Revealed: How the UK Spied On Its G20 Allies At London Summits

Writing "Wow, this is going to really set the cat amongst the pigeons once this gets around," an anonymous reader links to a story at The Guardian about some good old fashioned friendly interception, and the slide-show version of what went on at recent G20 summits in London: "Foreign politicians' calls and emails intercepted by UK intelligence; Delegates tricked into using fake internet cafes; GCHQ analysts sent logs of phone calls round the clock; Documents are latest revelations from whistleblower Edward Snowden."

Comments

Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

GCHQ is a British organization. How would Snowden get copies of their plans, if there are in fact legitimate? He seems to be making some mighty big claims for having been employed as an employee of an NSA contractor for three months.

Re:Seems fishy

[anagama]

That's part of the problem with massive caches of data -- it's hard to secure. So, setting aside all the potential evils that will absolutely certainly occur because of politicians and career bureaucrats having the data, throw in the random security breach by insiders, contractors, script kiddies, whatever.

It is beyond retarded to trust the government with this data.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

I would put money on it that he was bought out by the Chinese to put a official US/Western face to the findings of the Chinese hacking. It seems mighty convenient that the NSA story came out right before the Chinese-US talks, and is kind of hard for Obama to say anything when the Chinese can say "look, you are spying on your own people too". And now with the G7 meeting coming up, this comes out...

And why would this guy go to Hong Kong of all the places he could go?

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

If he carries on like this, it would be a pretty good strategy by the NSA to just let him keep on talking. Eventually he'll reach the point where his claims are so grandiose, that his credibility will be called into question.

That said, the slides (partially redacted) in the article could be interpreted in a dozen different ways. They in no way prove his claims. I'd question why the Guardian (in their own words) are "not revealing" some information. If they have the scoop, and they believe it to be true, why hold it back. It makes any claim to be exposing what is going rather fallacious.

Re: Seems fishy

[chill]

The tech was probably shared with them by the NSA.

Re:Seems fishy

[lennier1]

And why would this guy go to Hong Kong of all the places he could go?

Because it's one of the few places that provide some decent protection against extradition to a "beacon of freedom" that runs secret prisons, tortures its prisoners and imprisons people for years without a trial

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's still one of the free-est places in the world you're least likely to get shot?

HK while certainly becoming more and more under the thumb of China since Britain handed it over, is still one of the largest Capitalist hubs in the free world, moreso probably than many cities in the 'nominally free' world.

Re:Seems fishy

[durrr]

You think NSA don't snoop on other intelligence services?
Do you trust politicians too?

Re:Seems fishy

[lennier]

GCHQ is a British organization. How would Snowden get copies of their plans, if there are in fact legitimate? He seems to be making some mighty big claims for having been employed as an employee of an NSA contractor for three months.

You're really asking this?

It's been well known in public for many years -- certainly since 1996 when it was revealed in Nicky Hager's Secret Power ( the book which made ECHELON a household word, and is available here as a free ebook) that the NSA and its partner agencies in the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ work together as UKUSA or the 'Five Eyes' network, even to the point of agreeing to spy on each others' citizens to get around their respective domestic policy limitations.

Furthermore, it's also well known that a major GCHQ installation, Menwith Hill, is actually staffed by NSA officers. Similar American involvement is true for Australia's Pine Gap. To an unknown but probably lesser extent, New Zealand's GCSB listening stations at Tangimoana and Waihopai are also either staffed by, or run in close consultation with, the GCHQ and NSA.

National sovereignty? What's that? For those of us in non-USA English-speaking countries, the situation is strange. We're not American citizens, we have no vote for the US president or Joint Chief of Staffs, yet our leaders take their orders from your leaders. This means that we've all become very interested in American politics, even though we'd rather not. Because you guys in the State may think you're only electing your own local town mayor and dogcatchers, but you're actually choosing who will run the military and spy infrastructures of the whole Western world. And increasingly, the real power players in your system (the NSA, CIA and DoD) don't seem to even care much about the civilian 'oversight'. They just change the logos on the Powerpoints and keep on doing their thing.

For instance, there's a bill in the NZ Parliament at the moment to give our GCSB increased powers in order to synchronise them with the NSA. Did the New Zealand people really want this? No. But we're getting it anyway. Because the US military industrial complex calls the shots even in countries they have no official democratic authority over. But those who make and sell the guns, and control the wires, have a habit of getting what they want.

tldr: There is no independent 'GCHQ'. It's a subcontracted division of the NSA.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

He copied a bunch of stuff to a thumb drive.
So far he as been dead on. A lot of high level political types including the president said he was overexaggerating and a smear campaign was started against him but it looks like Rep Nadler broke ranks and admitted that most of what Snowden said was true. That was behind closed doors to the rank and file congressmen who bothered to go to it; sad that many decided it wasn't worth missing their weekend home flight to attend the meeting.
Very scarry that just a day after Obama hosted mainstream media in a private meeting at the WH the NYT and a bunch of other papers started describing Snowden as just an attention hungry young guy who overexaggerated the extent of what the NSA could do.
The only thing I believe from our top leaders right now is Obama's statement that the top people in both political parties agreed to all this behind closed doors so the dozen or so people who hold all the power in both political parties and our judicial system all think this is acceptable government behavior.

Re:Seems fishy

[cheater512]

GCHQ has access to the NSA's data. It would make sense that the NSA would have access to GCHQ's data.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

That is a very interesting idea. And it would make for a very clever bit of political warfare, leveraging the scandal in the US to attack the British. Not only would it create political problems for GCHQ in the UK, but it could be expected to cause friction between Britain and its allies, as well as cause friction between the US NSA and UK GCHQ. It would also cause further problems against NSA in the US. Friction and suspicion in the Western alliances all around while China continues to expand its fleet, grab new territories, continues hacking, and espionage. Brilliant! One must assume that Sun Tzu is required reading for Chinese strategists, and that it still bears fruit.

“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.” - Sun Tzu
“All warfare is based on deception.” - Sun Tzu

My hat is off to you.

Re:Seems fishy

[causality]

So, setting aside all the potential evils that will absolutely certainly occur because of politicians and career bureaucrats having the data, throw in the random security breach by insiders, contractors, script kiddies, whatever.

When the day comes that this information is obtained and used against the same politicians who voted for it, it will be some delicious comeuppance. And better than they deserve. And a minor observation. From the fine summary:

an anonymous reader links to a story at The Guardian about some good old fashioned friendly interception

It's funny the way they phrase things when governments are involved. If you steal your neighbor's car, they won't call it a "friendly theft" just because you were on good terms prior to the theft.

Re:Seems fishy

[Rubinhood]

Easy, here's how: US intelligence (which Snowden worked for) found out about GCHQ's spying and documented it.

That seems like a reasonably likely scenario to me.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

You don't have much of that right.

Hong Kong and the US have an extradition treaty.
There is no requirement to hold a trial for POWs.
The US waterboarded a grand total of 3 terrorists in the same way that it has waterboarded thousands upon thousands of its own pilots and special forces. The most recent use of waterboarding on a terrorist was more than 10 years ago.
As far as being a beacon of freedom, the US has never had to build a fence to keep people in, as many other countries have had to do. And it can't quite manage to get a fence built to keep people out. And people keep coming.

Re: Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

Technology and results of surveillance are two different questions. I wouldn't expect them to be kept in the same place.

Re:Seems fishy

[Sasayaki]

>When the day comes that this information is obtained and used against the same politicians who voted for it, it will be some delicious comeuppance.

I really don't think you quite get how that day would work.

"Senator, PRISM has discovered an email of you admitting to having a gay lover in college, something that would make you completely unelectable in this country for some reason."

"Ahh. Johnny Ten Inches. Yes, well, I admit to that. How much is it going to cost for this to go away?"

"We have all the money we need, but it would sure be nice if that new NSA data seizure legislation in the pipeline got a yes vote. #211,944 if I recall."

"#211,944? I'm not familiar with it."

"Of course you aren't, senator. We haven't written it yet."

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

The US waterboarded a grand total of 3 terrorists

And you believe them.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Countries have these things, called Allies, US, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand regularly share intelligence and their intelligence and other national security agencies work closely together.

Re: Seems fishy

[chill]

Correct. I was implying that the tech was shared on the condition the data it gathered be shared back. Sorry for being so obtuse.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

I really don't think you quite get how that day would work. "Senator, PRISM has discovered an email of you admitting to having a gay lover in college...

You apparently have no familiarity with American culture. Homosexuality was once, "The love that dare not speak its name." Now it's, "The love that won't shut up." There have been a number of legislators that have been "out." It doesn't seem to have hurt their careers. They would probably take it as free publicity.

It would almost certainly lead to a real smack down of the NSA were such a thing to happen.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you're a vapid fuckwit parroting the latest extemporaneous mental vomit from Douchebag Totalitarian Senator #37 (I can't remember which douchebag just started espousing this dungball of a theory), or you're a straight-up shill. Either way, I don't give a tinker's taint about the provenance of the information. I care about whether it is true. So far, it all seems to be.

Fuck the NSA, and anyone who defends the mass collection of even metadata.

Re:Seems fishy

[ShanghaiBill]

If you steal your neighbor's car, they won't call it a "friendly theft" just because you were on good terms prior to the theft.

Except that nothing was stolen. It is like downloading a movie. Copying is not stealing. Countries spy on each other, friend or foe. It is normal and expected.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

Feel free to find proof ...proof... that more occurred.

Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

Exclusive: Only Three Have Been Waterboarded by CIA

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's some high quality goal-post moving there.

The OP said torture, secret prisons and years without a trial. All of these are true.

But, you don't like that, so you argue that they don't do much of other things, and because the US doesn't have a fence to keep people in (total joke, you can't leave the US without a government issued passport, which is checked at all exits) it's fine and dandy that they do all these things. Pathetic, even for you (and that's saying something).

Re: Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

Oh no, you are quite right. Thank you.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Hager's "Secret Power" is a work of biased investigative journalism. You may like the content, and it may coincide with your beliefs, but that does not make it true.

It is easy to claim that the NSA secretly staffs and runs GCHQ, CSEC, GCSB, and DSD, but backing up your claims is nothing but a half baked conspiracy theory. Do you really think that these organizations, which operate under the laws of democratically elected governments, could in actual fact be the NSA in disguise, and no-one has blown the whistle for well over 20 years? Yes, these organizations cooperate, but that's what we expect allied governments to do - behave like allies.

Can you point out the evidence that backs your claim that "...even to the point of agreeing to spy on each others' citizens to get around their respective domestic policy limitations". Again, how hard would it be to get everyone in the organisation to break the law, keep doing it for years, and nobody ever blows the whistle.

Wooly thinking doesn't help much. I suggest you put another layer of foil on your hat and get back to scouring the web for content that matches your world view.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Exclusive: only 3 people have been tortured. Because thats what it is, waterboarding sounds reasonable but isn't.

How fine are you with that headline? Certainly its a lot better than millions, but it tells you that they actually admit to 1 kind of torture on 3 different occassions.
I am not actually fine with that. Especially since its three waterboarded, not three tortured. Waterboarding is a subset of torturing, they can do lots of other kinds of torture. And they did in guantanamo. Waterboarding was a way, lights that pretty much induce epilepsy was a way, for muslim "terrorists" making them sit nude was a way (you can use pretty much anything that the subject really, really doesn't want as a form of torture, and lets face it, they wouldn't force them into nudity if they didn't mind).

