6 ms·

This isn't news. If anything, it's news that the NSA is doing something right: Looking into the large, nearly-state-run enterprises of not-so-friendly foreign p

This isn't news. If anything, it's news that the NSA is doing something right: Looking into the large, nearly-state-run enterprises of not-so-friendly foreign powers.

bratao 13y ago
Why you consider Brazil "not-so-friendly" ? As a Brazilian I believe we are as friendly and peaceful as a soberany can get.
- s_q_b 13y ago
  Brazil's a rising regional power, so the United States inherent interest is to reduce its influence. Brazil's not so much an antagonist, but the ruling party under Lula da Silva is traditionally associated with workers parties in Cuba and Venezuela. Brazil has also moved toward increased cooperation with China and Russia in defense and industrial manufacturing, as well as considered aligning its considerable influence on the oil market with OPEC, and is under constant lobbying from Venezuela to do so. Most importantly, the United States would very much prefer that no power centers of comparable strength arise in the Western Hemisphere, and Brazil's GDP is closing in on France. Powers in relative decline are always suspicious of rising powers, especially if they could potentially one day exert significant influence in a nearby region. Foreign policy's a zero-sum game in the IC and defense world.
  - mayanksinghal 13y ago
    That describes why Brazil could have been a threat, if it were not so friendly, not why it should be described not-so-friendly now. Unless you want to say that any government with even the remotest socialistic roots, that trades with China and Russia more than the USA is being classified as Not-So-Friendly. While I have my doubts that it might actually be how USA administration classifies things, I hope it isn't true.
    - s_q_b 13y ago
      In international relations, on some level every nation is considered a threat. Unfortunately, that's the reality of the world in which we live.
  - marcosdumay 13y ago
    Thus, "no so friendly" means "they won't be completely victimized when we bully them"?
    - s_q_b 13y ago
      "Potential adversary" means anyone that may not acquiesce to the requests of our government, and/or form military partnerships with rival major powers. Every nation thinks about defense in the same semi-paranoid (or "neorealist") mindset. It's a consequence of a dangerous existence in an purely anarchic system.
betterunix 13y ago
That's funny, here I was thinking that the NSA's surveillance resources were supposed to be used to gather intelligence on foreign threats. Where do you see a threat from Brazil's oil enterprise? Oh, wait, I forgot that the NSA's resources are, in practice, also used to conduct industrial espionage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  >here I was thinking that the NSA's surveillance resources were supposed to be used to gather intelligence on foreign threats. Not necessarily. From their mission statement: The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances. http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  here I was thinking that the NSA's surveillance resources were supposed to be used to gather intelligence on foreign threats I'm noticing a pattern of you being outraged about discovering your own misconceptions to be ill-founded. The NSA just gathers foreign intelligence. Military and terroristic threats are the most important source of foreign intelligence, but we have a vested interest in knowing What's Going On. As does everyone else, of course - it's a two way street.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    You missed the sarcasm ;) I know full well that the NSA does more than gather intelligence on foreign threats. The link in my post is about the allegations of industrial espionage that surfaced in the 90s. This is not just about the US wanting to know what's going on. This is about the US engaging in the sort of behavior that we have rebuked China over -- state-sponsored industrial espionage. It is an abuse of power, regardless of what "everyone else" is doing. As for my own misconceptions, I assume you are referring to the notion that I and many others had that the NSA would not go as far as to actively sabotage civilian cryptography. I was not alone in believing that. It was common to dismiss such allegations as far-out conspiracy theories until the day the story broke. You can look at the archives of sci.crypt and the cryptography mailing list if you do not believe me. As I said before, nobody expected the NSA to share its cryptanalysis techniques. Nobody expected the NSA to alert us to weaknesses in publicly designed ciphers or cryptosystems. It was widely assumed that the NSA would watch us fumble about and try to find exploitable weaknesses in our systems, not that they would be part of a vast conspiracy to introduce such weaknesses. Plenty of people thought that the NSA was trying to balance its signals intelligence mission with its duty to protect our own communication from foreign interception. There is nothing wrong with being outraged to discover that there is no real attempt to strike such a balance and that the crypto wars are not over by any stretch.
consonants 13y ago
Why is corporate espionage and sabotage by our guys something that is permissible? We push for free trade agreements to neuter foreign businesses' competitivity, and then we still put them under surveillance; how is this okay?
- rgbrenner 13y ago
  Why is corporate espionage and sabotage by our guys something that is permissible? The article says nothing about sabotage
zorked 13y ago
Can you please tell us why exactly Brazil is "not-so-friendly"?
- speeder 13y ago
  Maybe because Brazil does not trust USA, after the WWII interference (long story, I won't explain now... I explained it in past comments), and what happened in cold war (US backed a military coup, sending aircraft carriers even, to ensure it would happen), and what it still do with our media (the biggest print company for example, has as backer the Ford Foundation, and the company was created when Ford Foundation was a sort of front for the CIA, their magazines still are greatly pro-US, and it is obvious they also help with US espionage) Or you know, re-creating the south-american navy fleet right after Brazil officially announces it found massive amounts of oil on its coast! Thus, since US do that, and Brazil does not trust US, Brazil closed ties with Russia and China, that actually help (specially Russia... For example, when US sent its newly reactivated fleet to our shores right after the oil news, Brazil invited Russia to do massive military drills, and yay! Russia did came, and ÚS ships started to stay very wide of brazillian waters)
  - talmir 13y ago
    "Maybe because Brazil does not trust USA" Gee, I wonder why...
emiliobumachar 13y ago
It's news. If it was the other way around, it would be all over US TV prime time, with pundits seriously talking about war.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Uh, it's been happening to the US for decades, with nobody seriously talking about war. The most recent "famous" example that hit the news was Chinese cyberattacks into Google (the "Aurora" attacks), which didn't elict a drumbeat for war. In fact right before Snowden Chinese industrial espionage was one of the topics that President Obama discussed in a summit with the Chinese Premier (which, again, was reported in the media).
outworlder 13y ago
Well, Brazil has pretty much been on bed with the US for the last decades. Sure, it might have cheated on the US on some occasions, but so has the US. That's as friendly as it gets. After these leaks, however, I think there will be a transition to a "not-so-friendly" state soon, unless the US takes some serious corrective actions.

