33 ms·

NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

501 points by qubitsam 13y ago

jnardiello 13y ago
Quite expected. My disappointment with the US gov and its general attitude is reaching new levels. Really BAD.
fein 13y ago
Jay Carney issued a statement that said the US "is not monitoring and will not monitor" the German chancellor's communications. This is probably the best tell the US government has for sniffing out the bullshit. If they don't explicitly deny the event occurring in the past, it happened. Reminds me of a Spaceballs scene: Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now. Dark Helmet: What happened to then? Colonel Sandurz: We passed then. Dark Helmet: When? Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now. I imagine this is probably about how the "Cover Your Ass" conversation goes before official comments are made to the press.
- singold 13y ago
  When I heard the "is not monitoring and will not monitor" I thougth "We didn't, and we will not do it again"
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - sn41 13y ago
    This is a classic non-denial denial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denial_denial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denial_denial In these cases, I think what is important is what is not being said. For example, they aren't saying: we did not monitor the Chancellor's phone calls in the past. We didn't and won't record other senior EU officials, etc. The problem is that journalists do not pry enough, because if they are too curious, they will eventually lose privileged access to these government sources.
- kybernetikos 13y ago
  As Bismarck (although I came across it on 'Yes, Minister') apparently said "Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied."
- adventured 13y ago
  Their spoken words have very little value. They're willing to directly lie about all aspects of this and have demonstrated that repeatedly. They initially - and to varying degrees still - claim they did not and do not spy on Americans. I don't think you have to worry about tells. Given what we already know they did, assume they've done much worse. It's a very safe bet. Assume they're monitoring every single thing they can get their hands on when it comes to international leaders.
ethana 13y ago
US Foreign Policy: How to turn friends into enemies and isolate yourself from the world
- clubhi 13y ago
  Well to be fair, the Germans did try to kill us all.
  - iuguy 13y ago
    Not everyone. And to be fair it was only twice, and it was a long time ago, and it's not like Germany was the only country to try.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Yeah, and the Mongolians once sacked the world. Should we be afraid of them too?
    - davidw 13y ago
      Definitely. If it weren't for the Chinese and Russians having them effectively surrounded, Europe would be knee deep in blood and the wreckage of their onslaught.
- maaku 13y ago
  Maybe we should step up the spying in Confederate states too?
krapp 13y ago
Yes. And the US is the only country whose intelligence service has ever done anything like this. And newsflash ... we probably bug your embassies too.
- nickff 13y ago
  This comment reminded me that the USSR once built an embassy for the USA in Moscow; it was so full of bugs everywhere that the Americans had to tear it down and start from scratch.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  I seem to have missed the part where it was suggested that only the US is guilty. If there existed a solid body of evidence to disclose to the world that Germany, France, or Russia was carrying out such actions on a wide scale, that would dominate the press in under a minute. This is the US receiving equal treatment given a preponderance of evidence. This is how the press should be.
  - krapp 13y ago
    I'm not suggesting this isn't news, it certainly is. Just that it's not out of the ordinary for either the NSA or governments in general. It's news in that we got caught.
    - bobwaycott 13y ago
      Not caught, exactly. Espionage is well understood and expected in international relations. The news is the depth and breadth of the NSA's activities, and that it is being shown with hard evidence, instead of the typical former-agent-speaks-vaguely-about-capabilities that typically show up in this area.
ceejayoz 13y ago
This is the understood and expected function of the NSA, isn't it? Collecting signals intelligence from foreign sources? Does anyone honestly believe the Germans aren't regularly trying to figure out ways to listen to American officials' communications? I find the NSA's domestic spying to be appalling... but this is the sort of thing everyone knew the NSA was responsible for since its inception.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- javajosh 13y ago
  Yeah, even if you're totally appalled by the PRISM NSA scandal, it's hard to get upset when the NSA spies on foreign leaders - which is it's job. It's really strange when you think about it that even (especially?) friendly countries spy on each other, but there it is. And the funny thing is that if the Germans, or anyone, get upset about it we can just point to their foreign intelligence service and be like, "well, what are those guys doing?" and then they walk sheepishly away.
- TomGullen 13y ago
  Well I didn't know. Thought if you were allies you'd have a bit of respect for each other but guess I've been to naive.
- bparsons 13y ago
  These are close, close allies though. We aren't talking about North Korea. We are talking about countries who have deep diplomatic and military ties. The reason why you wouldn't do something like this, is because there was a damn good chance that it would leak out, mortally wounding your relationship with these people. Secondly, the utility of this particular SIGINT program is highly questionable. What is the ROI on something like this? Germany is not plotting against the United States. What scenario would they use info for?
bandushrew 13y ago
When ability is no longer a bottleneck on the actions of an individual or group, that is the time that the character of that individual or group is discovered. The character of the US government in general, and the NSA in particular, is apparently that of a rotten, sneaking, dishonest liar. I cannot say that I am surprised, human nature being what it is, but I am very disappointed. On the bright side, it is in good international company.
fidotron 13y ago
I genuinely fail to be outraged by this. The NSA has a job, which is the monitoring of the signals of foreign militaries and governments. That they were doing that is not surprising or necessarily bad since those entities should be more than capable of operating in such an environment. The problem is the mass slurping of the data of everyone else.
- judk 13y ago
  That's like saying the DoD has a job, which is to go to war with foreign countries.
sinak 13y ago
A note to say that the Stop Watching Us coalition rally is now just two days away. If you're on the east coast, it's not too late to attend. If you're interested, you can find out more here: https://rally.stopwatching.us/ https://rally.stopwatching.us/ Privacy is one of the hardest things to get folks riled up about. It erodes slowly, and for "good" reasons, like defending the country against terrorism. But privacy is critical to a meaningful democracy. Strangely, many of the members of Congress fail to understand how important it is, and that compromising our privacy for security is a huge mistake. Particularly since those compromises are not necessary. The fact that the NSA is monitoring the calls of world leaders is also worrying. But it's more of a foreign policy issue, damaging international relations and making it more difficult for countries to trust the US. I think it's foolish, and needs to stop, but it doesn't threaten our freedom directly.
- javajosh 13y ago
  Thanks for posting this - it's the most important political topic of this generation. If I was anywhere close I'd attend. I started chatting with a guy at a local bar over lunch the other day. The topic turned to surveillance and Snowden. Turned out my conversational partner was an off-duty cop. He thought Snowden was a traitor, and that the surveillance was totally justified because, "It makes protecting the innocent easier." And I asked him: "well, wouldn't being able to enter any home or car without a warrant or even probable cause make protecting the innocent? Basically, wouldn't repealing the 4th amendment make it easier?" He paused for a moment, looked me straight in the eye, and said, "Yes." That's when I knew we are all in real danger. People grow up and join law enforcement, and it changes them, and they don't even see it.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Nothing in that story does anything to suggest that joining law enforcement changed that person, or changes people in general. You seem to just be assuming that before he joined law enforcement, he had an attitude more similar to yours. (And then there's the problem of generalization from this anecdote on top of that.)
  - korethr 13y ago
todayiamme 13y ago
I quite frankly don't understand why anyone would condemn such acts of espionage. They are not only essential for a nation state to function successfully, but they are also a far superior way for the US to maintain its hegemony as compared to using acts of brute force. Now I do not condone Orwellian spying on the citizens of your own republic, but this really is their job and it's quite impressive that they're this good at it. Especially given the fact that historically the US has not been completely invested in espionage and has favoured building up capacity after key events and quickly dismantling the apparatus once the emergency has passed. What these scandals are offering is a glimpse into a dramatic shift in the way the US conducts its affairs and that in of itself is quite noteworthy.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  In which you assume far too much: - that espionage is required for a state to function successfully - that maintaining US hegemony is both a national good and good for the world - that brute force is the only other viable option to rampant surveillance It is specifically because none of those things ought to be assumed, none of them are a given, and none are inherently good or desirable or required, that one ought to condemn these acts.