It reminds me of something I heard about a meeting of "security personel", there are 3 of them, the first one tells the others that a while ago, he was with some albanian security personel and they didn't even know torture could be used to actually get information, it was only used to get a confession. The third says that at least they aren't the turks, where they don't even care about getting a confession out of it.
It tells you that the US is better than those two countries, but it isn't actually a good guy because they torture to get info. It doesn't make the CIA be nice people because they only waterboarded 3 people.
If its not a lie. And given they have no reason to say they waterboarded 3 people if they in fact never did it, you can be sure that if they lied, the number will be higher.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

tldr: There is no independent 'GCHQ'. It's a subcontracted division of the NSA.

Bollocks is it. GCHQ was around long before NSA came along, and from my time there, there was no yank anywhere near the place, even government personnel weren't allowed into most of our buildings. The fact both agencies have intelligence sharing and pissing contests, is neither here or there. But keep your tin-foil hat on, though!

Re:Seems fishy

[SplashMyBandit]

Homosexuality was once, "The love that dare not speak its name." Now it's, "The love that won't shut up."

Brilliant !
No mod points today, otherwise this zinger would be getting +2 Double Plus Good
I have no problem with homosexuals, but I do wish they'd shut up from time to time (well, I'm sure other Slashdotters could say the same about me too :) )

Re:Seems fishy

[godel_56]

You apparently have no familiarity with American culture. Homosexuality was once, "The love that dare not speak its name." Now it's, "The love that won't shut up." There have been a number of legislators that have been "out." It doesn't seem to have hurt their careers. They would probably take it as free publicity.

It would almost certainly lead to a real smack down of the NSA were such a thing to happen.

I think that would depend where they are. It might be different in Alabama to California.

There's also a good chance that the good Senator is married with a couple of kids, is a loudly proclaimed devout Christian, and until now has been "passing". Oh, and hypocrisy being what it is, they may also have taken a prominent anti-gay stance to the press.

Re:Seems fishy

[anagama]

How times change. And to think that the US Government once prosecuted WWII Japanese Officers over the war crime of waterboarding. We executed some of those convicted, and others spent a long time in prison. Cheney and his ilk though(*), they profit from the chest thumping book sales.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/yes-inational-reviewi-we_b_191153.html

(*) I include those who excuse such War Crimes, such as Obama, in that "ilk"

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda like how if I copy down your social security number, it's not identity theft because nothing is stolen?

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

I'm glad you showed up. I might be bingo. ;)

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Straw man argument; the parent didn't claim that the NSA ran GCHQ etc. They just pointed out listening stations that are largely staffed by foreigners. Sure, half the staff might be locals, but that includes the cleaners.

Are you really claiming that there have been no whistleblowers? Your green spy hat must be jammed hard over your ears if you haven't heard of any.

Re:Seems fishy

[fustakrakich]

...according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

A very believable bunch, I'm sure.... As for 'proof' that there were more than three, that will have to wait until the next leak. To expect anything less than the worse from the NSA/CIA/FBI/DEA... etc is just a little naive.

Re:Seems fishy

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And why would this guy go to Hong Kong of all the places he could go?

Six reasons why choosing Hong Kong is a brilliant move by Edward Snowden.

Re:Seems fishy

[jythie]

One of the things that has come out was that our two intelligence agencies are using each other to skirt domestic spying rules. The British spy on Americans citizens and vice versa, then they open up their channels to each other. So quite a bit of their information is sitting in American databanks.

Re:Seems fishy

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I forgot to add:

Hong Kong currently allows indefinite stay for anyone petitioning for asylum, no questions asked.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

The Five Eyes - USA, UK, AUS, CAN, NZ

Five eyed fish?

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing like a good sex scandal to turn a persons lifes work to mud. eg. Clinton, Petraeus, Assauge.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

Didn't seem to do have much effect on Barney Frank.

Re:Seems fishy

[ozmanjusri]

That's part of the problem with massive caches of data -- it's hard to secure.

There was no intention to secure the data. Each country's intelligence service shares with their counterparts so they have plausible deniability regarding spying on their own citizens.

The Brits can say they got info from the Americans or Australians NZ, etc and vice versa.

These people in their surveillance communities have far more in common with each other, and more loyalty to each other than to the nations that hire them.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't say much for torture, other than those G20 computers sure copped a good ol' thumb-screwing.

Re:Seems fishy

[osu-neko]

There is no requirement to hold a trial for POWs.

What's that got to do with anything? We're insisting that these people are not POWs (otherwise, they'd be entitled to a bunch of protections under the Geneva convention).

Re:Seems fishy

[osu-neko]

For those of us in non-USA English-speaking countries, the situation is strange. We're not American citizens, we have no vote for the US president or Joint Chief of Staffs, yet our leaders take their orders from your leaders. This means that we've all become very interested in American politics, even though we'd rather not. Because you guys in the State may think you're only electing your own local town mayor and dogcatchers, but you're actually choosing who will run the military and spy infrastructures of the whole Western world.

Ha, I wish... all I get to vote for is politicians. We don't actually get to vote for the people the politicians take their orders from, nor are the people who set and implement national military or economic policy in any way democratically selected or answerable to anyone but (in theory) their shareholders (and even that's not really the case).

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

No, you don't quite have that right. To the best of my knowledge they are POWs, but their status is "unlawful combatant." They do not fight and act in accordance with the Law of War, hence their status. As a result they forfeit protections and privileges they would otherwise have.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Double strawman; the parent claimed "There is no independent 'GCHQ'. It's a subcontracted division of the NSA."

Who is the whistleblower that claims that "these agencies have agreed to spy on each others' citizens to get around their respective domestic policy limitations"? Sure, conspiracy theorists claim this, but what about a credible whistleblower who has evidence that "these agencies have agreed to spy on each others' citizens to get around their respective domestic policy limitations" OK, so you'll answer that Snowden is. But I don't see how the Prism slides show that "these agencies have agreed to spy on each others' citizens to get around their respective domestic policy limitations".

So, can you, or anyone offer any compelling evidence that "these agencies have agreed to spy on each others' citizens to get around their respective domestic policy limitations"?

Re:Seems fishy

[sumdumass]

I think you miss his point. Homosexuality is ancillary to the problem it was just an example, it's that something- anything- could be discovered and used against the politician or anyone else for that matter. Replace homosexuality with a stay in a mental hospital, a car accident that killed people, a juvenile crime of some sort (property damage or perhaps assaulting someone in high school), an affair with a biographer or anything that the politician thinks will make him unelectable. That is what the point was about, having some sort of dirt over the person that was discovered through this cache of information that was thought to be personal and private.

Re:Seems fishy

[Le Marteau]

I hear homos ranting maybe once a year. It is not a big deal.

Where are you going that you are constantly hearing homos rage?

It is my advice that, rather than you tell other people what to do, you stop visiting venues where homos are sounding off.

Just a thought.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free to find proof ...proof... that more occurred.

Ummm... CIA is not the only US institution which used torture... let me refresh your memory

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

Allow me to improve your understanding of the issue:

As revealed in the Taguba Report (2004), an initial criminal investigation by the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command had already been underway, in which soldiers of the 320th Military Police Battalion had been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with prisoner abuse.

The United States Department of Defense removed seventeen soldiers and officers from duty, and eleven soldiers were charged with dereliction of duty, maltreatment, aggravated assault and battery. Between May 2004 and March 2006, eleven soldiers were convicted in courts-martial, sentenced to military prison, and dishonorably discharged from service. Two soldiers, Specialist Charles Graner, and his former fiancée, Specialist Lynndie England, were sentenced to ten years and three years in prison, respectively, in trials ending on January 14, 2005 and September 26, 2005. The commanding officer of all Iraq detention facilities, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, was reprimanded for dereliction of duty and demoted to the rank of Colonel on May 5, 2005. . . .

Those were soldiers run amok over a short period of time. A number of them went to jail. They were criminals, and were treated as such.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Or reagan, W, heck, look here.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you do not use it in any fashion that harms that person and have no intention of doing so, most ppl would say that you stole it, but would ignore it if you have a good reason for doing so. In this case, UK was most likely trying to find out any spies/traitors and to simply get information about other nations esp. China.

Re:Seems fishy

[nsaspook]

Not so fishy: http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukusa/

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to improve your understanding of the issue:

...

Those were soldiers run amok over a short period of time. A number of them went to jail. They were criminals, and were treated as such.

Ah, yes, I see... the no true US military argument. How could I forget!?

Re:Seems fishy

[Kittenman]

Re the sig...
Check UIDs. I'm COLD FJORD(826450). User COID FJORD(2949869) has impersonated me. Don't confuse us if he trolls you.
...
kinda ironic that the post was marked as 'Troll', huh...

Re: Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

'Assauge'? The trollage is weak on this young one.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

No, you misunderstand, probably again. They were genuine US military, but they did not follow basic standards of conduct and for the treatment of prisoners. They disobeyed orders. They breached military law. They went to jail.

Hopefully you now understand.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt it will work. If you have dirt on you and someone else is outed, it's going to make you want to take care of the problem for good. If everyone is under the same thumb, that thumb won't last long.

Re:Seems fishy

[_Shad0w_]

Because UKUSA and ECHELON exist.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

Maybe.

The great German scientist Max Planck said, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If it is difficult to change minds in science, where the evidence is supposed to be explicitly laid out, and matters viewed objectively, how much more so in other endeavors? It is common for things that I post to be both literally true and marked down as trolls, flamebait, or some other. The information often runs contrary to popular opinion, political beliefs, common misbelief, or some other aspect. Sometimes what I post is just inconvenient for a particularly popular rant. No matter.

What I wrote in that post is true. For example, most people have heard of the Berlin Wall, but knowledge of the similar sort of border controls between East and West Germany, and similar ones with Czechoslovakia, is fading, and many are ignorant. The communist block nations had to build fences and use patrols to keep people from leaving the country. The US hasn't had that problem.

As to my doppelganger - he started off literally jumping into conversation in my place, replying in a manner similar to me, and then abusing people. I don't want people to be overly confused.

I don't mind being disagreed with, but I prefer it to be based on the facts I present, not due to an agitator.

Re:Seems fishy

[Worthless_Comments]

I've only squished three puppies. That makes it okay, right?

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

National sovereignty? What's that? For those of us in non-USA English-speaking countries, the situation is strange. We're not American citizens, we have no vote for the US president or Joint Chief of Staffs, yet our leaders take their orders from your leaders.

Completely agree with the parent. A few days ago, out of nowhere, an intrusive "anti-terrorism" law has been passed by the parliament in Bangladesh. Every civil liberty group within the country has been completely surprised by this mysterious act by the government. I do believe this is related to recent Snowden incident.

link 1
link 2
link 3
link 4

[ Posting AC because I'm usually a slashdot lurker and too lazy to log in. A minor complain: Why does slashdot crowd always wants to label it as an 'American Tech News Site'. Does being 'international' strips it off it's glories? Or is it because it's foundations are in USA? Every 'international' website needs to have it's roots somewhere, right? ]

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

I would think that data sharing between NSA and GCHQ, to the extent that it exists, is on a strictly controlled, only what is agreed to basis, not a wide open file sharing agreement. I don't think the intelligence community tends to roll that way, especially for programs that would involve what is alleged here: spying on diplomatic activity by a national intelligence service. I would expect that to be among the most tightly controlled information.

