17 ms·

I am at a loss for words. Arrogant, self-righteous, disrespectful, ignorant, mendacious...nothing cuts it. It is illegal in the US but who cares about the rest

by danbruc 13y ago

I am at a loss for words. Arrogant, self-righteous, disrespectful, ignorant, mendacious...nothing cuts it. It is illegal in the US but who cares about the rest of the world? I can not remember when something similar made me that angry as the current conduct of the US does. If I would not know better that this would negatively affect the whole world and innocent US citizens and that emotional reactions are usually not good - I would just cut all cables to the US, stop all trades of oil, raw material and goods, deny US citizens to enter any foreign country and then just do your shit over there and get happy with it. EDIT: Just to clarify it a bit more, I am not primarily angry because of the spying - read my mails if it makes you happy. What really pisses me of is this sentiment of thinking of non-US citizens as second class humans. We are not spying at US citizens, only at this other guys across the ocean. And sadly this sentiment is also present in part of the media coverage. Especially when the story broke there was a lot of outrage about (accidentally) spying at US citizens, but spying at non-US citizens and breaking foreign law in peacetime is deemed acceptable.

allochthon 13y ago
I would just cut all cables to the US, ... deny US citizens to enter any foreign country and then just do your shit over there and get happy with it. Whoah, there. Your grievances are well-placed. But keep in mind that it's a certain subset of agencies in the US government that are responsible for the problems you're upset about, not all US citizens. As for fixing things, the government has become literally unmanageable, and things are a mess right now.
- danbruc 13y ago
  That's why I mentioned »innocent US citizens«. ;)
- icelancer 13y ago
  >not all US citizens The vast majority of citizens support these initiatives. Given the winner-take-all approach we employ, it is not a stretch to say that yes, we all share blame.
  - spikels 13y ago
    Where did you get the idea the "vast majority of citizens support these initiatives"? From the very start the polls have generally been against mass NSA surveillance except when the wording of the poll was misleading[1]. As more and more information has come out the polls have become more and more clearly against it[2]. Try to keep the facts straight. Not sure why you refer to winner-take-all and how that concept could make everyone responsible. Keep in mind almost know one knew about this until very recently and we learned more even today. [1] http://www.policymic.com/articles/53767/nsa-surveillance-scandal-the-polls-are-in-and-nsa-spying-is-really-really-unpopular http://www.policymic.com/articles/53767/nsa-surveillance-sca... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-ma...
    - icelancer 13y ago
      Now try mentioning terrorism as the tradeoff for granting civil liberties and see what people think. That's how they view it, for better or worse.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Part of Obama's campaign was an end to warrentless wiretaps. Now, if people were paying closer attention, then maybe they would have known better than to trust him (or indeed, any American politician), but I think it is quite a stretch to say that the people are to blame when a politician is less than honest. Furthermore, the people who are to blame for our current political system are long dead. Everyone alive today was born into this framework and told to work within the framework to modify the framework. They have not had the opportunity to shape the framework free from the constraints of the framework. The facilities the framework provides to modify itself are clumsy, inadequate, and ineffective when everything is working smoothly. This isn't a system we chose, this is a situation that we were born into, and find ourselves unable to change.
    - acqq 13y ago
      Exactly, Obama in 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQlsS9diBs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQlsS9diBs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4 "This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand." (...) "That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists." This should be quoted much more often. Regarding "work within the framework to modify the framework" Snowden decided not to work within it and we still don't know what will happen to him. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130726/01200123954/obama-promise-to-protect-whistleblowers-just-disappeared-changegov.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130726/01200123954/obama-...
- devx 13y ago
  Unfortunately, not only do a lot of US citizens still support such practices (I think around 40 percent - as long as they mention "to protect you from terrorists"), but most of the rest who don't agree with the practices, can't be bothered to do much about it, like even calling their representative, let alone going out and protesting. I do believe this is very true: > All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Burke, Edmund So, yes, I'd say most Americans are responsible for this yes, by doing nothing to stop it. So don't blame the rest of the world if they start "hating Americans" or "hating America". You are part of it, you are responsible to change the America you want the world to love, too. Blaming only the government, that you probably voted in, too, does not cut it.
  - allochthon 13y ago
    With this argument, you're implicitly assuming responsibility for the misdeeds of your own government. It's easy to cast blame en masse, but it is not a constructive response.
  - jganetsk 13y ago
    People are not going to start hating Americans. They have already been hating Americans for hundreds of years. It started with the "degeneracy thesis" in the 18th century, where it had been suggested by European intellectuals that the American climate led to physically inferior animals and humans. The reasons for hating Americans change everyday. Hating a group of people is a completely irrational, unconstructive approach to solving a problem. If one has anger about something, they shouldn't lash out at group of people. If people want Americans to change something on their behalf, for their benefit, it needs to be from a standpoint of respect. They can start by asking nicely.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Respect, sure. But "asking nicely"? How has that not been done already, over and over and over? "Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people that were oppressing them." -- Assata Shakur Even though we could argue about wether this stuff consititutes "oppression", I think the point still applies, sadly.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Well, let's look at the policies of the US against rogue states: sanctions. What GP is describing is connectivity sanctions rather than trade or economic ones.
- jsmeaton 13y ago
  The US government throws its weight around by ordering sanctions against countries that have policies it does not agree with. I have no doubt that, where sanctions would be politically unpopular, there are back-room blackmailings of some type. That said, instituting similar sanctions against the US should absolutely be the number one thing the rest of the world responds with! It might not be every US citizen that is culpable, but they are your representative government, and your responsibility. (I assume you're from the US, but I use "your" as a collective for anyone from the US that may be reading this). Do you think the people might take a legitimate stand if business dealings, travel, and exports were banned to the United States? Do you think US citizens would go absolutely fucking crazy? > As for fixing things, the government has become literally unmanageable, and things are a mess right now Well untangle yourselves and then we'll talk. Unfortunately, the US has so much power around the world that most countries are literally unable to respond. They are the new Rome, using political and economic power rather than pure force (but use force where necessary) to control the world. It's disgusting.