- r00fus 13y ago
  Am I surprised that this covert activity is happening? No. I'm not even surprised by the scale. What will be interesting to find is who's not in that list that should be. Who are the puppet masters?
- chmike 13y ago
  I'm surprized that we are so bad at protecting our privacy, especily state leaders.
- Volpe 13y ago
  I'm not sure you can class it as "We are this good at it"... when it's being discussed publicly around the world, and the president is fielding calls from world leaders asking why they are being spied on. Will all these defences of the NSA be repeated when we discover the Germans returning the favour?
isaacdl 13y ago
This is honestly the revelation that I worry about least in these NSA leaks. Isn't foreign surveillance basically the raison d'etre for the NSA?
- lallysingh 13y ago
  It may be one of the largest motivating factors in changing NSA practices, however. Pissed partners can lead to loss of trade, and the NSA suddenly becomes a campaign issue for the next round.
  - isaacdl 13y ago
    Hmm. That's a really good point, hadn't occurred to me. Good for us I guess, although I still don't think we can really lambaste them for doing something that's directly in their "charter". (As opposed to all the domestic surveillance, etc!)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
npalli 13y ago
What is the strategy here? Of releasing information about NSA activities with foreign nations? Seems like it is mixing a potentially illegal activity (domestic spying) with their designated job. Doesn't every country try to do this. The NSA personnel could very well have undergone considerable risk to get this sort of thing going on. On the other hand, Joe public sees Snowden fleeing and chilling out in Russia/China and other "despotic" regimes. Definitely Snowden:0 and NSA:1 in this case.
- krapp 13y ago
  I think the Guardian is just trying to ride the NSA gravy train at this point.
  - junto 13y ago
    I disagree. Within the UK, the general public has not favored the Guardian's reporting on the Snowden-NSA files. Many see it as anti-British and the much of the rest of the press has taken the government's side - quoting the government line concerning the protection of the country against terrorism and pedophiles. What little the Guardian has been allowed to report (outside the D-Notice that covers GCHQ coverage) hasn't seen major coverage. The BBC for instance is petrified of losing its favourable role, and will not risk (again) threatening the government. Not in the near future anyway. The Guardian's daily circulation figures since Snowden blew the whistle has continued to drop off [1]: Compared to the same period the year before, The Independent lost 26% of its daily audience. The other five losers, in descending order, were the Daily Star (-16%), The Guardian and Daily Express (-14%), Daily Mirror (-13%) and The Sun (-11%). The actual month-by-month breakdowns are here: - April 2013 [2] - May 2013 [3] - June 2013 [4] - July 2013 [5] - August 2013 [6] - September 2013 [Not yet released] Online is booming [7]. Back in January [8], the Guardian had already reported record online readership figures. I would hazard a guess that the online readership has continued to grow, but it isn't clear how many of those are from inside or outside the UK. The NSA reporting has no doubt improved the online bottom line, but not the ABC's. At a minimum the ABC circulation figures (for print) seem to suggest that the Guardian has continued to see its readership shrink at a rate that is consistent with the entire UK press industry. The only upturn has been the Financial times which saw a 2% increase [1] for the same period. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/aug/29/national-newspapers-theindependent http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/aug/29/nati... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/may/10/abcs-national-newspapers1 http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/may/10/abcs-nati... [3] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jun/07/abcs-national-newspapers http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jun/07/abcs-nati... [4] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jul/15/abcs-national-newspapers http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jul/15/abcs-nati... [5] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/aug/09/abcs-national-newspapers http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/aug/09/abcs-nati... [6] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/sep/06/abcs-national-newspapers http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/sep/06/abcs-nati... [7] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/02/the-guardian http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/02/the-guardian [8] http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2013/01/25/GuardianKeyAudienceStats.pdf http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/201...
conductor 13y ago
This is the top comment on the Reddit thread: "They went after high ranking military officers. They went after members of congress. The Senate and the House - especially on the intelligence committees, and on the armed services committees and judicial. But they went after other ones too. They went after lawyers and law firms. Heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the supreme court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after state department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House - their own people! They went after anti-war groups. They went after US companies that do international business around the world. They went after US banking firms and financial firms that do international business. They went after NGOs like the red cross and people like that that go overseas and do humanitarian work. They went after a few anti-war civil rights groups... Now here's the big one. I haven't given you any names. This was in summer 2004. One of the papers that I held in my hand was to wiretap a bunch of numbers associated with a 40-something year old wanna-be Senator from Illinois. You wouldn't happen to know where that guy lives right now, would you? It's a big White House in Washington DC. That's who they went after. And that's the President of the United States now. And I could give you names of a bunch of different people they went after that I saw! The names and the phone numbers of congress. Not only the names but it looked like staff people too, and their staff. And not only their Washington office but back home in their congressional offices that they have in their home state offices and stuff like that. This thing is incredible what NSA has done. They've basically turned themselves - in my opinion - into a rogue agency that has J Edgar Hoover capabilities on a monstrous scale on steroids." --former nsa officer Russ Tice... June 20th interview on Boiling Frogs... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPyxeqcCjkc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPyxeqcCjkc (full 1hr+ radio interview) or watch 11 minute RT interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk
- pvnick 13y ago
  I remember this post being made here on HN around when the revelations first started coming out and we were still trying to collect ourselves and adjust to the new realities of omnipresent surveillance. It was on the front page and had a ton of upvotes. I really hope that Snowden has evidence of this. Whether he does or not is just about make-it-or-break-it for whether we'll see any real reform.
omonra 13y ago
I think we need a bit of context here. US is the hegemon. Therefore it's not reasonable to apply same expectations of how it acts as we do pleasant little countries like Norway or Netherlands (who are probably only independent because US defended them against Germans & Soviets).
- iuguy 13y ago
  You're right. Perhaps the US should be held to a higher standard than it's allies who are next door to their enemies. After all, the US is bordered on no sides by anyone other than cooperative, friendly countries, or countries that are less cooperative but have a US presence. As for countries like Norway and the Netherlands being independent because the US defended them against Germans and Soviets, that's not strictly true. It was a team effort on all sides, and the team America eventually joined won, with great thanks and a great debt to the US effort, which as I understand was paid off.
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  And hegemony is a dangerous thing that must be watched closely. It is entirely reasonable to apply expectations to all countries that they not operate in ways that encroach upon the sovereignty and privacy of other nations, especially their allies or even less friendly nations with whom a declared state of war does not exist. The hegemon ought answer to a much stricter standard than the "pleasant little countries" who do not wield such power. Hegemony does not implicitly grant universal assent to be a total asshole.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    You realize the first thing you do if you're going to attack someone is tell them one thing and then do another, right? And that a country's leaders are replaceable components - the country doesn't have a personality, it has a government of thousands of individuals, all who subtly bias its aggregate behaviour in different ways, and whom the replacement of various members can fundamentally alter the country's goals, agenda and long-term interests against other countries? How then, do you intend to maintain your own security if you've decided to simply take the word of one country's government - again, a shifting gestalt of thousands of individuals and millions of citizens goals - as naively true, when there is absolutely no reason or even motivation for that country not to simply lie to you - likely in many cases without even realizing it, as the messengers don't have the situational-awareness to understand the context of the message.
adeptus 13y ago
On the "is not monitoring and will not monitor"... If they took the time to deny present and future monitoring, the obvious question then becomes why haven't they denied past/recent past monitoring? Oh that's right, because they can't in fact deny it as they WERE monitoring.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Personally, I think it is misdirection. Why should we assume they are not willing to lie? More likely, in my opinion, is that they deny the present and future to make us think it used to happen, but just maybe might have stopped. Is there really any reason to assume they've stopped? I mean, if they're not capable of lying convincingly, they'd make pretty shitty spies.
spurgu 13y ago
I don't understand the bulk of comments being about this not being important. Or... well yeah, I understand the perspective that any intelligence agency should be collecting intelligence, so this shouldn't be a surprise per se. But this certainly levels out the playing field in that now the world knows at which lengths the NSA has been keeping tabs on people, and at least the majority of world leaders (and a lot of more "insignificant" people) will start using encrypted communications and networks like Tor. Which they should've been doing from the start. So, in this light, I think this is an important Snowden revelation.
ACow_Adonis 13y ago
Presumably this will soon be followed up by other ground-breaking journalism pieces such as "Army kills people", "Surgeons perform surgery", and "Garbage collectors stun world by collecting garbage". Irrespective of what one thinks of it (and I do not think favourably of it), how is it surprising that an organisation that is established specifically to spy on people is in fact spying on people?
- bobwaycott 13y ago
  Perhaps because foreign leaders do not consider tapping the phone lines of our allies to be within the scope of NSA's stated mission "to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."[1] Or maybe because SigInt is supposed to be working "for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations."[1] They might not get why tapping their phones supports America's military operations, or why the US wouldn't just schedule a meeting/call to for "intelligence and counterintelligence purposes". Might be that some fail to see how this qualifies as "operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties." There are wide-open channels for gaining intelligence from the leaders of allied countries. We've been using them for a while. They work pretty well. The NSA is causing the US to look like it's the distrustful mate who is sneakily combing through his partner's texts, emails, messages, and other media to assure himself he can trust his partner. The world is, perhaps, not liking the feeling of being spied on. [1]: http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/ http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    How on earth is knowing the internal dealings of foreign governments not "gaining a decision advantage for the Nation"?!
    - bobwaycott 13y ago
      Why on earth is it acceptable for the NSA--or any other foreign state's intelligence services--to know the internal dealings of foreign governments? You're acting as if that isn't something that should be questioned, and should just be accepted as a general good in both domestic and international policy. Many of us do not think that such a position is tenable or acceptable, much less a proven and legitimate point of view. The mission statement does not end with "the Nation". It ends "and our allies under all circumstances." America's allies have a legitimate reason to complain their interests are not being served, and might actually be undermined and trespassed by the NSA's actions--just as America would claim the same thing whenever news reports proliferated with a preponderance of evidence detailing how Germany's intelligence services were tapping the White House phones and slurping up all congressional emails, text messages, and voicemails. All sovereign states--be they allies or rogues--have a legitimate claim to and expectation of privacy where their internal dealings are concerned. This claim and expectation is even higher among allied nations, among whom it is expected that internal dealings concern other nations will be shared via standard diplomatic channels. And the determinations are left to the sovereign state itself regarding what, if any, internal dealings are shared with allies. But the allies do not possess some automatic right or privilege to spy as widely and deeply as they technologically are able to. That espionage occurs, that states spy on one another in accordance with their relative positions of power to achieve their own self-interests is not up for debate. Nobody in any of these revelations is suggesting it does not happen. Hell, in the purely functional domain of international relations, there are plenty of net positives that result from espionage being neither endorsed nor prohibited by international law, and mutually allowed and expected among foreign states--such as verifying compliance with international obligations, and confirming the veracity of and commitment behind assurances given by foreign states. But that still misses the more subtle point--foreign states are well within their rights (and, it might be argued, their sovereign responsibilities) to loudly grandstand and object to details that leak out regarding another state's espionage activities. Why would we expect anything less? That's simply not sensible. There can be legitimate outrage expressed over leaks of espionage because it could actually come as a surprise the depths to which a nation goes when spying on its allies. There could be other cultural and sociopolitical shifts among allied countries in one area, such as the EU, who have in various other ways been engaged in a long process of protecting civilian privacies and, in such a setting, to not engage political theater by expressing contempt for the actions of a state such as America--who shows such blatant disregard for personal privacies and who is caught within their spy's nets--violate the publicly proclaimed principles that the citizens of foreign states hold dear. If the leaders do not object, they could face political backlash. Nobody doubts that all states engage in espionage against their neighbors, friendly or not. But that does not mean that the release of details showing a much heavier spying apparatus is deployed by the power with the greatest hegemony and strongest power position isn't going to make its allies feel very uncomfortable. Beyond that, what's most alarming is that Americans truly do not give a fuck. Citizens of other nations, however, do not think like Americans. They've been working on the alliance and diplomacy thing for centuries. They approach things differently, having long learned many lessons through the rise and fall of empires.
jessaustin 13y ago
I can understand why "world leaders" would be frustrated by this, but much better them than us. This activity is at least plausibly within NSA's purview. Also, most of these leaders have less at risk to the NSA threat than do USA residents. It isn't as though NSA will sic the Drug Warriors, the IP Mafia, BATF, ICE, or EPA on leaders of other sovereign nations based on its observation of their communications. Whereas we're definitely in those crosshairs. There are exceptions! If your nation could plausibly be on deck for the next military-industrial complex fundraising activity, you might want your leaders to secure their communications against NSA. Of course, if they're not doing anything wrong, they might want that fact to be observed, on the off chance it might make a difference.
pvnick 13y ago
Watch as the flag-all-NSA-stories brigade pushes this relevant story off the front page...
- aspensmonster 13y ago
  I'm pleasantly surprised that it's not already on the bottom of the second page, headed towards the third. Between the flagging brigades and "flamewar detectors," I'm sure it will get there sooner than later.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  The suppression of NSA stories on HN is an act of monumental stupidity. If we find 10-15 years from now that US technology, infrastructure, and services are shunned around the world it will come down to them cooperating with the NSA.
  - krylonkid 13y ago
    Australia and Canada have info sharing deals with the NSA but their citizens are not mad at their governments. Germans howl when a US military base might close. Serious cognitive dissonance does not deserve endless vapid repetition and HN users rightly flag such nonsense.
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      Each one of these stories brings new revelations, most of which have some impact on the trustworthiness of US technology businesses. So, while you may be right that countries that appear so far to be vassals with limited independence won't boycott US products, that's not most of the world.
      - krylonkid 13y ago
        Do you not see the hypocrisy of Australians and Canadians? Virtually all of the west? Is Europe going to side with Russia or China? They certainly aren't going to defend themselves.
Theodores 13y ago
We have ended up with the same conversations on this spying lark far too often. I appreciate the sentiment of those that want to protest against this and I can understand the spoon-fed arguments about how the NSA must go after the kiddie fiddlers, terrorists that want to blow up innocent kiddies (as in the ones that haven't been fiddled with, yet) and do all that mysterious national security stuff. However, instead of same-old, same-old, can we work on a technological solution? Something that will work for you and I as well as Mrs Merkel? We can let go the network analysis stuff, who is in contact with whom as right now there is no easy way to prevent the NSA slurping that stuff up. But, as for the content, can't that be encrypted properly, without the NSA having the key and without there being secret courts where keys get handed over in secret? It is just code we need, and with it we can get a reasonable compromise where our conversations are secure.
