5 ms·

Makes me wonder about the future of democracy. If tiny Norway, which imposes no real threat to any other country, including it's mighty neighbor, Russia, is a

by flexie 12y ago

Makes me wonder about the future of democracy. If tiny Norway, which imposes no real threat to any other country, including it's mighty neighbor, Russia, is a target for intelligence services, then every country is a target. Norway has little strategic importance and little influence on the world economy or world peace. Sure, they have lots of oil but its undisputed Norwegian and they sell it willingly. Sure, they are NATO members and at present the NATO secretary general is Norwegian, and they do participate in NATO actions in the Middle East. But their own military is modest, barely capable of defending Norway if it came down to it. And Norway has little say over the other NATO countries. I think the NATO secretary general, Stoltenberg, said it best himself when he described the Norwegian democracy as a fax democracy where Norwegian officials sit at a fax machine waiting for the latest directive from Brussels (Norway is not an EU member but part of the European Economic Area and must adopt most EU rules in order to keep their access to the Euroean single market). Anyone thinking that Norway has any real powers or impose a threat to anyone in the next 5-10 decades is delusional. So why and to whom is it vital to spy on these fax politicians whose international influence barely exceeds that of an American senator or governor or a member of a German Landtag?

higherpurpose 12y ago
We need to destroy their logic about "collecting everything, because they might need it in 100 years" first. They do it because it's so cheap, because they can, and because nobody is really standing up to them. However, if we allowed the government to do anything it wants "just because it can", thousands of our current laws wouldn't exist. I don't remember if it was Clapper or Alexander but one of them basically said the whole Snowden thing will blow-over, and they won't have to change a thing. From what we've seen already that seems to be the case. The watered down USA Freedom Act was killed, and they even made their collection powers stronger with that recent Intelligence Authorization Act. Can you believe that? Not even 2 years after the worldwide Snowden scandal, and they shamelessly push for even more spying powers. These people know nothing can touch them or stop them. And that speaks volumes about the state of our current democracies, when the will of the people, who are supposed to control their governments, and are the ones paying their budgets, have no say in the government's decisions. I highly recommend everyone watch this whole video here. It's an eye opener about many things, and I think he may be right about the root cause of the problem (vote transparency in Congress, which causes politicians to be bought, intimidated, and so on for their vote, just like it would happen with normal citizens's vote if it weren't anonymous): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY It's from the video where I learned about this new research that basically says: > The flat line for most Americans shows that no matter how popular a law was, Congress was about equally likely to pass it. Contrast that with the line for wealthy Americans, whose opinions substantially affect how likely a bill is to pass. http://bulletin.represent.us/u-s-oligarchy-explain-research http://bulletin.represent.us/u-s-oligarchy-explain-research
- dash2 12y ago
  That last piece of research is interesting but has multiple interpretations, because they can't prove causation. Slightly silly example: maybe Congress only passes really good bills. Wealthy Americans are smarter than other Americans, so they're more likely to support good ideas. Now it looks as if wealthy Americans' support "causes" the good bills to pass. That's not a hugely credible interpretation, but there are likely to be many similar alternatives. I agree with your worries about democracy and freedom, but it's important to be realistic about the limitations of social science research.
  - higherpurpose 12y ago
    When you combine that data with signals such as approval of Congress being under 10 percent, I think it enforces the idea that "people are not listened to" by Congress, and Congress mostly passes laws that aren't to the benefit of the public.
    - prewett 12y ago
      None of that negates the original poster. Nothing says that the public actually knows what benefits it. In fact, the founders tried to avoid direct democracy for that reason, hence the Electoral College: you vote for someone to make good decisions for you. Given the short-sightedness of American culture (maybe just people in general), I am not convinced that the public makes good decisions. How many members of the public are going to vote to remove entitlements that benefit them, even if it is not in the best interests of the public at large? Mind you, I am not convinced that Congress makes good decisions, but if the public does not approve of Congress, it does not provide any information on the quality of Congress' decisions. Just their popularity.
e12e 12y ago
> Norway has little strategic importance If only that were true. While we Norwegians tend to have well inflated egos, the word "strategic" implies powers like Russia, China and the US. And all those jolly World War III scenarios (nuclear and otherwise). Main keyword is long coast, harbours operational throughout all of winter.
- mushishi 12y ago
  Not sure if got this right but you might be agreeing. "little" means hardly any, whereas "a little" some
