3 ms·

Spying is often seen as a necessary requirement to diplomatic stability. I have much more of a problem with blanket surveillance than this targeted spying to be

by junto 12y ago

Spying is often seen as a necessary requirement to diplomatic stability. I have much more of a problem with blanket surveillance than this targeted spying to be honest. Lots of these revalations are being published by a non-US security company. The US security companies have either missed these security issues, deliberately ignored them, or have been forced to keep them secret. In my opinion, the fact that there are still some non-US IT security companies is a good thing.

coldtea 12y ago
>Spying is often seen as a necessary requirement to diplomatic stability. Also for having the upper hand in negotiations and forcing the lesser states and their politicians to do as you please... Which is much more important than some BS need for "diplomatic stability" without any other major player like USSR around, except maybe with China. If you're the 10,000-pound gorilla you don't get instabilized by the small 10 pound zoo animals...
- frostmatthew 12y ago
  > If you're the 10,000-pound gorilla you don't get instabilized by the small 10 pound zoo animals That's not always true for either countries[1] or animals[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_British_colonies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_British_coloni... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig
  - coldtea 12y ago
    They didn't "de-stabilize" UK, they just re-gained their freedom (as much as they could, they're still tied with 100 different ways to their old masters). It's not like some small nation came and took Wales from the UK -- which would be actual de-stabilizing.
  - Retric 12y ago
    There is a big difference between a 10 pound animal and lots of 100-400lb pigs on fire. Megarians doused some pigs with combustible pitch, crude oil or resin, set them alight, and drove them towards the enemy's massed war elephants. The elephants bolted in terror from the flaming, squealing pigs, often killing great numbers of their own soldiers by trampling them to death. From of foreign policy standpoint it's often less about the entire country vs small groups of well-connected people with foreign interests. In the end most of what the US government does is easier to understand when you reolise and account for just how corrupt it is. EX: US immigration policy seems vary reasonable when you reolise exploting both legal and illigal immigrants makes some people lot's of money.
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  > Also for having the upper hand in negotiations and forcing the lesser states and their politicians to do as you please That's what "diplomatic stability" means.
skolor 12y ago
I think the generous interpretation is that the US Security companies simply don't get as much collected data in the areas being targeted by the US intel agencies. I don't have any real data to back it up, but I would assume Kaspersky has a much higher install rate in Russia than, say, Symantec. I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true for much of the middle east, too. Its especially interesting that the mere assumption that the US security companies are covering for the intel agencies is going to make it look more like they are. If Kaspersky is on 90% of the computers targeted by the NSA/CIA, they're going to be much more likely to get the data necessary for this kind of analysis, which reinforces the thought that the US companies might be covering it up.
- junto 12y ago
  Good point. I hadn't considered that.

by junto 12y ago

coldtea 12y ago

>Spying is often seen as a necessary requirement to diplomatic stability. Also for having the upper hand in negotiations and forcing the lesser states and their politicians to do as you please... Which is much more important than some BS need for "diplomatic stability" without any other major player like USSR around, except maybe with China. If you're the 10,000-pound gorilla you don't get instabilized by the small 10 pound zoo animals...

frostmatthew 12y ago
> If you're the 10,000-pound gorilla you don't get instabilized by the small 10 pound zoo animals That's not always true for either countries[1] or animals[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_British_colonies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_British_coloni... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_pig
- coldtea 12y ago
  They didn't "de-stabilize" UK, they just re-gained their freedom (as much as they could, they're still tied with 100 different ways to their old masters). It's not like some small nation came and took Wales from the UK -- which would be actual de-stabilizing.
- Retric 12y ago
  There is a big difference between a 10 pound animal and lots of 100-400lb pigs on fire. Megarians doused some pigs with combustible pitch, crude oil or resin, set them alight, and drove them towards the enemy's massed war elephants. The elephants bolted in terror from the flaming, squealing pigs, often killing great numbers of their own soldiers by trampling them to death. From of foreign policy standpoint it's often less about the entire country vs small groups of well-connected people with foreign interests. In the end most of what the US government does is easier to understand when you reolise and account for just how corrupt it is. EX: US immigration policy seems vary reasonable when you reolise exploting both legal and illigal immigrants makes some people lot's of money.
jjoonathan 12y ago
> Also for having the upper hand in negotiations and forcing the lesser states and their politicians to do as you please That's what "diplomatic stability" means.

skolor 12y ago

I think the generous interpretation is that the US Security companies simply don't get as much collected data in the areas being targeted by the US intel agencies. I don't have any real data to back it up, but I would assume Kaspersky has a much higher install rate in Russia than, say, Symantec. I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true for much of the middle east, too. Its especially interesting that the mere assumption that the US security companies are covering for the intel agencies is going to make it look more like they are. If Kaspersky is on 90% of the computers targeted by the NSA/CIA, they're going to be much more likely to get the data necessary for this kind of analysis, which reinforces the thought that the US companies might be covering it up.

junto 12y ago
Good point. I hadn't considered that.