7 ms·

Brazilian president: US surveillance a 'breach of international law'

122 points by thex86 13y ago

benihana 13y ago
Captain Obvious to the Rescue! Does the Brazilian president have a response to the American president's implied statement of: 'What are you going to do about it, Brazil'?
- r4pha 13y ago
  A part of me thinks just like you. If she is so mad about it - as she should be -, why didn't she offer asylum to Snowden? The other part of me thinks it is prudent to keep an amicable relationship with the most powerful nation on earth. In those terms, I think it is very welcome that she expresses her angry through words. She is not hiding it or playing along with the USA by diminishing the impact of the surveillance.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
  No one is in a position to tell US to "stick it", so no. As a brazilian, I see that even though the speech is based on legit concerns, the bravado will end up more useful to secure Dilma's position in leadership (her popularity dropped this year, and by taking a jab at US she'll recover popularity with a portion of the electorate, who have a hatred for america) and make Brazil look like a beacon of freedom and transparency to the international community (or at least, strengthen it's multilateral diplomacy with the anti-US crowd). The government will probably try to push a top-down agenda for (unilaterally) legislating and regulating Internet usage in Brazil in the next months, using the opportunity to force IT companies to move inside the country and heat the economy. All in all, the Snowden scandal has been blown out of proportion by the media, and will now be used by leaders for all kinds of power play and political agendas. Anyone who understands the fundamentals of the internet can tell espionage is a feature that comes for free, and it's not like, suddenly, all countries in the world can get outraged to know the NSA has been spying. In fact, espionage is central to the diplomatic game, it only gets harder to justify on domestic affairs. US citizens have more right to be outraged than anyone else.
  - grecy 13y ago
    > No one is in a position to tell US to "stick it", so no. Of course we are. A good start would be if a bunch of countries got together and stopped using a USD. Also changing trade deals with the US would send a message.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - mc32 13y ago
      Yeah, except it's pretty much a given that all govt's who can spy do spy as much as they can on each other, overtly and covertly. She's just using this to foment fervor in her favor. Who cares if other countries use the RMB or Euro as trade currency. And no country with significant trade with any other is going to commit economic self-inflicted wounds to "send a message". The US doesn't retaliate economically against any significant partner itself, neither does China. It'd be silly.
    - jafaku 13y ago
      More reasons to use Bitcoin.
- oscargrouch 13y ago
  Its already doing.. The president cancelled a diplomatic presidents honorary visit to USA Tough speech in ONU from a state chief against surveillance over civilians, companies, and the top state politicians, including the president * International companies will need to keep the data of brazilian citizens in datacenters domestically located. * More Infrastructure investments: Optical cables all over.. so what doesnt need to pass through US will not route there (also a bunch of satelites) * When we have a choice, comercially we will probably avoid buying anything from US * We are not in XX century anymore, the industrial age is gone, some other country will rise in this new age (information?), so USA will need to review its arrogant and interventionist movements, as it will lose more and more its position of top dog.. the seat is kind of empty now. So the next USA president better watch out for its own attitude, cause you guys are more and more dependent of other commercial partner countries ;) For historical reasons, brazil has a wound from the militar dictatorship (with the USA interventionism of the 60's helping on the cup-d'etate), with the current president(a woman) victim of torture by the military regime when she was a student (for fighting to free its country from dictatorship).. so thats why privacy is a pretty serious matter here, for every educated citizen.. Brazil is like they say over texas.. we are peaceful, and cool people.. but dont mess with Brazil