  - e12e 12y ago
    That could be. I might be victim to my inflated Norwegian ego, even as I called it out in the comment above :-) Might also have something to do with the fact that I'm currently reading Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" (which is all kinds of scary with the various current global crisis and tensions...).
  - nl 12y ago
    The OP was implying that Norway wasn't of any strategic importance. This is both wrong (Oil and partial control of North Sea) and irrelevant. For example, bugging is often done over commercial concerns. That has little to do with strategic factors and instead is more related to money.
- secfirstmd 12y ago
  "Main keyword is long coast, harbours operational throughout all of winter." Hit the nail on the head. The Norwegian fjords, due to their nature, would likely be one of the hiding places for a NATO fleet in a Soviet/Russian battle. Basically they would make the fleet, carriers or subs very hard to find by the one of the biggest threats posed by the Russians, the anti ship missiles launched by aircraft like the Bear. It would also make the Soviet/Russian attack submarines have to work a lot harder and become more exposed - esp to any anti-submarine warfare craft which might UK-Iceland-Norway triangle to operate from. By hiding in the fjords, NATO could still strike using conventional aircraft, cruise missiles or nuclear forces - while the Russian aircraft would have to be much more exposed in order to get a radar picture of where the NATO fleet would be hiding. The Norway coast also offers a wide open flank that NATO can use for attacking any Soviet/Russian nuclear missile submarines and/or attack subs which might try to sneak out over SOSUS into the Atlantic. It essentially has the effect of controlling any movement from the Baltic, Norweigan or Barents Sea - essentially the areas from which some of the most important Russian ports are. A combined fleet/marine assault on a Russian port would also be an option. NATO would also want to deny it to the Russians as it offers a close route to attacking the UK and arguably the Russians see it as an exposed flank.
pilsetnieks 12y ago
Norway is one of the larger producers of natural gas (6th) and oil (14th). As such they have quite some influence on European economy. Not that that makes this right.
- ExpiredLink 12y ago
  ... and because they are so rich they don't want to join the EU (and support the poorer states).
  - abdias 12y ago
    No, they don't want to join EU, twice by public election, to keep their sovereignty. However, through the EOES agreement, establish through political back-doors against the will of the people, they are in effect part of EU, but without the same rights. And due to, are paying billions each year to EU. Norway is also one of the largest contributor in Europe of economic help to poor countries world wide.
nly 12y ago
Perhaps trying out this attack on such an insignificant place was the whole point.
adventured 12y ago
There are at least three reasons Norway would be interesting. 1) The soon to be trillion dollar sovereign fund, in a country of only 5.x million people. If you're going to be a hyper rich, very small nation, there will always be someone envious or potentially willing to threaten you - at least if we're considering history. The sovereign fund can move markets, seeing as it's one of the largest single pots of managed money on earth. Norway is also starting to get into the US oil market, with interest in the bakken; that will inherently draw the attention of US national security interests. 2) Natural gas and oil. These are understood, and are of meaningful strategic importance to Europe. 3) Large coastline, close to Russia. Norway has more land than Poland, and nearly as much as Germany. With only 5 million people, in Europe, that's a big deal. Let's consider the case of a country of equal geographic size, with a large coastline, on the other side of the world: Vietnam. Vietnam has 90 million people. So they have 18 times as many people as Norway, with an economy 1/3 the size of Norway. Has Vietnam been of interest to its neighbors and foreign powers in the past century? Big time. If a country like Vietnam can be so interesting, just imagine how interesting Norway is. If this were 1933, and Norway had 5 million people, sitting on all that oil and natural gas, with a trillion dollar sovereign fund, they'd be a prime target. I think it's extremely naive to think history is over, when it comes to that sort of behavior, even though it's hard to imagine it coming from anywhere but Russia today (in Europe).
- lazyjones 12y ago
  > I think it's extremely naive to think history is over, when it comes to that sort of behavior, even though it's hard to imagine it coming from anywhere but Russia today (in Europe). War isn't necessary when you can effectively control the government through other means (gaining sensitive intel on, blackmailing, threatening members).
- rational-future 12y ago
  Spot on. Many other reasons as well. There are powers that want to see Norway join the EU and adopt the euro. Norway is selling a lot of services (oil and gas related, software, electronic government, finance) to other countries. A run away global warming may turn it into a very important piece of land.
revelation 12y ago
They do have a boatload of cash leveraged in any number of stocks worldwide. I think people are too easily influenced by the breathless writing here. IMSI catchers are not extraordinarily complicated and have been around for a long time. They are easier than ever to set up with affordable hardware like the USRP and software implementations of base stations like OpenBSC emerging.