coldcode 13y ago
It used to be spying on other people's governments would get people killed or start wars. In some way it will again. Maybe not so obvious this time.
a3n 13y ago
No non-US government official can feel secure in giving just a business card to his US counterpart, because he has to assume his contact info will be given to the NSA. Hell, no one, regardless of nationality, in or out of government, can fell secure in any communication of any kind with a US government person.
chunkyslink 13y ago
One way to tell if they are still doing it. Give them honeypots, hook them and wheel them in.
grey-area 13y ago
This has some interesting implications: What would this information be useful for? Why was the NSA collecting this information and at whose request? Is the same being done to US politicians? The most useful applications of this I can think of are betraying allies, manipulating negotiations with rival trade blocs, economic espionage, and of course protecting the power of the agencies who perform this surveillance and the lucky few who are given strictly limited access to it. If the POTUS is given this intelligence and makes most of his decisions based on it, how does he know that he is being given the truth, rather than a carefully edited version of it? It seems surveillance is no longer focussed on terrorism, if it ever was (indeed a few terrorist attacks have gone on the US without detection in spite of all this surveillance). It's telling that even the NSA have given up using that excuse as it becomes more and more clear where the focus of their intelligence gathering is directed. Is the NSA (and the US by proxy) using the information it collects as a way of protecting and expanding its power? Is this inevitable if you give an organisation that much power over our lives and very little oversight? Are all allies of the US mistrusted so much that they must be spied on? Should they in return shut down trust of the US and repudiate treaties they have with it like the one sharing SWIFT data or details of people visiting the US? Can the EU trust the products of American internet companies, or should they set up rivals? It seems information has become more and more synonymous with power as our economies in the west become information economies, and the greatest power of all has been handed to an agency without significant legal limits and without any sort of public accountability, led by a member of the military.
- sfjailbird 13y ago
  In the 1970s it was well known that the CIA worked to pave the way for American business interests overseas, through everything from espionage to blackmail, murder and military interventions. I assume the NSA works much the same way today (but God knows what all the domestic spying is used for).
  - grey-area 13y ago
    In the 1970s it was well known that the CIA worked to pave the way for American business interests overseas, through everything from espionage to blackmail, murder and military interventions. I don't think this is the way countries should conduct themselves, particularly not ones which trumpet their freedom and liberty. Either the US can employ cynical realpolitik while making hypocritical statements about fighting for civilisation and freedom and live with the consequences, or it can aspire to live up to the ideals it claims to stand for. There's only so much hypocrisy you can employ as an empire before the hollow nature of your statements undermines your authority with allies and citizens alike, and exposure like this is inevitable when the lie becomes big enough. but God knows what all the domestic spying is used for I imagine for exactly the same ends, minus the military aspect, which is reserved for overseas at present (though also employed on US citizens abroad). If a politician wants to dismantle the extremely useful and effective spy apparatus, they are likely to find it turned against them first.
gambiting 13y ago
After the crash of the Polish president's plane in Smolensk, it was widely known that the Americans have recordings of all conversations made with his satellite phone aboard the plane. I don't remember that sparking much controversy at the time, everyone was more like "yup, that's what Americans do" and there was pretty much no outrage over that.
cateye 13y ago
I really can't believe that there are so many comments that try to trivialize the actions. It seems that the United States loses the reality and lapses in an egocentric / ethnocentric disease. How would the U.S. react if they found out such a thing the other way around?
wyclif 13y ago
'After Merkel's allegations became public, White House press secretary Jay Carney issued a statement that said the US "is not monitoring and will not monitor" the German chancellor's communications.' Which, of course, was a blatant lie.
ethanazir 13y ago
I might think everyone should have access to all communications of all politicians. If you want to be a leader of millions you should be transparent.
jmilloy 13y ago
I feel we are taking our eyes off the ball. Domestic spying violates constitutional rights. More to the point, I don't want to support an institution with programs that violate my privacy, no matter what benefits such programs provide. But isn't international spying is different? Honestly, I don't mind supporting an institution with an external espionage programs. Isn't in my best interest? Does it harm me? What are the concrete repercussions of spying on foreign officials? Are these officials really going to renege on international alliances because they have a chip on their shoulder? If they have anything to hide, it's by definition counter to US interests; if our allies are making plans behind our backs, I want our government to find out. (And to be totally honest, if our government is making secret plans behind our allies backs, I would want our allies to find out, as well.) I'll repeat this, because it is a real question, and the answer could have a real effect on my opinion: What are the concrete repercussions of spying on foreign officials?
- 00rion 13y ago
  If we are justified in spying on foreigners, then foreigners are justified in spying on us. If foreign intelligence agencies have records of all the emails, phone calls, metadata, etc. of US citizens, what's to stop them from handing that information to the NSA and vice versa?
- grey-area 13y ago
  Possible concrete repercussions include: Refusal of the EU bloc to cooperate over sharing banking and passenger data, and potentially other treaties down the line Refusal of large South American nations to do trade deals or negotiate with the US, and a decline in US influence in the region A move away from American dominance of the internet, and a reluctance to use companies with servers based in based in the US The decline of the American empire, which is based on the tacit consent of the nations within their alliances like NATO (this one is more a long term potential outcome).
  - jmilloy 13y ago
    Okay. Thanks. >Refusal of the EU bloc to cooperate... Sharing of banking and passenger data is not something I know a lot about. Why do countries share this data now, and why would they stop because their prime minister is being spied upon? How the spying affect the pros and cons of sharing the data? > Refusal of large South American nations to do trade deals... Can you explain why a South American nation would not make a trade deal that made sense economically because of foreign espionage? How do the economics change as a result of the espionage? > A move away from American dominance of the internet... Who would avoid using servers based in the US as a result of espionage of 35 specific foreign officials? We're not talking about normal EU citizens in this particular article. >The decline of the American empire... Again, what decisions will countries make differently? Are countries going to make decisions that are not in their best interests in order to spite the US? Or are they already making decisions that are not in their best interests in order to be nice to the US, but won't anymore? Neither of these seems likely.
KMag 13y ago
I thought that the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement) were the only nations the NSA was even pretending to not spy on. It's my understanding that the British were thought to have stolen submarine detection technology from the French, and the French were widely accused of industrial espionage against US companies in the 1990s. I also vaguely remember a 60 Minutes piece in the 1990s about Germans fulfilling their military service obligations by committing industrial espionage against US companies. It seems to me that politicians are playing to public opinion, while knowing full well that this is how the international relations game has been played for decades, if not forever.
malandrew 13y ago
If I were the leader of a major world power right now, I would push for a law in my country that decriminalizes the hacking of any government systems of countries that have proven hostile to my countries government. The only exception would be the hacking of public infrastructure like transportation systems and public utilities. Everything else would be fair game. Seems like this approach would introduce and element of M.A.D. into the mix that would mitigate the current hostile actions we are seeing from the US via the NSA and China via the PLA.
njharman 13y ago
Gee, I thought the government shutdown had succeeded in getting everyone to forget this whole spy hullabaloo. Well at least it worked in the good old USA.
sheikhimran01 13y ago
I believe NSA is as much important as Android is to Google.