It isn't that I would necessarily rule out HM intelligence service from doing it, but rather Snowden gaining access to it. That is, highly classified documents from another nation's most secret intelligence agency.

It seems unlikely that someone who started out guarding the parking lot at the CIA and only being an employee of a NSA contractor for three months would be able to get all this so quickly. It seems both unlikely and suspicious. Yet most people here are swallowing his tales hook, line, and sinker.

Re:Seems fishy

[lennier]

tldr: There is no independent 'GCHQ'. It's a subcontracted division of the NSA.

Bollocks is it. GCHQ was around long before NSA came along, and from my time there, there was no yank anywhere near the place, even government personnel weren't allowed into most of our buildings. The fact both agencies have intelligence sharing and pissing contests, is neither here or there. But keep your tin-foil hat on, though!

Yes, the UK and her colonies were doing the spy game long before the USA, and taught them all their tricks; that's well documented. For example, see the career of William Stephenson from Canada in the inter-war years as he set up British Security Coordination and the OSS.

But it's my impression that at the same time, and particularly after the Tizard Mission of 1940 when the UK traded nuclear secrets to the USA for microwave tubes, the original balance of power - between the UK as the world's spymaster/banker and the USA as merely the "arsenal of democracy" producing the weapons - significantly tilted.

By 1944, at Bretton Woods, the US position had become so strong that they were able to overrule the British desire for a neutral Bank for International Settlements and designate the US dollar as the world's default currency for the entire post-war Western world order. This was no small policy defeat. The British Empire crumbled in the face of the war and the independence movements that followed, and the US became her creditor. American loans to the UK for WW2 expenses were only paid off by 2006, by the way.

So while I'm sure GCHQ remains nominally British, it's not the case the British interests are as separate from American ones as they were in 1939.

There's a reason why George Orwell snarkily demoted Great Britain to 'Airstrip One' of the Anglo-American alliance in 1948. It's been apparent for over fifty years where the world's military-intelligence center of gravity has shifted to since WW2, and where it remains. The 'Special Relationship' points in one direction - as the world saw demonstrated clearly with Tony Blair's increasingly bizarre and desperate kowtowing to Bush in the runup to Iraq in 2003. He had no obvious reason to obey Bush's demand for war, and yet. There it clearly was, the invisible leash around his neck with the other end in Washington.

Re:Seems fishy

[fremsley471]

And people swallow that 'unlawful combatant' nonsense? Didn't they have the right paperwork? Forgot to get their forms signed by the right people? Or just weren't ready to stand out in the open and be simply blown away by a military that is 100% better equipped than all the other militaries in the world, combined?

Phrases like 'unlawful combatant' are the true banality of evil.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

To the best of my knowledge they are POWs, but their status is "unlawful combatant." They do not fight and act in accordance with the Law of War, hence their status. As a result they forfeit protections and privileges they would otherwise have.

The "best of your knowledge" is correct. Only those who follow the Geneva convention are entitled to protection under it, which is the part GWB got right. The part he got (purposely) wrong is that those who don't follow it, i.e. war criminals, should be tried for their crimes like any other criminals and not just summarily disappear to room 101.

Re:Seems fishy

[Maritz]

If you don't like a particular demographic your brain will make a pretty convincing narrative that they're loud, obnoxious, etc. Anything that doesn't fit the narrative is forgotten and anything that fits is noted and reinforces the belief. The joys of human experience.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

The 'Special Relationship' points in one direction - as the world saw demonstrated clearly with Tony Blair's increasingly bizarre and desperate kowtowing to Bush in the runup to Iraq in 2003.

The United Kingdom is the only country to which the United States sells nuclear weapons.

If push came to shove in the Falklands, the US government was ready to provide an aircraft carrier to the British government if need be.

American loans to the UK for WW2 expenses were only paid off by 2006 [wikipedia.org], by the way.

What's a little debt between friends?

"In a nutshell, everything we got from America in World War II was free," says economic historian Professor Mark Harrison, of Warwick University.

"The loan was really to help Britain through the consequences of post-war adjustment, rather than the war itself. This position was different from World War I, where money was lent for the war effort itself."

Britain had spent a great deal of money at the beginning of the war, under the US cash-and-carry scheme, which saw straight payments for materiel. There was also trading of territory for equipment on terms that have attracted much criticism in the years since. By 1941, Britain was in a parlous financial state and Lend-Lease was eventually introduced.

The post-war loan was part-driven by the Americans' termination of the scheme. Under the programme, the US had effectively donated equipment for the war effort, but anything left over in Britain at the end of hostilities and still needed would have to be paid for.

But the price would please a bargain hunter - the US only wanted one-tenth of the production cost of the equipment and would lend the money to pay for it. . .

Also, look at the Destroyers for Bases Agreement. The US gave the UK 50 warships, destroyers, in return for basing rights. What do you think that was worth, especially at the time?

Interesting contrast to today:

Lord West 'horrified' at size of navy - 19 March 2012

"I am horrified our naval flotilla now comprises only 19 frigates and destroyers," said Lord West. "In the Falklands, in the first month of fighting, we had four sunk and 14 damaged. That makes you think. We seem to have forgotten that when you fight you lose things.

"Here we are with 19 frigates and destroyers. Are they bonkers? Are they mad? How have they allowed this to happen?"

--------

So while I'm sure GCHQ remains nominally British, it's not the case the British interests are as separate from American ones as they were in 1939.

I have little doubt the Her Majesty's GCHQ intelligence service remains completely and unreservedly British, and that British interests, though often in common, are separate from American interests.

Re:Seems fishy

[Maritz]

I anticipate a propensity for (alleged) sexual offences among those who would oppose the agenda of your NSA/GCHQ types. Just a hunch. Guess we'll see.

Re:Seems fishy

[gl4ss]

good try, but they don't admit to them being POW's and there's varying degrees of torture with waterboarding being just one of them. also, try walking over the border to mexico or even canada.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

Didn't they have the right paperwork? Forgot to get their forms signed by the right people? Or just weren't ready to stand out in the open and be simply blown away by a military that is 100% better equipped than all the other militaries in the world, combined?

No, one of the primary reasons is because they deliberately target civilians as a primary focus for their attacks. That isn't mistakenly, accidently, or "we meant to shoot somebody else," but rather in a deliberate, calculated manner. They send truck bombs into village market places to kill villagers buying food, for instance. That is unlawful. That sort of thing is part of what caused the SS to be condemned as a whole at Nuremberg. They regularly behead prisoners. That is unlawful. They hang 7 year old kids as spies, and attack school children for the high crime of going to school. They mine the trails that pass for roads in many poor countries, regularly killing civilians unlucky enough to pass by. They also regularly violate article 13 of Geneva I. That is just off the top of my head. There are probably others as well. So no, it isn't about paperwork or forms.

It doesn't matter how strong you are, or how weak you are, what they do habitually is forbidden by treaty, and they don't care. They fight by their own rules as Jihadis. Look, they even want to bring back slavery, including making westerners sex slaves. Do you think you can get behind opposing that? Or would that be an excursion into the banal?

Phrases like 'unlawful combatant' are the true banality of evil.

Not as applied, no. The reason it seems like it is that you over look the banality of ignorance, with the occasional sortie into nonsense.

Re:Seems fishy

[Maritz]

You could add a bit of 'rendition' to Libya to that. Also, while we're being overly credulous, the NSA don't run surveillance dragnets.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at the Berlin Wall. There used to be a border zone between much of East and West Europe that had similar protections. You didn't just walk across the border between East and West Germany. You should look into it.

Re:Seems fishy

[Maritz]

These guys claim to have been waterboarded when sent to Gadaffi's custody (by the Bush administration), contradicting the 'only three waterboarded' claim, but I imagine you've already chosen who you prefer to believe.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

They haven't summarily disappeared to "room 101." They are being held in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. They can be held there as ordinary POWs. That isn't a problem any more than holding German POWs for up to 8 years was in WW2. There would have been many more trials conducted by now if various lawyers and progressive groups involved with representing the prisoners had not fought tooth and nail, by hook or by crook, to stop, alter, or invalidate the proceedings.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

Facts remain unpalatable as ever.

Re:Seems fishy

[stenvar]

No, but we also don't force you to wear a "I squished three puppies sign" around your neck until you die, in particular if you have shown contrition and haven't done it for 10 years.

Re:Seems fishy

[Patch86]

That is not the definition of an unlawful combatant, that's the definition of a war criminal. A war criminal is still protected by (and subject to) the Laws of War.

Unlawful combatant means someone who is a civilian who takes part in military combat (with no implications one way or the other about whether they commit any further crimes while doing so). The Geneva Convention is quite clear on what happens to them- if a belligerent captures them, the belligerent can either treat them as a PoW under the regular Laws of War, or they can treat them as a civilian criminal and try them under a "regularly constituted court", subject to the usual international treaties and standards for human rights to justice.

What happens at Guantanamo (detainment without trial, trials by secret military tribunal, water boarding and other forms of cruel and unusual punishment) are illegal (and immoral) however you choose to dice it up.

Re:Seems fishy

[Forever Wondering]

Sharing of this information has long been rumored (IIRC, in one or more of James Bamford's books/articles [who has been writing about this for decades]). Long before PRISM, there was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON It has a common database amongst all participating countries.

The political hand waving that the U.S. (or England) "doesn't spy on its citizens" is gotten around by having another country do it for them (e.g. England/Canada is free to intercept U.S. citizen communications (e.g. they're "foreigners" to Canada) and vice-versa). It all goes into a common database and/or is shared.

Now, given that as a pretext, there is no way to tell if the data was gleaned by Canada on U.S. citizens [or U.S. on Canadian citizens] or was truly domestic spying on one's own citizens. As a convenience, just do it yourself, but if you get caught, claim it was put in the database by another country.

In the end, does that technicality really matter that much when discussing the merits vs. ethics?

Re:Seems fishy

[Maritz]

The information often runs contrary to popular opinion, political beliefs, common misbelief, or some other aspect. Sometimes what I post is just inconvenient for a particularly popular rant. No matter.

While it's no doubt convenient to pigeon hole all your would-be detractors as irrational, with your 'only three waterboarded' post you've indicated quite clearly that you're prepared to cherry pick information/articles to fit your narrative, which is that of the US intelligence services and government being reasonable and honourable when it comes to these matters. (torture etc.)

I would merely suggest that taking what they say at face value is naive in the extreme, given all the stuff they've been shown to have already lied about. That, and the fact that deception is basically their whole 'thing'. ;)

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

The claim is that the US waterboarded three people. Libya is not the US.

...but I imagine you've already chosen who you prefer to believe.

I imagine that works both ways. I would be curious to know your thoughts on the fact that al Qaida training materials have been found in which they teach their members to lie about the conditions of their captivity, to fabricate claims of torture and abuse. Does that ever enter into your thinking? Do you ever view their claims with skepticism, or only those of Western nations?

It is also good to not forget that the Islamist extremists that resort to terrorism have an ideological base in the Islamist movement, and that the Islamist movement has allies in the West.

The Leftist-Islamist Alliance in Pictures
Leftist-Islamist Alliance against the West

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

One of the enforcement mechanisms of the treaty is that you have to comply with the treaty to maintain its protections.