  - superflit 13y ago
    Tough Speech but soft actions. If she was so 'tough' why she did not grant asylum to snowden?? I am very sure All us is scared about Brazilian almight Power. and Sure the next president will mind to not 'offend' brazilian communist party..
    - oscargrouch 13y ago
      >If she was so 'tough' why she did not grant asylum to >snowden?? This leak over the spy actions happened months after snowden has vanished in Russia.. Im sure if it was now, he may get it.. but also, dont know if it would be diplomatic proportional.. since i dont think any councious president, with a big country in hands at least, would risk commercial relations, because of that.. i dont think its very wise.. also its not a communisty party.. it has very little of the left wing.. its more like the french Hollande kind of left (literally none) I was not saying that Brazil was something to fear about.. only, that the times are tough now.. everybody need every help they can .. even the richiest and independent countries
greeneggs 13y ago
The ironic thing is that incidents like this are exactly why we need to spy on our allies. Relationships change and we need to be prepared. Good luck to Rousseff making her argument, but I am not sure how spying on embassies violates anybody's "fundamental human rights." Is Brazil willing to stop spying itself?
- oscargrouch 13y ago
  It was not just embassies.. it was the president, ministers, comercial companies, and thousands of civilians.. Also, privacy IS a fundamental human right You may dont feel it now, since your government doesnt make any movement against you, or your freedom.. and maybe its not that bad, right now.. but you ever wander.. if a hitler-like figure get elected to president of US, do you think anyone would be safe? Imagine if you tell a joke about your government, and policeman jump right at your door to put you in jail for that, without a fair trial.. We never now... so in any case.. no government should try to achieve this kind of power.. And worse yeat, if you think they do it with the money you pay them in taxes.. so you pay, to empower them to crush you whatever they want.. Democratic governments are not so strong as one might think.. there are sereval politician in anyone country just waiting to something like that to happen.. think about that
  - Volpe 13y ago
    I realise this is a bit trolly - but: > .... privacy IS a fundamental human right "Rights" are not universal. Individual rights are not universal. It feels a bit like exporting a Western style thinking on the world and saying everyone should agree with it.
    - oscargrouch 13y ago
      > It feels a bit like exporting a Western style thinking on the world and saying everyone should agree with it You are completely right, it should not "export" and force this kind of values all over the world But at least we got two countries that agree with this values, so they might speak about those values as equally shared and agreed by both parties, as written in their own democratic constitutions of rights So it might be at least universal between them :) [edit: deleted the last line as irrelevant]
superflit 13y ago
Just another populist in South America, It has to be clear that anonymity in Brazil is Forbidden by the Constitution. So it is strange that the brazilian president asks for 'democracy' and privacy when its own constitution does not allow anonymity. What she is saying is: "we are going to implement and force all gov. employees and others to use or OWN email, so we can snoop and guarantee 'our' democracy.... It will be bad if you did not get that job or contract.. Bad things happen To people Who do not agree with us.. Other 'privacy' fact about this govt is the mandatory GPS in each car in Brazil. To make surveillance AND check taxes. Brazil is one of most intrusive state ask any reasonable brazilian if it rather have his data in 'Obama' hands or Brazilian Govt hands... For all people I know they all better be in US datacenters than Brazilian Govt. And it is strange that the Brazilian govt. is Always attacking the freedom os speech by requests to google..[1] [1] - http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/countries/?t=table http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government... (order by country)
- oscargrouch 13y ago
