6 ms·

Report: NSA spied on Brazilian, Mexican presidents

61 points by pvnick 13y ago

bane 13y ago
At the risk of being "not HN". no duh These revelations, that "The NSA spied on <insert>" are unimportant beyond "The NSA spied on Americans". Every country spies on every other country. Welcome to being a grown up. I'd be sad if the NSA wasn't spying on the Brazilian and Mexican presidents.
- cyphax 13y ago
  What? It'd be sad if the US DIDN'T spy on other, friendly nations? And, am I not a grown up for seriously being angry about all this then?
  - timdiggerm 13y ago
    Yes. That is their job. Because nations don't trust each other. Because, historically, they shouldn't. It would be naive to do otherwise.
  - shin_lao 13y ago
    Being angry is a normal reaction, but that doesn't mean spying on "friends" isn't the thing to do. It's not black and white. You don't just have "friends" on one side and "enemies" on the others. It can also be understood as "Trust but verify" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6y5eI01XE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6y5eI01XE
    - Xylakant 13y ago
      So you'd be fine if your partner breaks into your email account on the basis of "trust but verify"? [1] I'm not. The NSA/GCHQ are breaking into secured computer systems of other countries and the UN despite having signed treaties that forbid this practice. They use the information gained to undermine the negotiation position of their partners. Now, that this information gets published, it's "what everybody does", but back when american systems were hacked, it was "evil chinese hackers". I'm not willing to accept that "what everybody does" is always a good practice. The USA is currently loosing a lot of goodwill and trust with other countries due to the NSAs actions. Those actions might have provided a short-term benefit in some negotiation, but now that they're exposed do a tremendous damage. I might be a bit of a dreamer, but I always hoped that governments should be in for the long-term benefit and fostering reciprocal trust between allies is certainly better than spying on them. [1] trust but verify can be baked into treaties, as was done in the START treaties for example.
      - shin_lao 13y ago
        If you wrongly entrust your partner, you might be cheated. If you wrongly entrust another country, millions of persons might die. Different consequences, different rules.
        Xylakant 13y ago
        If you wrongly spy on your partner, you might loose him. If you wrongly spy on an ally, millions of persons might die. Different consequences, different rules. Your argument is a straw man. I never called for blind trust into all actions, but for trust in the countries you call your allies. Brasil is unlikely to start the next major war, as is Germany, France or the UN. Spying on those is all about leverage and financial benefits. Is that worth the loss of trust you're risking?
  - bane 13y ago
    Who said Mexico and Brazil are friends of the US? Mexico and Brazil both represent significant economic threats to the U.S. And Brazil's fast growing economy and military power, with a population 2/3s that of the U.S. and unbelievably vast untapped natural resources will likely continue to skew the center of power in the Americas south. Brazil is now a larger economic power than the UK and a hair behind France if that puts things into perspective. Brazil has the largest and most powerful military force in Latin America that includes limited deep water force projection capabilities. Mexico is a larger economy than South Korea. It's a "partner" in the war on drugs and is the major conduit for illicit drugs entering the US. It's military is supplied by countries that aren't necessarily "friends" of the US, it has a reputation for rampant corruption and out of control criminal enterprises. And oh yeah it shares one of the longer land borders with the U.S. and unbelievable number of Mexican citizens skirt border checkpoints in one of the largest human migrations in history that will inevitably result in massive cultural, economic and political changes in the U.S. I'm not upset about these things, it's just the nature of changing times. But thinking that the U.S. and Brazil and Mexico and special BFFs and wouldn't ever, under any circumstances even do super secret double probation spying of any sort on each other has no other word than naive to describe it. > And, am I not a grown up for seriously being angry about all this then? Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Welcome to the very scary, duplicitous, wretched grown up world where friendship is only out of beneficial convenience and allies work to subvert each other while still trying to achieve mutual goals. When you start getting sad about this, instead of angry, then you've grown up.
    - dictum 13y ago
      > Who said Mexico and Brazil are friends of the US? Mexico and Brazil both represent significant economic threats to the U.S. I'm sure the US won't get any goodwill from other nations as long as it keeps seeing any other economic power not in decline as an enemy. Why the condescension for people who don't accept realpolitik as a fact of life?
      - bane 13y ago