petercooper 12y ago
If tiny Norway, which imposes no real threat to any other country, including it's mighty neighbor, Russia, is a target for intelligence services, then every country is a target. Y'know, I've been more surprised at how surprised everyone else is. Maybe I put too much faith in James Bond and the whole spy cliché, but the reaction to the Wikileaks revelations surprised me because I'd assumed governments were doing those things to each other and their citizens anyway. I mean.. they were in the movies! ;-) (I'm not suggesting being blazé to it is a good thing, of course.)
- saraid216 12y ago
  The reaction was that way because people are untrained in how diplomacy actually works. "Diplomatic action", to most people, is a matter of two heads of state going into a room and emerging with big smiles and a handshake. The fact that diplomats even communicate with each other at all is a revelation in and of itself to them.
MisterWebz 12y ago
> So why and to whom is it vital to spy on these fax politicians whose international influence barely exceeds that of an American senator or governor or a member of a German Landtag? Here's your answer. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-powers-buy-influence-at-think-tanks.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-powers...
return0 12y ago
Add the greek wiretapping scandal (2005) in the long list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2%80%9305 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2%...
arethuza 12y ago
"Norway has little strategic importance" That wasn't the case during WW2 or the Cold War and Russia still gets a bit touchy about NATO exercises in Norway - Norway is on the northern flank of any large scale conflict in Europe and can dominate the sea lanes from Russian naval bases in the far north and on the Baltic to the Atlantic. Edit: 45 Commando Royal Marines, based in Arbroath in Scotland, were tasked with assisting with the defence of Norway for a lot of the Cold War and they still do a lot of training there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45_Commando http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45_Commando
- interfacesketch 12y ago
  "That wasn't the case during WW2..." Not sure how well this is known, but every year, Oslo sends a giant Christmas Tree to London to be lit up in Trafalgar Square. This started in 1947 and is a gesture of gratitude from Norway for British support during the Second World War.
  - arethuza 12y ago
    I think a few places in the UK get Norwegian trees - not just London, we have one here in Edinburgh (and very beautiful it is too!): http://www.norway.org.uk/norwayandcountry/News/Norwegian-Christmas-Trees-in-the-UK/#.VIycKntRoe0 http://www.norway.org.uk/norwayandcountry/News/Norwegian-Chr... Edit: Not far from the tree on the Mound there is the Norwegian Memorial which is a large boulder carried from Norway that has the inscription: During the war years 1940-45 the Norwegian brigade and other army units were raised and trained in Scotland where we found hospitality, friendship and hope during dark years of exile. In grateful memory of our friends and allies on these isles. [I went to University here in Edinburgh with a lot of Norwegians - so I have a distinct fondness for Norway and Norwegians].
    - marincounty 12y ago
      I have a question about Norwegians. I heard they like early, big Cadilliacs. Is it just Cadillacs, or do they like other big cars from the 50-70's--like the Lincoln Contential? I ask for two reasons: I can get a hold of a lot of older big American cars. Two--I want to recoup the $1000, plus another $1000 retail in booze I paid a ticket scalper in order to get two lousy tickets to a Madonna concert. All in order to impress one of the most beautiful girl I have ever dated(I literally forgot her name?). The kicker was the seats were so far away Madonna looked like a Toy. She came on stage and told the crowd,"I'm sick, but I will try to give you a good show." My date had a great time though, but I guess wasen't that impressed with me. A week later she called me from the Caribbean and said she got married to a rich older guy. She called me another week later and said he wanted her to wear a French maid costume. She stated, " He's old and will die of a heart attack--hopefully." "Wait--we will inherit everything and live like royalty." I thought it was strange at the time, but I was recovering from a nervous breakdown, and didn't take it that hard, but I never dated anyone from another country again. I don't blame her. Her brother, who was brilliant and very trustworthy warned me about his sister in little ways--"like you know her last boyfriend was a cop?" I didn't really know what he meant. All I knew is she was a blond goddess. (I hope her husband is still alive and they are still traveling around the world, and he isn't requiring the costume!) Sorry--was ths off topic?
runarb 12y ago
The United States at least seems to think Norway is important econoff to have an active intelligence force on the ground. In 2010 it was revealed that the US Embassy had a special unit of 15-20 persons to do surveillance in Norway [0]. However as I understand it this "Surveillance Detection Unit" did not spy against the Norwegian state, but against more asymmetrical threats like islamists and other that feared could act on their own against the US. They did however operate in the same area (downtown Oslo). 1: http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/11/08/still-no-answers-from-the-embassy/ http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/11/08/still-no-answers-from...
- rational-future 12y ago
  Actually the CIA has an office in downtown Oslo, operating under the cover of Radio Bravo. Very well known in the Scandinavian security circles.
Sven7 12y ago
The future of democracy? Democracy has actually survived spying and strengthened thanks to the misadventures of spy agencies through out its history.
jacquesm 12y ago
Any country that sits on lots of oil is a target.
mkramlich 12y ago
lots of oil and (I think) the world's largest sovereign wealth fund (ie. if they decide to invest in X they can do so big enough to move the needle)
ChuckMcM 12y ago
Something to know about Norway: Norway is Europe's largest oil producer, the world's third-largest natural gas exporter, and an important supplier of both oil and natural gas to other European countries. Norway is the largest oil producer and exporter in Western Europe. Norway is the world's third-largest exporter of natural gas after Russia and Qatar, and, as of 2012, Norway was the sixth-largest dry natural gas producer. (from http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=no http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=no) Its oil production counters Russian leverage on Europe. Its borders peak into the top of Russia and its coastline provides observation of the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. In any conflict involving Russia (currently the only nuclear equipped nation invading/annexing its neighbours) it will be very strategic.
- secfirstmd 12y ago
  Unless you include Israel occupying the West Bank.
  - gaadd33 12y ago
    I don't understand, does Israel export a ton of natural gas or oil from the West Bank? I was unaware that Israel, or that part of the Middle East in general had much in the way of oil or gas. Have they made massive discoveries there?
    - toyg 12y ago
      He referred to "[Russia being] currently the only nuclear equipped nation invading/annexing its neighbours", i.e. Israel is another such country. (Btw, for the record, there are significant gas reserves in that part of the world and the government recently pushed for expansion in the sector. Nothing to do with this conversation, but I thought I'd mention it.)
      - gaadd33 12y ago
        Ahh, I thought he was referring to the majority of the comment, not just the last line. That's interesting, reading up on it a bit more, it seems to be similar to the US oil/gas boom in that it's all in shale oil. I had heard the quote that starts out this article: http://www.the-american-interest.com/2012/07/02/israels-saudi-sized-energy-potential-makes-first-political-impact/ http://www.the-american-interest.com/2012/07/02/israels-saud... and it stayed with me.
smegel 12y ago
Security folk are well aware that low value government agencies are targetted by spies, not for the information they hold, but for possible conduits to higher value agencies (the government is all connected after all). I think you are right and wrong - right that Norway in itself uninteresting, but wrong that it doesn't present a valuable target for spies. Like you said they are hooked into the EU - what better way to get insight into the machinations of the EU than a government that is probably awash with chatter about sensitive EU matters, but that erects little defences against spying thinking noone could be interested in little old Norway. I wouldn't be surprised if those cell towers included ones that were run by the US and Russia (maybe China too).
digi_owl 12y ago
Is the quite from before or after he left for NATO? Because his party has been a strong proponent of Norway becoming a full EU member...
rhino369 12y ago
Spying on a country to country level is good for international relations. It's a hacked version of transparency. Since the countries of the world won't really agree to be transparency, intelligence is the next best thing. The unknown causes fear and conflict. Much of the cold war was driven by deep mistrust of the other side. Spying eases tension by leaking the plans of each side. If the Russians know what the US military is doing, it doesn't have to be fearful. If the US knows what Russia is doing, it doesn't have to be fearful. So now, if the US knows Putin isn't going to push for a full out invasion of Ukraine, the US won't escalate the crisis. If Obama knows Iran's government feels the pain from sanctions, he can have a real conversation about nuclear development. Iraq, one of the biggest international disasters since the Berlin Wall fell, was caused by shitty intelligence and fear of the unknown. Saddam really dismantled his WMD program, bu the US, based on fear, assumed he was hiding it. This is totally different than a surveillance state over the individuals.
- gdy 12y ago
  "Iraq, one of the biggest international disasters since the Berlin Wall fell, was caused by shitty intelligence and fear of the unknown. Saddam really dismantled his WMD program, bu the US, based on fear, assumed he was hiding it." No, not according to what Wesley Clark, former US general who almost started WW3 in Yugoslavia, says: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyEJ6Aja-UQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyEJ6Aja-UQ
- MetaCosm 12y ago
  Interesting perspective (intelligence services as another form of back channel communication). "Forced transparency".
- _lce0 12y ago
  The problem is when the spying relatio is not balanced. One country having so much info of another, which is blind.
sleepyhead 12y ago
Hey we're not tiny. It takes probably about 30 hours to drive from the south to the north. Compare that to any other European country.

by flexie 12y ago

higherpurpose 12y ago

We need to destroy their logic about "collecting everything, because they might need it in 100 years" first. They do it because it's so cheap, because they can, and because nobody is really standing up to them. However, if we allowed the government to do anything it wants "just because it can", thousands of our current laws wouldn't exist. I don't remember if it was Clapper or Alexander but one of them basically said the whole Snowden thing will blow-over, and they won't have to change a thing. From what we've seen already that seems to be the case. The watered down USA Freedom Act was killed, and they even made their collection powers stronger with that recent Intelligence Authorization Act. Can you believe that? Not even 2 years after the worldwide Snowden scandal, and they shamelessly push for even more spying powers. These people know nothing can touch them or stop them. And that speaks volumes about the state of our current democracies, when the will of the people, who are supposed to control their governments, and are the ones paying their budgets, have no say in the government's decisions. I highly recommend everyone watch this whole video here. It's an eye opener about many things, and I think he may be right about the root cause of the problem (vote transparency in Congress, which causes politicians to be bought, intimidated, and so on for their vote, just like it would happen with normal citizens's vote if it weren't anonymous): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY It's from the video where I learned about this new research that basically says: > The flat line for most Americans shows that no matter how popular a law was, Congress was about equally likely to pass it. Contrast that with the line for wealthy Americans, whose opinions substantially affect how likely a bill is to pass. http://bulletin.represent.us/u-s-oligarchy-explain-research http://bulletin.represent.us/u-s-oligarchy-explain-research

dash2 12y ago
That last piece of research is interesting but has multiple interpretations, because they can't prove causation. Slightly silly example: maybe Congress only passes really good bills. Wealthy Americans are smarter than other Americans, so they're more likely to support good ideas. Now it looks as if wealthy Americans' support "causes" the good bills to pass. That's not a hugely credible interpretation, but there are likely to be many similar alternatives. I agree with your worries about democracy and freedom, but it's important to be realistic about the limitations of social science research.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  When you combine that data with signals such as approval of Congress being under 10 percent, I think it enforces the idea that "people are not listened to" by Congress, and Congress mostly passes laws that aren't to the benefit of the public.
  - prewett 12y ago
    None of that negates the original poster. Nothing says that the public actually knows what benefits it. In fact, the founders tried to avoid direct democracy for that reason, hence the Electoral College: you vote for someone to make good decisions for you. Given the short-sightedness of American culture (maybe just people in general), I am not convinced that the public makes good decisions. How many members of the public are going to vote to remove entitlements that benefit them, even if it is not in the best interests of the public at large? Mind you, I am not convinced that Congress makes good decisions, but if the public does not approve of Congress, it does not provide any information on the quality of Congress' decisions. Just their popularity.

e12e 12y ago

> Norway has little strategic importance If only that were true. While we Norwegians tend to have well inflated egos, the word "strategic" implies powers like Russia, China and the US. And all those jolly World War III scenarios (nuclear and otherwise). Main keyword is long coast, harbours operational throughout all of winter.

mushishi 12y ago
Not sure if got this right but you might be agreeing. "little" means hardly any, whereas "a little" some
- e12e 12y ago
  That could be. I might be victim to my inflated Norwegian ego, even as I called it out in the comment above :-) Might also have something to do with the fact that I'm currently reading Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" (which is all kinds of scary with the various current global crisis and tensions...).
- nl 12y ago
  The OP was implying that Norway wasn't of any strategic importance. This is both wrong (Oil and partial control of North Sea) and irrelevant. For example, bugging is often done over commercial concerns. That has little to do with strategic factors and instead is more related to money.
secfirstmd 12y ago
"Main keyword is long coast, harbours operational throughout all of winter." Hit the nail on the head. The Norwegian fjords, due to their nature, would likely be one of the hiding places for a NATO fleet in a Soviet/Russian battle. Basically they would make the fleet, carriers or subs very hard to find by the one of the biggest threats posed by the Russians, the anti ship missiles launched by aircraft like the Bear. It would also make the Soviet/Russian attack submarines have to work a lot harder and become more exposed - esp to any anti-submarine warfare craft which might UK-Iceland-Norway triangle to operate from. By hiding in the fjords, NATO could still strike using conventional aircraft, cruise missiles or nuclear forces - while the Russian aircraft would have to be much more exposed in order to get a radar picture of where the NATO fleet would be hiding. The Norway coast also offers a wide open flank that NATO can use for attacking any Soviet/Russian nuclear missile submarines and/or attack subs which might try to sneak out over SOSUS into the Atlantic. It essentially has the effect of controlling any movement from the Baltic, Norweigan or Barents Sea - essentially the areas from which some of the most important Russian ports are. A combined fleet/marine assault on a Russian port would also be an option. NATO would also want to deny it to the Russians as it offers a close route to attacking the UK and arguably the Russians see it as an exposed flank.

pilsetnieks 12y ago

Norway is one of the larger producers of natural gas (6th) and oil (14th). As such they have quite some influence on European economy. Not that that makes this right.

ExpiredLink 12y ago
... and because they are so rich they don't want to join the EU (and support the poorer states).
- abdias 12y ago
  No, they don't want to join EU, twice by public election, to keep their sovereignty. However, through the EOES agreement, establish through political back-doors against the will of the people, they are in effect part of EU, but without the same rights. And due to, are paying billions each year to EU. Norway is also one of the largest contributor in Europe of economic help to poor countries world wide.

nly 12y ago

Perhaps trying out this attack on such an insignificant place was the whole point.

adventured 12y ago

There are at least three reasons Norway would be interesting. 1) The soon to be trillion dollar sovereign fund, in a country of only 5.x million people. If you're going to be a hyper rich, very small nation, there will always be someone envious or potentially willing to threaten you - at least if we're considering history. The sovereign fund can move markets, seeing as it's one of the largest single pots of managed money on earth. Norway is also starting to get into the US oil market, with interest in the bakken; that will inherently draw the attention of US national security interests. 2) Natural gas and oil. These are understood, and are of meaningful strategic importance to Europe. 3) Large coastline, close to Russia. Norway has more land than Poland, and nearly as much as Germany. With only 5 million people, in Europe, that's a big deal. Let's consider the case of a country of equal geographic size, with a large coastline, on the other side of the world: Vietnam. Vietnam has 90 million people. So they have 18 times as many people as Norway, with an economy 1/3 the size of Norway. Has Vietnam been of interest to its neighbors and foreign powers in the past century? Big time. If a country like Vietnam can be so interesting, just imagine how interesting Norway is. If this were 1933, and Norway had 5 million people, sitting on all that oil and natural gas, with a trillion dollar sovereign fund, they'd be a prime target. I think it's extremely naive to think history is over, when it comes to that sort of behavior, even though it's hard to imagine it coming from anywhere but Russia today (in Europe).

lazyjones 12y ago
> I think it's extremely naive to think history is over, when it comes to that sort of behavior, even though it's hard to imagine it coming from anywhere but Russia today (in Europe). War isn't necessary when you can effectively control the government through other means (gaining sensitive intel on, blackmailing, threatening members).
rational-future 12y ago
Spot on. Many other reasons as well. There are powers that want to see Norway join the EU and adopt the euro. Norway is selling a lot of services (oil and gas related, software, electronic government, finance) to other countries. A run away global warming may turn it into a very important piece of land.

revelation 12y ago

They do have a boatload of cash leveraged in any number of stocks worldwide. I think people are too easily influenced by the breathless writing here. IMSI catchers are not extraordinarily complicated and have been around for a long time. They are easier than ever to set up with affordable hardware like the USRP and software implementations of base stations like OpenBSC emerging.

petercooper 12y ago

If tiny Norway, which imposes no real threat to any other country, including it's mighty neighbor, Russia, is a target for intelligence services, then every country is a target. Y'know, I've been more surprised at how surprised everyone else is. Maybe I put too much faith in James Bond and the whole spy cliché, but the reaction to the Wikileaks revelations surprised me because I'd assumed governments were doing those things to each other and their citizens anyway. I mean.. they were in the movies! ;-) (I'm not suggesting being blazé to it is a good thing, of course.)

saraid216 12y ago
The reaction was that way because people are untrained in how diplomacy actually works. "Diplomatic action", to most people, is a matter of two heads of state going into a room and emerging with big smiles and a handshake. The fact that diplomats even communicate with each other at all is a revelation in and of itself to them.

MisterWebz 12y ago

> So why and to whom is it vital to spy on these fax politicians whose international influence barely exceeds that of an American senator or governor or a member of a German Landtag? Here's your answer. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-powers-buy-influence-at-think-tanks.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/us/politics/foreign-powers...

return0 12y ago

Add the greek wiretapping scandal (2005) in the long list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2%80%9305 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_wiretapping_case_2004%E2%...

arethuza 12y ago

"Norway has little strategic importance" That wasn't the case during WW2 or the Cold War and Russia still gets a bit touchy about NATO exercises in Norway - Norway is on the northern flank of any large scale conflict in Europe and can dominate the sea lanes from Russian naval bases in the far north and on the Baltic to the Atlantic. Edit: 45 Commando Royal Marines, based in Arbroath in Scotland, were tasked with assisting with the defence of Norway for a lot of the Cold War and they still do a lot of training there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45_Commando http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45_Commando

interfacesketch 12y ago
"That wasn't the case during WW2..." Not sure how well this is known, but every year, Oslo sends a giant Christmas Tree to London to be lit up in Trafalgar Square. This started in 1947 and is a gesture of gratitude from Norway for British support during the Second World War.
- arethuza 12y ago
  I think a few places in the UK get Norwegian trees - not just London, we have one here in Edinburgh (and very beautiful it is too!): http://www.norway.org.uk/norwayandcountry/News/Norwegian-Christmas-Trees-in-the-UK/#.VIycKntRoe0 http://www.norway.org.uk/norwayandcountry/News/Norwegian-Chr... Edit: Not far from the tree on the Mound there is the Norwegian Memorial which is a large boulder carried from Norway that has the inscription: During the war years 1940-45 the Norwegian brigade and other army units were raised and trained in Scotland where we found hospitality, friendship and hope during dark years of exile. In grateful memory of our friends and allies on these isles. [I went to University here in Edinburgh with a lot of Norwegians - so I have a distinct fondness for Norway and Norwegians].
  - marincounty 12y ago
    I have a question about Norwegians. I heard they like early, big Cadilliacs. Is it just Cadillacs, or do they like other big cars from the 50-70's--like the Lincoln Contential? I ask for two reasons: I can get a hold of a lot of older big American cars. Two--I want to recoup the $1000, plus another $1000 retail in booze I paid a ticket scalper in order to get two lousy tickets to a Madonna concert. All in order to impress one of the most beautiful girl I have ever dated(I literally forgot her name?). The kicker was the seats were so far away Madonna looked like a Toy. She came on stage and told the crowd,"I'm sick, but I will try to give you a good show." My date had a great time though, but I guess wasen't that impressed with me. A week later she called me from the Caribbean and said she got married to a rich older guy. She called me another week later and said he wanted her to wear a French maid costume. She stated, " He's old and will die of a heart attack--hopefully." "Wait--we will inherit everything and live like royalty." I thought it was strange at the time, but I was recovering from a nervous breakdown, and didn't take it that hard, but I never dated anyone from another country again. I don't blame her. Her brother, who was brilliant and very trustworthy warned me about his sister in little ways--"like you know her last boyfriend was a cop?" I didn't really know what he meant. All I knew is she was a blond goddess. (I hope her husband is still alive and they are still traveling around the world, and he isn't requiring the costume!) Sorry--was ths off topic?

runarb 12y ago

The United States at least seems to think Norway is important econoff to have an active intelligence force on the ground. In 2010 it was revealed that the US Embassy had a special unit of 15-20 persons to do surveillance in Norway [0]. However as I understand it this "Surveillance Detection Unit" did not spy against the Norwegian state, but against more asymmetrical threats like islamists and other that feared could act on their own against the US. They did however operate in the same area (downtown Oslo). 1: http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/11/08/still-no-answers-from-the-embassy/ http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/11/08/still-no-answers-from...

rational-future 12y ago
Actually the CIA has an office in downtown Oslo, operating under the cover of Radio Bravo. Very well known in the Scandinavian security circles.