You don't have unlawful combatant correct. If you examine article 13 you can see that civilian irregular forces can participate as combatants and maintain the protections of the treaty, but they must abide by certain rules.

Your statement about Guantanamo is nonsense. POWs can be detained without trial. If you want to maintain otherwise, could you find me the records of the millions of trials that must have been conducted in WW2 for the POWs in that conflict? You can't, because there is no such requirement. The military tribunals are not secret. There were only three people waterboarded by the US, and I don't recall that it was at Guantanamo. Guantanamo is a prison camp. Little if anything would change if they were held elsewhere. The al Qaida members would still be behind bars and the complaining would be about wherever the new prison was.

Re:Seems fishy

[stenvar]

Did the New Zealand people really want this? No. But we're getting it anyway. Because the US military industrial complex calls the shots even in countries they have no official democratic authority over.

You have three choices: (1) either you comply with US political pressure, (2) you become powerful enough yourself, or (3) you ally yourself with other countries opposed to US foreign policy. You seem to want all the benefits of (1) without the obligations and reciprocity that come with it. Sorry, can't have that.

For example, if you want the US to provide you with intelligence, you need to provide the US with intelligence. And US intelligence is more useful to you than the other way around. Ditto for free trade. You want to export your goods without hassles? Then you need to let other countries export to yours without hassles.

Your leaders are choosing a couple of percent of economic growth plus a tiny increase in security over your privacy and autonomy, and they are doing it because your voters would kick them out of office if they didn't. And US politicians are making the same choices for the same reasons: people complain about the negative consequences, but they'd complain even more if politicians chose differently.

but you're actually choosing who will run the military and spy infrastructures of the whole Western world

Yes, we are. We got into this position after enduring centuries of European imperialism, and European military and intelligence dominance. And the way we got into that position was because Europe self-destructed and then after the war was content to let the US run its affairs while it relaxed for a while. And I include Australia and NZ under "European imperialism"; don't fancy yourself as being somehow separate from that.

This means that we've all become very interested in American politics, even though we'd rather not.

Who are you kidding? European obsession with, arrogance towards, and dislike of, the US has been around, with brief interruptions, since the US was founded. Don't expect American voters to suddenly start caring after two centuries of European intellectuals getting their panties in a knot.

Having said that, in many ways, many Americans dislike the same things about the US government that the Europeans dislike about the US government, and hopefully we can emphasize privacy and civil liberties more in future elections. But how we deal with that is our business, not yours. Go fix your own country, it seems to need it.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

... deliberately target civilians ...

This is civilians targeting civilians. Forming a militia and attacking neighbours is the result of allowing bureaucratic or sectarian aggression. When one has a 'violence is the answer' mentality, invading homes or countries is the result. Unfortunately, any occupation simply makes the invading militia a substitute target for the duration. Once the invasion force withdraws, it's killing as usual.

... They fight by their own rules as Jihadis. ...

The USA refuses to obey the Geneva convention or the International Criminal Court. How should the local militia respond when a F-16 bombs a wedding party? Small arms isn't a fair fight and the USA refuses all culpability.

Re:Seems fishy

[xaxa]

an anonymous reader links to a story at The Guardian about some good old fashioned friendly interception

It's funny the way they phrase things when governments are involved. If you steal your neighbor's car, they won't call it a "friendly theft" just because you were on good terms prior to the theft.

Congratulations, you've found some British humour.

The summary could have been improved by mentioning the G8 summit starts in Northern Ireland today.

Re: Seems fishy

[grcumb]

It's funny the way they phrase things when governments are involved. If you steal your neighbor's car, they won't call it a "friendly theft" just because you were on good terms prior to the theft.

Oh yeah? Tell Flanders that.

Re:Seems fishy

[Vintermann]

And why would this guy go to Hong Kong of all the places he could go?

Because bad as China may be, they aren't going to buckle to US pressure. Whether they've yet come the point where they feel enough solidarity with the US elites that they would rather see him punished, remains to be seen.

There's also the little matter of Hong Kong's political freedom. Which may be an illusion - but is it worth dispelling that illusion just to get at a commoner embarrassing your rival?

Re:Seems fishy

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

GCHQ is a British organization. How would Snowden get copies of their plans, if there are in fact legitimate? He seems to be making some mighty big claims for having been employed as an employee of an NSA contractor for three months.

One might be tempted to suspect that the NSA is 100% to be trusted when it comes to securing those giant piles 'o data they are Hoovering up, even in the (vanishingly unlikely) event that they are, as they claim, actually not doing anything illicit with them themselves.

Re:Seems fishy

[Vintermann]

This comment ought to be read in the voice of Cartman.

Re:Seems fishy

[wonkey_monkey]

Because everybody loves outsourcing!

Re:Seems fishy

[stenvar]

Thank you for illustrating my point about European arrogance again. Kind of ironic that you use a US cultural symbol.

Re: Seems fishy

[chill]

Oh yeah? Tell Flanders that.

The entire province? Or just a few people in particular?

Re:Seems fishy

[54mc]

"#211,944? I'm not familiar with it."

"Of course you aren't, senator. "You" haven't written it yet."

Fixed for unfortunate truth

Re:Seems fishy

[Alarash]

Who are you kidding? European obsession with, arrogance towards, and dislike of, the US has been around, with brief interruptions, since the US was founded. Don't expect American voters to suddenly start caring after two centuries of European intellectuals getting their panties in a knot.

Where does this come from? I'm a French and I don't hear around me, everyday, non-stop American bashing. Quite the contrary: people like the Hollywood movies, US pop stars or American brands. France is the second largest fast-food consumer market after the US (per person, of course, since we are only 60-odd million people). You get the usual "Americans are fat" remark, which I think it's just a simple fact.

However as soon as I hop onto a forum, I will systematically end up reading some joke or other about "France surrenders, lol!" or being called "frogs" and whatnot. Not to mention the "we saved them in WW2!" comments, completely ignoring the reasons of that happening, or that without France there wouldn't be a US of A to begin with. But we don't make jokes about that over here. Maybe 50 years following Independance Day the French would do it, I don't know (but I think they were too busy chopping heads off).

Anyway, I travel a lot in Europe and Middle-East (Israel, really) as a network engineering consultant, and the places where I've been that were surprisingly anti-American was the UK and Quebec. These are the only places where people were actually anti-American for more than just jesting (not all of them, but many, and so much more than in the rest of Europe).

So, yeah, I don't think Europe is 'arrogant' towards the US. If anything we don't like you being so arrogant yourself (what with "Land of the Free" and other pre-made propaganda, implying the rest of the West is so bad to live in).

Re:Seems fishy

[Maritz]

Yet most people here are swallowing his tales hook, line, and sinker.

The naive and credulous folks at the Guardian could sure use a hard-nosed skeptic like yourself. But then you believed the CIA only waterboarding three people so I guess it evens out.

Also, they're not just 'tales' are they? He's provided documentation.

Nice to see someone sticking up for the poor beleaguered intelligence services.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm. If you are a closeted homosexual trying to cover it up by pushing conservative agenda, you will lose a fair bit of credibility when outed and then have to rebuild it somehow. Obviously it's not impossible, but turning the facade upside down likely involves non-trivial amount of work.

Re:Seems fishy

[mcvos]

I have no problem with homosexuals, but I do wish they'd shut up from time to time (well, I'm sure other Slashdotters could say the same about me too :) )

I suspect they might feel the same way about heterosexuals.

Seriously, look at all the heterosexual references in media. I think gays have more cause to complain.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it is. Besides they were evil, right ?

Re:Seems fishy

[stenvar]

Where does this come from? I'm a French and I don't hear around me, everyday, non-stop American bashing

You do hear it, but you don't even notice it because you just think the propaganda is truth. Read Jean-Francois Revel or Philippe Roger ("The American Enemy"), French intellectuals who analyze the widespread French anti-Americanism. European writers like Karl May or von Trier wrote about US culture and society without ever having set foot in it, and Georges Duhamel denied it was even necessary to leave Paris to condemn American culture. In German politics, the words "Rautierkapitalismus" and "amerikanische Verhältnisse" are used to strike fear into people to keep voting for Germany's epidemic crony capitalism. And the major thrust of both Hitler's and Mussolini's economic policy was to find a "third position" to the "enslavement by US capitalism" and communism.

If anything we don't like you being so arrogant yourself (what with "Land of the Free" and other pre-made propaganda, implying the rest of the West is so bad to live in).

Don't flatter yourself into thinking that we would bother to impress you. Most Americans (myself included) don't care about the misconceptions European have about themselves or what Europeans think about the US or Americans. What we care about is the misconceptions other Americans have about Europe, because some politicians in the US keep pointing to Europe and want us to emulate it, based on the same kind of phony propaganda European governments use to try to keep their own citizens in line.

I spent many years living in Europe. If you like it, enjoy it. I do not want the US to turn into anything like it, and that means making it clear to my fellow Americans that Europe isn't the social and cultural paradise Europeans make it out to be.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

Discussions are more interesting when they are two sided and have at least occasional references to facts.

The documentation Snowden has provided so far are pretty much PowerPoint slides. There is no faking that I guess.

If more than 3 people were waterboarded, you might think that would have come out in the last 10 years. It seems like little else hasn't.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

While it's no doubt convenient to pigeon hole all your would-be detractors as irrational,

I didn't actually write that, and don't believe that is true. It is true that many people on Slashdot aren't well informed on subjects like this and post nonsense.

with your 'only three waterboarded' post you've indicated quite clearly that you're prepared to cherry pick information/articles to fit your narrative

There aren't a lot of correct numbers to "cherry pick" from. If you have data to show differently I would love to see it.

which is that of the US intelligence services and government being reasonable and honourable when it comes to these matters. (torture etc.)

I think that the US intelligence services will generally operate in accordance with the law. In practice that can mean something rather different than other people know or suppose. One of the biggest sources if misbelief about that is confusing the standards of criminal law with those of the Law of War and aspects of national security law. They are different bodies of law, and have different standards. Beyond that, many people ignore the very existence of the Law of War.

I also find it odd that on Slashdot many in effect take statements by al Qaida and company at face value when they make allegations but do not extend any credibility to their own democratic governments. Totalitarian extremist terrorists have more credible than democratically elected governments with oversight on its operations? Someone is ready for a new overlord. I doubt they would care for it in practice. Few Muslims do when they get a taste of the al Qaida imposed lifestyle.

... given all the stuff they've been shown to have already lied about. That, and the fact that deception is basically their whole 'thing'.

NSA would prefer to not say anything. And it is worth remembering that the US is at war with al Qaida and company.

Re:Seems fishy

[Alarash]

You do seem to be enlightened on the subject, even if quoting a handful of authors voicing their opinion doesn't prove much. Hypothetically - if there's a latent anti-Americanism in Europe - it's not conscious and maybe nurtured by the politicians. Clearly, the average Joe over here is not half as "anti-American" as, say, George Carlin. I've noticed that people in the US tend to consider that if you say anything remotely negative about their country, they brand you 'anti-American' ; so allow me to take with a grain of salt what you witnessed in Europe. Subjectivity is a bitch (for me too).

Don't flatter yourself into thinking that we would bother to impress you.

