NSA hacked into encrypted UN communications, leaked documents show(gigaom.com)
gigaom.com
NSA hacked into encrypted UN communications, leaked documents show
http://gigaom.com/2013/08/25/nsa-hacked-into-un-communications-leaked-documents-show/
110 comments
The stalking love interests bit puts the lie to any warrants required by the way. I'm not sure why that wasn't brought to a more prominent notice but I'd like to see the warrant issued to spy on a spouse.
Sadly if you keep stuff in secret you could try this justification - the person spies on terrorists - so you have connection to them. S/He is connected to you so is only two hops away. So is legitimate person of interest.
Yeah but following this logic, the analyst himself becomes a person of interest since connected to his former spouse..
Yes, they are. That's why they have to go through the invasive process of getting clearance.
Believe me, I'm not claiming it's a perfect process or that it has been perfectly applied, but the system as a whole does acknowledge that analysts are intrinsically "persons of interest", and takes steps that are at least appropriate in principle to deal with that.
Believe me, I'm not claiming it's a perfect process or that it has been perfectly applied, but the system as a whole does acknowledge that analysts are intrinsically "persons of interest", and takes steps that are at least appropriate in principle to deal with that.
If anyone's read the Philip K. Dick novel A Scanner Darkly, this conversation is teeming on the book's plot where the protagonist is assigned to spy on himself and his associates.
>The major news is stalking love interests, not the UN. It's news like this that gets people riled up, as it's more easy to relate.
Yes, because god forbid an inane and infantilized population can understand the significance of actual politics without human interest stories in them...
Yes, because god forbid an inane and infantilized population can understand the significance of actual politics without human interest stories in them...
After the revelations about spying on other G8 attendees, a portion of posters on HN and elsewhere proved their worldly, jaded cynicism and acceptance of the status quo with posts saying "of course they do" and "everyone knows that" and "no news here". In this very discussion there's a poster saying "The real surprise is everyone is shocked".
These people won't care about the UN story - but the stalking love interests they might care about.
These people won't care about the UN story - but the stalking love interests they might care about.
I would make an argument that giving Mr Obama every morning a brief what is going in secret in UN, Kremlin and Beijing is NSA mandate. They were created to collect that kind.
It is intelligence agencies work to collect intelligence.
So basically - trying to open Merkel inbox from NSA or GRU = totally fine and vice versa. NSA collecting data on millions of people that are disconnected from the politics is not fine. So is checking out what is your loved one doing on facebook with tools inaccessible to the normal people.
It is intelligence agencies work to collect intelligence.
So basically - trying to open Merkel inbox from NSA or GRU = totally fine and vice versa. NSA collecting data on millions of people that are disconnected from the politics is not fine. So is checking out what is your loved one doing on facebook with tools inaccessible to the normal people.
>I would make an argument that giving Mr Obama every morning a brief what is going in secret in UN, Kremlin and Beijing is NSA mandate. They were created to collect that kind. It is intelligence agencies work to collect intelligence.
Some people seem to think that collecting intelligence means breaking 24/7 into sovereign countries (and allies) leaders' communications...
How about they fucking do it the old fashioned way: talking to people, gathering diplomatic sources, analysing press and political statements, checking budget uses, the odd snitch here and there, getting some leaks, etc etc?
Some people seem to think that collecting intelligence means breaking 24/7 into sovereign countries (and allies) leaders' communications...
How about they fucking do it the old fashioned way: talking to people, gathering diplomatic sources, analysing press and political statements, checking budget uses, the odd snitch here and there, getting some leaks, etc etc?
The UN story, like the G8 story, honestly is old news. The US has been spying on diplomats for a long time now (see the last section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty for instance).
>These people won't care about the UN story - but the stalking love interests they might care about.
True, but those people are so beyond fixing, that I don't think it would matter even if they started to care about those issues.
True, but those people are so beyond fixing, that I don't think it would matter even if they started to care about those issues.
While I agree with the sentiment, I would rather have people caring about the NSA spying for the "wrong" reasons than not caring at all.
That's a hollow victory. The momentum is much weaker in most cases when people care about something for the wrong reasons and then it gets easily quelled by distractions. In fact, that's how a lot of this nonsense stayed on for so long.
Imagine if more people cared about Iraq for more than the price of oil. Some did, but not nearly enough in number.
Imagine if more people cared about Iraq for more than the price of oil. Some did, but not nearly enough in number.
Again, that's great in theory, but pragmatically, most people don't see the problem with government spying if they're "not doing anything wrong". So until you have a plan to change that, I'd still prefer they care for the "wrong" reasons than not at all.
I don't. All they have to do is announce that analysts will need approval to investigate anyone that can be connected to their personal lives, fire two or three people for violating the new policy, and suddenly all NSA spying is vindicated.
I once had a dog, he liked to urinate on things, I didn't see the point in getting worked up and cynical about the fact that he was simply doing what was in his nature. Then again I didn't ask him to vote on my major life decisions either, so there's that.
Humans really aren't that much different at a macro level. Maybe it's not humans that are the problem but the assumptions of our political systems.