        I think lots of the anger here is not about realpolitik vs ideology as much as pure willful ignorance, wishful thinking and possibly outright delusion. There's lots of tut-tutting here about the NSA doing what the NSA is supposed to do under the guise of mock upsetness or outright ignorance. But here, when Germany is demonstrated to be part of it? Barely a righteous tone rises in anger. China outright infiltrates a nuclear weapons lab? Well shame on the US for not vetting their people better. [1] Lets not ever chastise China. Russia has spies embedded in the US banking industry for a decade? Oh that silly Putin! Here's a picture of him wrestling a bear! But the NSA breaking codes and tapping phones? Oh my goodness fuck! What will save us from the Stalinist purges! What precisely do we think the DGSE, MI5, MI6, BND, MAD, CNI, SVR, NSB etc. [3] all do? Rescue local cats from trees? Play with computers and microphones to see "what's cool?" There's lots of smart folks here, but it's like we're all drunk at our keyboards every time the NSA is shown to be doing what the NSA is supposed to be doing. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_intelligence_activity_abroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_intelligence_activity_... 2 - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/22/germany-china-industrial-espionage http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/22/germany-china-i... 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies
- thezach 13y ago
  And I'm sure Mexico and Brazil did their best to spy on the US... its the nature of things. Countries spy on other countries.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    > "And I'm sure Mexico and Brazil did their best to spy on the US" That might be true. But the US is an outlier. The US spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and that ratio probably extends to the intelligence budget. So while the Mexicans might "do their best" to spy on America, that might be pretty far down their overall budget priorities.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- illumen 13y ago
  spying is jerk behaviour
  - bane 13y ago
    No argument from me there. Spying is not something "nice" people do in the general sense.
- diego_moita 13y ago
  I don't think you get it. Btw, I am Brazilian. First let's state the obvious: Brazilians spy on Brazilians. Clandestine telephone wiretaps are a regular thing in this country; the Brazilian secrete service (ABIN) and even private detectives do it a lot. But, still, there are 3 implications in this story: 1) Every company in this country with secrets to hide (a.k.a every company) will now develop an allergic reaction to the words "cloud computing". 2) Every Brazilian IT company that has potential American competition now has the perfect argument for protectionism. 3) Expect a lot more laws regarding "internet regulation". Politicians here are eager for any excuse for doing it.
  - powertower 13y ago
    We get it. Edward Snowden is attempting to hurt American interests, rather than expose some horrible crime against the US people. While the self-promoting hacks he picked as journalists continue to do what they do best, fabricate stories that don't really exists once you put the facts on the table and use the proper context. That's the only way I can understand what he is doing right now, unless he really thinks the truth must come out purely for the sake of the truth, and secrets cannot exist. In which case he is extremely immature and doesn't understand the way the world operates. In the mean time, he will continue to cause problems for the US. While the rest of the world uses these leaks for their own benefits. It will keep him relevant.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - bane 13y ago
    Are you saying that the fact the NSA spies on every country on the planet hitting CBS news changes anything? The NSA isn't exactly the March of Dimes. It's a spy agency tasked with spying. Everybody knows the NSA spies on everybody, anybody who doesn't or expects otherwise is hopelessly naive. Is it nice? No, not really. And in a better world the NSA wouldn't exist. But it's not a better world and thus the NSA exists. This stuff will continue to make the news for a while, people will feign shock at their own ignorance then it will fade away. I see lots of comments here about how the NSA's recruitment image is now tarnished, is it? Does anybody ever try and get work at the NSA with the expectation that they won't be part of a giant spy apparatus? What exactly do people think crypto experts do? Sure Brazilians might have some short term reaction, but long term it won't amount to a hill of beans.
- selectodude 13y ago
  I think what people are most aghast about is finding out exactly how good the NSA/CIA are at spying. I'm personally not surprised by any of it, but I think it's news to a lot of people.
- rdl 13y ago
  I'd be angry if NSA didn't spy on foreign militaries. Foreign heads of state, to the extent that they control their militaries, are members of militaries. Spying on US persons (except intelligence community people, for counterintelligence purposes) should be out. Counterterrorism involving US persons should be law enforcement. I might change my mind if real domestic-origin NBC threats were a thing, but as far as I can tell, they are not. Spying on foreign civilian arms vendors, maybe some key infrastructure, etc. is ok if it is done in a very limited way -- pure open source intelligence (monitoring public information, usually published by the target, and voluntary reports from people) is probably reasonable. Spying on purely-private, non-threatening non-US-persons is bad for two reasons. At some level, it's immoral directly -- there is a human right to privacy at some level. As well, it's a total waste of resources -- if NSA has the resources to spy on a private Brazilian citizen who is cheating on his wife, the NSA has too many resources, either more properly used for other governmental purposes or returned to the taxpayers.