  - einehexe 13y ago
    >using political and economic power rather than pure force Inconceivable!
    - serf 13y ago
      > to control the world. you left out a big part of the statement quoted. The tactics you listed would be commendable in comparison to pure force if the end goal wasn't world domination. Since the end goal IS world domination, however, then no means is suitable from a humanity perspective.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- madaxe 13y ago
  Yeah, but US citizens vote for their government, so are therefore accountable. I don't see you out in the streets with pitchforks, so you're as culpable as the primary perpetrators.
einehexe 13y ago
If you had read the article you would know that this data was given to the NSA by the GHCQ. Would you cut off the UK? Australia and Canada?
- danbruc 13y ago
  I read the article. But I am not angry because of the actual incidents - what makes me angry is the sentiment, thinking of non-US people as second class humans. And I would happily lunch everybody into outer space who does this, including everyone from my own country, Germany.
  - einehexe 13y ago
    If you are not angry at the GHCQ for tapping Google and Yahoo then I don't know what to tell you.
    - danbruc 13y ago
      I am missing a »primarily« between »not« and »angry«. Spying at innocent citizens is a crime, no doubt, but I still find this attitude of not treating all people equal way more worrisome.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
blumkvist 13y ago
I had the exact same feelings when I saw so many people go "They will just borrow more money" in the recent US govt. shutdown. The arrogance is unbelievable. Shows complete lack of remorse over leeching off the rest of the world. Very disappointed in the american citizens' reaction to the catastrophic political decisions their leaders have been making for decades.
- judk 13y ago
  Borrowing money at interest is not leeching. That is not how macroeconomics works. Defaulting is maybe leeching. Manipulating the defacto world currency -- that is leeching.
  - blumkvist 13y ago
    that was what I was referring to - leveraging the dollar's status of reserve currency. That's coming to an end for sure tho. Will laugh my ass off then at their ignorance.
bilbo0s 13y ago
I'm a US citizen. Born and bred. And, at this point, I can't in good faith say that I would blame you. I think it's pretty safe to say that getting rid of a President is no longer enough. My sense is that the people who make these policies really are "Beyond Elections". They are constants in our government. And appear unassailable. I doubt very much that we, the American People, could even IDENTIFY the people setting or implementing these policies, much less rid ourselves of them. I think in the present environment, it wouldn't be imprudent for other nations to look to their own interests.
- hexis 13y ago
  "My sense is that the people who make these policies really are "Beyond Elections". They are constants in our government." Yes, these people are our fellow citizens. There is no conspiracy, merely functioning democracy.
  - detcader 13y ago
    "functioning" democracy?? are you joking? do you know anything about campaign finance?
    - hexis 13y ago
      I know some bits about campaign finance, but I also know that most people I meet in the US care much more about physical security than they do about privacy/civil liberties/etc.. They vote for people who implement nasty policies and they do not make those votes because they have been tricked.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    "Citizen are involved" and "the democracy is not function as intended and/or there is a situation that can not be rectified democratically" are anything but mutually exclusive.
    - hexis 13y ago
      Yes, true. It is also true that sometimes citizens knowingly choose nasty policies and then sleep soundly at night with those policies in place. Like you, I also do not approve of the way the US has changed, but I try to avoid tricking myself into believing that many US citizens feel the same way I do.
SeanLuke 13y ago
> I am at a loss for words. Arrogant, self-righteous, disrespectful, ignorant, mendacious...nothing cuts it. It is illegal in the US but who cares about the rest of the world? Do you really believe that this is the modus operandi only of the United States? Since, say, France has _at least_ the same position with regard to the rest of the world vs. French citizens, are you angry at France too? Will you cut all french, german, russian, and bahranian cables as well, so as to maintain a consistent position?
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  > Do you really believe that this is the modus operandi only of the United States? Your fallacy is: Tu quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
  - lucisferre 13y ago
    This is one of the few times that someone pointing out a fallacy on HN was apt.
  - SeanLuke 13y ago
    Tu quoque is basically the "but everyone does it" argument. I agree that'd be specious -- but I'm not saying that. Rather, I'm the poster's claims ("arrogant, self-righteous, disrespectful, ignorant, mendacious") -- particularly "arrogant" -- imply that he thought the US was doing something unique that other countries are above, and thus the US was deserving of special disdain. This implication is simply wrong. But he's building his whole argument on it.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
      > imply that he thought the US was doing something unique But the US is doing something unique. No other country has the global reach and the sheer military budget that the US has. It's debatable that other countries are "above" it in moral terms, but the US certainly has taken it to a whole new level. Edit: I also don't see where "But he's building his whole argument on ... US was deserving of special disdain". Despite the larger scope of the US's transgressions, you are saying "but they do it too". I think that the Tu Quoque fallacy absolutely applies. Nowhere is it said that other countries would not be worthy of equal disdain under equal circumstances. And if it were to be said, it would be wrong.
spikels 13y ago
While I agree the NSA's conduct is outrageous you seem to be confused about how countries actually work. Every country treats non-citizens worse than citizens - fewer rights and benefits, more limited (if any) work opportunities, additional hassles, etc. And most countries have intelligence agencies that spy on foreign countries and their citizens often in ways that break foreign laws. Don't be so naive.
- danbruc 13y ago
  There are of course differences in the treatment of citizens and non-citizens and this for good reasons like controlling immigration. But there should be no differences when it comes to human rights including privacy rights and this is what I complain about - different treatment as to human rights. And this goes beyond spying and also includes for example torturing people in Guantanamo. And yes, not only the US are breaking foreign law, but this does not at all justify this behavior.
  - jganetsk 13y ago