501 points by qubitsam 13y ago

Quite expected. My disappointment with the US gov and its general attitude is reaching new levels. Really BAD.

fein 13y ago

Jay Carney issued a statement that said the US "is not monitoring and will not monitor" the German chancellor's communications. This is probably the best tell the US government has for sniffing out the bullshit. If they don't explicitly deny the event occurring in the past, it happened. Reminds me of a Spaceballs scene: Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now. Dark Helmet: What happened to then? Colonel Sandurz: We passed then. Dark Helmet: When? Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now. I imagine this is probably about how the "Cover Your Ass" conversation goes before official comments are made to the press.

singold 13y ago
When I heard the "is not monitoring and will not monitor" I thougth "We didn't, and we will not do it again"
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- sn41 13y ago
  This is a classic non-denial denial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denial_denial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denial_denial In these cases, I think what is important is what is not being said. For example, they aren't saying: we did not monitor the Chancellor's phone calls in the past. We didn't and won't record other senior EU officials, etc. The problem is that journalists do not pry enough, because if they are too curious, they will eventually lose privileged access to these government sources.
kybernetikos 13y ago
As Bismarck (although I came across it on 'Yes, Minister') apparently said "Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied."
adventured 13y ago
Their spoken words have very little value. They're willing to directly lie about all aspects of this and have demonstrated that repeatedly. They initially - and to varying degrees still - claim they did not and do not spy on Americans. I don't think you have to worry about tells. Given what we already know they did, assume they've done much worse. It's a very safe bet. Assume they're monitoring every single thing they can get their hands on when it comes to international leaders.

ethana 13y ago

US Foreign Policy: How to turn friends into enemies and isolate yourself from the world

clubhi 13y ago
Well to be fair, the Germans did try to kill us all.
- iuguy 13y ago
  Not everyone. And to be fair it was only twice, and it was a long time ago, and it's not like Germany was the only country to try.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Yeah, and the Mongolians once sacked the world. Should we be afraid of them too?
  - davidw 13y ago
    Definitely. If it weren't for the Chinese and Russians having them effectively surrounded, Europe would be knee deep in blood and the wreckage of their onslaught.
maaku 13y ago
Maybe we should step up the spying in Confederate states too?

krapp 13y ago

Yes. And the US is the only country whose intelligence service has ever done anything like this. And newsflash ... we probably bug your embassies too.

nickff 13y ago
This comment reminded me that the USSR once built an embassy for the USA in Moscow; it was so full of bugs everywhere that the Americans had to tear it down and start from scratch.
bobwaycott 13y ago
I seem to have missed the part where it was suggested that only the US is guilty. If there existed a solid body of evidence to disclose to the world that Germany, France, or Russia was carrying out such actions on a wide scale, that would dominate the press in under a minute. This is the US receiving equal treatment given a preponderance of evidence. This is how the press should be.
- krapp 13y ago
  I'm not suggesting this isn't news, it certainly is. Just that it's not out of the ordinary for either the NSA or governments in general. It's news in that we got caught.
  - bobwaycott 13y ago
    Not caught, exactly. Espionage is well understood and expected in international relations. The news is the depth and breadth of the NSA's activities, and that it is being shown with hard evidence, instead of the typical former-agent-speaks-vaguely-about-capabilities that typically show up in this area.

ceejayoz 13y ago

This is the understood and expected function of the NSA, isn't it? Collecting signals intelligence from foreign sources? Does anyone honestly believe the Germans aren't regularly trying to figure out ways to listen to American officials' communications? I find the NSA's domestic spying to be appalling... but this is the sort of thing everyone knew the NSA was responsible for since its inception.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
javajosh 13y ago
Yeah, even if you're totally appalled by the PRISM NSA scandal, it's hard to get upset when the NSA spies on foreign leaders - which is it's job. It's really strange when you think about it that even (especially?) friendly countries spy on each other, but there it is. And the funny thing is that if the Germans, or anyone, get upset about it we can just point to their foreign intelligence service and be like, "well, what are those guys doing?" and then they walk sheepishly away.
TomGullen 13y ago
Well I didn't know. Thought if you were allies you'd have a bit of respect for each other but guess I've been to naive.
bparsons 13y ago
These are close, close allies though. We aren't talking about North Korea. We are talking about countries who have deep diplomatic and military ties. The reason why you wouldn't do something like this, is because there was a damn good chance that it would leak out, mortally wounding your relationship with these people. Secondly, the utility of this particular SIGINT program is highly questionable. What is the ROI on something like this? Germany is not plotting against the United States. What scenario would they use info for?

bandushrew 13y ago

When ability is no longer a bottleneck on the actions of an individual or group, that is the time that the character of that individual or group is discovered. The character of the US government in general, and the NSA in particular, is apparently that of a rotten, sneaking, dishonest liar. I cannot say that I am surprised, human nature being what it is, but I am very disappointed. On the bright side, it is in good international company.

fidotron 13y ago

I genuinely fail to be outraged by this. The NSA has a job, which is the monitoring of the signals of foreign militaries and governments. That they were doing that is not surprising or necessarily bad since those entities should be more than capable of operating in such an environment. The problem is the mass slurping of the data of everyone else.

judk 13y ago
That's like saying the DoD has a job, which is to go to war with foreign countries.

sinak 13y ago

A note to say that the Stop Watching Us coalition rally is now just two days away. If you're on the east coast, it's not too late to attend. If you're interested, you can find out more here: https://rally.stopwatching.us/ https://rally.stopwatching.us/ Privacy is one of the hardest things to get folks riled up about. It erodes slowly, and for "good" reasons, like defending the country against terrorism. But privacy is critical to a meaningful democracy. Strangely, many of the members of Congress fail to understand how important it is, and that compromising our privacy for security is a huge mistake. Particularly since those compromises are not necessary. The fact that the NSA is monitoring the calls of world leaders is also worrying. But it's more of a foreign policy issue, damaging international relations and making it more difficult for countries to trust the US. I think it's foolish, and needs to stop, but it doesn't threaten our freedom directly.

javajosh 13y ago
Thanks for posting this - it's the most important political topic of this generation. If I was anywhere close I'd attend. I started chatting with a guy at a local bar over lunch the other day. The topic turned to surveillance and Snowden. Turned out my conversational partner was an off-duty cop. He thought Snowden was a traitor, and that the surveillance was totally justified because, "It makes protecting the innocent easier." And I asked him: "well, wouldn't being able to enter any home or car without a warrant or even probable cause make protecting the innocent? Basically, wouldn't repealing the 4th amendment make it easier?" He paused for a moment, looked me straight in the eye, and said, "Yes." That's when I knew we are all in real danger. People grow up and join law enforcement, and it changes them, and they don't even see it.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Nothing in that story does anything to suggest that joining law enforcement changed that person, or changes people in general. You seem to just be assuming that before he joined law enforcement, he had an attitude more similar to yours. (And then there's the problem of generalization from this anecdote on top of that.)
- korethr 13y ago

todayiamme 13y ago

I quite frankly don't understand why anyone would condemn such acts of espionage. They are not only essential for a nation state to function successfully, but they are also a far superior way for the US to maintain its hegemony as compared to using acts of brute force. Now I do not condone Orwellian spying on the citizens of your own republic, but this really is their job and it's quite impressive that they're this good at it. Especially given the fact that historically the US has not been completely invested in espionage and has favoured building up capacity after key events and quickly dismantling the apparatus once the emergency has passed. What these scandals are offering is a glimpse into a dramatic shift in the way the US conducts its affairs and that in of itself is quite noteworthy.

bobwaycott 13y ago
In which you assume far too much: - that espionage is required for a state to function successfully - that maintaining US hegemony is both a national good and good for the world - that brute force is the only other viable option to rampant surveillance It is specifically because none of those things ought to be assumed, none of them are a given, and none are inherently good or desirable or required, that one ought to condemn these acts.
r00fus 13y ago
Am I surprised that this covert activity is happening? No. I'm not even surprised by the scale. What will be interesting to find is who's not in that list that should be. Who are the puppet masters?
chmike 13y ago
I'm surprized that we are so bad at protecting our privacy, especily state leaders.
Volpe 13y ago
I'm not sure you can class it as "We are this good at it"... when it's being discussed publicly around the world, and the president is fielding calls from world leaders asking why they are being spied on. Will all these defences of the NSA be repeated when we discover the Germans returning the favour?

isaacdl 13y ago

This is honestly the revelation that I worry about least in these NSA leaks. Isn't foreign surveillance basically the raison d'etre for the NSA?

lallysingh 13y ago
It may be one of the largest motivating factors in changing NSA practices, however. Pissed partners can lead to loss of trade, and the NSA suddenly becomes a campaign issue for the next round.
- isaacdl 13y ago
  Hmm. That's a really good point, hadn't occurred to me. Good for us I guess, although I still don't think we can really lambaste them for doing something that's directly in their "charter". (As opposed to all the domestic surveillance, etc!)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

npalli 13y ago

What is the strategy here? Of releasing information about NSA activities with foreign nations? Seems like it is mixing a potentially illegal activity (domestic spying) with their designated job. Doesn't every country try to do this. The NSA personnel could very well have undergone considerable risk to get this sort of thing going on. On the other hand, Joe public sees Snowden fleeing and chilling out in Russia/China and other "despotic" regimes. Definitely Snowden:0 and NSA:1 in this case.

krapp 13y ago
I think the Guardian is just trying to ride the NSA gravy train at this point.
- junto 13y ago
  I disagree. Within the UK, the general public has not favored the Guardian's reporting on the Snowden-NSA files. Many see it as anti-British and the much of the rest of the press has taken the government's side - quoting the government line concerning the protection of the country against terrorism and pedophiles. What little the Guardian has been allowed to report (outside the D-Notice that covers GCHQ coverage) hasn't seen major coverage. The BBC for instance is petrified of losing its favourable role, and will not risk (again) threatening the government. Not in the near future anyway. The Guardian's daily circulation figures since Snowden blew the whistle has continued to drop off [1]: Compared to the same period the year before, The Independent lost 26% of its daily audience. The other five losers, in descending order, were the Daily Star (-16%), The Guardian and Daily Express (-14%), Daily Mirror (-13%) and The Sun (-11%). The actual month-by-month breakdowns are here: - April 2013 [2] - May 2013 [3] - June 2013 [4] - July 2013 [5] - August 2013 [6] - September 2013 [Not yet released] Online is booming [7]. Back in January [8], the Guardian had already reported record online readership figures. I would hazard a guess that the online readership has continued to grow, but it isn't clear how many of those are from inside or outside the UK. The NSA reporting has no doubt improved the online bottom line, but not the ABC's. At a minimum the ABC circulation figures (for print) seem to suggest that the Guardian has continued to see its readership shrink at a rate that is consistent with the entire UK press industry. The only upturn has been the Financial times which saw a 2% increase [1] for the same period. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/aug/29/national-newspapers-theindependent http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/aug/29/nati... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/may/10/abcs-national-newspapers1 http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/may/10/abcs-nati... [3] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jun/07/abcs-national-newspapers http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jun/07/abcs-nati... [4] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jul/15/abcs-national-newspapers http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jul/15/abcs-nati... [5] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/aug/09/abcs-national-newspapers http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/aug/09/abcs-nati... [6] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/sep/06/abcs-national-newspapers http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/sep/06/abcs-nati... [7] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/02/the-guardian http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/02/the-guardian [8] http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2013/01/25/GuardianKeyAudienceStats.pdf http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/201...

conductor 13y ago

This is the top comment on the Reddit thread: "They went after high ranking military officers. They went after members of congress. The Senate and the House - especially on the intelligence committees, and on the armed services committees and judicial. But they went after other ones too. They went after lawyers and law firms. Heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the supreme court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after state department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House - their own people! They went after anti-war groups. They went after US companies that do international business around the world. They went after US banking firms and financial firms that do international business. They went after NGOs like the red cross and people like that that go overseas and do humanitarian work. They went after a few anti-war civil rights groups... Now here's the big one. I haven't given you any names. This was in summer 2004. One of the papers that I held in my hand was to wiretap a bunch of numbers associated with a 40-something year old wanna-be Senator from Illinois. You wouldn't happen to know where that guy lives right now, would you? It's a big White House in Washington DC. That's who they went after. And that's the President of the United States now. And I could give you names of a bunch of different people they went after that I saw! The names and the phone numbers of congress. Not only the names but it looked like staff people too, and their staff. And not only their Washington office but back home in their congressional offices that they have in their home state offices and stuff like that. This thing is incredible what NSA has done. They've basically turned themselves - in my opinion - into a rogue agency that has J Edgar Hoover capabilities on a monstrous scale on steroids." --former nsa officer Russ Tice... June 20th interview on Boiling Frogs... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPyxeqcCjkc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPyxeqcCjkc (full 1hr+ radio interview) or watch 11 minute RT interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk

pvnick 13y ago
I remember this post being made here on HN around when the revelations first started coming out and we were still trying to collect ourselves and adjust to the new realities of omnipresent surveillance. It was on the front page and had a ton of upvotes. I really hope that Snowden has evidence of this. Whether he does or not is just about make-it-or-break-it for whether we'll see any real reform.

omonra 13y ago

I think we need a bit of context here. US is the hegemon. Therefore it's not reasonable to apply same expectations of how it acts as we do pleasant little countries like Norway or Netherlands (who are probably only independent because US defended them against Germans & Soviets).

iuguy 13y ago
You're right. Perhaps the US should be held to a higher standard than it's allies who are next door to their enemies. After all, the US is bordered on no sides by anyone other than cooperative, friendly countries, or countries that are less cooperative but have a US presence. As for countries like Norway and the Netherlands being independent because the US defended them against Germans and Soviets, that's not strictly true. It was a team effort on all sides, and the team America eventually joined won, with great thanks and a great debt to the US effort, which as I understand was paid off.
bobwaycott 13y ago
And hegemony is a dangerous thing that must be watched closely. It is entirely reasonable to apply expectations to all countries that they not operate in ways that encroach upon the sovereignty and privacy of other nations, especially their allies or even less friendly nations with whom a declared state of war does not exist. The hegemon ought answer to a much stricter standard than the "pleasant little countries" who do not wield such power. Hegemony does not implicitly grant universal assent to be a total asshole.
- XorNot 13y ago
  You realize the first thing you do if you're going to attack someone is tell them one thing and then do another, right? And that a country's leaders are replaceable components - the country doesn't have a personality, it has a government of thousands of individuals, all who subtly bias its aggregate behaviour in different ways, and whom the replacement of various members can fundamentally alter the country's goals, agenda and long-term interests against other countries? How then, do you intend to maintain your own security if you've decided to simply take the word of one country's government - again, a shifting gestalt of thousands of individuals and millions of citizens goals - as naively true, when there is absolutely no reason or even motivation for that country not to simply lie to you - likely in many cases without even realizing it, as the messengers don't have the situational-awareness to understand the context of the message.