Humans really aren't that much different at a macro level. Maybe it's not humans that are the problem but the assumptions of our political systems.
Well the "love interest" story is much worse. The stasi maintained the authoritarian political and psychological control over the german population through blackmail and spying.
Invading the privacy of (innocent, or incidentally guilty) citizens turns the NSA from a national security agency into a secret police.
Invading the privacy of (innocent, or incidentally guilty) citizens turns the NSA from a national security agency into a secret police.
>Invading the privacy of (innocent, or incidentally guilty) citizens turns the NSA from a national security agency into a secret police.
They've already announced that invading the privacy of the innocent is official policy. The fact that errant analysts take 10 minutes off from executing algorithms that mine your mother's phone history in order to read their girlfriend's emails is a distraction.
They've already announced that invading the privacy of the innocent is official policy. The fact that errant analysts take 10 minutes off from executing algorithms that mine your mother's phone history in order to read their girlfriend's emails is a distraction.
The big question I have about the LOVEINT thing is how confident they are that people haven't got away with it. The government have been spinning it as "rare", but what if it's only people getting caught that's rare?
The major news is stalking love interests,
Remember in MiB when J uses surveillance satellites to check up on his love interest?
I don't know the granularity of FB access logging, but I imagine employees aren't verboten from looking up anything about anyone. At one time, it was a perk ("Join us and SPY ON ALL YOUR FRIENDS! LOL!").
There have been reports of google sysadmins stalking people (ex-lovers) by using their root-level gmail/account access. Supposedly google has since instituted finer grained access logging that will alert if someone is working outside of their authority (but, who locks down executive/CEO authority?).
I'm paranoid. I think, in Sergey's office, there's page that looks like google.com, but it flatly searches every gmail/gtalk/gvoice message ever sent or received. Their speciality is search and you give them all your private communications? Yeah, that'll end well.
Remember in MiB when J uses surveillance satellites to check up on his love interest?
I don't know the granularity of FB access logging, but I imagine employees aren't verboten from looking up anything about anyone. At one time, it was a perk ("Join us and SPY ON ALL YOUR FRIENDS! LOL!").
There have been reports of google sysadmins stalking people (ex-lovers) by using their root-level gmail/account access. Supposedly google has since instituted finer grained access logging that will alert if someone is working outside of their authority (but, who locks down executive/CEO authority?).
I'm paranoid. I think, in Sergey's office, there's page that looks like google.com, but it flatly searches every gmail/gtalk/gvoice message ever sent or received. Their speciality is search and you give them all your private communications? Yeah, that'll end well.
Unauthorized access to profiles has been a fireable offense at FB for several years.
This is absolutely the crux of the matter. The power granted by these programmes involves granting power to entirely fallible human beings. Conceptually there may be good reasons for allowing this level of control, but as abuse is always possible in a closed system, this level of control should never be allowed.
> I refuse to believe that nobody abused this power for
> revenge against an ex or someone who didn't return their
> affections
What about vetting potential candidates? Say you met someone on a dating site, had chatted a few times, and wanted to know whether they were telling the truth or not?
Not saying it's any more excusable - jail time should still be involved - just that it doesn't have to be on the scary-revenge side of stalking. Just a more intrusive, privacy-invading version of Googling a date.
> revenge against an ex or someone who didn't return their
> affections
What about vetting potential candidates? Say you met someone on a dating site, had chatted a few times, and wanted to know whether they were telling the truth or not?
Not saying it's any more excusable - jail time should still be involved - just that it doesn't have to be on the scary-revenge side of stalking. Just a more intrusive, privacy-invading version of Googling a date.
It is actually a big deal. Assuming the surveillance took place in New York, this constitutes warrantless domestic surveillance, something which is explicitly forbidden by law and has been repeatedly denied by authorities.
No, the NSA can intercept communication between "non-U.S. persons" at either end.
Non-citizens in the United States have the same protection from warrantless search and wiretapping as US citizens. The NSA is forbidden by law from intercepting domestic-domestic communications.
EDIT: looks like I'm wrong. The headquarters are technically international territory.
EDIT: looks like I'm wrong. The headquarters are technically international territory.
According to the articles I've seen, spying on the UN is prohibited by international law.
When did the US start to care about international law? We tend to use it as an excuse for military action abroad, but we routinely ignore international law, treaties, agreements, etc. when it suits us.
Why is spying on the UN worrisome? Countries spy on each other, because countries lie to each other all the time. It's how countries find out what's really happening as opposed to what's said publicly.
If you spy on the UN, you own it. You have a disproportionate advantage in all negotiations (unless other countries are also effective at spying[1]). You might think that it is fine that the US effectively owns the UN, but its credibility is ruined.
The compromised UN is effectively a body for representing and legitimizing the wishes of the cabal of US allies as if they were the actual consensus of all UN member states.
[1] But it is still not possible for any nation to be more effective at spying than the US, given the UN's location.
The compromised UN is effectively a body for representing and legitimizing the wishes of the cabal of US allies as if they were the actual consensus of all UN member states.