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Every country spies on every other country. No, they do not. Most countries wouldn't even dream of spying on other countries (with the exception of their direct enemies in their periphery), and even if they did, they wouldn't know what to do with the information. A lot of small countries not only do not spy, but they voluntary let other large countries spy on them and handle over their citizens data. The countries that do spy "on every other country" are large countries, those with foreign interests that they take care of. The kind of countries that push their business/trade/diplomatic etc agenda to the world. Somebody really believes that, say, Belize spies on Germany? Or Nigeria spies on the UK? Second, while they do do it, even large countries are not supposed to spy on their so-called allies, and not at the level of the wiretaping their head of state. >Welcome to being a grown up. That's not "being a grown up". That's being infantilized, accepting the status quo because "that's how it goes". One could imagine people saying the same thing to blacks fighting for civil rights: "Well, of course you don't count as much as whites in this country, duh, welcome to the grown up world".
  - powertower 13y ago
    > Most countries wouldn't even dream of spying on other countries Contradictory to all known history. They all dream of it. Some of those are even full out wet dreams. > Somebody really believes that, say, Belize spies on Germany? Or Nigeria spies on the UK? Infantile, small, and poor countries don't have the knowhow and resources to effectively spy on other more-advanced nations. That's the only reason they "don't",... because they "can't". It's not a moral stand. > A lot of small countries not only do not spy, but they voluntary let other large countries spy on them and handle over their citizens data. Don't worry, they either get paid, or get some benefit from that arrangement. > One could imagine people saying the same thing to blacks fighting for civil rights: "Well, of course you don't count as much as whites in this country, duh, welcome to the grown up world". Nice analogy, that's broken in every way. I'm also not going to fall for the trap of paralleling this to a race issue. Nations fight for self-interests first and foremost, not for the interests of other nations, big or small.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >Contradictory to all known history. They all dream of it. Some of those are even full out wet dreams. No, they really are not. In fact in the last 2-3 centuries of known history, most countries, not only wouldn't spy on large powers, but were under their direct command, as colonies. >Infantile, small, and poor countries don't have the knowhow and resources to effectively spy on other more-advanced nations. That's the only reason they "don't",... because they "can't". It's not a moral stand. Well, that's what I said too. Although I disagree on the latter part: not spying, even if is because you can't, gives you a moral high ground. >>A lot of small countries not only do not spy, but they voluntary let other large countries spy on them and handle over their citizens data. >Don't worry, they either get paid, or get some benefit from that arrangement. The lackeys in government yes. The countries (as in, the general public, no). They are royally fucked over from that arrangements (see: banana republic). >Nations fight for self-interests first and foremost, not for the interests of other nations, big or small. There are ways to go about your self-interests as a nation that makes you a jack-ass and there are ways that are better. Nazi germany went after their self-interests too.
nohuck13 13y ago
"a document dated June 2012 shows that Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto's emails were being read." I have serious issues with the NSA spying on civilians, the lack of oversight, the notion that the NSA can use terrorism to justify whatever they want to do regardless of due process, just because they think it's really, really important, but... this particular thing doesn't really feel like news. Governments spy on other governments. They always have. I don't feel that threatens my civil liberties. I think the danger of stories like this is that they muddy the waters. The fact that the NSA spies on foreign heads of state is _not the issue_. This kind of spying is what they were set up to do. If we all have knee-jerk reactions to this just because of the anti-NSA zeitgeist, we distract from the things the NSA is doing that actually pose serious threats to our civil liberties.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  Would you be upset if you found out Mexican secret services have been listening on Obamas calls? What about your calls? Do you like to be spied on? Isn't it a bit egoistical to assume this affects or is interesting only for American citizens? "Well my Constitution says they can spy on everyone as well as they are not US citizens". Well a lot of other citizens are not US citizens and they don't really give a crap what is written in the US Constitution. They care that they are spied one. And it doesn't even matter if their own government turns around and spies right back on US citizens. They don't like it. They didn't like what NSA did before this either. NSA is in the news now and know more of what and how they do it. That is why there is talk about it. .
  - growupkids 13y ago