adeptus 13y ago

On the "is not monitoring and will not monitor"... If they took the time to deny present and future monitoring, the obvious question then becomes why haven't they denied past/recent past monitoring? Oh that's right, because they can't in fact deny it as they WERE monitoring.

vidarh 13y ago
Personally, I think it is misdirection. Why should we assume they are not willing to lie? More likely, in my opinion, is that they deny the present and future to make us think it used to happen, but just maybe might have stopped. Is there really any reason to assume they've stopped? I mean, if they're not capable of lying convincingly, they'd make pretty shitty spies.

spurgu 13y ago

I don't understand the bulk of comments being about this not being important. Or... well yeah, I understand the perspective that any intelligence agency should be collecting intelligence, so this shouldn't be a surprise per se. But this certainly levels out the playing field in that now the world knows at which lengths the NSA has been keeping tabs on people, and at least the majority of world leaders (and a lot of more "insignificant" people) will start using encrypted communications and networks like Tor. Which they should've been doing from the start. So, in this light, I think this is an important Snowden revelation.

ACow_Adonis 13y ago

Presumably this will soon be followed up by other ground-breaking journalism pieces such as "Army kills people", "Surgeons perform surgery", and "Garbage collectors stun world by collecting garbage". Irrespective of what one thinks of it (and I do not think favourably of it), how is it surprising that an organisation that is established specifically to spy on people is in fact spying on people?

bobwaycott 13y ago
Perhaps because foreign leaders do not consider tapping the phone lines of our allies to be within the scope of NSA's stated mission "to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."[1] Or maybe because SigInt is supposed to be working "for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations."[1] They might not get why tapping their phones supports America's military operations, or why the US wouldn't just schedule a meeting/call to for "intelligence and counterintelligence purposes". Might be that some fail to see how this qualifies as "operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties." There are wide-open channels for gaining intelligence from the leaders of allied countries. We've been using them for a while. They work pretty well. The NSA is causing the US to look like it's the distrustful mate who is sneakily combing through his partner's texts, emails, messages, and other media to assure himself he can trust his partner. The world is, perhaps, not liking the feeling of being spied on. [1]: http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/ http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  How on earth is knowing the internal dealings of foreign governments not "gaining a decision advantage for the Nation"?!
  - bobwaycott 13y ago
    Why on earth is it acceptable for the NSA--or any other foreign state's intelligence services--to know the internal dealings of foreign governments? You're acting as if that isn't something that should be questioned, and should just be accepted as a general good in both domestic and international policy. Many of us do not think that such a position is tenable or acceptable, much less a proven and legitimate point of view. The mission statement does not end with "the Nation". It ends "and our allies under all circumstances." America's allies have a legitimate reason to complain their interests are not being served, and might actually be undermined and trespassed by the NSA's actions--just as America would claim the same thing whenever news reports proliferated with a preponderance of evidence detailing how Germany's intelligence services were tapping the White House phones and slurping up all congressional emails, text messages, and voicemails. All sovereign states--be they allies or rogues--have a legitimate claim to and expectation of privacy where their internal dealings are concerned. This claim and expectation is even higher among allied nations, among whom it is expected that internal dealings concern other nations will be shared via standard diplomatic channels. And the determinations are left to the sovereign state itself regarding what, if any, internal dealings are shared with allies. But the allies do not possess some automatic right or privilege to spy as widely and deeply as they technologically are able to. That espionage occurs, that states spy on one another in accordance with their relative positions of power to achieve their own self-interests is not up for debate. Nobody in any of these revelations is suggesting it does not happen. Hell, in the purely functional domain of international relations, there are plenty of net positives that result from espionage being neither endorsed nor prohibited by international law, and mutually allowed and expected among foreign states--such as verifying compliance with international obligations, and confirming the veracity of and commitment behind assurances given by foreign states. But that still misses the more subtle point--foreign states are well within their rights (and, it might be argued, their sovereign responsibilities) to loudly grandstand and object to details that leak out regarding another state's espionage activities. Why would we expect anything less? That's simply not sensible. There can be legitimate outrage expressed over leaks of espionage because it could actually come as a surprise the depths to which a nation goes when spying on its allies. There could be other cultural and sociopolitical shifts among allied countries in one area, such as the EU, who have in various other ways been engaged in a long process of protecting civilian privacies and, in such a setting, to not engage political theater by expressing contempt for the actions of a state such as America--who shows such blatant disregard for personal privacies and who is caught within their spy's nets--violate the publicly proclaimed principles that the citizens of foreign states hold dear. If the leaders do not object, they could face political backlash. Nobody doubts that all states engage in espionage against their neighbors, friendly or not. But that does not mean that the release of details showing a much heavier spying apparatus is deployed by the power with the greatest hegemony and strongest power position isn't going to make its allies feel very uncomfortable. Beyond that, what's most alarming is that Americans truly do not give a fuck. Citizens of other nations, however, do not think like Americans. They've been working on the alliance and diplomacy thing for centuries. They approach things differently, having long learned many lessons through the rise and fall of empires.

jessaustin 13y ago

I can understand why "world leaders" would be frustrated by this, but much better them than us. This activity is at least plausibly within NSA's purview. Also, most of these leaders have less at risk to the NSA threat than do USA residents. It isn't as though NSA will sic the Drug Warriors, the IP Mafia, BATF, ICE, or EPA on leaders of other sovereign nations based on its observation of their communications. Whereas we're definitely in those crosshairs. There are exceptions! If your nation could plausibly be on deck for the next military-industrial complex fundraising activity, you might want your leaders to secure their communications against NSA. Of course, if they're not doing anything wrong, they might want that fact to be observed, on the off chance it might make a difference.

pvnick 13y ago

Watch as the flag-all-NSA-stories brigade pushes this relevant story off the front page...

aspensmonster 13y ago
I'm pleasantly surprised that it's not already on the bottom of the second page, headed towards the third. Between the flagging brigades and "flamewar detectors," I'm sure it will get there sooner than later.
Zigurd 13y ago
The suppression of NSA stories on HN is an act of monumental stupidity. If we find 10-15 years from now that US technology, infrastructure, and services are shunned around the world it will come down to them cooperating with the NSA.
- krylonkid 13y ago
  Australia and Canada have info sharing deals with the NSA but their citizens are not mad at their governments. Germans howl when a US military base might close. Serious cognitive dissonance does not deserve endless vapid repetition and HN users rightly flag such nonsense.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Each one of these stories brings new revelations, most of which have some impact on the trustworthiness of US technology businesses. So, while you may be right that countries that appear so far to be vassals with limited independence won't boycott US products, that's not most of the world.
    - krylonkid 13y ago
      Do you not see the hypocrisy of Australians and Canadians? Virtually all of the west? Is Europe going to side with Russia or China? They certainly aren't going to defend themselves.