See, some people find that arrogant. It could be read as "we're so many miles ahead of you, your opinion doesn't really matter." So when you say Europe is arrogant, I find the irony quite funny.

I also wanted to mention that I'm very proud to meet you, Ron Swanson!

Re:Seems fishy

[stenvar]

You do seem to be enlightened on the subject, even if quoting a handful of authors voicing their opinion doesn't prove much.

Well, you'd have to actually read the books the see the proof.

if there's a latent anti-Americanism in Europe - it's not conscious and maybe nurtured by the politicians

Of course it's not conscious, and of course it's nurtured by politicians. It's so much a part of the intellectual and cultural life of Europe that people don't even notice it, they just assume it's true. And it's not "anti-" as in "we hate you", it's "anti-" as in "we prefer not to be like you" (usually while munching on fast food at some US chain and listening to English lyrics on an iPhone).

Clearly, the average Joe over here is not half as "anti-American" as, say, George Carlin.

Even if I agreed with any of that, so what? The US has a highly diverse, outspoken political culture, much of it extremely self-critical. Of course, Carlin was just trying to make people think; half the time, I can't tell whether he is serious. I'm not convinced that someone from outside the US can actually quite understand US political comedy.

See, some people find that arrogant. It could be read as "we're so many miles ahead of you, your opinion doesn't really matter."

You should read it as "nothing Europe has accomplished in the past 100 years seems relevant to US politics to us" and "please stop exaggerating Europe's accomplishments because it is misleading US voters". Obamacare and high speed rail are just two recent examples of failing attempts to copy European policies in the US and it is hurting us.

The US needs to find its own way because it is very different from Europe and European solutions wouldn't work in the US even if they work(ed) in Europe.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlawful combatant is a term that is only employed by 5 countries: USA, Australia, United Kingdom, Israel and Canada.

Re:Seems fishy

[causality]

>When the day comes that this information is obtained and used against the same politicians who voted for it, it will be some delicious comeuppance.

I really don't think you quite get how that day would work.

"Senator, PRISM has discovered an email of you admitting to having a gay lover in college, something that would make you completely unelectable in this country for some reason."

"Ahh. Johnny Ten Inches. Yes, well, I admit to that. How much is it going to cost for this to go away?"

"We have all the money we need, but it would sure be nice if that new NSA data seizure legislation in the pipeline got a yes vote. #211,944 if I recall."

"#211,944? I'm not familiar with it."

"Of course you aren't, senator. We haven't written it yet."

You are describing authorized use by those officials who have access to the system.

We were talking about unauthorized use by outside attackers who manage to compromise said system. The post to which I replied spelled this out explicitly and I quoted that in my own post.

See how simple that is?

Re:Seems fishy

[causality]

I think you miss his point. Homosexuality is ancillary to the problem it was just an example, it's that something- anything- could be discovered and used against the politician or anyone else for that matter.

That's the problem with this media-driven urge to view the entire world through the lens of group identity. It becomes a fixation, and people who allow their thought process to be a product of media will miss your clearly-stated point because of it.

Re:Seems fishy

[causality]

If you steal your neighbor's car, they won't call it a "friendly theft" just because you were on good terms prior to the theft.

Except that nothing was stolen. It is like downloading a movie. Copying is not stealing. Countries spy on each other, friend or foe. It is normal and expected.

That's a fine job of redundantly restating my sentence while also pointing out the obvious.

Re:Seems fishy

[UpnAtom]

I'd mod you up if I hadn't already contributed to this topic.

I have little doubt the Her Majesty's GCHQ intelligence service remains completely and unreservedly British, and that British interests, though often in common, are separate from American interests.

You seem to have avoided declaring that GCHQ's interests and British interests are the same thing. Given the 13+ year drive to impose Stasi 2.0, I'd have to agree. Though, it should be pointed it, there is an ongoing internal disagreement in MI5 over this.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

I've only squished three puppies. That makes it okay, right?

Shh... you will have Peta up in arms!!!

Re:Seems fishy

[tapi0]

Menwith Hill is not a 'major GCHQ installation', it is RAF owned land and leased to the US where it is operated by the NSA and houses a USAF Intelligence Squadron. If you had said "furthermore it's also well known that a Major NSA installation, Menwith Hill, actually has GCHQ officers" then the rest of your argument may have had weight, but you're supporting it with an incorrect statement from the outset.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

One mustn't overlook the change in social values that makes formerly taboo subjects acceptable in ordinary conversation.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

To expect anything less than the worse from the NSA/CIA/FBI/DEA... etc is just a little naive.

I think your concept of "anything less than the worse" is poorly calibrated.

Taliban Hangs Afghan Boy, 7, for Spying
17 Beheaded in Taliban-Controlled Afghanistan for Attending Wedding Party with Dancing
Torture, Al-Qaeda Style

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's rich, considering the USA invented modern waterboarding and used it extensively in the Philippines against insurgents there from 1902 onwards

Re:Seems fishy

[fustakrakich]

LOL... You would make a great timeshare salesman.

Re:Seems fishy

[tlambert]

One mustn't overlook the change in social values that makes formerly taboo subjects acceptable in ordinary conversation.

Public displays of affection used to be taboo regardless of whether your were straight, gay, or into animals. There's a lot of "we're in your face to be in your face" these days, and pretty much everyone is doing it regardless that it pushes other people outside their comfort zones, and the other people sometimes react violently to what is, in effect, an act of assault.

If something is outside your comfort zone, but you don't have to actively acknowledge it, then social friction is vastly reduced compared to being held upside down with your head in the toilet, which is something you'd be more or less forced to acknowledge, and likely, react to.

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

The NSA would probably have been spying on GCHQ too.

(Yo, I heard you like spies...)

Re:Seems fishy

[Anonymous Coward]

That could only happen a few times before it would lose its effectiveness.

A senators office could start releasing disinfo in a discrete way that they know would be used in blackmail attempts. Then they could defy or fuckup the blackmail scheme that is attempted, and the blackmailer would release disinfo, which could then easily be disproven, all the while making the blackmailer vulnerable.

Re:Seems fishy

[Aighearach]

So uh, let me get your version of events right... he flew to Hong Kong, and then... made download copies of government laptops? What?

Re: Seems fishy

[Aighearach]

I thought Flanders had more of a bike theft problem than car theft problem. They don't seem to think it is very friendly, either, judging from the size of the bike chains they use.

Re:Seems fishy

[Aighearach]

And why would this guy go to Hong Kong of all the places he could go?

Direct flights to Moscow?

Re:Seems fishy

[Aighearach]

Before that, the US Army found one of their own officers guilty of waterboarding during the Spanish-American War.

Re:Seems fishy

[Aighearach]

I do trust politicians. I've always trusted and voted for Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) who was blowing the whistle on this stuff for years.

Re:Seems fishy

[Aighearach]

I would think that data sharing between NSA and GCHQ, to the extent that it exists, is on a strictly controlled, only what is agreed to basis, not a wide open file sharing agreement.

You fail to distinguish between secrets that are about the US Government, and secrets that are about everybody else. The secrets about everybody else, the stuff that has to be collected through intelligence work, is openly shared. As in wide open file sharing. The information that is secret but is internal data of the US Government, that is partitioned off and secured and only shared through specific channels.

Re:Seems fishy

[cold fjord]

Since we are talking about TOP SECRET data here I can conclude one of two things. You may have either just violated a secrecy agreement, which I doubt, or you don't know what you are talking about. Being has I just corrected you on the meaning of "social welfare" programs, I'm betting on the later. But feel free to expound on the nature of classified networks if you care to - not that I would advise it.

OMG

[Anonymous Coward]

Spying on foreign leaders! What will they think of next.

Re:OMG

[anagama]

Spying on foreign leaders! What will they think of next.

This line is beyond tiresome. Are you too stupid to understand the difference between assuming and knowing?

Assumer: Gov't spies on allies!
Listener: GTFO foil hatter.

Knower1: Gov't spies on allies!
Knower2: We should think about whether we really want to do this.

Re:OMG

[Anonymous Coward]

The same as "global warming" and part of natures cycles.

Newsflash

[Anonymous Coward]

G8 countries (and more) are spying on each other's politicians, ambassadors, bureaucrats, scientists, engineers, and businessmen. And when they're caught, they falsely deny the allegations.

WOW! I bet someone could get rich writing novels or making movies about this kind of thing.

Sauce for the gander

[cphilo]

If the delegates have nothing to hide, then there should be no problem with the public having access.

Re:Sauce for the gander

[Qzukk]

Live updates on who's calling who? We'll see if it's "just metadata" when it's the government's representatives being spied on.

Re:Sauce for the gander

[Anonymous Coward]

The spying is not on metadata. It's on all data.

Re:Sauce for the gander

[eyendall]

Am I losing my sense of humour or are you really terminally stupid? Usually I can detect sarcasm but this has me wondering given the current debates over the NSA affair.

Because they share as good little minions

[Anonymous Coward]

Their 'customers' of the information aren't just their governments, but the ultrarich that make us think we have an elected government. That is why it doesn't matter if someone in the NSA could blackmail some power politician with this access, they are already all controlled not just bought.

A great service

[mendax]

Mr. Snowden may eventually be captured by the U.S. government and be hanged by his balls, he may be a Chinese spy as has been alleged by some in the government, but if his revelations are true he is doing you and I ordinary people a great service by airing all this, at a minimum, naughty, and, at most, highly illegal shit. If this stuff is true, I want to see some high government officials hanging by their balls (or tits for those of the female species) for their actions.

Re:A great service

[Anonymous Coward]

how would you know if any of it is true?

Re:A great service

[MitchDev]

Give hum a fucking medal, forget prosecution.

Re:A great service

[GameboyRMH]

Old user account by the name of mendax...would you happen to be stuck in a building right now?

Re:A great service

[Anonymous Coward]

You seriously doubt it?

Come the fuck on, pull your head out of your ass, Snowden is saying what intelligent people have guessed for a long time.

Re:A great service

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it has been in a bunch of Hollywood movies, so it must be true. Or that the paranoid people want it to be true to fit to their reality.

And why wasn't this debated by the people who are 'shocked' by this back in 2001 or 2006? Even in 2012? The info was out there. I'm not even sure that this isn't a GOP/Tea Party/Libertarian plot to pile on more scandals to win back the senate in 2014.

Re:A great service

[mendax]

If only I were.

Re:A great service

[mendax]

This has nothing to do with paranoia. This has everything to do with the simple fact that the technology exists, the government believes it can do it legally (and even if they believe it's illegal they'll say they "believe" it's legal in order to prevent going to prison), and that there is a perceived need to do it. They are doing this, and probably more as well.

There are two great forces at work here. There is the U.S. Constitution that states that we have various civil liberties and that these liberties guarantee us from undue governmental interference in our lives. Then there is the U.S., state, and local governments, all of whom have a job to do in the name of public safety. These two forces collide all the time and we leave it to the courts to sort it all out.

In short, the NSA is doing its job. The question is are they trampling upon our right to be free from government intrusion into our business more than is necessary. The answer clearly is yes and Mr. Snowden is demonstrating and probably will continue to demonstrate that they've crossed the line.

Re:A great service

[Man On Pink Corner]

how would you know if any of it is true?

Do you seriously think that a facility of this size is only used to collect and process "metadata", or only "foreign" communications?

Re:A great service

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you lefties are unhinged.