    There are no differences, both in practice and in theory, to the privacy rights of citizens and non-citizens. Everyone is spied on, and it is legal. The NSA is tasked with spying on foreign nationals. The FBI is tasked with spying on US nationals. Everyone seems to be getting caught up with these legal technicalities. Our agencies spy on everyone they can (as probably does every spy agency in the world). Our government might not even be aware of or in control of it.
  - spikels 13y ago
    Unfortunately we don't live in the world you imagine but I would join you in trying to improve the world we actually live in. I don't see how a trade and travel embargo could possibly help - it would almost certainly make things worse! Clearly there is no actual right to privacy under international law and rules vary greatly by country and are often weak in practice[1]. This is want we need to change either through treaties, constitutions or laws. I don't know where you live but in the US it would probably take a constitional amendment - a very difficult procedure - or a very broad decision by the Supreme Court - unlikely. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_law
allochthon 13y ago
but spying at non-US citizens and breaking foreign law in peacetime is deemed acceptable. First let me say that I agree with your sentiment -- it's hypocritical for people in the US to be upset about the US government's spying on its own citizens, but not upset when the people are in other countries. Now for a dose of realism -- every single country out there that has a foreign policy and interests abroad behaves in this way to one extent or another. The question is not whether but how much. I'm receptive to ideas for something to replace this general approach to intelligence gathering. But let's not apply a double-standard in the opposite direction and say that only when the US does the spying is it a problem.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  > every single country out there that has a foreign policy and interests abroad behaves in this way to one extent or another. I'm German, and I can't remember ever having heard such a distinction - that some things are okay when done to foreigners, but not when done to Germans - apart from neo-nazis. Sure, who knows what the BND is up to. But "behaving this way" also includes rhetoric that is not just considered acceptable in polite company, but even uttered by state officials... and as I said, I can't recall a single example, so maybe enlighten me? Or are you just assuming?
  - allochthon 13y ago
    Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be -- by "behaving this way," I had in mind the existence of government programs for surveillance and spying; not one-sided complaints on the part of citizens about such programs.
    - PavlovsCat 13y ago
      Well sure, people in positions of power pretty much equally suck everywhere, I think we can consider this as baseline. But I do find it disturbing that "American exceptionalism" seems to be rather widely accepted the US population, and that they're not even ashamed to express it, and that state officials implicitly or openly do the same. I have no doubt that some people in Germany harbour similar sentiments, but they're really at the fringes and in the dumps in comparison. Also, scale still matters. Killing a person or slapping them in the face are both violence, but there is still a difference, otherwise we could just reduce all to "physical and chemical processess going on" and completely stop thinking. I don't believe for a second that Germany, or even France, Italy or Russia (which I consider rather right wing) have programs to scoop up traffic from Google's internal network in place. Maybe they would like to, but they can't pull it off. And while I wouldn't bet on it, I wouldn't be surprised if China doesn't either.
saraid216 13y ago
> What really pisses me of is this sentiment of thinking of non-US citizens as second class humans. If this is really what you believe, then start pushing for legislation to include non-US citizens as first-class humans.
jganetsk 13y ago
But, by denying movement, you are suggesting to treat US citizens as second class humans. To what purpose? in order to punish them? To educate them about your importance?
- danbruc 13y ago
  I am to lazy to type it again, but this comment [1] from me fits your comment pretty well. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6643253 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6643253
  - jganetsk 13y ago
    I completely agree with your sentiment that no one is justified in thinking they are superior to anyone else. Furthermore, I have never said anything even remotely to the contrary.
    - danbruc 13y ago
      The quoted comment was not the best one I could have picked - I just wanted to clarify that the thing about isolating the US was just to illustrate my feelings but nothing to consider seriously.
pnathan 13y ago
The purpose of intelligence agencies is to spy on non-citizens, both in peacetime and in wartime. One might argue that traditionally they focused on public figures in the foreign states and that spying on average foreigners is new; I don't know if that's true, but seems plausible. It would generally be a dereliction of duty for the NSA/CIA to not spy on non-Americans. The same holds true, modulo agency name and country, for any other country. Now, if you want to make the argument that national borders should dissolve and that spying on foreigners should become history - or something like that - that's up to you. But spy agency gonna spy.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > The purpose of intelligence agencies is to spy on non-citizens, both in peacetime and in wartime. No, the purpose of intelligence agencies is to gather and analyze information that might be of use to the nations leaders. Spying -- whether on citizens or foreigners, and whether on people located within the country or abroad -- is often a mechanism used to gather information (though collection from public sources is also a common mechanism.) And there's nothing really special about the foreign vs. domestic (whether by location or citizenship) axis for "intelligence agencies", generally -- while sometimes the agencies that do domestic and foreign intelligence gathering are separate, that's not always the case, and certainly not a defining feature of "intelligence agencies."
  - pnathan 13y ago
    You are correct - I overspecialized in my comment (and focused too much on the US, which attempts to separate domestic and foreign intelligence)- but I would argue that espionage is a signature of intelligence agencies and their efforts; expecting such agencies not to make significant espionage efforts doesn't really cohere with reality.
- danbruc 13y ago
  That is what I would prefer. I can not think of a good reason why we (Germany) should spy at our friends like France, the UK or the USA. Agencies should gather information about (potentially) dangerous citizens in their country and share this information with other countries. I have also no problem with collecting information in war zones and I include countries hosting terrorists where you can not rely on there agencies to provide good information here.
belzeboss 13y ago
> What really pisses me of is this sentiment of thinking of non-US citizens as second class humans. When a group puts a draws a line of Us and them, they are making enemies. With this approach the NSA is declaring the USA as the enemies of all those being spied upon. The more similar news spread the more this mentality that "The USA is the enemy" will spread and its only a matter of time that more countries turn a blind eye or even facilitate terrorist actions against the USA.
akjj 13y ago