Sven7 12y ago

The future of democracy? Democracy has actually survived spying and strengthened thanks to the misadventures of spy agencies through out its history.

jacquesm 12y ago

Any country that sits on lots of oil is a target.

mkramlich 12y ago

lots of oil and (I think) the world's largest sovereign wealth fund (ie. if they decide to invest in X they can do so big enough to move the needle)

ChuckMcM 12y ago

Something to know about Norway: Norway is Europe's largest oil producer, the world's third-largest natural gas exporter, and an important supplier of both oil and natural gas to other European countries. Norway is the largest oil producer and exporter in Western Europe. Norway is the world's third-largest exporter of natural gas after Russia and Qatar, and, as of 2012, Norway was the sixth-largest dry natural gas producer. (from http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=no http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=no) Its oil production counters Russian leverage on Europe. Its borders peak into the top of Russia and its coastline provides observation of the Barents Sea and the Norwegian Sea. In any conflict involving Russia (currently the only nuclear equipped nation invading/annexing its neighbours) it will be very strategic.

secfirstmd 12y ago
Unless you include Israel occupying the West Bank.
- gaadd33 12y ago
  I don't understand, does Israel export a ton of natural gas or oil from the West Bank? I was unaware that Israel, or that part of the Middle East in general had much in the way of oil or gas. Have they made massive discoveries there?
  - toyg 12y ago
    He referred to "[Russia being] currently the only nuclear equipped nation invading/annexing its neighbours", i.e. Israel is another such country. (Btw, for the record, there are significant gas reserves in that part of the world and the government recently pushed for expansion in the sector. Nothing to do with this conversation, but I thought I'd mention it.)
    - gaadd33 12y ago
      Ahh, I thought he was referring to the majority of the comment, not just the last line. That's interesting, reading up on it a bit more, it seems to be similar to the US oil/gas boom in that it's all in shale oil. I had heard the quote that starts out this article: http://www.the-american-interest.com/2012/07/02/israels-saudi-sized-energy-potential-makes-first-political-impact/ http://www.the-american-interest.com/2012/07/02/israels-saud... and it stayed with me.

smegel 12y ago

Security folk are well aware that low value government agencies are targetted by spies, not for the information they hold, but for possible conduits to higher value agencies (the government is all connected after all). I think you are right and wrong - right that Norway in itself uninteresting, but wrong that it doesn't present a valuable target for spies. Like you said they are hooked into the EU - what better way to get insight into the machinations of the EU than a government that is probably awash with chatter about sensitive EU matters, but that erects little defences against spying thinking noone could be interested in little old Norway. I wouldn't be surprised if those cell towers included ones that were run by the US and Russia (maybe China too).

digi_owl 12y ago

Is the quite from before or after he left for NATO? Because his party has been a strong proponent of Norway becoming a full EU member...

rhino369 12y ago

Spying on a country to country level is good for international relations. It's a hacked version of transparency. Since the countries of the world won't really agree to be transparency, intelligence is the next best thing. The unknown causes fear and conflict. Much of the cold war was driven by deep mistrust of the other side. Spying eases tension by leaking the plans of each side. If the Russians know what the US military is doing, it doesn't have to be fearful. If the US knows what Russia is doing, it doesn't have to be fearful. So now, if the US knows Putin isn't going to push for a full out invasion of Ukraine, the US won't escalate the crisis. If Obama knows Iran's government feels the pain from sanctions, he can have a real conversation about nuclear development. Iraq, one of the biggest international disasters since the Berlin Wall fell, was caused by shitty intelligence and fear of the unknown. Saddam really dismantled his WMD program, bu the US, based on fear, assumed he was hiding it. This is totally different than a surveillance state over the individuals.

gdy 12y ago
"Iraq, one of the biggest international disasters since the Berlin Wall fell, was caused by shitty intelligence and fear of the unknown. Saddam really dismantled his WMD program, bu the US, based on fear, assumed he was hiding it." No, not according to what Wesley Clark, former US general who almost started WW3 in Yugoslavia, says: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyEJ6Aja-UQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyEJ6Aja-UQ
MetaCosm 12y ago
Interesting perspective (intelligence services as another form of back channel communication). "Forced transparency".
_lce0 12y ago
The problem is when the spying relatio is not balanced. One country having so much info of another, which is blind.

sleepyhead 12y ago

Hey we're not tiny. It takes probably about 30 hours to drive from the south to the north. Compare that to any other European country.