[1] But it is still not possible for any nation to be more effective at spying than the US, given the UN's location.
Replace "NSA" by "China" and the whole world would have gone into frenzy.
I don't think so.
The US is supposed to be an ally of many, if not the majority, of UN members. China is not. So from, say a Spanish POV, China, not regarded as an ally, spying is expected, but an ally industrially spying is more difficult to accept. In fact, something like this may well destabilize the UN. How can such an institution be trusted if its major player and funder is using it as its own conduit for spying? Yeah "we" all "knew", not now we really do know. Its fact.
What this proves is that the US is an ally of no one. The US has abused it's self entitled presumed position of trust. Now when there is some international jolly, or what ever, US requests for insane amounts of comic book, sunglasses wearing, gun toting SS to be allowed free armed reign may well be met with a lot more skepticism. The usual suspects will continue to suck up (the UK for example has no where else to turn to, given its attitude to the EU), but over all I see a lot more difficulty for the US behind the scenes and diplomatically.
In short, there is a huge difference between an enemy spying and a so called ally.
The US is supposed to be an ally of many, if not the majority, of UN members. China is not. So from, say a Spanish POV, China, not regarded as an ally, spying is expected, but an ally industrially spying is more difficult to accept. In fact, something like this may well destabilize the UN. How can such an institution be trusted if its major player and funder is using it as its own conduit for spying? Yeah "we" all "knew", not now we really do know. Its fact.
What this proves is that the US is an ally of no one. The US has abused it's self entitled presumed position of trust. Now when there is some international jolly, or what ever, US requests for insane amounts of comic book, sunglasses wearing, gun toting SS to be allowed free armed reign may well be met with a lot more skepticism. The usual suspects will continue to suck up (the UK for example has no where else to turn to, given its attitude to the EU), but over all I see a lot more difficulty for the US behind the scenes and diplomatically.
In short, there is a huge difference between an enemy spying and a so called ally.
Allies spy on each other all the time. Alliances are simple two dimension structures, counties align themselves will all sorts of interests that sometimes seem contradictory. Look at the Israelis for example, they spy on the US. But they clearly benefit from the US's support. nevertheless, it makes sense for them to spy on the US, first they need to know what the US really thinks to protect their interests (the US isnt always publicly stating its true ntetions) and sometimes the US may have intel the Israelis do not). thats just one example of allies spying.
In general terms, any intelligent government is going to want to know what's happening in the world to its interests because people, and countries, lie and withhold information. So in general terms, everyone spies on everyone.
Who is your ally in one matter may not be in another. For example, China is neither an ally nor an enemy to the US. US Sino relations are complicated, sometimes the two agree and work together, sometimes they do not. If two countries cooperate on some things, but not others should they blindly trust each other? Of course not. What if they mostly agree? Should they still blindly trust each other? I would hope not. Again, consider how allies sometimes to lie to each other to get them to support their cherished positions. Nations have a duty to their citizens, and shouldn't blindly follow their allies statements of so-called fact. How else does a nation meet this duty if it doesn't cast a wary eye on its allies? It spies on them.
Equally, sometimes traditional allies are opposed on certain things, or may be lying as the Greeks were about their national finances. Im sure the EU wishes it knew that earlier.
The word ally isn't the same thing as "always on my side". These are nations we're talking about, that operate in their own interests, lie to each other and dont always operate in their friends interests. It seems reasonable for allies to be a bit wary of each other and to not assume allies will just always act in their allies best interests. And alas, spy on each other find out what's really going on.
In general terms, any intelligent government is going to want to know what's happening in the world to its interests because people, and countries, lie and withhold information. So in general terms, everyone spies on everyone.
Who is your ally in one matter may not be in another. For example, China is neither an ally nor an enemy to the US. US Sino relations are complicated, sometimes the two agree and work together, sometimes they do not. If two countries cooperate on some things, but not others should they blindly trust each other? Of course not. What if they mostly agree? Should they still blindly trust each other? I would hope not. Again, consider how allies sometimes to lie to each other to get them to support their cherished positions. Nations have a duty to their citizens, and shouldn't blindly follow their allies statements of so-called fact. How else does a nation meet this duty if it doesn't cast a wary eye on its allies? It spies on them.
Equally, sometimes traditional allies are opposed on certain things, or may be lying as the Greeks were about their national finances. Im sure the EU wishes it knew that earlier.
The word ally isn't the same thing as "always on my side". These are nations we're talking about, that operate in their own interests, lie to each other and dont always operate in their friends interests. It seems reasonable for allies to be a bit wary of each other and to not assume allies will just always act in their allies best interests. And alas, spy on each other find out what's really going on.
So Germany should close the US bases there?
It's interesting the US and the UK have the biggest blocks in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_the_United_Nations (the wikipedia article referenced in the story) but there's no entries for China, Iran, or North Korea.
When was the last time NSA hacked into civilian infrastructure of other countries?
A couple of milliseconds ago I presume.
Yes. NSA is controlling Chinese water plants. Oh my god.
Why bother hacking in? The majority of it is transmitted around the world on open lines for all and sundry to see - if you know what you're doing, which the NSA does.
No doubt. If China had done this, the USA would be at the brink of war right now. They would be 'terrorists', or 'information terrorists' or something bizarre for undermining the 'international government'.
So over the USA.
So over the USA.
Oh please. China hacked into the JSF project at Lockheed twice, and the US did its best to avoid confrontation at all cost.
Yes, because some BS plane project is the same as the UN. And because the US didn't do exactly the same for similar Chinese projects.
> And because the US didn't do exactly the same for similar Chinese projects.
That is irrelevant, I answered to a message in context, and that context was "if china did the hacking, US would be on the brink of war".
Which is why I pointed out that the US mostly had no real reaction when China did hack twice not just some UN politician emails, but the biggest military project of the US, one meant to replace pretty much every other fighter planes they have except the f22 for the foreseeable future.
So if they did not do anything about that, no, they would not be on the brink of war over a Chinese hack of the UN. But I'm sure they would write a strongly worded letter.
That is irrelevant, I answered to a message in context, and that context was "if china did the hacking, US would be on the brink of war".
Which is why I pointed out that the US mostly had no real reaction when China did hack twice not just some UN politician emails, but the biggest military project of the US, one meant to replace pretty much every other fighter planes they have except the f22 for the foreseeable future.
So if they did not do anything about that, no, they would not be on the brink of war over a Chinese hack of the UN. But I'm sure they would write a strongly worded letter.
>That is irrelevant, I answered to a message in context, and that context was "if china did the hacking, US would be on the brink of war".
Well, the context was wrong, anyway. The real context is: "if china did that, US would hypocritically cry about it".
Well, the context was wrong, anyway. The real context is: "if china did that, US would hypocritically cry about it".
Pretty sure it says that the Chinese attempted the same, yet the headline is about the US.
That's because after all the headlines about the Chinese doing this, nobody cares about that any more. But the U.S. made such a brouhaha about the Chinese doing it that when it turns out they were doing the same - but to a far greater scale, it turns out that there's one rule for the U.S. (which is "the rules don't apply to us"), and one rule for everyone else (which is "the rules still apply to all you lot, because it's our playground, and we make the rules").
Besides, this will blow over just as quickly as it blew up just like everything else did/does in the U.S. - the president will do something dumb that everyone can get up in arms about, like cheating on his wife with a pretty white intern who strips on the side to "pay her way through college" and all will be forgotten while the bible belt attempts to sacrifice him on the alter of Republicanism. Why? Because the U.S. loves their witch hunt... as long as they're huntin' witches, they're happy. The problem is, when they run out of witches to hunt, what are they going to do with themselves?
Meanwhile, I'll sit back and roll my eyes because history has shown us that the U.S. is just that predictable.
Besides, this will blow over just as quickly as it blew up just like everything else did/does in the U.S. - the president will do something dumb that everyone can get up in arms about, like cheating on his wife with a pretty white intern who strips on the side to "pay her way through college" and all will be forgotten while the bible belt attempts to sacrifice him on the alter of Republicanism. Why? Because the U.S. loves their witch hunt... as long as they're huntin' witches, they're happy. The problem is, when they run out of witches to hunt, what are they going to do with themselves?
Meanwhile, I'll sit back and roll my eyes because history has shown us that the U.S. is just that predictable.
Indeed, "According to the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, on one occasion when the Americans were breaking into UN communications, they discovered the Chinese had tried to do the same."
Guess it was not only an "attempt", they probably succeeded, they are rather skilled.
I wonder what two spies talk about when they stumble upon each other ? "Oh Hello, you're already there ? Am I late ? What did they say until now ?"
Guess it was not only an "attempt", they probably succeeded, they are rather skilled.
I wonder what two spies talk about when they stumble upon each other ? "Oh Hello, you're already there ? Am I late ? What did they say until now ?"
Replace "NSA" by "China" and no one would care.
China is the scapegoat when it comes to hacking. Just as China is mentioned the interest just dies - since it's expected of them (the article even mentions Chine trying the same thing...).
China is the scapegoat when it comes to hacking. Just as China is mentioned the interest just dies - since it's expected of them (the article even mentions Chine trying the same thing...).
From the article:
"According to the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, on one occasion when the Americans were breaking into UN communications, they discovered the Chinese had tried to do the same."
Umm, so this is a concrete breach of international law. When do we see US officials being arrested and tried?
Oh that's right, they don't believe in the rule of law (which is why they've exempted themselves and their entire military from the ICC.)
This makes me furious for the same reason as when criminals are given lenient sentences. I don't understand why it doesn't for other people.
Oh that's right, they don't believe in the rule of law (which is why they've exempted themselves and their entire military from the ICC.)
This makes me furious for the same reason as when criminals are given lenient sentences. I don't understand why it doesn't for other people.
"Umm, so this is a concrete breach of international law. When do we see US officials being arrested and tried?"
For the same reason James Clapper is not being prosecuted for perjury, obstruction of Congress, and making false statements -- all of which are illegal under US law (which carries far more weight in this country).