> It is illegal in the US but who cares about the rest of the world? I think it's entirely justifiable to give the NSA more latitude abroad than domestically. To turn reverse the scenario, as an American, I would far rather have the French or the Germans conducting surveillance on the United States than the US government. People keep comparisons to the Stasi, too often they forget what the Stasi's purpose was: to suppress political opposition. Here in the US, surveillance was used for the same purpose, on a much smaller scale, during the J. Edgar Hoover era. Political opponents of the government were spied on with the intent of blackmail or embarassment. That's the whole reason why government surveillance is so scary. It puts so much information in the hands of an organization with such far-reaching powers in law enforcement and otherwise that the combination is prone to abuse. When the US spies on foreign citizens or vice versa, the potential for abuse is much less. The NSA has neither the interest nor the ability to harass political opponents in Germany and France, and the same goes in the other direction.
- leot 13y ago
  In particular, domestic surveillance is a completely different beast vis-a-vis foreign surveillance: spying outside one's own state comes with it the almost total absence of state's monopoly on force (and, furthermore, the protection of the government in the state being spied upon). Omniscience without omnipotence is tolerable, as is omnipotence without omniscience. The real trouble happens when you've got both.
- dictum 13y ago
  CIA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  > People keep comparisons to the Stasi, too often they forget what the Stasi's purpose was: to suppress political opposition That's however not how the Stasi thought of itself though, or how it was presented in propaganda. http://andberlin.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/propaganda-in-the-stasi-museum.jpg http://andberlin.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/propaganda-in-t... "For our security" US intelligence agencies do keep tabs on stuff like Occupy, and of course it's officially "to prevent terrorism".. I for one don't buy it.
discardorama 13y ago
I am at a loss for words. Arrogant, self-righteous, disrespectful, ignorant, mendacious...nothing cuts it. It is illegal in the US but who cares about the rest of the world? I'm as appalled as the next guy about the NSA's actions, but let's keep this in perspective here: many countries have 2 intelligence agencies, one for external and one for internal. Do "MI-5" and "MI-6" ring a bell? Plus, in this particular instance: the GCHQ (British version of NSA) is the one passing along the wiretapped stuff to the NSA. > We are not spying at US citizens, only at this other guys across the ocean. In this instance, it's the guys across the ocean who are spying, and passing on the results to us.
GHFigs 13y ago
Especially when the story broke there was a lot of outrage about (accidentally) spying at US citizens, but spying at non-US citizens and breaking foreign law in peacetime is deemed acceptable. What did you used to think foreign intelligence services did?
georgemcbay 13y ago
For what little is it worth, a lot of us American citizens have a real problem with our government not extending the concept of the natural rights that we supposedly have to everyone, everywhere. Of course, these days they aren't even really bothering to discriminate and are just fucking us all over, though I guess they do apologize a bit more when they get caught fucking over Americans. Also, while I think this sort of spying is terrible I'm even more sickened by things like the fact that we keep killing innocent people with drones and such and justifying it as acceptable collateral damage when nobody will tell us who the real targets were, why they had to be killed, and why that was so important that accidentally killing a few hundreds or thousands of innocents while pursuing them is reasonable. At this point we're so far down the slippery slope that the rest of you might as well cut us off if you can. I'm unconvinced we are going to right this ship anytime soon, we as the group of citizens whose net worth isn't in the billions have lost control of the bus.
g0lden 13y ago
All i can say to your heayed comment is that it is a good thing that you're not in a position of power to act in such a way that would sever the worlds ties with the US.
guiambros 13y ago
That's why, ironically, the best hope for privacy-minded US citizens (like a good part of HN readers) comes from outside governments. People like Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, that had the courage to cancel state visits and declaring outraged by the state-sponsored spying supported by the Obama Administration. We need many more governments standing up and threatening to cut commercial ties with the US, until we can see some traction. Sadly, I'm not very hopeful that this will happen, given the commercial interests involved. Mexico had a slow initial response, but it's starting to demonstrate some reaction. Germany and France are my hopes [1]. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/22/mexico-president-nsa-spying-email http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/22/mexico-presiden...
- sseveran 13y ago
  France and Germany can't. They are both export based economies.
  - guiambros 13y ago
    Yeah, but chancellor Merkel must be really pissed off with all the latest shenanigans [1] by her friends across the pond... And everybody else must be really pissed off with the latest documents. Here's the punch line: > Intercepting communications overseas has clear advantages for the NSA, with looser restrictions and less oversight. NSA documents about the effort refer directly to “full take,” “bulk access” and “high volume” operations on Yahoo and Google networks. Such large-scale collection of Internet content would be illegal in the United States, but the operations take place overseas, where the NSA is allowed to presume that anyone using a foreign data link is a foreigner. [1] http://electrospaces.blogspot.nl/2013/10/how-nsa-targeted-chancellor-merkels.html http://electrospaces.blogspot.nl/2013/10/how-nsa-targeted-ch... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-in...
    - sseveran 13y ago
      I think in the end it will be shown that both the Germans and French also engaged in surveillance or have partnerships with other intelligence agencies. The five sisters can't be the only big partnership.
EpicEng 13y ago
The government of a country, any country, owes allegiance to its citizens first and foremost. Our laws do not apply to people in other countries. I can't imagine that most large governments other than the US do run in exactly the same manner. I'm not defending the NSA, but let's not be naive here. One function of the government is to protect its people from all threats, foreign and domestic. So yes, citizens of other countries are second class, and well they should be from some perspectives. Again though, there are lines, and some have been crossed.
mattlutze 13y ago
I'm torn between the two sides of this coin. As both a US citizen and world citizen (how can we who've grown up in the Internet age not feel a little more worldly?) it feels violating to know this has been going on, and that it likely effects me. On the other side, it has forever been, and continues to be, in a physical-boundary-defined nation's best interest to know things about every other nation, in order to compete within international relationships. I would be surprised to find a major international player that didn't have a clandestine agent group or groups like the CIA or NSA. It's a very tough and frustrating topic. Spying always feels disrespectful and arrogant to the spied upon. But should we implicitly assert that this isn't done by the rest[0] of the intelligence agencies around the world? 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies

by danbruc 13y ago

allochthon 13y ago

I would just cut all cables to the US, ... deny US citizens to enter any foreign country and then just do your shit over there and get happy with it. Whoah, there. Your grievances are well-placed. But keep in mind that it's a certain subset of agencies in the US government that are responsible for the problems you're upset about, not all US citizens. As for fixing things, the government has become literally unmanageable, and things are a mess right now.

danbruc 13y ago
That's why I mentioned »innocent US citizens«. ;)
icelancer 13y ago
>not all US citizens The vast majority of citizens support these initiatives. Given the winner-take-all approach we employ, it is not a stretch to say that yes, we all share blame.
- spikels 13y ago
  Where did you get the idea the "vast majority of citizens support these initiatives"? From the very start the polls have generally been against mass NSA surveillance except when the wording of the poll was misleading[1]. As more and more information has come out the polls have become more and more clearly against it[2]. Try to keep the facts straight. Not sure why you refer to winner-take-all and how that concept could make everyone responsible. Keep in mind almost know one knew about this until very recently and we learned more even today. [1] http://www.policymic.com/articles/53767/nsa-surveillance-scandal-the-polls-are-in-and-nsa-spying-is-really-really-unpopular http://www.policymic.com/articles/53767/nsa-surveillance-sca... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-majority-americans-against-nsa-spying https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-ma...
  - icelancer 13y ago
    Now try mentioning terrorism as the tradeoff for granting civil liberties and see what people think. That's how they view it, for better or worse.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Part of Obama's campaign was an end to warrentless wiretaps. Now, if people were paying closer attention, then maybe they would have known better than to trust him (or indeed, any American politician), but I think it is quite a stretch to say that the people are to blame when a politician is less than honest. Furthermore, the people who are to blame for our current political system are long dead. Everyone alive today was born into this framework and told to work within the framework to modify the framework. They have not had the opportunity to shape the framework free from the constraints of the framework. The facilities the framework provides to modify itself are clumsy, inadequate, and ineffective when everything is working smoothly. This isn't a system we chose, this is a situation that we were born into, and find ourselves unable to change.
  - acqq 13y ago
    Exactly, Obama in 2007: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQlsS9diBs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQlsS9diBs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4 "This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand." (...) "That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists." This should be quoted much more often. Regarding "work within the framework to modify the framework" Snowden decided not to work within it and we still don't know what will happen to him. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130726/01200123954/obama-promise-to-protect-whistleblowers-just-disappeared-changegov.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130726/01200123954/obama-...
devx 13y ago
Unfortunately, not only do a lot of US citizens still support such practices (I think around 40 percent - as long as they mention "to protect you from terrorists"), but most of the rest who don't agree with the practices, can't be bothered to do much about it, like even calling their representative, let alone going out and protesting. I do believe this is very true: > All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Burke, Edmund So, yes, I'd say most Americans are responsible for this yes, by doing nothing to stop it. So don't blame the rest of the world if they start "hating Americans" or "hating America". You are part of it, you are responsible to change the America you want the world to love, too. Blaming only the government, that you probably voted in, too, does not cut it.
- allochthon 13y ago
  With this argument, you're implicitly assuming responsibility for the misdeeds of your own government. It's easy to cast blame en masse, but it is not a constructive response.
- jganetsk 13y ago
  People are not going to start hating Americans. They have already been hating Americans for hundreds of years. It started with the "degeneracy thesis" in the 18th century, where it had been suggested by European intellectuals that the American climate led to physically inferior animals and humans. The reasons for hating Americans change everyday. Hating a group of people is a completely irrational, unconstructive approach to solving a problem. If one has anger about something, they shouldn't lash out at group of people. If people want Americans to change something on their behalf, for their benefit, it needs to be from a standpoint of respect. They can start by asking nicely.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    Respect, sure. But "asking nicely"? How has that not been done already, over and over and over? "Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people that were oppressing them." -- Assata Shakur Even though we could argue about wether this stuff consititutes "oppression", I think the point still applies, sadly.
rhizome 13y ago
Well, let's look at the policies of the US against rogue states: sanctions. What GP is describing is connectivity sanctions rather than trade or economic ones.
jsmeaton 13y ago
The US government throws its weight around by ordering sanctions against countries that have policies it does not agree with. I have no doubt that, where sanctions would be politically unpopular, there are back-room blackmailings of some type. That said, instituting similar sanctions against the US should absolutely be the number one thing the rest of the world responds with! It might not be every US citizen that is culpable, but they are your representative government, and your responsibility. (I assume you're from the US, but I use "your" as a collective for anyone from the US that may be reading this). Do you think the people might take a legitimate stand if business dealings, travel, and exports were banned to the United States? Do you think US citizens would go absolutely fucking crazy? > As for fixing things, the government has become literally unmanageable, and things are a mess right now Well untangle yourselves and then we'll talk. Unfortunately, the US has so much power around the world that most countries are literally unable to respond. They are the new Rome, using political and economic power rather than pure force (but use force where necessary) to control the world. It's disgusting.
- einehexe 13y ago
  >using political and economic power rather than pure force Inconceivable!
  - serf 13y ago
    > to control the world. you left out a big part of the statement quoted. The tactics you listed would be commendable in comparison to pure force if the end goal wasn't world domination. Since the end goal IS world domination, however, then no means is suitable from a humanity perspective.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
madaxe 13y ago
Yeah, but US citizens vote for their government, so are therefore accountable. I don't see you out in the streets with pitchforks, so you're as culpable as the primary perpetrators.