This isn't news. If anything, it's news that the NSA is doing something right: Looking into the large, nearly-state-run enterprises of not-so-friendly foreign powers.

bratao 13y ago

Why you consider Brazil "not-so-friendly" ? As a Brazilian I believe we are as friendly and peaceful as a soberany can get.

s_q_b 13y ago
Brazil's a rising regional power, so the United States inherent interest is to reduce its influence. Brazil's not so much an antagonist, but the ruling party under Lula da Silva is traditionally associated with workers parties in Cuba and Venezuela. Brazil has also moved toward increased cooperation with China and Russia in defense and industrial manufacturing, as well as considered aligning its considerable influence on the oil market with OPEC, and is under constant lobbying from Venezuela to do so. Most importantly, the United States would very much prefer that no power centers of comparable strength arise in the Western Hemisphere, and Brazil's GDP is closing in on France. Powers in relative decline are always suspicious of rising powers, especially if they could potentially one day exert significant influence in a nearby region. Foreign policy's a zero-sum game in the IC and defense world.
- mayanksinghal 13y ago
  That describes why Brazil could have been a threat, if it were not so friendly, not why it should be described not-so-friendly now. Unless you want to say that any government with even the remotest socialistic roots, that trades with China and Russia more than the USA is being classified as Not-So-Friendly. While I have my doubts that it might actually be how USA administration classifies things, I hope it isn't true.
  - s_q_b 13y ago
    In international relations, on some level every nation is considered a threat. Unfortunately, that's the reality of the world in which we live.
- marcosdumay 13y ago
  Thus, "no so friendly" means "they won't be completely victimized when we bully them"?
  - s_q_b 13y ago
    "Potential adversary" means anyone that may not acquiesce to the requests of our government, and/or form military partnerships with rival major powers. Every nation thinks about defense in the same semi-paranoid (or "neorealist") mindset. It's a consequence of a dangerous existence in an purely anarchic system.