For the same reason James Clapper is not being prosecuted for perjury, obstruction of Congress, and making false statements -- all of which are illegal under US law (which carries far more weight in this country).
Spying on other countries is against international law? Since when? That's what countries, all countries, do.
It doesn't say spying on other countries is against international law, it says spying on the UN is. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations[1] says "UN premises shall be inviolable, and UN property shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation etc."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Privileges_a...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Privileges_a...
See also, Der Spiegel article:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6271222
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6271222
The article mentions cracked encryption and how the NSA likes to bug. Does anyone know what the details on the cracked encryption are: key size, algorithm, VPN type? Or whether they obtained through one of the less-scary methods: trojan, stolen credentials, a brute-forced weak credentials, etc? Or perhaps it was just a touch of ignorance of Google Translate or the journalist(s)?
I wonder- was this during or after Obama's stint as chairman of the United Nations Security Council?
Er, isn't the NSA supposed to be doing this exact thing? Signals interception to assist in the intelligence efforts of the U.S.?
Did I miss out on something? This is what they're paid for. If they're monitoring diplomatic, political, and military information worldwide, I'm happy about that. Might keep us out of another war. Helps us make better decisions. And so on.
Once again, there's nothing wrong with nations having intelligence agencies. Overall they help keep the peace. It's the monitoring of the civilian population -- which in a democracy is where the real political power is supposed to be -- that's insane.
Did I miss out on something? This is what they're paid for. If they're monitoring diplomatic, political, and military information worldwide, I'm happy about that. Might keep us out of another war. Helps us make better decisions. And so on.
Once again, there's nothing wrong with nations having intelligence agencies. Overall they help keep the peace. It's the monitoring of the civilian population -- which in a democracy is where the real political power is supposed to be -- that's insane.
> Did I miss out on something?
Yes. The United Nations seat is where it is because it is agreed that this is extraterritorial and inviolate. Think of it as bombing a church or a hospital. (not that those things aren't done, but they're considered more than just bad form).
The United Nations headquarters relies on the host country to play nice and to be trustworthy otherwise the United Nations will lose its ability to operate and that is worth more than the secret services of any one country, even the US.
Yes. The United Nations seat is where it is because it is agreed that this is extraterritorial and inviolate. Think of it as bombing a church or a hospital. (not that those things aren't done, but they're considered more than just bad form).
The United Nations headquarters relies on the host country to play nice and to be trustworthy otherwise the United Nations will lose its ability to operate and that is worth more than the secret services of any one country, even the US.
That's amazingly naive, Jacques. The same argument could be used for embassies worldwide: they are considered part of another country and so on. Yet embassies are routinely tapped by everyone. Been that way for decades.
The UN is a treaty organization, not a world government. It has as much sanctity as any other treaty organization -- not much. If folks want to construe this as being something to do with them being hosted in the US, then I'm at a loss as to how to continue the conversation. The Chinese would be okay tapping the communications but the U.S. not? Doesn't make any sense.
A little bit of context here is all I ask. Intelligence agencies are supposed to find out things about diplomatic, political, and military matters. They break and bend all kinds of rules doing so. This will continue whether or not you or I agree to it, whether it's the US or the Russians, and whether the UN is in New York or Botswana. I'm fine with that, mainly because the more each country knows about the inner workings of the others, the better they can predict reactions to political moves. That makes the world safer.
I think we've just reached the point where somebody says "NSA" and the mob all gets out the pitchforks and torches. That's a shame, because there is a very serious problem here, and it has nothing to do with the U.S. or the NSA. It has to do with technology making the entire life of the civilian population available to anybody with the appropriate political power. Not limited to NSA. Not limited to the U.S.. It's a worldwide problem based on the tech we create everyday.
We should really get off the NSA jag and on to actually solving problems instead of this emotional overreaction to any story with NSA in the title business the MSM is pushing us into.
The UN is a treaty organization, not a world government. It has as much sanctity as any other treaty organization -- not much. If folks want to construe this as being something to do with them being hosted in the US, then I'm at a loss as to how to continue the conversation. The Chinese would be okay tapping the communications but the U.S. not? Doesn't make any sense.
A little bit of context here is all I ask. Intelligence agencies are supposed to find out things about diplomatic, political, and military matters. They break and bend all kinds of rules doing so. This will continue whether or not you or I agree to it, whether it's the US or the Russians, and whether the UN is in New York or Botswana. I'm fine with that, mainly because the more each country knows about the inner workings of the others, the better they can predict reactions to political moves. That makes the world safer.
I think we've just reached the point where somebody says "NSA" and the mob all gets out the pitchforks and torches. That's a shame, because there is a very serious problem here, and it has nothing to do with the U.S. or the NSA. It has to do with technology making the entire life of the civilian population available to anybody with the appropriate political power. Not limited to NSA. Not limited to the U.S.. It's a worldwide problem based on the tech we create everyday.
We should really get off the NSA jag and on to actually solving problems instead of this emotional overreaction to any story with NSA in the title business the MSM is pushing us into.
Yes, I got it. The US can not be trusted under any circumstances and treaties are meaningless.
Call me naive but I expected better, I'd be just as surprised if the Swiss were caught bugging the Geneva assembly or if the Belgians were caught bugging the EU Headquarters. Note the 'caught'.
Who knows, they might even do it. But for now we only have proof about the US and the UN mission in New York and if you can't see why that's a bad thing (even if it was to be expected by all but the naive people in the world) then I can't help that. Trust is fragile.
It's like cheating on your wife: you can do it, plenty of people do. But don't get found out or there will be consequences that you might not be willing to pay.
Call me naive but I expected better, I'd be just as surprised if the Swiss were caught bugging the Geneva assembly or if the Belgians were caught bugging the EU Headquarters. Note the 'caught'.
Who knows, they might even do it. But for now we only have proof about the US and the UN mission in New York and if you can't see why that's a bad thing (even if it was to be expected by all but the naive people in the world) then I can't help that. Trust is fragile.
It's like cheating on your wife: you can do it, plenty of people do. But don't get found out or there will be consequences that you might not be willing to pay.
treaties are meaningless
Are there actual treaties that have been broken through any of this? While it does seem naive to expect nations to be "trustworthy" or not to spy, breaking a formal treaty is surely another matter.
Are there actual treaties that have been broken through any of this? While it does seem naive to expect nations to be "trustworthy" or not to spy, breaking a formal treaty is surely another matter.
That's not nearly precise enough to answer my question. The article refers in passing to a treaty granting UN headquarters extraterritorial status. Obviously, extraterritoriality as such doesn't preclude spying.
The question is whether a specific treaty was specifically broken. That's an interesting question for two reasons: it presumably has an exact answer, and it would have consequences beyond just the media, general outrage, etc.
Edit: But this looks like it might count: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272729
The question is whether a specific treaty was specifically broken. That's an interesting question for two reasons: it presumably has an exact answer, and it would have consequences beyond just the media, general outrage, etc.
Edit: But this looks like it might count: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272729
You're further along than I am. I read that the UN headquarters were declared 'inviolate', but don't recall where. Searching.
Edit: found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_the_United_Nations
Edit2: and I see you have an even better reference now.
Anyway, I think that the 'inviolate' from my original comment stands and that - at least according to the UN - this is not just a breach of decorum but illegal.
Edit: found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_the_United_Nations
Edit2: and I see you have an even better reference now.
Anyway, I think that the 'inviolate' from my original comment stands and that - at least according to the UN - this is not just a breach of decorum but illegal.
Yes, that's got to be the most relevant Wikipedia article. Since it starts with two examples of spying on the UN that appear to have had zero consequences, I guess I was wrong.
I don't think there will be consequences but that does not mean it isn't illegal. Technically this is the same kind of breach that is against article 22 of the Geneva Convention on Diplomatic Relations (a pretty long document). That everybody does it all the time and that it should be expected is one thing, that the host country does it makes it something a bit more serious imo.
After all if the most powerful country in the world uses the fact that UN has a residence inside its own borders (but legally speaking outside of them) to achieve home-court advantage then it might be time to relocate.
But that will likely not happen.
After all if the most powerful country in the world uses the fact that UN has a residence inside its own borders (but legally speaking outside of them) to achieve home-court advantage then it might be time to relocate.
But that will likely not happen.
Does "illegal" really mean anything in the international system? Certainly governments cite "international law" to score propaganda points, but to show that it really means something, it's not enough to show cases where weak nations were punished for violating it—one would need an example of a strong nation being punished for violating it. Without that, it isn't the rule of law, only the rule of the strong. Has there been any such case? (Certainly there are many examples of strong nations violating so-called international law with impunity.)
I think we'll know the answer to that question when oil finally really does run out.
There is too much uncertainty past that point to make any predictions at all but I figure as soon as the ability to project power short of ICBMs goes out the window and the geopolitical map drawn up around one particular resource gets redrawn there will be a big push for something more stable in the longer term. And trade embargoes are a lot easier to maintain when it isn't as easy to move around. Until then it will be status quo with bigger countries ignoring the treaties they've signed and ratified whenever they feel like.
There is too much uncertainty past that point to make any predictions at all but I figure as soon as the ability to project power short of ICBMs goes out the window and the geopolitical map drawn up around one particular resource gets redrawn there will be a big push for something more stable in the longer term. And trade embargoes are a lot easier to maintain when it isn't as easy to move around. Until then it will be status quo with bigger countries ignoring the treaties they've signed and ratified whenever they feel like.
That's a shame, because there is a very serious problem here, and it
has nothing to do with the U.S. or the NSA. It has to do with technology [...]
We should really get off the NSA jag [...]
They are expected to do it (bug), but not be found out.
How exactly do they plan to tell us that this is legal to protect us from "terrorists"? It's in direct violation of international law.
The NSA's attacks may have been facilitated by earlier spying on the UN that was carried out by the State Department. I posted the reference in another thread:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6274158
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6274158
The NSA is having a really bad year...
From 'No Such Agency' to having a searchlight aimed at your every move is a bit of a wake up call I guess.
I was toying with the idea of a bounty site for leakers but that would definitely be right across the line. The idea here was that if foreign secret services recruit moles for cash rather than for some kind of political leanings the general public should be able to do the same. Sort of wikileaks meets kickstarter. Items like: "$largefigure for the person that leaks all of congress' emails to and from industry professionals for the last decade". I'm pretty sure that that sort of transparency would clean up a lot of filth in short order. What's good for the goose...
I was toying with the idea of a bounty site for leakers but that would definitely be right across the line. The idea here was that if foreign secret services recruit moles for cash rather than for some kind of political leanings the general public should be able to do the same. Sort of wikileaks meets kickstarter. Items like: "$largefigure for the person that leaks all of congress' emails to and from industry professionals for the last decade". I'm pretty sure that that sort of transparency would clean up a lot of filth in short order. What's good for the goose...
That completely crosses the line from whistleblower to espionage. There would be serious jail time involved for anyone involved in that scheme from both the person providing the money and the person selling the information.
> That completely crosses the line from whistleblower to espionage.
I thought that recent events had demonstrated that that "line" doesn't exist -- if it is unwelcome by those in power, its espionage especially if it is whistleblowing.
I thought that recent events had demonstrated that that "line" doesn't exist -- if it is unwelcome by those in power, its espionage especially if it is whistleblowing.
Obviously. Think of it as a thought experiment, and fortunately those are (still) allowed.
Wow, the NSA has just become the whipping boy of the media. Well, they deserved it. They reached too far, and now their ability for worldwide surveillance has taken a massive hit.
They should have read the tale of Icarus before going flying.
There is a spurious 'f' at the beginning of the last word in your comment.
Hope this helps!
Hope this helps!
hahahahha!!
I don't think their ability to perform surveillance has suffered at all. It's their credibility that's taken a hit.
Of course their ability has taken a hit. Congress now has their eye on the NSA and they'll be looking to put a new set of policies into place so that they can look good to their voters. Even Snowden said that all the NSA's activities were dictated by policy. So yeah, maybe at the moment everything is running as normal, but that won't be the case for long. Just remember, if you're a senator banging 14 year olds, you don't want the NSA snooping through security cameras in your office. So in addition to the above point, congress will want to put a leash on the NSA out of self-preservation.
Something I believe that needs to be delineated is if the NSA is doing this work or if one of their contractors is. For an example of a contractor doing such services, Endgame Systems[1].
"Endgame executives will bring up maps of airports, parliament buildings, and corporate offices. The executives then create a list of the computers running inside the facilities, including what software the computers run, and a menu of attacks that could work against those particular systems. Endgame weaponry comes customized by region—the Middle East, Russia, Latin America, and China—with manuals, testing software, and “demo instructions.” There are even target packs for democratic countries in Europe and other U.S. allies."
With news of payments rendered to companies complicit in handing over data under dubious laws, I believe much more attention should be put on the 'plumbers' themselves. [1] http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems
"Endgame executives will bring up maps of airports, parliament buildings, and corporate offices. The executives then create a list of the computers running inside the facilities, including what software the computers run, and a menu of attacks that could work against those particular systems. Endgame weaponry comes customized by region—the Middle East, Russia, Latin America, and China—with manuals, testing software, and “demo instructions.” There are even target packs for democratic countries in Europe and other U.S. allies."
With news of payments rendered to companies complicit in handing over data under dubious laws, I believe much more attention should be put on the 'plumbers' themselves. [1] http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems
Is the US trying to start a new cold war, this time with the rest of the world?
Not even the entire US, just its government, against everyone else, including its citizens. Too much power in too few hands.
I think if the citizens stays complacent of its government actions than they should be equally liable. I have always tried to distinguish difference between not liking or disagreeing with the government of USA and having the same attitude towards the citizens of USA. But you can only drag it for so long.
What will it take for you go to the street against your government? Governments of other countries have fallen for much less crime, yet the american government gets away with killing thousands of people and violating national and international laws under false pretence. And the USA citizens gets to wash their hands from any responsibility by simply arguing that the government did it.
What will it take for you go to the street against your government? Governments of other countries have fallen for much less crime, yet the american government gets away with killing thousands of people and violating national and international laws under false pretence. And the USA citizens gets to wash their hands from any responsibility by simply arguing that the government did it.
Yes and German citizens are responsible for the US military bases there as well as intelligence sharing deals their gov made.
Having military base itself is nothing wrong, nor is sharing intelligence in itself.
But the german citizen would be responsible if their government is engaged in so called pre-emptive war, under the pretense of terrorism and engaged in multi-year war with thousands of deaths and the citizens didn't even lift a finger.
Similarly if the german government is engaged in country-wide surveillance program under the pretense of security to control and possibly suppress its citizen, then yes the citizen is absolutely responsible if they sit on their ass for years and do nothing about it.
But the german citizen would be responsible if their government is engaged in so called pre-emptive war, under the pretense of terrorism and engaged in multi-year war with thousands of deaths and the citizens didn't even lift a finger.
Similarly if the german government is engaged in country-wide surveillance program under the pretense of security to control and possibly suppress its citizen, then yes the citizen is absolutely responsible if they sit on their ass for years and do nothing about it.
If Darth Vader has bases in your country that he is fighting wars from you can't say you're with the rebels.
Hard to get worked up over this one. Of course governments try to spy on other governments.
It's not surprising, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth getting worked up over, especially given that it is explicitly violating agreements to the contrary. In other words: Everyone else have now learned that when the US government enters into agreements like that, the agreement is worthless and they can't be trusted.
A world where governments covertly spy on each other (even in violation of promises/treaties) is likely a nicer, safer, more peaceful world than the alternative.
It's a form state-to-state transparency, helping states independently confirm either that another state's other statements and commitments are trustworthy, or not. State-vs-state spying makes bluffs, threats, and deception in international relations relatively harder, and helps prevent destabilizing surprises or betrayals.
And I suspect all the major states understand this, and know any surface agreement not to covertly seek extra information (especially signals information) really just means, "we'll all just be really sneaky about it".
It's a form state-to-state transparency, helping states independently confirm either that another state's other statements and commitments are trustworthy, or not. State-vs-state spying makes bluffs, threats, and deception in international relations relatively harder, and helps prevent destabilizing surprises or betrayals.
And I suspect all the major states understand this, and know any surface agreement not to covertly seek extra information (especially signals information) really just means, "we'll all just be really sneaky about it".
So, it sounds like the NSA is doing the job it was chartered for back in 52. Temporary internet outrage at the NSA will die off soon....
The UN is in the United States because of a complex arrangement and builds on substantial mutual trust and respect.
From the wikipedia article on the same:
"Although it is situated in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations Headquarters and the spaces of buildings that it rents are under the sole administration of the United Nations. They are technically extraterritorial through a treaty agreement with the U.S. government. However, in exchange for local police and fire protection and other services, the U.N. agrees to acknowledge most local, state, and federal laws."
This finding is a violation of trust and could result in the UN moving its seat from New York to some other place, for instance Bruxelles or Geneva.
From the wikipedia article on the same:
"Although it is situated in New York City, the land occupied by the United Nations Headquarters and the spaces of buildings that it rents are under the sole administration of the United Nations. They are technically extraterritorial through a treaty agreement with the U.S. government. However, in exchange for local police and fire protection and other services, the U.N. agrees to acknowledge most local, state, and federal laws."
This finding is a violation of trust and could result in the UN moving its seat from New York to some other place, for instance Bruxelles or Geneva.
>This finding is a violation of trust and could result in the UN moving its seat from New York
Which is unfortunately the most that will possibly be done for this, if anything is done. It will be a slap on the wrist when the US is going to need its economy threatened to actually do anything about the NSA.
Which is unfortunately the most that will possibly be done for this, if anything is done. It will be a slap on the wrist when the US is going to need its economy threatened to actually do anything about the NSA.
How do you think you are going to damage the US economy without damaging your own?
The real surprise is everyone is shocked an agency designed to spy is doing just that. And successfully for a long time. I don't like it, but it is not really news - they compare spying on the UN and loved ones in this article ... is it really related?
Read the Guardian's editorial from a few days ago, which directly argues against the "Spy's spy, so what?" line of argument.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/surveil...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/surveil...
There is this in there:
"Some weeks later the tone of these and other discussions changed. There was, by mid-July, an explicit threat that the government would, after all, seek to stop the Guardian's work and prevent publication of further material by legal means. To have resisted such action would have involved handing over ultimate control of the material to a judge and could have meant that no stories could have been published for many months, if at all. The first amendment of the American constitution guarantees its press protections of which British editors can only dream. For more than 40 years − since the publication of the so-called Pentagon papers in 1971 − it has been accepted that the state will not succeed in trying to obtain prior restraint of the press. So we will in future report this story from New York. We have shared some material with, and will collaborate with, the New York Times."
So that was the reason why the Guardian moved the reporting on the story out of the UK.
"Some weeks later the tone of these and other discussions changed. There was, by mid-July, an explicit threat that the government would, after all, seek to stop the Guardian's work and prevent publication of further material by legal means. To have resisted such action would have involved handing over ultimate control of the material to a judge and could have meant that no stories could have been published for many months, if at all. The first amendment of the American constitution guarantees its press protections of which British editors can only dream. For more than 40 years − since the publication of the so-called Pentagon papers in 1971 − it has been accepted that the state will not succeed in trying to obtain prior restraint of the press. So we will in future report this story from New York. We have shared some material with, and will collaborate with, the New York Times."
So that was the reason why the Guardian moved the reporting on the story out of the UK.
[deleted]
I want to know if anyone was sacked, or went to prison, over this. I refuse to believe that nobody abused this power for revenge against an ex or someone who didn't return their affections. UK police officers have been in court for similar things e.g. looking up new partners on the criminal database