  I wander where did you get all this "serious data" and statements over Brazil ? about Spying: NO one country has this mass surveilance state patronized by public money in the world. its proven.. its scary, and its US.. This must stop, period. if every citizen take care of its own country actions.. so they do not interfere badly with the other countries.. we would be just fine.. Anyway.. this happening its a warning to all of us.. we should listen carefully, and take good measures about it.. cause in peace time, they might look harmles or like a joke.. but in war time, or with dictatorships, they might have severe consequences
  - javert 13y ago
    It doesn't seem like you disproved the claim that Brazil aggressively spies on its own citizens and, thus, that this is hypocritical populist rhetoric. > if every citizen take care of its own country actions.. so they do not interfere badly with the other countries.. we would be just fine.. The US's spy complex is a MUCH bigger threat to those of us here in the US than it is to those abroad, and anyway there is nothing we citizens can do to stop it anytime soon, so don't hold your breath.
foobarbazqux 13y ago
The term "international law" doesn't mean very much if we don't have a functioning international police force.
- a3n 13y ago
  It probably is a violation. I'd like her and her staff to state exactly what laws, or what principles and precedents that imply a law, were violated, and then take that charge to the appropriate court. Or introduce a resolution to the UN, to force the US the embarrassment of blocking it.
beloch 13y ago
"Just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies, with the privacy concerns that all people share." Notice how Obama said nothing about neutral parties, let alone civilians who are citizens of hostile countries. The "either you're with us or you're against us" philosophy is alive and well! Who really knows the definition of "with us" in a war on an emotion? The sad thing is that, were the entire UN unified in condemnation of U.S. spying, nothing could come of it. The UN is, be design, absolutely toothless when it comes to permanent security council members. It's impotent enough even when it comes to countries like Syria! The only way to make the UN effective is to grant it real power, but that can never happen as long as some of the citizens it represents are more equal than others.
- mixmastamyk 13y ago
  Not happy about the surveillance, but also not expecting China (or other less obvious states) to fight for the cause.
bsullivan01 13y ago
Brazilian president: US surveillance a 'breach of international law' Ummm, even if it is, no one cares. Brazil would spy on US in a heartbeat if they could and probably try to spy on the US Embassy there. The spying I'm worried about is different, not the reading a foreign leader's email kind.
r0h1n 13y ago
Jeez! I can't believe the number of HN folks - people waaay above the average Internet commenting monkeys and nutjobs - attacking the messenger while completely missing the message. Heck if all Rousseff said was just these two sentences, I'd still applaud her: > A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country.
- justinmk 13y ago
  > A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country. Now just apply that logic to individuals, and you'll be called a nutjob libertarian.
- znowi 13y ago
  > Jeez! I can't believe... I concur. > attacking the messenger while completely missing the message Yes, but who cares about some president of some South American former colony? Obviously a shady individual. If it was, say, Chancellor of Germany, now that's a serious matter and human rights are at stake :)
- calibraxis 13y ago
  Yes, it's just a common view among US's elites; one poster called her, "Just another populist in South America". There's a context behind this. The article mentioned, "She was imprisoned and tortured for her role in a guerilla movement opposed to Brazil's military dictatorship in the 1970s." The US supported the 1964 military coup, which put in place the Nazi-like security state which tortured her. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#American_involvement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9t...) (And there's dissident lit from people who lived through these times, pointing out the domino effect this had for US intervention against other Latin American countries, emboldened by our success against Brazil. http://www.chomsky.info/talks/19850319.htm http://www.chomsky.info/talks/19850319.htm)