einehexe 13y ago

If you had read the article you would know that this data was given to the NSA by the GHCQ. Would you cut off the UK? Australia and Canada?

danbruc 13y ago
I read the article. But I am not angry because of the actual incidents - what makes me angry is the sentiment, thinking of non-US people as second class humans. And I would happily lunch everybody into outer space who does this, including everyone from my own country, Germany.
- einehexe 13y ago
  If you are not angry at the GHCQ for tapping Google and Yahoo then I don't know what to tell you.
  - danbruc 13y ago
    I am missing a »primarily« between »not« and »angry«. Spying at innocent citizens is a crime, no doubt, but I still find this attitude of not treating all people equal way more worrisome.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

blumkvist 13y ago

I had the exact same feelings when I saw so many people go "They will just borrow more money" in the recent US govt. shutdown. The arrogance is unbelievable. Shows complete lack of remorse over leeching off the rest of the world. Very disappointed in the american citizens' reaction to the catastrophic political decisions their leaders have been making for decades.

judk 13y ago
Borrowing money at interest is not leeching. That is not how macroeconomics works. Defaulting is maybe leeching. Manipulating the defacto world currency -- that is leeching.
- blumkvist 13y ago
  that was what I was referring to - leveraging the dollar's status of reserve currency. That's coming to an end for sure tho. Will laugh my ass off then at their ignorance.

bilbo0s 13y ago

I'm a US citizen. Born and bred. And, at this point, I can't in good faith say that I would blame you. I think it's pretty safe to say that getting rid of a President is no longer enough. My sense is that the people who make these policies really are "Beyond Elections". They are constants in our government. And appear unassailable. I doubt very much that we, the American People, could even IDENTIFY the people setting or implementing these policies, much less rid ourselves of them. I think in the present environment, it wouldn't be imprudent for other nations to look to their own interests.

hexis 13y ago
"My sense is that the people who make these policies really are "Beyond Elections". They are constants in our government." Yes, these people are our fellow citizens. There is no conspiracy, merely functioning democracy.
- detcader 13y ago
  "functioning" democracy?? are you joking? do you know anything about campaign finance?
  - hexis 13y ago
    I know some bits about campaign finance, but I also know that most people I meet in the US care much more about physical security than they do about privacy/civil liberties/etc.. They vote for people who implement nasty policies and they do not make those votes because they have been tricked.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  "Citizen are involved" and "the democracy is not function as intended and/or there is a situation that can not be rectified democratically" are anything but mutually exclusive.
  - hexis 13y ago
    Yes, true. It is also true that sometimes citizens knowingly choose nasty policies and then sleep soundly at night with those policies in place. Like you, I also do not approve of the way the US has changed, but I try to avoid tricking myself into believing that many US citizens feel the same way I do.

SeanLuke 13y ago

> I am at a loss for words. Arrogant, self-righteous, disrespectful, ignorant, mendacious...nothing cuts it. It is illegal in the US but who cares about the rest of the world? Do you really believe that this is the modus operandi only of the United States? Since, say, France has _at least_ the same position with regard to the rest of the world vs. French citizens, are you angry at France too? Will you cut all french, german, russian, and bahranian cables as well, so as to maintain a consistent position?

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
> Do you really believe that this is the modus operandi only of the United States? Your fallacy is: Tu quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
- lucisferre 13y ago
  This is one of the few times that someone pointing out a fallacy on HN was apt.
- SeanLuke 13y ago
  Tu quoque is basically the "but everyone does it" argument. I agree that'd be specious -- but I'm not saying that. Rather, I'm the poster's claims ("arrogant, self-righteous, disrespectful, ignorant, mendacious") -- particularly "arrogant" -- imply that he thought the US was doing something unique that other countries are above, and thus the US was deserving of special disdain. This implication is simply wrong. But he's building his whole argument on it.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
    > imply that he thought the US was doing something unique But the US is doing something unique. No other country has the global reach and the sheer military budget that the US has. It's debatable that other countries are "above" it in moral terms, but the US certainly has taken it to a whole new level. Edit: I also don't see where "But he's building his whole argument on ... US was deserving of special disdain". Despite the larger scope of the US's transgressions, you are saying "but they do it too". I think that the Tu Quoque fallacy absolutely applies. Nowhere is it said that other countries would not be worthy of equal disdain under equal circumstances. And if it were to be said, it would be wrong.

spikels 13y ago

While I agree the NSA's conduct is outrageous you seem to be confused about how countries actually work. Every country treats non-citizens worse than citizens - fewer rights and benefits, more limited (if any) work opportunities, additional hassles, etc. And most countries have intelligence agencies that spy on foreign countries and their citizens often in ways that break foreign laws. Don't be so naive.