Re:A great service

[Anonymous Coward]

how would you know if any of it is true?

Those of us who have an idea of what is really going on
know that the truth is far far worse than most people
would ever suspect.

I have four words for you, imbecile :

1) Echelon

2) Carnivore

3) Magic Lantern

Re:A great service

[Anonymous Coward]

So, to you, the GOP, Tea Party, and Liberatarians are all the same? I'm really wondering when the hell libertarians ever held the senate to "win back" in the first place.

Re:A great service

[Anonymous Coward]

I was with you when the subject was his disclosing treason by Obama and Bush. However, this is not a revelation that helps protect our nation or freedom. While it's blindingly obvious that we'd perform surveillance on foreign leaders in our nation, disclosing it helps nobody.

Re:A great service

[anagama]

A guy from the Wayback Machine had these estimates: $27m/year in equipment, $2m/yr in electricity (CA price), 5000sqft of space to store all phone communications for a year.

http://blog.archive.org/2013/06/15/cost-to-store-all-us-phonecalls-made-in-a-year-in-cloud-storage-so-it-could-be-datamined/

That facility should be good for 20 years worth of calls.

Re:A great service

[Anonymous Coward]

... those of the female ...

Since ovaries are not accessible, the anatomical equivalent would be genital lips. Now, the mind boggles.

Re:A great service

[amaurea]

Of course it helps somebody. I'm sure those foregin delegates will be using encryption (hopefully one-time pads, so that there is no password to compromise) the next time, and hold their meetings somewhere else. And your argument can be turned around too - if this was all blindingly obvious, then releasing a redacted document like this will not hurt either, will it? (I don't agree that it was obvious, though).

Re:A great service

[AHuxley]

Re: how would you know if any of it is true?
You can follow the US interest in digital file databasing at any cost vs the GCHQ having to use card indexes into the early in 1970's
You can follow the US interest in voice to text conversion at any cost.
You can follow the US interest in early digital voiceprint collection and databasing.
What other parts of the world could only hope/dream to use on high-grade Soviet communications the USA now turns inwards.
Read up on Solo, Harvest -automated tape library, the fun of having the IBM System 360...
'COINS' (Community On-line Intelligence System) from the mid 1960's should give most computer people an idea where the USA was heading...
ie a shared database for many in the US intelligence community - sounds almost cloud like ;)
The poor UK had to wait a few years to start with its Automatic Data Processing efforts.
The Intelsat (international satellite telephone calls) efforts at Goonhilly Downs -CSO Morwenstow,/GCHQ Bude got every keyword of interest in the late 1960's.

Re:A great service

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the ovaries would be the most appropriate approximation of the balls... I see no need to take accessibility into account when considering such vulgarities.

I'm nothing if not an equal oppertunities disgruntled citizen.

*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

Governments have been spying on citizens since there were governments, why are people acting so surprised about any of this?

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

No one is surprised, idiot. People are angry. You don't have to be surprised to be angry. The scope of what they are doing can not be made legal without constitutional amendments.

Re:*yawn*

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't read/post if it bores you, twat.

File this under

[MitchDev]

DUH!

Is anyone really surprised by this?

Re:File this under

[lennier]

DUH!

Is anyone really surprised by this?

I bet the foreign G20 heads using those netcafes and their Blackberrys were, yes. And they may be a little unhappy that this spying was done for apparently commercial gain and express this at the upcoming G8.

It's been widely suspected since the 1990s that the NSA and friends use their spying to enhance commercial contracts, but they've always denied this strongly. But now there's proof. That could also set a few chairs alight.

Also, perhaps, Blackberry is unhappy that their phone being hacked (or backdoored) has become known, with their reputation for security. World's most boring but secure smartphone, so uncrackable it's used by Obama himself, hated by the Saudis because they can't bug it, etc. This is not something they really want to become known, I think.

It used to be we'd read about the Russians pulling stunts like this in their embassy and we'd be all, 'oh, those wacky Soviets, we know they bug everything, they're so barbarous and uncivilised. In a proper country we're much more law-abiding.'

But, no.

Re:File this under

[Anonymous Coward]

THAT'S NOT THE POINT YOU MORON!

The point is that is happened! And that we now have one of your bazillion of conspiracy theories *documented* and *proven*. And not in your "I have proof somewhere; I just can't show you now" bullshit kind of way like the typical conspiracy theorist.

I always see morons like you pop up when stuff like this gets reported.
What is *your* point anyway? That if the 1930s/1940s newspapers found concentration camps in Germany, they should not report about it because "DUH"??
Are you just a brain-dead parrot drone, or do you work for the NSA or what?

WTF is WRONG with you people?

Re:File this under

[WOOFYGOOFY]

I missed the part where this was done for commercial gain. Please find the excerpt. I looked for it, but didn't see it. Perhaps I missed something?

Re:File this under

[chill]

My suspicion on the BlackBerry claim is that what was intercepted was regular SMS messages, and not the secure BB PIN messaging.

The latter is what is super secure, because it traverses via the data link to the BES and is essentially opaque to telcos.

While BBs have the PIN messaging capabilities that are super-secure, most people I know just use regular SMS because they don't know any better. And you can't use PIN messaging outside your own BES network.

Re:File this under

[lennier]

I missed the part where this was done for commercial gain. Please find the excerpt. I looked for it, but didn't see it. Perhaps I missed something?

You're right, the exact word used in the article is a "political objective" related to "finance" and not "commerce". My mistake.

The officials summarised Brown's aims for the meeting of G20 heads of state due to begin on 2 April, which was attempting to deal with the economic aftermath of the 2008 banking crisis. The briefing paper added: "The GCHQ intent is to ensure that intelligence relevant to HMG's desired outcomes for its presidency of the G20 reaches customers at the right time and in a form which allows them to make full use of it."

The document explicitly records a political objective – "to establish Turkey's position on agreements from the April London summit" and their "willingness (or not) to co-operate with the rest of the G20 nations".

There is of course absolutely no connection between engineering desired financial outcomes and commercial gain. All financial insitutions, and especially those related to the British Government, operate from a completely non-self-interested desire to make others nations rich.

Re:File this under

[Anonymous Coward]

My suspicion on the BlackBerry claim is that what was intercepted was regular SMS messages, and not the secure BB PIN messaging.

The latter is what is super secure, because it traverses via the data link to the BES and is essentially opaque to telcos.

Completely false. You really don't understand the blackberry platform.

Here's a better explanation: http://www.berryreview.com/2010/08/06/faq-blackberry-messenger-pin-messages-are-not-encrypted

PIN messages do NOT go via the BES (blackberry enterprise server). Neither does blackberry messenger (BBM). Both PIN and BBM work fine without a BES, or even if the BES is down.

PIN messages are not encrypted. BBM is encrypted with 3DES, which isn't that strong - the keyspace is small enough to the brute-forced in a reasonable amount of time for anyone with a million dollars of compute power.

What you CAN do with a BES is have AES encrypted email from your office to the blackberry. Good luck brute-forcing that.

The blackberry platform offers many different services, with different levels of encryption.

The really interesting thing would be to know exactly what is disclosed here.

The BES platform remains certified by many organizations: http://us.blackberry.com/business/topics/security/certifications.html

If there is a flaw in the AES implementation that would be news.

most people I know just use regular SMS because they don't know any better. And you can't use PIN messaging outside your own BES network.

False. You don't know any better. You can send PIN messages to any blackberry device (unless sending PIN has been blocked on your device by your admin).

Re:File this under

[drinkypoo]

perhaps, Blackberry is unhappy that their phone being hacked (or backdoored) has become known, with their reputation for security.

Well, they'd already admitted doing it in other countries; anyone who didn't believe they were doing it in this one was a fool. I was recently asked to provide proof of my assertion that they were doing this in the USA, and I simply neglected to reply because I knew there would be evidence along shortly.

Re:File this under

[Anonymous Coward]

It used to be we'd read about the Russians pulling stunts like this in their embassy and we'd be all, 'oh, those wacky Soviets, we know they bug everything, they're so barbarous and uncivilised. In a proper country we're much more law-abiding.'

Hmm, because it's not like the west has been widely known to do this for the last decade or so.

I seem to recall that while Kofi Annan expressed the expected anger in public, in private he commented that he'd be more worried if they weren't spying on him because that'd mean they didn't care what he said.

Re:File this under

[lennier]

While the BES platform is nominally secure, I'm intrigued by one "interesting" fact about the design of the message routing system.

You see, although each organisation can run their own BES server in their own datacenter, all data packets sent from a Blackberry handset to their BES have to be routed through Blackberry's own routing infrastructure. Even if you're inside your own corporate LAN, sending an email to your own corporate Outlook server through your own corporate BES server. Your packets can't just go straight to your BES box - no, they have to go out through your firewall, all the way to the nearest Blackberry routing hub, back in through your firewall, and into your BES and from there to your mail server. Every. Single. Packet.

And while they're going through that Blackberry routing hub that you don't control, there could be any number of processes being performed on those packets. The skeptical might think that this infrastructure was set up precisely to facilitate massive eavesdropping by a company that has very close ties to the American military-industrial complex. (For example, by being one of the few smartphone companies able to get White House clearance).

By contrast, as I understand it, Microsoft smarphones of the mid-2000s era just sent packets dumbly to the nearest Outlook server, which meant that they didn't ever leave your organisational firewall.

Of course those Blackberry packets are encrypted on the handset before they hit the external Blackberry router that you can't see or control. Well, that's what Blackberry say, at least. The encryption is done in binary software on the device and there's no way for the user to check whether or not the encryption is fully compliant and contains no back doors. But they say it's encrypted and that they can't break it and that there are no secret proprietary backdoors in the secret proprietary code they install on all your device. So it must be secure.

Re:File this under

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the articles from the bush era? Saudi wanted to have blackberry suspended from their land, because it could not be read by forced attack. They wanted a set of keys to allow the sets back to Saudi lands. I have not read a refutation of the article and many others from the area say bb's sell just fine there.

Re:File this under

[Nukenbar]

Agreed. Isn't this the job of NSA, MI-6 and other spy agencies? They exist to spy on other counties, allies or not.

Re:File this under

[WOOFYGOOFY]

OK I am not being combative nor was I in my first post. I meant just what I said- I dint' see it.

The excerpt you quote is ambiguous to me. I am not sure what is meant by that. I don't see any indication of commercial gain through spying, I only see information being collected (through spying) and made available. I am not sure what information and I am not sure how it's of commercial use. They're concerned with "outcomes for it's presidency of the g20" . That itself is ambiguous (to me).

They want to see if Turkey is going to go along with the rest of the g20. On what specifically? It's not clear to me.

The danger overall is the following equivalency becomes structural in the minds of the NSA and the national security apparatus in general.

National Security == America remains powerful == American companies are winners == NSA spies for commercial gain of American companies == NSA et. al. undermines anyone who opposes what American companies want (think Ralph Nader , Common Cause etc. you cannot believe tha amount of hyperventilating that went on in the e 60s when he first took on GM. He was a Communist plant, for sure! A certain brand of conservative still hate him in just that way.. they're still recycling business think-tank blow back as truth 45 years later. )

So all opposition, any undermining of established players, or ways of doing business, or business models,. or anything from specific business opportunities to the existence and status quo of particular industries gets hyperventilated and puffed up into a threat to national security. Then we have Mussolini's definition of fascism- when (and the Chamber of Commerce's wet dream) the national security apparatus and industry are one and exist to support each other

This could happen through blackmail of key officials. Remember when you helped us spy on corporation X? You wouldn't want THAT to get out would you? We need this....