    That's just it though, countries spy on each other. If that upsets you, then you're going to be disappointed forever. It's a bit like being upset that rain makes you wet, no kidding its rain. Countries spy on each other, friendly countries spy on each other because people lie all the time and do the opposite of what they say all the time. The lie to get their allies to do something for them (Iraq WMDs anyone?), they lie because they are covering something up, they lie to protect their own interests, and sometimes they just lie for pride. It doesn't surprise or upset me one bit, because I know it's happening, I know it needs to happen, because why should I blindly trust any governments leaderships? And because lying and statesmanship seem to go hand in it will always happen. No country should ever trust another country blindly. As no citizen should trust its government blindly. Any government that does that is abdicating its responsibility to serve its citizens interests first, and any person that blindly trusts a government is going to be disappointed. Think of spying like whistle blowing. We all want to know the truth.
cpa 13y ago
The title is a bit misleading: NSA spied on Enrique Pena Nieto before he was elected, and explicitly states that "it's not clear if the spying continues".
devx 13y ago
This is starting to become a trend, which was to be expected. When you spy on your allies, and they find out, they won't trust you or your companies anymore, and they will isolate themselves from you as much as possible. Maybe this will lead to the decentralization of power in the world, and EU and Latin America will start challenging US in services and economy - which would be good for everyone in the world. Brazil Wants National 'Antisnoop' Email http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2013/09/1335563-brazil-wants-national-antisnoop-email.shtml http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2013/09/...
- raverbashing 13y ago
  "Brazil Wants National 'Antisnoop' Email" Translation: Brazil wants an email they can snoop without regards to unimportant things such as "due process" and "privacy"
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Are all people, everywhere, so under the thumb of their intelligence agencies that they have no hope of privacy? Or are you willing to admit that some people, somewhere, have actual freedom and self-determination?
    - anxiousest 13y ago
      Brazil wants the servers within its borders (officially) to snoop on drug traffickers and other suspected law breakers without having to ask for permission: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/08/11/actualidad/1376172139_847597.html http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/08/11/act... Calls to mind a high profile case of China imprisoning an activist who used Yahoo mail which then was hosted within China.
- anxiousest 13y ago
  Don't delude yourself, Brazil wants servers inside their borders so they can spy on them without resistance.
- 13y ago
yen223 13y ago
Doesn't it bother anyone else that the only source for the recent "NSA spied on <x>"-type news seems to be Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden? Has their claims ever been independently verified?
- tjr 13y ago
  The most recent edition of this book came out a few years ago, so it doesn't verify this year's claims specifically: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/privacy-line http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/privacy-line ...but what it does explain (and backs up with a plethora of sources) makes this summer's NSA news sound like business as usual.
ck2 13y ago
If we are so good at spying on other country presidents that means we knew every step of the way what Syria was doing to its people and we did nothing. And congress is about to give that a seal of approval. That's what you get for not having oil.
powertower 13y ago
Has anyone changed their opinion on Edward Snowden? There is a difference between this, and exposing potential crimes toward the American people by the NSA. Now he seems to be attempting to embarrass and weaken US-interests as much as possible. The funny thing about all this is these leaked "revelations" are pretty much standard operating procedures for any country and their native NSA counterparts. All this is doing is allowing those other countries to mobilize public hate towards America and Americans, and use that to potentially give them the upper hand in future dealing with or against the US.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  > Has anyone changed their opinion on Edward Snowden? No > There is a difference between this, and exposing potential crimes toward the American people by the NSA. Yes, sure, but only marginally: The NSA is spying on other nations and the UN, violating treaties the US government voluntarily signed. IMHO, that's a pretty clear sign of a secret service out of control - unless it's the administration that is signing treaties left and ordering the secret service to break them on the right. I'm not certain which idea appeals less to me. If that's standard SOP for every country I think it deserves a public debate and that's what's happening. It's the spectre of the NSAs actions that comes back to haunt the government. Same as the whole WMD story in Iraq: Now the "undeniable proof" that Assad used chemical weapons is questioned. Nobody trusts you if you treat your friends like shit - and everybody on the receiving end is entitled to be pissed off. Sure, they'll use that in future dealings, but well, that's the price you pay. SOP, you could say.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Has anyone changed their opinion on Edward Snowden? Certainly not. >There is a difference between this, and exposing potential crimes toward the American people by the NSA. Yes. The difference is that this assumes that other countries are people too, and they should also have a right to privacy, instead of just caring for his own people. >Now he seems to be attempting to embarrass and weaken US-interests as much as possible. Well, they can always stop.

61 points by pvnick 13y ago

bane 13y ago

At the risk of being "not HN". no duh These revelations, that "The NSA spied on <insert>" are unimportant beyond "The NSA spied on Americans". Every country spies on every other country. Welcome to being a grown up. I'd be sad if the NSA wasn't spying on the Brazilian and Mexican presidents.

cyphax 13y ago
What? It'd be sad if the US DIDN'T spy on other, friendly nations? And, am I not a grown up for seriously being angry about all this then?
- timdiggerm 13y ago
  Yes. That is their job. Because nations don't trust each other. Because, historically, they shouldn't. It would be naive to do otherwise.
- shin_lao 13y ago
  Being angry is a normal reaction, but that doesn't mean spying on "friends" isn't the thing to do. It's not black and white. You don't just have "friends" on one side and "enemies" on the others. It can also be understood as "Trust but verify" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6y5eI01XE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6y5eI01XE
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    So you'd be fine if your partner breaks into your email account on the basis of "trust but verify"? [1] I'm not. The NSA/GCHQ are breaking into secured computer systems of other countries and the UN despite having signed treaties that forbid this practice. They use the information gained to undermine the negotiation position of their partners. Now, that this information gets published, it's "what everybody does", but back when american systems were hacked, it was "evil chinese hackers". I'm not willing to accept that "what everybody does" is always a good practice. The USA is currently loosing a lot of goodwill and trust with other countries due to the NSAs actions. Those actions might have provided a short-term benefit in some negotiation, but now that they're exposed do a tremendous damage. I might be a bit of a dreamer, but I always hoped that governments should be in for the long-term benefit and fostering reciprocal trust between allies is certainly better than spying on them. [1] trust but verify can be baked into treaties, as was done in the START treaties for example.
    - shin_lao 13y ago
      If you wrongly entrust your partner, you might be cheated. If you wrongly entrust another country, millions of persons might die. Different consequences, different rules.
      - Xylakant 13y ago
        If you wrongly spy on your partner, you might loose him. If you wrongly spy on an ally, millions of persons might die. Different consequences, different rules. Your argument is a straw man. I never called for blind trust into all actions, but for trust in the countries you call your allies. Brasil is unlikely to start the next major war, as is Germany, France or the UN. Spying on those is all about leverage and financial benefits. Is that worth the loss of trust you're risking?
- bane 13y ago
  Who said Mexico and Brazil are friends of the US? Mexico and Brazil both represent significant economic threats to the U.S. And Brazil's fast growing economy and military power, with a population 2/3s that of the U.S. and unbelievably vast untapped natural resources will likely continue to skew the center of power in the Americas south. Brazil is now a larger economic power than the UK and a hair behind France if that puts things into perspective. Brazil has the largest and most powerful military force in Latin America that includes limited deep water force projection capabilities. Mexico is a larger economy than South Korea. It's a "partner" in the war on drugs and is the major conduit for illicit drugs entering the US. It's military is supplied by countries that aren't necessarily "friends" of the US, it has a reputation for rampant corruption and out of control criminal enterprises. And oh yeah it shares one of the longer land borders with the U.S. and unbelievable number of Mexican citizens skirt border checkpoints in one of the largest human migrations in history that will inevitably result in massive cultural, economic and political changes in the U.S. I'm not upset about these things, it's just the nature of changing times. But thinking that the U.S. and Brazil and Mexico and special BFFs and wouldn't ever, under any circumstances even do super secret double probation spying of any sort on each other has no other word than naive to describe it. > And, am I not a grown up for seriously being angry about all this then? Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Welcome to the very scary, duplicitous, wretched grown up world where friendship is only out of beneficial convenience and allies work to subvert each other while still trying to achieve mutual goals. When you start getting sad about this, instead of angry, then you've grown up.
  - dictum 13y ago
    > Who said Mexico and Brazil are friends of the US? Mexico and Brazil both represent significant economic threats to the U.S. I'm sure the US won't get any goodwill from other nations as long as it keeps seeing any other economic power not in decline as an enemy. Why the condescension for people who don't accept realpolitik as a fact of life?
    - bane 13y ago
      I think lots of the anger here is not about realpolitik vs ideology as much as pure willful ignorance, wishful thinking and possibly outright delusion. There's lots of tut-tutting here about the NSA doing what the NSA is supposed to do under the guise of mock upsetness or outright ignorance. But here, when Germany is demonstrated to be part of it? Barely a righteous tone rises in anger. China outright infiltrates a nuclear weapons lab? Well shame on the US for not vetting their people better. [1] Lets not ever chastise China. Russia has spies embedded in the US banking industry for a decade? Oh that silly Putin! Here's a picture of him wrestling a bear! But the NSA breaking codes and tapping phones? Oh my goodness fuck! What will save us from the Stalinist purges! What precisely do we think the DGSE, MI5, MI6, BND, MAD, CNI, SVR, NSB etc. [3] all do? Rescue local cats from trees? Play with computers and microphones to see "what's cool?" There's lots of smart folks here, but it's like we're all drunk at our keyboards every time the NSA is shown to be doing what the NSA is supposed to be doing. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_intelligence_activity_abroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_intelligence_activity_... 2 - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/22/germany-china-industrial-espionage http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/22/germany-china-i... 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies
thezach 13y ago
And I'm sure Mexico and Brazil did their best to spy on the US... its the nature of things. Countries spy on other countries.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  > "And I'm sure Mexico and Brazil did their best to spy on the US" That might be true. But the US is an outlier. The US spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and that ratio probably extends to the intelligence budget. So while the Mexicans might "do their best" to spy on America, that might be pretty far down their overall budget priorities.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
illumen 13y ago
spying is jerk behaviour
- bane 13y ago
  No argument from me there. Spying is not something "nice" people do in the general sense.
diego_moita 13y ago
I don't think you get it. Btw, I am Brazilian. First let's state the obvious: Brazilians spy on Brazilians. Clandestine telephone wiretaps are a regular thing in this country; the Brazilian secrete service (ABIN) and even private detectives do it a lot. But, still, there are 3 implications in this story: 1) Every company in this country with secrets to hide (a.k.a every company) will now develop an allergic reaction to the words "cloud computing". 2) Every Brazilian IT company that has potential American competition now has the perfect argument for protectionism. 3) Expect a lot more laws regarding "internet regulation". Politicians here are eager for any excuse for doing it.
- powertower 13y ago
  We get it. Edward Snowden is attempting to hurt American interests, rather than expose some horrible crime against the US people. While the self-promoting hacks he picked as journalists continue to do what they do best, fabricate stories that don't really exists once you put the facts on the table and use the proper context. That's the only way I can understand what he is doing right now, unless he really thinks the truth must come out purely for the sake of the truth, and secrets cannot exist. In which case he is extremely immature and doesn't understand the way the world operates. In the mean time, he will continue to cause problems for the US. While the rest of the world uses these leaks for their own benefits. It will keep him relevant.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- bane 13y ago
  Are you saying that the fact the NSA spies on every country on the planet hitting CBS news changes anything? The NSA isn't exactly the March of Dimes. It's a spy agency tasked with spying. Everybody knows the NSA spies on everybody, anybody who doesn't or expects otherwise is hopelessly naive. Is it nice? No, not really. And in a better world the NSA wouldn't exist. But it's not a better world and thus the NSA exists. This stuff will continue to make the news for a while, people will feign shock at their own ignorance then it will fade away. I see lots of comments here about how the NSA's recruitment image is now tarnished, is it? Does anybody ever try and get work at the NSA with the expectation that they won't be part of a giant spy apparatus? What exactly do people think crypto experts do? Sure Brazilians might have some short term reaction, but long term it won't amount to a hill of beans.
selectodude 13y ago
I think what people are most aghast about is finding out exactly how good the NSA/CIA are at spying. I'm personally not surprised by any of it, but I think it's news to a lot of people.
rdl 13y ago
I'd be angry if NSA didn't spy on foreign militaries. Foreign heads of state, to the extent that they control their militaries, are members of militaries. Spying on US persons (except intelligence community people, for counterintelligence purposes) should be out. Counterterrorism involving US persons should be law enforcement. I might change my mind if real domestic-origin NBC threats were a thing, but as far as I can tell, they are not. Spying on foreign civilian arms vendors, maybe some key infrastructure, etc. is ok if it is done in a very limited way -- pure open source intelligence (monitoring public information, usually published by the target, and voluntary reports from people) is probably reasonable. Spying on purely-private, non-threatening non-US-persons is bad for two reasons. At some level, it's immoral directly -- there is a human right to privacy at some level. As well, it's a total waste of resources -- if NSA has the resources to spy on a private Brazilian citizen who is cheating on his wife, the NSA has too many resources, either more properly used for other governmental purposes or returned to the taxpayers.
coldtea 13y ago
>Every country spies on every other country. No, they do not. Most countries wouldn't even dream of spying on other countries (with the exception of their direct enemies in their periphery), and even if they did, they wouldn't know what to do with the information. A lot of small countries not only do not spy, but they voluntary let other large countries spy on them and handle over their citizens data. The countries that do spy "on every other country" are large countries, those with foreign interests that they take care of. The kind of countries that push their business/trade/diplomatic etc agenda to the world. Somebody really believes that, say, Belize spies on Germany? Or Nigeria spies on the UK? Second, while they do do it, even large countries are not supposed to spy on their so-called allies, and not at the level of the wiretaping their head of state. >Welcome to being a grown up. That's not "being a grown up". That's being infantilized, accepting the status quo because "that's how it goes". One could imagine people saying the same thing to blacks fighting for civil rights: "Well, of course you don't count as much as whites in this country, duh, welcome to the grown up world".
- powertower 13y ago
  > Most countries wouldn't even dream of spying on other countries Contradictory to all known history. They all dream of it. Some of those are even full out wet dreams. > Somebody really believes that, say, Belize spies on Germany? Or Nigeria spies on the UK? Infantile, small, and poor countries don't have the knowhow and resources to effectively spy on other more-advanced nations. That's the only reason they "don't",... because they "can't". It's not a moral stand. > A lot of small countries not only do not spy, but they voluntary let other large countries spy on them and handle over their citizens data. Don't worry, they either get paid, or get some benefit from that arrangement. > One could imagine people saying the same thing to blacks fighting for civil rights: "Well, of course you don't count as much as whites in this country, duh, welcome to the grown up world". Nice analogy, that's broken in every way. I'm also not going to fall for the trap of paralleling this to a race issue. Nations fight for self-interests first and foremost, not for the interests of other nations, big or small.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >Contradictory to all known history. They all dream of it. Some of those are even full out wet dreams. No, they really are not. In fact in the last 2-3 centuries of known history, most countries, not only wouldn't spy on large powers, but were under their direct command, as colonies. >Infantile, small, and poor countries don't have the knowhow and resources to effectively spy on other more-advanced nations. That's the only reason they "don't",... because they "can't". It's not a moral stand. Well, that's what I said too. Although I disagree on the latter part: not spying, even if is because you can't, gives you a moral high ground. >>A lot of small countries not only do not spy, but they voluntary let other large countries spy on them and handle over their citizens data. >Don't worry, they either get paid, or get some benefit from that arrangement. The lackeys in government yes. The countries (as in, the general public, no). They are royally fucked over from that arrangements (see: banana republic). >Nations fight for self-interests first and foremost, not for the interests of other nations, big or small. There are ways to go about your self-interests as a nation that makes you a jack-ass and there are ways that are better. Nazi germany went after their self-interests too.

nohuck13 13y ago

"a document dated June 2012 shows that Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto's emails were being read." I have serious issues with the NSA spying on civilians, the lack of oversight, the notion that the NSA can use terrorism to justify whatever they want to do regardless of due process, just because they think it's really, really important, but... this particular thing doesn't really feel like news. Governments spy on other governments. They always have. I don't feel that threatens my civil liberties. I think the danger of stories like this is that they muddy the waters. The fact that the NSA spies on foreign heads of state is _not the issue_. This kind of spying is what they were set up to do. If we all have knee-jerk reactions to this just because of the anti-NSA zeitgeist, we distract from the things the NSA is doing that actually pose serious threats to our civil liberties.

rdtsc 13y ago
Would you be upset if you found out Mexican secret services have been listening on Obamas calls? What about your calls? Do you like to be spied on? Isn't it a bit egoistical to assume this affects or is interesting only for American citizens? "Well my Constitution says they can spy on everyone as well as they are not US citizens". Well a lot of other citizens are not US citizens and they don't really give a crap what is written in the US Constitution. They care that they are spied one. And it doesn't even matter if their own government turns around and spies right back on US citizens. They don't like it. They didn't like what NSA did before this either. NSA is in the news now and know more of what and how they do it. That is why there is talk about it. .
- growupkids 13y ago
  That's just it though, countries spy on each other. If that upsets you, then you're going to be disappointed forever. It's a bit like being upset that rain makes you wet, no kidding its rain. Countries spy on each other, friendly countries spy on each other because people lie all the time and do the opposite of what they say all the time. The lie to get their allies to do something for them (Iraq WMDs anyone?), they lie because they are covering something up, they lie to protect their own interests, and sometimes they just lie for pride. It doesn't surprise or upset me one bit, because I know it's happening, I know it needs to happen, because why should I blindly trust any governments leaderships? And because lying and statesmanship seem to go hand in it will always happen. No country should ever trust another country blindly. As no citizen should trust its government blindly. Any government that does that is abdicating its responsibility to serve its citizens interests first, and any person that blindly trusts a government is going to be disappointed. Think of spying like whistle blowing. We all want to know the truth.

cpa 13y ago

The title is a bit misleading: NSA spied on Enrique Pena Nieto before he was elected, and explicitly states that "it's not clear if the spying continues".

devx 13y ago

This is starting to become a trend, which was to be expected. When you spy on your allies, and they find out, they won't trust you or your companies anymore, and they will isolate themselves from you as much as possible. Maybe this will lead to the decentralization of power in the world, and EU and Latin America will start challenging US in services and economy - which would be good for everyone in the world. Brazil Wants National 'Antisnoop' Email http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2013/09/1335563-brazil-wants-national-antisnoop-email.shtml http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2013/09/...

raverbashing 13y ago
"Brazil Wants National 'Antisnoop' Email" Translation: Brazil wants an email they can snoop without regards to unimportant things such as "due process" and "privacy"
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Are all people, everywhere, so under the thumb of their intelligence agencies that they have no hope of privacy? Or are you willing to admit that some people, somewhere, have actual freedom and self-determination?
  - anxiousest 13y ago
    Brazil wants the servers within its borders (officially) to snoop on drug traffickers and other suspected law breakers without having to ask for permission: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/08/11/actualidad/1376172139_847597.html http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/08/11/act... Calls to mind a high profile case of China imprisoning an activist who used Yahoo mail which then was hosted within China.
anxiousest 13y ago
Don't delude yourself, Brazil wants servers inside their borders so they can spy on them without resistance.
13y ago

yen223 13y ago

Doesn't it bother anyone else that the only source for the recent "NSA spied on <x>"-type news seems to be Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden? Has their claims ever been independently verified?

tjr 13y ago
The most recent edition of this book came out a few years ago, so it doesn't verify this year's claims specifically: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/privacy-line http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/privacy-line ...but what it does explain (and backs up with a plethora of sources) makes this summer's NSA news sound like business as usual.

ck2 13y ago

If we are so good at spying on other country presidents that means we knew every step of the way what Syria was doing to its people and we did nothing. And congress is about to give that a seal of approval. That's what you get for not having oil.

powertower 13y ago

Has anyone changed their opinion on Edward Snowden? There is a difference between this, and exposing potential crimes toward the American people by the NSA. Now he seems to be attempting to embarrass and weaken US-interests as much as possible. The funny thing about all this is these leaked "revelations" are pretty much standard operating procedures for any country and their native NSA counterparts. All this is doing is allowing those other countries to mobilize public hate towards America and Americans, and use that to potentially give them the upper hand in future dealing with or against the US.

Xylakant 13y ago
> Has anyone changed their opinion on Edward Snowden? No > There is a difference between this, and exposing potential crimes toward the American people by the NSA. Yes, sure, but only marginally: The NSA is spying on other nations and the UN, violating treaties the US government voluntarily signed. IMHO, that's a pretty clear sign of a secret service out of control - unless it's the administration that is signing treaties left and ordering the secret service to break them on the right. I'm not certain which idea appeals less to me. If that's standard SOP for every country I think it deserves a public debate and that's what's happening. It's the spectre of the NSAs actions that comes back to haunt the government. Same as the whole WMD story in Iraq: Now the "undeniable proof" that Assad used chemical weapons is questioned. Nobody trusts you if you treat your friends like shit - and everybody on the receiving end is entitled to be pissed off. Sure, they'll use that in future dealings, but well, that's the price you pay. SOP, you could say.
coldtea 13y ago
>Has anyone changed their opinion on Edward Snowden? Certainly not. >There is a difference between this, and exposing potential crimes toward the American people by the NSA. Yes. The difference is that this assumes that other countries are people too, and they should also have a right to privacy, instead of just caring for his own people. >Now he seems to be attempting to embarrass and weaken US-interests as much as possible. Well, they can always stop.