danbruc 13y ago
There are of course differences in the treatment of citizens and non-citizens and this for good reasons like controlling immigration. But there should be no differences when it comes to human rights including privacy rights and this is what I complain about - different treatment as to human rights. And this goes beyond spying and also includes for example torturing people in Guantanamo. And yes, not only the US are breaking foreign law, but this does not at all justify this behavior.
- jganetsk 13y ago
  There are no differences, both in practice and in theory, to the privacy rights of citizens and non-citizens. Everyone is spied on, and it is legal. The NSA is tasked with spying on foreign nationals. The FBI is tasked with spying on US nationals. Everyone seems to be getting caught up with these legal technicalities. Our agencies spy on everyone they can (as probably does every spy agency in the world). Our government might not even be aware of or in control of it.
- spikels 13y ago
  Unfortunately we don't live in the world you imagine but I would join you in trying to improve the world we actually live in. I don't see how a trade and travel embargo could possibly help - it would almost certainly make things worse! Clearly there is no actual right to privacy under international law and rules vary greatly by country and are often weak in practice[1]. This is want we need to change either through treaties, constitutions or laws. I don't know where you live but in the US it would probably take a constitional amendment - a very difficult procedure - or a very broad decision by the Supreme Court - unlikely. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_law

allochthon 13y ago

but spying at non-US citizens and breaking foreign law in peacetime is deemed acceptable. First let me say that I agree with your sentiment -- it's hypocritical for people in the US to be upset about the US government's spying on its own citizens, but not upset when the people are in other countries. Now for a dose of realism -- every single country out there that has a foreign policy and interests abroad behaves in this way to one extent or another. The question is not whether but how much. I'm receptive to ideas for something to replace this general approach to intelligence gathering. But let's not apply a double-standard in the opposite direction and say that only when the US does the spying is it a problem.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
> every single country out there that has a foreign policy and interests abroad behaves in this way to one extent or another. I'm German, and I can't remember ever having heard such a distinction - that some things are okay when done to foreigners, but not when done to Germans - apart from neo-nazis. Sure, who knows what the BND is up to. But "behaving this way" also includes rhetoric that is not just considered acceptable in polite company, but even uttered by state officials... and as I said, I can't recall a single example, so maybe enlighten me? Or are you just assuming?
- allochthon 13y ago
  Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be -- by "behaving this way," I had in mind the existence of government programs for surveillance and spying; not one-sided complaints on the part of citizens about such programs.
  - PavlovsCat 13y ago
    Well sure, people in positions of power pretty much equally suck everywhere, I think we can consider this as baseline. But I do find it disturbing that "American exceptionalism" seems to be rather widely accepted the US population, and that they're not even ashamed to express it, and that state officials implicitly or openly do the same. I have no doubt that some people in Germany harbour similar sentiments, but they're really at the fringes and in the dumps in comparison. Also, scale still matters. Killing a person or slapping them in the face are both violence, but there is still a difference, otherwise we could just reduce all to "physical and chemical processess going on" and completely stop thinking. I don't believe for a second that Germany, or even France, Italy or Russia (which I consider rather right wing) have programs to scoop up traffic from Google's internal network in place. Maybe they would like to, but they can't pull it off. And while I wouldn't bet on it, I wouldn't be surprised if China doesn't either.

saraid216 13y ago

> What really pisses me of is this sentiment of thinking of non-US citizens as second class humans. If this is really what you believe, then start pushing for legislation to include non-US citizens as first-class humans.

jganetsk 13y ago

But, by denying movement, you are suggesting to treat US citizens as second class humans. To what purpose? in order to punish them? To educate them about your importance?

danbruc 13y ago
I am to lazy to type it again, but this comment [1] from me fits your comment pretty well. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6643253 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6643253
- jganetsk 13y ago
  I completely agree with your sentiment that no one is justified in thinking they are superior to anyone else. Furthermore, I have never said anything even remotely to the contrary.
  - danbruc 13y ago
    The quoted comment was not the best one I could have picked - I just wanted to clarify that the thing about isolating the US was just to illustrate my feelings but nothing to consider seriously.

pnathan 13y ago

The purpose of intelligence agencies is to spy on non-citizens, both in peacetime and in wartime. One might argue that traditionally they focused on public figures in the foreign states and that spying on average foreigners is new; I don't know if that's true, but seems plausible. It would generally be a dereliction of duty for the NSA/CIA to not spy on non-Americans. The same holds true, modulo agency name and country, for any other country. Now, if you want to make the argument that national borders should dissolve and that spying on foreigners should become history - or something like that - that's up to you. But spy agency gonna spy.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> The purpose of intelligence agencies is to spy on non-citizens, both in peacetime and in wartime. No, the purpose of intelligence agencies is to gather and analyze information that might be of use to the nations leaders. Spying -- whether on citizens or foreigners, and whether on people located within the country or abroad -- is often a mechanism used to gather information (though collection from public sources is also a common mechanism.) And there's nothing really special about the foreign vs. domestic (whether by location or citizenship) axis for "intelligence agencies", generally -- while sometimes the agencies that do domestic and foreign intelligence gathering are separate, that's not always the case, and certainly not a defining feature of "intelligence agencies."
- pnathan 13y ago
  You are correct - I overspecialized in my comment (and focused too much on the US, which attempts to separate domestic and foreign intelligence)- but I would argue that espionage is a signature of intelligence agencies and their efforts; expecting such agencies not to make significant espionage efforts doesn't really cohere with reality.
danbruc 13y ago
That is what I would prefer. I can not think of a good reason why we (Germany) should spy at our friends like France, the UK or the USA. Agencies should gather information about (potentially) dangerous citizens in their country and share this information with other countries. I have also no problem with collecting information in war zones and I include countries hosting terrorists where you can not rely on there agencies to provide good information here.

belzeboss 13y ago

> What really pisses me of is this sentiment of thinking of non-US citizens as second class humans. When a group puts a draws a line of Us and them, they are making enemies. With this approach the NSA is declaring the USA as the enemies of all those being spied upon. The more similar news spread the more this mentality that "The USA is the enemy" will spread and its only a matter of time that more countries turn a blind eye or even facilitate terrorist actions against the USA.