Theodores 13y ago

We have ended up with the same conversations on this spying lark far too often. I appreciate the sentiment of those that want to protest against this and I can understand the spoon-fed arguments about how the NSA must go after the kiddie fiddlers, terrorists that want to blow up innocent kiddies (as in the ones that haven't been fiddled with, yet) and do all that mysterious national security stuff. However, instead of same-old, same-old, can we work on a technological solution? Something that will work for you and I as well as Mrs Merkel? We can let go the network analysis stuff, who is in contact with whom as right now there is no easy way to prevent the NSA slurping that stuff up. But, as for the content, can't that be encrypted properly, without the NSA having the key and without there being secret courts where keys get handed over in secret? It is just code we need, and with it we can get a reasonable compromise where our conversations are secure.

coldcode 13y ago

It used to be spying on other people's governments would get people killed or start wars. In some way it will again. Maybe not so obvious this time.

a3n 13y ago

No non-US government official can feel secure in giving just a business card to his US counterpart, because he has to assume his contact info will be given to the NSA. Hell, no one, regardless of nationality, in or out of government, can fell secure in any communication of any kind with a US government person.

chunkyslink 13y ago

One way to tell if they are still doing it. Give them honeypots, hook them and wheel them in.

grey-area 13y ago

This has some interesting implications: What would this information be useful for? Why was the NSA collecting this information and at whose request? Is the same being done to US politicians? The most useful applications of this I can think of are betraying allies, manipulating negotiations with rival trade blocs, economic espionage, and of course protecting the power of the agencies who perform this surveillance and the lucky few who are given strictly limited access to it. If the POTUS is given this intelligence and makes most of his decisions based on it, how does he know that he is being given the truth, rather than a carefully edited version of it? It seems surveillance is no longer focussed on terrorism, if it ever was (indeed a few terrorist attacks have gone on the US without detection in spite of all this surveillance). It's telling that even the NSA have given up using that excuse as it becomes more and more clear where the focus of their intelligence gathering is directed. Is the NSA (and the US by proxy) using the information it collects as a way of protecting and expanding its power? Is this inevitable if you give an organisation that much power over our lives and very little oversight? Are all allies of the US mistrusted so much that they must be spied on? Should they in return shut down trust of the US and repudiate treaties they have with it like the one sharing SWIFT data or details of people visiting the US? Can the EU trust the products of American internet companies, or should they set up rivals? It seems information has become more and more synonymous with power as our economies in the west become information economies, and the greatest power of all has been handed to an agency without significant legal limits and without any sort of public accountability, led by a member of the military.

sfjailbird 13y ago
In the 1970s it was well known that the CIA worked to pave the way for American business interests overseas, through everything from espionage to blackmail, murder and military interventions. I assume the NSA works much the same way today (but God knows what all the domestic spying is used for).
- grey-area 13y ago
  In the 1970s it was well known that the CIA worked to pave the way for American business interests overseas, through everything from espionage to blackmail, murder and military interventions. I don't think this is the way countries should conduct themselves, particularly not ones which trumpet their freedom and liberty. Either the US can employ cynical realpolitik while making hypocritical statements about fighting for civilisation and freedom and live with the consequences, or it can aspire to live up to the ideals it claims to stand for. There's only so much hypocrisy you can employ as an empire before the hollow nature of your statements undermines your authority with allies and citizens alike, and exposure like this is inevitable when the lie becomes big enough. but God knows what all the domestic spying is used for I imagine for exactly the same ends, minus the military aspect, which is reserved for overseas at present (though also employed on US citizens abroad). If a politician wants to dismantle the extremely useful and effective spy apparatus, they are likely to find it turned against them first.

gambiting 13y ago

After the crash of the Polish president's plane in Smolensk, it was widely known that the Americans have recordings of all conversations made with his satellite phone aboard the plane. I don't remember that sparking much controversy at the time, everyone was more like "yup, that's what Americans do" and there was pretty much no outrage over that.

cateye 13y ago

I really can't believe that there are so many comments that try to trivialize the actions. It seems that the United States loses the reality and lapses in an egocentric / ethnocentric disease. How would the U.S. react if they found out such a thing the other way around?

wyclif 13y ago

'After Merkel's allegations became public, White House press secretary Jay Carney issued a statement that said the US "is not monitoring and will not monitor" the German chancellor's communications.' Which, of course, was a blatant lie.

ethanazir 13y ago

I might think everyone should have access to all communications of all politicians. If you want to be a leader of millions you should be transparent.

jmilloy 13y ago

I feel we are taking our eyes off the ball. Domestic spying violates constitutional rights. More to the point, I don't want to support an institution with programs that violate my privacy, no matter what benefits such programs provide. But isn't international spying is different? Honestly, I don't mind supporting an institution with an external espionage programs. Isn't in my best interest? Does it harm me? What are the concrete repercussions of spying on foreign officials? Are these officials really going to renege on international alliances because they have a chip on their shoulder? If they have anything to hide, it's by definition counter to US interests; if our allies are making plans behind our backs, I want our government to find out. (And to be totally honest, if our government is making secret plans behind our allies backs, I would want our allies to find out, as well.) I'll repeat this, because it is a real question, and the answer could have a real effect on my opinion: What are the concrete repercussions of spying on foreign officials?

00rion 13y ago
If we are justified in spying on foreigners, then foreigners are justified in spying on us. If foreign intelligence agencies have records of all the emails, phone calls, metadata, etc. of US citizens, what's to stop them from handing that information to the NSA and vice versa?
grey-area 13y ago
Possible concrete repercussions include: Refusal of the EU bloc to cooperate over sharing banking and passenger data, and potentially other treaties down the line Refusal of large South American nations to do trade deals or negotiate with the US, and a decline in US influence in the region A move away from American dominance of the internet, and a reluctance to use companies with servers based in based in the US The decline of the American empire, which is based on the tacit consent of the nations within their alliances like NATO (this one is more a long term potential outcome).
- jmilloy 13y ago
  Okay. Thanks. >Refusal of the EU bloc to cooperate... Sharing of banking and passenger data is not something I know a lot about. Why do countries share this data now, and why would they stop because their prime minister is being spied upon? How the spying affect the pros and cons of sharing the data? > Refusal of large South American nations to do trade deals... Can you explain why a South American nation would not make a trade deal that made sense economically because of foreign espionage? How do the economics change as a result of the espionage? > A move away from American dominance of the internet... Who would avoid using servers based in the US as a result of espionage of 35 specific foreign officials? We're not talking about normal EU citizens in this particular article. >The decline of the American empire... Again, what decisions will countries make differently? Are countries going to make decisions that are not in their best interests in order to spite the US? Or are they already making decisions that are not in their best interests in order to be nice to the US, but won't anymore? Neither of these seems likely.

KMag 13y ago

I thought that the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement) were the only nations the NSA was even pretending to not spy on. It's my understanding that the British were thought to have stolen submarine detection technology from the French, and the French were widely accused of industrial espionage against US companies in the 1990s. I also vaguely remember a 60 Minutes piece in the 1990s about Germans fulfilling their military service obligations by committing industrial espionage against US companies. It seems to me that politicians are playing to public opinion, while knowing full well that this is how the international relations game has been played for decades, if not forever.

malandrew 13y ago

If I were the leader of a major world power right now, I would push for a law in my country that decriminalizes the hacking of any government systems of countries that have proven hostile to my countries government. The only exception would be the hacking of public infrastructure like transportation systems and public utilities. Everything else would be fair game. Seems like this approach would introduce and element of M.A.D. into the mix that would mitigate the current hostile actions we are seeing from the US via the NSA and China via the PLA.

njharman 13y ago

Gee, I thought the government shutdown had succeeded in getting everyone to forget this whole spy hullabaloo. Well at least it worked in the good old USA.

sheikhimran01 13y ago

I believe NSA is as much important as Android is to Google.