The ease with which this could become SOP is frightening even to me.

People cannot be trusted to police themselves. It's not like we've evolved since , say the 1200s , to a more enlightened species . Evolution hasn't selected for "trustworthiness, consciousness and egalitarianism". far from it. You wouldn't want effectively unlimited, unilateral power over *the perception of reality* to fall into anyone's hands. But this is just what the read/ write access to a reference database that can be used as the basis for, and serve as evidence for, kill / no kill, guilty / not guilty decisions, is. The power to create , distort and manipulate reality all in the service of the current power holders- both governmental and commercial- in society.

If anyone knows of a specific proved case of this I am interested. The more i think about it, the less inclined I am to permit this kind of power to just be kept around on trust. It's too easy to target political enemies while enduring no damage to yourself. There is no MAD holding everyone in check.

I think we need this power; my reason tells me that the loss of privacy is something that has to go on because smaller and smaller groups of individuals will come to wield ever greater amounts of destructive power. At the same time, the potential for abuse is equally as frightening given what people are, what they evolved to be.

This:

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/06/14/government-accountability-project-issues-statement-on-edward-snowden-nsa-domestic-surveillance/

I agree.

We need to work on this as a society, we need to work through this need to know and the nefarious use the technology could be put to and not shout people who are worried about that abuse down as paranoids , traitors , narcissists or lunatics.

Re:File this under

[Anonymous Coward]

They backdoored them.

Keep your friends close

[gmuslera]

then turn into enemies to keep them even closer. After all, if they have something to hide they should be conspiring against us.

Shocking!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this supposed to be shocking? Governments spy on other governments, including their own allies. Welcome to the spy game. I guarantee you the other 19 countries were doing the same thing.

Re:Shocking!

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the other dozen or so threads saying "so what" I'm delighted to see this one, adding as it does, nothing.

Convenient partners

[readingaccount]

"Allies" (at least as far as Governments are concerned) are just partners of convenience. They are not friends, and although they might be allies one day they could easily be enemies the next. Now the Brits might have been acting a bit slimy in their methods (I don't like the idea of well-meaning delegates being tricked into using fake Internet cafes), but it's what's done in the Intelligence business and I d

It is not unusual to spy on your allies - indeed it's expected, plus you'd have to be pretty naive to think your own allies aren't doing the same to you. Again, your allies might end up being your enemies one day, so it's important to keep up with what they are doing. Even with the US/UK alliance, a traditionally strong alliance, the US still felt the need to have its own plan in case war with the Brits became necessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red)

Re:Convenient partners

[readingaccount]

but it's what's done in the Intelligence business and I d

I apologize for the abrupt end to my sentence. Either I forgot to finish what I was typing or the NSA intercepted it and removed impor

Re:Convenient partners

[Black Parrot]

but it's what's done in the Intelligence business and I d

I apologize for the abrupt end to my sentence.

OK, we're placated.

Re:Convenient partners

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not unusual to spy on your allies - indeed it's expected

From intelligence people perhaps, but not from reasonable people.

Spying on your allies = no more trust

Re:Convenient partners

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also a lot of countries that we call "allies" just to make them feel better. That includes a lot of smaller countries that we barely feel are worth mentioning most of the time -- Poland? -- as well as frenemies like Pakistan that we don't really like but want them to do stuff for us.

I mean, technically, we'd have to defend Poland if it were attacked due to NATO obligations, which pretty much fits the definition of ally. But there are plenty of countries that rank around the same level of US (dis)interest as Poland, or less, and aren't part of NATO, so we'd probably say sucks to be them if anything happened.

Re:Convenient partners

[amaurea]

Perhaps you are right. But do you really think small western countries like Norway or Iceland spy on the US? I can't rule it out, of course, but it seems both risky and a waste of resources when you've only got a handful of people working with that kind of thing (simply due to the size of the population, which is 300k in the case of Iceland).

Re:Convenient partners

[Vintermann]

indeed it's expected,

On the contrary, it relies on it not being expected in order to work. South Africa may not have a secret service which can measure up to the Five Eyes network, but if they expected spying in such a venue, they certainly have people who would have known how to stop it.

Most spying relies on breach of trust to work.

Re:Convenient partners

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with the US/UK alliance, a traditionally strong alliance, the US still felt the need to have its own plan in case war with the Brits became necessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red)

I agree that allies aren't completely trusting, yet that example you've given has a very difference context. The plan followed a world war that was horrifying in scale and brutality, and the world at the time was still home to some very ambitious and powerful empires - not least of all the British Empire. It would have been reckless for America to not at least consider the possibility. Is that really comparable to Britain bugging allies today for economic gain?

Re:Convenient partners

[Anonymous Coward]

so, you've abandoned all morality, just like your overlords ? ? ?

you're talking not as if it is an awful reality to be changed, but as if it is just like the weather, and why bitch about it...

(jeff foxworthy voice)
you *might* be an authoritarian if... ...you reflexively dismiss the aconstitutional horrors perpetrated WITH OUR MONEY, and condone them as 'bidness as usual'...

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof

Re:Convenient partners

[spyfrog]

I think the answer to this lies in what your definition of spying is. I can assure you that a country of Norways size and wealth spies on both USA and Russia. Of course, they are more interested in Russia since they share a border with them and they are allied in NATO with USA but you can be sure that they spies on both.

Re:Convenient partners

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that this happened at the UN which is supposed to be netural territory.

It's supposed to be that way for good reason, because the UN is designed to foster international dialog such that even when things reach pre-nuclear war code level red or whatever there is still a neutral place at which discussions can take place to try and avert that.

If America is spying at the UN (It's not the first time it's been claimed, the Wikileaks cables suggested the same thing) then it undermines the UN headquarters in New York as a genuinely neutral place for international dialog.

Sure spy on them before, sure spy on them outside the UN, and sure spy on them after, but the UN needs to remain genuinely neutral ground for good reason.

I know the UN is unpopular with Slashdot because it has more than it's fair share of new world order conspiracy theorist kooks and because half the people here don't understand how it's organised and think it's just the security council (which is arguably the worst bit) and nothing or little else but you do need a genuinely international organisation that is representative of everyone's view, not just yours, to foster good international relations and deal with international problems. If the US is spying there than it massively undermines that and suggests the UN headquarters should be moved from New York to perhaps somewhere like Switzerland that is more likely to behave itself as an objective centre of international diplomacy.

As long as it makes us safe

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a call when the US gets its violent crime and gun death rates down to that which we have here in the UK, then I'll give a shit.

I never felt safe living in the US, but since I expatriated to the UK, not once have I ever felt even an inkling of a threat from anyone.

The sad fact that nobody wants to admit is that ubiquitous surveillance just works. The cowboys in the US like to say "an armed society is a polite society," but that armed society still kills each other.

A surveillance society is also a polite society, but where nobody dies. You paranoid fecks who think your government is out to get you need to just grow up and get over yourselves already. If you are a law abiding citizen, you have nothing to hide, and the government won't care about you one bit.

Re:As long as it makes us safe

[Black Parrot]

The sad fact that nobody wants to admit is that ubiquitous surveillance just works.

Yeah, but the question is who it works for.

Re:As long as it makes us safe

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it the surveillance? Is it the lack of guns? Is it the fact that England's most socially dysfunctional DNA was all exported to the US and Australia in the 1700s? Your assertion is unfounded, and you're a cunt. Of course it's possible to make the world safer with totalitarian controls on society, dipshit. Many of us would simply rather be unsafe than surveilled.

Re:As long as it makes us safe

[sumdumass]

Congratulations on finding your little safe corner of the world. I have never felt unsafe in the US and while I do own firearms and encourage everyone possible to carry, I actually do not carry a weapon myself.

I've been to Compton, NYC, Chicago, Miami, as well as many Midwest areas and never once felt unsafe. There was one time in Compton CA where a gang gunfight broke out near me, but I ducked behind a car with 2 or 3 others and waited for the shooting to stop. They weren't shooting at me, I didn't feel unsafe. It wasn't like I was in a war or anything.

I'm not sure why people get scared because guns happen to be around or they go off. But I have learned that people are different all across this country and some are completely scared of the idea of guns while others like me could care less.

Re:As long as it makes us safe

[Anonymous Coward]

Surveillance != Totalitarian Controls

Nobody in government is telling me what to do in my day to day life. That's what's funny about the whole thing. You USAians are being told by government what you have to do on a day to day basis. You have to have insurance, you can only go see certain doctors, you have to do this, and that, and the other, or be taxed to death.

If there is anywhere being blanketed by "totalitarian controls," it's the US under that petty little dictator you guys elected.

We here in the UK are free to do basically whatever we want. We can see any doctor. We can drive any car we want. We can come and go as we please. No curfews (like many of your worse-off, most violent cities have). No Soviet Style police checkpoints. None of it.

So enjoy your violent little unevolved cesspool of violence while the rest of the world develops socially and culturally.

Re:As long as it makes us safe

[Maritz]

What makes you think the crime rates are proportional to the number of CCTV cameras? Or that crime in the states is because of guns? Lots of countries with just as many guns have even lower crime rates than the UK. But you wouldn't know that, because you've got a narrative and reading things that contradict your narrative just feels 'bad' doesn't it?

The problem isn't the spying.

[VortexCortex]

Knowledge is power. The problem isn't spying, it's who has access to the information. I say: Spy on everyone, and let everyone have access to the information. It might even help with unjust censorship laws -- Like in the UK where they want to sensor porn by default... If we can look in the public spy data and show that everyone is looking at porn, but don't openly admit it, then we shouldn't enact such retarding laws.

Capturing such data could be huge tools for transparency but since the public isn't given access to the data, it's only useful for oppression. Right now the Free Syrian Army (which sprang forth from protests for democracy) is fighting against Syrian Soldiers who believe the rebels want a genocide because their dictator controls their information. If the two sides' soldiers were allowed to share information then it would be much harder for the dictator to convince soldiers to fight, and they could have peace talks and perhaps come to a compromise which would give the people more actual control of the government... Bashar al-Assad controls the information, and only through it can he wield and preserve his power.

Men in their arrogance claim to understand the nature of creation, and devise elaborate theories to describe its behavior. But always they discover in the end that God was quite a bit more clever than they thought.
-- Sister Miriam Godwinson, "We must Dissent"

Information, the first principle of warfare, must form the foundation of all your efforts. Know, of course, thine enemy. But in knowing him do not forget above all to know thyself. The commander who embraces this totality of battle shall win even with inferior force.
-- Spartan Battle Manual

As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
-- Commissioner Pravin Lal, "U.N. Declaration of Rights"

Everything I need to know I learned from Alpha Centauri

Khaled el-Masri

[Pitt64]

i guess you don't classify rape as torture. dumbfuck

Re:Khaled el-Masri

[cold fjord]

If Khaled el-Masri was raped, it would be a crime.

You should think about choosing another tag for yourself than, "dumbfuck." It is likely to cause people to hold your views as disreputable.

   

Re:Khaled el-Masri

[Anonymous Coward]

If Khaled el-Masri was raped, it would be a crime.