122 points by thex86 13y ago

Captain Obvious to the Rescue! Does the Brazilian president have a response to the American president's implied statement of: 'What are you going to do about it, Brazil'?

r4pha 13y ago
A part of me thinks just like you. If she is so mad about it - as she should be -, why didn't she offer asylum to Snowden? The other part of me thinks it is prudent to keep an amicable relationship with the most powerful nation on earth. In those terms, I think it is very welcome that she expresses her angry through words. She is not hiding it or playing along with the USA by diminishing the impact of the surveillance.
hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
No one is in a position to tell US to "stick it", so no. As a brazilian, I see that even though the speech is based on legit concerns, the bravado will end up more useful to secure Dilma's position in leadership (her popularity dropped this year, and by taking a jab at US she'll recover popularity with a portion of the electorate, who have a hatred for america) and make Brazil look like a beacon of freedom and transparency to the international community (or at least, strengthen it's multilateral diplomacy with the anti-US crowd). The government will probably try to push a top-down agenda for (unilaterally) legislating and regulating Internet usage in Brazil in the next months, using the opportunity to force IT companies to move inside the country and heat the economy. All in all, the Snowden scandal has been blown out of proportion by the media, and will now be used by leaders for all kinds of power play and political agendas. Anyone who understands the fundamentals of the internet can tell espionage is a feature that comes for free, and it's not like, suddenly, all countries in the world can get outraged to know the NSA has been spying. In fact, espionage is central to the diplomatic game, it only gets harder to justify on domestic affairs. US citizens have more right to be outraged than anyone else.
- grecy 13y ago
  > No one is in a position to tell US to "stick it", so no. Of course we are. A good start would be if a bunch of countries got together and stopped using a USD. Also changing trade deals with the US would send a message.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - mc32 13y ago
    Yeah, except it's pretty much a given that all govt's who can spy do spy as much as they can on each other, overtly and covertly. She's just using this to foment fervor in her favor. Who cares if other countries use the RMB or Euro as trade currency. And no country with significant trade with any other is going to commit economic self-inflicted wounds to "send a message". The US doesn't retaliate economically against any significant partner itself, neither does China. It'd be silly.
  - jafaku 13y ago
    More reasons to use Bitcoin.
oscargrouch 13y ago
Its already doing.. The president cancelled a diplomatic presidents honorary visit to USA Tough speech in ONU from a state chief against surveillance over civilians, companies, and the top state politicians, including the president * International companies will need to keep the data of brazilian citizens in datacenters domestically located. * More Infrastructure investments: Optical cables all over.. so what doesnt need to pass through US will not route there (also a bunch of satelites) * When we have a choice, comercially we will probably avoid buying anything from US * We are not in XX century anymore, the industrial age is gone, some other country will rise in this new age (information?), so USA will need to review its arrogant and interventionist movements, as it will lose more and more its position of top dog.. the seat is kind of empty now. So the next USA president better watch out for its own attitude, cause you guys are more and more dependent of other commercial partner countries ;) For historical reasons, brazil has a wound from the militar dictatorship (with the USA interventionism of the 60's helping on the cup-d'etate), with the current president(a woman) victim of torture by the military regime when she was a student (for fighting to free its country from dictatorship).. so thats why privacy is a pretty serious matter here, for every educated citizen.. Brazil is like they say over texas.. we are peaceful, and cool people.. but dont mess with Brazil
- superflit 13y ago
  Tough Speech but soft actions. If she was so 'tough' why she did not grant asylum to snowden?? I am very sure All us is scared about Brazilian almight Power. and Sure the next president will mind to not 'offend' brazilian communist party..
  - oscargrouch 13y ago
    >If she was so 'tough' why she did not grant asylum to >snowden?? This leak over the spy actions happened months after snowden has vanished in Russia.. Im sure if it was now, he may get it.. but also, dont know if it would be diplomatic proportional.. since i dont think any councious president, with a big country in hands at least, would risk commercial relations, because of that.. i dont think its very wise.. also its not a communisty party.. it has very little of the left wing.. its more like the french Hollande kind of left (literally none) I was not saying that Brazil was something to fear about.. only, that the times are tough now.. everybody need every help they can .. even the richiest and independent countries

greeneggs 13y ago

The ironic thing is that incidents like this are exactly why we need to spy on our allies. Relationships change and we need to be prepared. Good luck to Rousseff making her argument, but I am not sure how spying on embassies violates anybody's "fundamental human rights." Is Brazil willing to stop spying itself?

oscargrouch 13y ago
It was not just embassies.. it was the president, ministers, comercial companies, and thousands of civilians.. Also, privacy IS a fundamental human right You may dont feel it now, since your government doesnt make any movement against you, or your freedom.. and maybe its not that bad, right now.. but you ever wander.. if a hitler-like figure get elected to president of US, do you think anyone would be safe? Imagine if you tell a joke about your government, and policeman jump right at your door to put you in jail for that, without a fair trial.. We never now... so in any case.. no government should try to achieve this kind of power.. And worse yeat, if you think they do it with the money you pay them in taxes.. so you pay, to empower them to crush you whatever they want.. Democratic governments are not so strong as one might think.. there are sereval politician in anyone country just waiting to something like that to happen.. think about that
- Volpe 13y ago
  I realise this is a bit trolly - but: > .... privacy IS a fundamental human right "Rights" are not universal. Individual rights are not universal. It feels a bit like exporting a Western style thinking on the world and saying everyone should agree with it.
  - oscargrouch 13y ago
    > It feels a bit like exporting a Western style thinking on the world and saying everyone should agree with it You are completely right, it should not "export" and force this kind of values all over the world But at least we got two countries that agree with this values, so they might speak about those values as equally shared and agreed by both parties, as written in their own democratic constitutions of rights So it might be at least universal between them :) [edit: deleted the last line as irrelevant]