akjj 13y ago

> It is illegal in the US but who cares about the rest of the world? I think it's entirely justifiable to give the NSA more latitude abroad than domestically. To turn reverse the scenario, as an American, I would far rather have the French or the Germans conducting surveillance on the United States than the US government. People keep comparisons to the Stasi, too often they forget what the Stasi's purpose was: to suppress political opposition. Here in the US, surveillance was used for the same purpose, on a much smaller scale, during the J. Edgar Hoover era. Political opponents of the government were spied on with the intent of blackmail or embarassment. That's the whole reason why government surveillance is so scary. It puts so much information in the hands of an organization with such far-reaching powers in law enforcement and otherwise that the combination is prone to abuse. When the US spies on foreign citizens or vice versa, the potential for abuse is much less. The NSA has neither the interest nor the ability to harass political opponents in Germany and France, and the same goes in the other direction.

leot 13y ago
In particular, domestic surveillance is a completely different beast vis-a-vis foreign surveillance: spying outside one's own state comes with it the almost total absence of state's monopoly on force (and, furthermore, the protection of the government in the state being spied upon). Omniscience without omnipotence is tolerable, as is omnipotence without omniscience. The real trouble happens when you've got both.
dictum 13y ago
CIA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
PavlovsCat 13y ago
> People keep comparisons to the Stasi, too often they forget what the Stasi's purpose was: to suppress political opposition That's however not how the Stasi thought of itself though, or how it was presented in propaganda. http://andberlin.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/propaganda-in-the-stasi-museum.jpg http://andberlin.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/propaganda-in-t... "For our security" US intelligence agencies do keep tabs on stuff like Occupy, and of course it's officially "to prevent terrorism".. I for one don't buy it.

discardorama 13y ago

I am at a loss for words. Arrogant, self-righteous, disrespectful, ignorant, mendacious...nothing cuts it. It is illegal in the US but who cares about the rest of the world? I'm as appalled as the next guy about the NSA's actions, but let's keep this in perspective here: many countries have 2 intelligence agencies, one for external and one for internal. Do "MI-5" and "MI-6" ring a bell? Plus, in this particular instance: the GCHQ (British version of NSA) is the one passing along the wiretapped stuff to the NSA. > We are not spying at US citizens, only at this other guys across the ocean. In this instance, it's the guys across the ocean who are spying, and passing on the results to us.

GHFigs 13y ago

Especially when the story broke there was a lot of outrage about (accidentally) spying at US citizens, but spying at non-US citizens and breaking foreign law in peacetime is deemed acceptable. What did you used to think foreign intelligence services did?

georgemcbay 13y ago

For what little is it worth, a lot of us American citizens have a real problem with our government not extending the concept of the natural rights that we supposedly have to everyone, everywhere. Of course, these days they aren't even really bothering to discriminate and are just fucking us all over, though I guess they do apologize a bit more when they get caught fucking over Americans. Also, while I think this sort of spying is terrible I'm even more sickened by things like the fact that we keep killing innocent people with drones and such and justifying it as acceptable collateral damage when nobody will tell us who the real targets were, why they had to be killed, and why that was so important that accidentally killing a few hundreds or thousands of innocents while pursuing them is reasonable. At this point we're so far down the slippery slope that the rest of you might as well cut us off if you can. I'm unconvinced we are going to right this ship anytime soon, we as the group of citizens whose net worth isn't in the billions have lost control of the bus.

g0lden 13y ago

All i can say to your heayed comment is that it is a good thing that you're not in a position of power to act in such a way that would sever the worlds ties with the US.

guiambros 13y ago

That's why, ironically, the best hope for privacy-minded US citizens (like a good part of HN readers) comes from outside governments. People like Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, that had the courage to cancel state visits and declaring outraged by the state-sponsored spying supported by the Obama Administration. We need many more governments standing up and threatening to cut commercial ties with the US, until we can see some traction. Sadly, I'm not very hopeful that this will happen, given the commercial interests involved. Mexico had a slow initial response, but it's starting to demonstrate some reaction. Germany and France are my hopes [1]. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/22/mexico-president-nsa-spying-email http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/22/mexico-presiden...

sseveran 13y ago
France and Germany can't. They are both export based economies.
- guiambros 13y ago
  Yeah, but chancellor Merkel must be really pissed off with all the latest shenanigans [1] by her friends across the pond... And everybody else must be really pissed off with the latest documents. Here's the punch line: > Intercepting communications overseas has clear advantages for the NSA, with looser restrictions and less oversight. NSA documents about the effort refer directly to “full take,” “bulk access” and “high volume” operations on Yahoo and Google networks. Such large-scale collection of Internet content would be illegal in the United States, but the operations take place overseas, where the NSA is allowed to presume that anyone using a foreign data link is a foreigner. [1] http://electrospaces.blogspot.nl/2013/10/how-nsa-targeted-chancellor-merkels.html http://electrospaces.blogspot.nl/2013/10/how-nsa-targeted-ch... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story_1.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-in...
  - sseveran 13y ago
    I think in the end it will be shown that both the Germans and French also engaged in surveillance or have partnerships with other intelligence agencies. The five sisters can't be the only big partnership.

EpicEng 13y ago

The government of a country, any country, owes allegiance to its citizens first and foremost. Our laws do not apply to people in other countries. I can't imagine that most large governments other than the US do run in exactly the same manner. I'm not defending the NSA, but let's not be naive here. One function of the government is to protect its people from all threats, foreign and domestic. So yes, citizens of other countries are second class, and well they should be from some perspectives. Again though, there are lines, and some have been crossed.

mattlutze 13y ago

I'm torn between the two sides of this coin. As both a US citizen and world citizen (how can we who've grown up in the Internet age not feel a little more worldly?) it feels violating to know this has been going on, and that it likely effects me. On the other side, it has forever been, and continues to be, in a physical-boundary-defined nation's best interest to know things about every other nation, in order to compete within international relationships. I would be surprised to find a major international player that didn't have a clandestine agent group or groups like the CIA or NSA. It's a very tough and frustrating topic. Spying always feels disrespectful and arrogant to the spied upon. But should we implicitly assert that this isn't done by the rest[0] of the intelligence agencies around the world? 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies