to assist in the intelligence efforts of the U.S.? Did I miss out on something? This is what they're paid for. If they're monitoring diplomatic, political, and military information worldwide, I'm happy about that. Might keep us out of another war. Helps us make better decisions. And so on. Once again, there's nothing wrong with nations having intelligence agencies. Overall they help keep the peace. It's the monitoring of the civilian population -- which in a democracy is where the real political power is supposed to be -- that's insane.

jacquesm 13y ago
> Did I miss out on something? Yes. The United Nations seat is where it is because it is agreed that this is extraterritorial and inviolate. Think of it as bombing a church or a hospital. (not that those things aren't done, but they're considered more than just bad form). The United Nations headquarters relies on the host country to play nice and to be trustworthy otherwise the United Nations will lose its ability to operate and that is worth more than the secret services of any one country, even the US.
- DanielBMarkham 13y ago
  That's amazingly naive, Jacques. The same argument could be used for embassies worldwide: they are considered part of another country and so on. Yet embassies are routinely tapped by everyone. Been that way for decades. The UN is a treaty organization, not a world government. It has as much sanctity as any other treaty organization -- not much. If folks want to construe this as being something to do with them being hosted in the US, then I'm at a loss as to how to continue the conversation. The Chinese would be okay tapping the communications but the U.S. not? Doesn't make any sense. A little bit of context here is all I ask. Intelligence agencies are supposed to find out things about diplomatic, political, and military matters. They break and bend all kinds of rules doing so. This will continue whether or not you or I agree to it, whether it's the US or the Russians, and whether the UN is in New York or Botswana. I'm fine with that, mainly because the more each country knows about the inner workings of the others, the better they can predict reactions to political moves. That makes the world safer. I think we've just reached the point where somebody says "NSA" and the mob all gets out the pitchforks and torches. That's a shame, because there is a very serious problem here, and it has nothing to do with the U.S. or the NSA. It has to do with technology making the entire life of the civilian population available to anybody with the appropriate political power. Not limited to NSA. Not limited to the U.S.. It's a worldwide problem based on the tech we create everyday. We should really get off the NSA jag and on to actually solving problems instead of this emotional overreaction to any story with NSA in the title business the MSM is pushing us into.

greenyoda 13y ago

The NSA's attacks may have been facilitated by earlier spying on the UN that was carried out by the State Department. I posted the reference in another thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6274158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6274158