superflit 13y ago

Just another populist in South America, It has to be clear that anonymity in Brazil is Forbidden by the Constitution. So it is strange that the brazilian president asks for 'democracy' and privacy when its own constitution does not allow anonymity. What she is saying is: "we are going to implement and force all gov. employees and others to use or OWN email, so we can snoop and guarantee 'our' democracy.... It will be bad if you did not get that job or contract.. Bad things happen To people Who do not agree with us.. Other 'privacy' fact about this govt is the mandatory GPS in each car in Brazil. To make surveillance AND check taxes. Brazil is one of most intrusive state ask any reasonable brazilian if it rather have his data in 'Obama' hands or Brazilian Govt hands... For all people I know they all better be in US datacenters than Brazilian Govt. And it is strange that the Brazilian govt. is Always attacking the freedom os speech by requests to google..[1] [1] - http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/countries/?t=table http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government... (order by country)

oscargrouch 13y ago
I wander where did you get all this "serious data" and statements over Brazil ? about Spying: NO one country has this mass surveilance state patronized by public money in the world. its proven.. its scary, and its US.. This must stop, period. if every citizen take care of its own country actions.. so they do not interfere badly with the other countries.. we would be just fine.. Anyway.. this happening its a warning to all of us.. we should listen carefully, and take good measures about it.. cause in peace time, they might look harmles or like a joke.. but in war time, or with dictatorships, they might have severe consequences
- javert 13y ago
  It doesn't seem like you disproved the claim that Brazil aggressively spies on its own citizens and, thus, that this is hypocritical populist rhetoric. > if every citizen take care of its own country actions.. so they do not interfere badly with the other countries.. we would be just fine.. The US's spy complex is a MUCH bigger threat to those of us here in the US than it is to those abroad, and anyway there is nothing we citizens can do to stop it anytime soon, so don't hold your breath.

foobarbazqux 13y ago

The term "international law" doesn't mean very much if we don't have a functioning international police force.

a3n 13y ago
It probably is a violation. I'd like her and her staff to state exactly what laws, or what principles and precedents that imply a law, were violated, and then take that charge to the appropriate court. Or introduce a resolution to the UN, to force the US the embarrassment of blocking it.

beloch 13y ago

"Just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies, with the privacy concerns that all people share." Notice how Obama said nothing about neutral parties, let alone civilians who are citizens of hostile countries. The "either you're with us or you're against us" philosophy is alive and well! Who really knows the definition of "with us" in a war on an emotion? The sad thing is that, were the entire UN unified in condemnation of U.S. spying, nothing could come of it. The UN is, be design, absolutely toothless when it comes to permanent security council members. It's impotent enough even when it comes to countries like Syria! The only way to make the UN effective is to grant it real power, but that can never happen as long as some of the citizens it represents are more equal than others.

mixmastamyk 13y ago
Not happy about the surveillance, but also not expecting China (or other less obvious states) to fight for the cause.

bsullivan01 13y ago

Brazilian president: US surveillance a 'breach of international law' Ummm, even if it is, no one cares. Brazil would spy on US in a heartbeat if they could and probably try to spy on the US Embassy there. The spying I'm worried about is different, not the reading a foreign leader's email kind.

r0h1n 13y ago

Jeez! I can't believe the number of HN folks - people waaay above the average Internet commenting monkeys and nutjobs - attacking the messenger while completely missing the message. Heck if all Rousseff said was just these two sentences, I'd still applaud her: > A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country.

justinmk 13y ago
> A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country. Now just apply that logic to individuals, and you'll be called a nutjob libertarian.
znowi 13y ago
> Jeez! I can't believe... I concur. > attacking the messenger while completely missing the message Yes, but who cares about some president of some South American former colony? Obviously a shady individual. If it was, say, Chancellor of Germany, now that's a serious matter and human rights are at stake :)
calibraxis 13y ago
Yes, it's just a common view among US's elites; one poster called her, "Just another populist in South America". There's a context behind this. The article mentioned, "She was imprisoned and tortured for her role in a guerilla movement opposed to Brazil's military dictatorship in the 1970s." The US supported the 1964 military coup, which put in place the Nazi-like security state which tortured her. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#American_involvement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9t...) (And there's dissident lit from people who lived through these times, pointing out the domino effect this had for US intervention against other Latin American countries, emboldened by our success against Brazil. http://www.chomsky.info/talks/19850319.htm http://www.chomsky.info/talks/19850319.htm)