betterunix 13y ago

That's funny, here I was thinking that the NSA's surveillance resources were supposed to be used to gather intelligence on foreign threats. Where do you see a threat from Brazil's oil enterprise? Oh, wait, I forgot that the NSA's resources are, in practice, also used to conduct industrial espionage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Controversy

res0nat0r 13y ago
>here I was thinking that the NSA's surveillance resources were supposed to be used to gather intelligence on foreign threats. Not necessarily. From their mission statement: The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances. http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml
anigbrowl 13y ago
here I was thinking that the NSA's surveillance resources were supposed to be used to gather intelligence on foreign threats I'm noticing a pattern of you being outraged about discovering your own misconceptions to be ill-founded. The NSA just gathers foreign intelligence. Military and terroristic threats are the most important source of foreign intelligence, but we have a vested interest in knowing What's Going On. As does everyone else, of course - it's a two way street.
- betterunix 13y ago
  You missed the sarcasm ;) I know full well that the NSA does more than gather intelligence on foreign threats. The link in my post is about the allegations of industrial espionage that surfaced in the 90s. This is not just about the US wanting to know what's going on. This is about the US engaging in the sort of behavior that we have rebuked China over -- state-sponsored industrial espionage. It is an abuse of power, regardless of what "everyone else" is doing. As for my own misconceptions, I assume you are referring to the notion that I and many others had that the NSA would not go as far as to actively sabotage civilian cryptography. I was not alone in believing that. It was common to dismiss such allegations as far-out conspiracy theories until the day the story broke. You can look at the archives of sci.crypt and the cryptography mailing list if you do not believe me. As I said before, nobody expected the NSA to share its cryptanalysis techniques. Nobody expected the NSA to alert us to weaknesses in publicly designed ciphers or cryptosystems. It was widely assumed that the NSA would watch us fumble about and try to find exploitable weaknesses in our systems, not that they would be part of a vast conspiracy to introduce such weaknesses. Plenty of people thought that the NSA was trying to balance its signals intelligence mission with its duty to protect our own communication from foreign interception. There is nothing wrong with being outraged to discover that there is no real attempt to strike such a balance and that the crypto wars are not over by any stretch.

consonants 13y ago

Why is corporate espionage and sabotage by our guys something that is permissible? We push for free trade agreements to neuter foreign businesses' competitivity, and then we still put them under surveillance; how is this okay?

rgbrenner 13y ago
Why is corporate espionage and sabotage by our guys something that is permissible? The article says nothing about sabotage

zorked 13y ago

Can you please tell us why exactly Brazil is "not-so-friendly"?

speeder 13y ago
Maybe because Brazil does not trust USA, after the WWII interference (long story, I won't explain now... I explained it in past comments), and what happened in cold war (US backed a military coup, sending aircraft carriers even, to ensure it would happen), and what it still do with our media (the biggest print company for example, has as backer the Ford Foundation, and the company was created when Ford Foundation was a sort of front for the CIA, their magazines still are greatly pro-US, and it is obvious they also help with US espionage) Or you know, re-creating the south-american navy fleet right after Brazil officially announces it found massive amounts of oil on its coast! Thus, since US do that, and Brazil does not trust US, Brazil closed ties with Russia and China, that actually help (specially Russia... For example, when US sent its newly reactivated fleet to our shores right after the oil news, Brazil invited Russia to do massive military drills, and yay! Russia did came, and ÚS ships started to stay very wide of brazillian waters)
- talmir 13y ago
  "Maybe because Brazil does not trust USA" Gee, I wonder why...

emiliobumachar 13y ago

It's news. If it was the other way around, it would be all over US TV prime time, with pundits seriously talking about war.

mpyne 13y ago
Uh, it's been happening to the US for decades, with nobody seriously talking about war. The most recent "famous" example that hit the news was Chinese cyberattacks into Google (the "Aurora" attacks), which didn't elict a drumbeat for war. In fact right before Snowden Chinese industrial espionage was one of the topics that President Obama discussed in a summit with the Chinese Premier (which, again, was reported in the media).

outworlder 13y ago

Well, Brazil has pretty much been on bed with the US for the last decades. Sure, it might have cheated on the US on some occasions, but so has the US. That's as friendly as it gets. After these leaks, however, I think there will be a transition to a "not-so-friendly" state soon, unless the US takes some serious corrective actions.