Right, lucky us to have cold fjord enlightening us, clearly one can't rely on Wikipedia anymore.

Or... are you sharing with us the "truth" that he actually consented to having an object forcefully inserted into his anus, so that he wasn't raped?

Re:Khaled el-Masri

[cold fjord]

Going to the source document, we see what is referred to as rape consisted of:

Members of the Rendition Group follow a simple but standard procedure: Dressed head to toe in black, including masks, they blindfold and cut the clothes off their new captives, then administer an enema...

Wikipedia is often best treated as a starting point, not an end point, when looking for information.

Re:Khaled el-Masri

[Anonymous Coward]

Going to the source document, we see what is referred to as rape consisted of:

Members of the Rendition Group follow a simple but standard procedure: Dressed head to toe in black, including masks, they blindfold and cut the clothes off their new captives, then administer an enema...

.

Oh... so administering an enema without consent is not rape now? Even when it's subsequent to a wrongful arrest.
How insightful... I wonder how the European Human Right court is so stupid to rule beyond reasonable doubt that

Macedonia "had been responsible for his torture and ill-treatment both in the country itself and after his transfer to the U.S. authorities in the context of an extra-judicial rendition."

Ah... the fact that he was tortured by the US authorities is not US fault.... it's Macedonia that's responsible... see?

Are you still saying that US used torture in only/exactly 3 cases of waterboarding by CIA? If so, please continue to enlighten us on the Abu-Ghraib matter: the last I know, it was US military that used a quite large variety of torture, rape included.

Other photos show interrogators sexually assaulting prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube, and a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts. Taguba has supported President Obama's decision not to release the photos, stating, "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."

Re:Khaled el-Masri

[cold fjord]

If so, please continue to enlighten us on the Abu-Ghraib matter: the last I know, it was US military that used a quite large variety of torture, rape [wikipedia.org] included.

I've already posted on that in this discussion here. As far as continuing to "enlighten you," that might be a full time job whereas I'm only one person and have other priorities. Feel free to widen your reading material, and read more carefully. It might do you some good.

I will point out that the European Court of Human Rights, as far as I see in the actual reference (and maybe I missed it), doesn't refer to his receiving an enema as torture or rape.

Re:Khaled el-Masri

[Anonymous Coward]

I will point out that the European Court of Human Rights, as far as I see in the actual reference (and maybe I missed it), doesn't refer to his receiving an enema as torture or rape.

Are you implying that "being kidnapped (sorry, "forcefully disappeared") - and subsequently having an object inserted into the anus (do you have reasons to believe they gave an enema without anal insertion?) does not qualify as rape, because the European Court of Human Rights did not specifically ruled it as such"?

If not, is there any way I can interpret your "point" above other than pedantic (i.e. precise and irrelevant)?

Re:Khaled el-Masri

[Alranor]

The FBI would consider it rape

“penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Source

Re:Khaled el-Masri

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh... so administering an enema without consent is not rape now?

No. And it never was.

Re:Khaled el-Masri

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the laws, you're wrong.

Re:Khaled el-Masri

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop trying to confuse cold fjord with facts. He's got an agenda.

Re:Khaled el-Masri

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure that applies when an action is performed legally under "color of authority". If it were, inmates being executed, which involves a "butt plug" in some states, would have been raped, which is nonsense.

NICE TRY NSA!

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to make us believe the NSA and the GCHQ don't share everything in that regard? Or that the NSA didn't have access anyway?

Yeah, right. lol

Don't you have a job to do, Mr. Cold Fjord ??

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Mr. Cold Fjord,

You have been popping out very frequently (too frequently) defending the NSA / Obama / Uncle Sam in this PRISM saga

Don't you have a regular day job, Mr. Cold Fjord ?

Or is THIS (shrill spinning for NSA) the way you take home the bacon ?

Re:Don't you have a job to do, Mr. Cold Fjord ??

[Maritz]

I might suspect him of motivated reasoning but to accuse him of being a shill is very premature and overly paranoid in my opinion. NSA paying people to write posts on Slashdot? Please...

The Guardian is Tony Blair 'in print'

[Anonymous Coward]

No media outlet backed Blair's genocidal war in Iraq, or pushed Blair's lies about WND more than The Guardian newspaper. Blair leads what is known as the Fabian Movement (social Darwinists who believe every Human should be given equal chance to rise to the top, and thus those at the top form a 'master-race' with the explicit right to do with those 'sub-Humans' that remain beneath them as they so wish). The Guardian is the official mouthpiece of Blair's Fabian goons.

When The Guardian 'leaks' something, it is anything BUT a leak. It is an official act of psychological manipulation, akin to an abuser father informing his daughter "I'm going to rape you tomorrow". That promise to rape IS the truth just as the NSA and GCHQ spying revelations are the truth, but giving the sheeple the truth is not the motivation for the reporting.

The Guardian is currently pushing as hard as it can in favour of Blair's genocidal war in Syria, and Blair's desired VASTLY bigger genocidal war in Iran. The Guardian uses what is commonly known as the tactic of 'grooming'. In times of World War, where the Human population is supposed to sit back and allow the monsters to plan the most depraved acts of planetary evil, the sheeple are supposed to assume every nation is spying on every other nation. This mindset is seen as both desirable and essential. Expect your team to have no limits to how far they are prepared to go to win.

Other media outlets, like the PR branch of MI5- known to most of you as the BBC, pretend to be outraged by The Guardians disregard of government secrecy, ensuring that the sheeple think there is some forbidden fruit to be tasted and shared. Tell people knowledge is illicit, and you prick their curiosity. A very old and very crude ploy- but effective. Why do you think the owners of Slashdot are raising the story here?

The immediate aftermath is simple. The sheeple see Blair's no.1 ally, Putin, as an enemy of the West for his unstinting support of the popular regime in Syria. They see an escalation of events in Syria that are clearly small steps at least to a conflict between Russia and America. The 'spying' makes the situation feel as if it is set in concrete, regardless of people's opinions about the politics. A fait accompli that the sheeple will feel less likely to challenge, or even think they should be challenging.

As I said, The Guardian sees its role as grooming the people on behalf of Blair. To make people think they know the answer before they even realise what the question is.

THINK. The last time the Americans fired at a Russian plane over Syria, America lost multiple aircraft to 'accidents' in the immediate days that followed. Now Blair has persuaded the incredibly dumb Yanks to set up a massive military presence, most of which is aimed at destroying civilian air traffic over Syria, in the British colony of Jordan. It is a re-run of Blair's play in Georgia all over again. Blair gets Obama to destroy Russian aircraft over Syria. The Russians respond to a degree you Yanks won't believe. Obama uses the excuse of the chaos of escalation to launch nuclear strikes against Iran.

The whole of the Middle east is soaked in Blair's petrol (gasoline). Blair's manipulations have moved that region further from peace than at any time in its history. Blair has focused on stirring up sectarian conflicts, and empowering West friendly dictators to a degree that should sicken and terrify all of you. Now all Blair has to do is carefully walk the two nuclear super-powers (Russia and the USA) down a path with no return. And as for you morons who ask why monsters like Blair crave such mass slaughter, why is it you fail to marvel at the motivations of the multiple serial killers who kidnap, torture and murder as many victims as they are able. Blair is made from the same material, but his ambition for murder and suffering is on a planetary scale.

Will you let The Guardian groom your expectations too?

Re:The Guardian is Tony Blair 'in print'

[Maritz]

What a massive pile of bollocks. Flush out your headgear mate.

The problem is people

[symbolset]

"A secret once shared is secret no more."

It's marginally possible to maintain infosec when your operatives are groomed, recruited, trained and thoroughly and frequently tested by counterops, psych, and intel pros who outnumber them hundreds to one. Then only occasionally does a spy get in and get promoted to the top. This is only possible when the people who know the precious things are few. The top end is maybe 5,000. Probably far less.

When your secrets are shared across thousands of subcontractors whose recruiting you don't even monitor? No. You may as well post your own shit to pastebin.

Axis Of Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

U.S.A. Federal Government (Obama) And H.M.G. (David Cameron) is the Axis Powers of Today.

Their premeditated and willful actions and psychology are reminiscent of Germany (HItler) and Italy (Moussolini) in the run-up to World War II !

This IS ominous !

Today, Europe and Asia will be the 'Allies.'

Today, U.S.A. and U.K. will the the 'Third Reich' !

Much of this is being pushed by the elements within the Obama Regime and H.M.G. for blackmail purposes.

This makes the new war nuclear targets New York (financial) and Washington D.C. (political).

London has the 'currency' to payoff those legally disenfranchised, i.e. those pissed off otherwise, and be spared of a thermonuclear 'urban renewal.'

Obama has NO card left to play !

His 'false government' is without credit.

Not Even Dick Cheney can 'Save Obama's Day' ! Dick Chaney has lived long enough and raped the U.S.A. long enough and will be 'retired' shortly.

Re:Axis Of Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up, chink.

Re:Axis Of Evil

[Maritz]

elements within the Obama Regime

Funny how simply that one little turn of phrase highlights exactly what you're all about.

China's PowerPoint spy

[globaljustin]

Definitely fishy...these are GCHQ documents...British Government...not NSA...

here's one: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/6/16/1371408003314/GCHQ-ragout-1-002.jpg

They look like more powerpoint slides...maybe that's his trick, his only real *new* info is some ppt slides from a conference he managed to swipe while setting up a workstation...

Then his narcissism and idiocy take over...

If it isn't China it's the military/industrial complex...

Re: China's PowerPoint spy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of UKUSA?

Non-event.

[jythie]

I am actually kinda surprised people are surprised about this. Both British and American intelligence agencies have a long history of spying on delegates at various summits, and I suspect that the other countries just take it as part of the game, likely they are doing the same thing on smaller budgets. Not saying it is a good thing, but it is a pretty well known 'secret' at least in a general sense.

Re:Non-event.

[GodfatherofSoul]

Yeah, this is old news. Spying on diplomats is a great way to figure out how to bribe them into pushing their host nations in your direction.

War on Terror == War on Everyone

[Required Snark]

This latest revelation shows the true nature of the "War on Terror". It is actually a war on everyone. On one side are the political insiders and the ultra rich, and on the other side is the rest of the world. It also illustrates that there is no honor among thieves, but that shouldn't be a surprise.

The full bore surveillance state that has emerged in the US/Great Britten/etc since the 9/11 attacks has an autonomous agenda. Coping with terrorism is not it's primary goal. It's aim is to permanently protect the current ruling clique from all challenges. It is intrinsically anti-democracy and anti-capitalism. Functioning democracy and capitalism reduce the control and economic position of the power elite, so democracy and capitalism must be being suppressed.

This is the inevitable result of an out of control security system. There are secret organizations governed by secret charters overseen by secret courts with elected officials sworn to secrecy. The people running the organizations lie to everyone all the time. They justify their behavior by claiming that since they are the "good guys", it's OK to do evil things. This is literally the road to hell based on good intentions.

Once an unaccountable organization has the ability to spy on anyone for a good reason, it will spy on everyone for any reason.

Re:War on Terror == War on Everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

War on terror? Surveillance emerging *Since the 9/11 attacks?*

You have a poor grasp on history, my friend, and one that's been much shaped by political rhetoric from one side or the other (doesn't matter which) about 9/11 being some sort of meaningful turning point for the NSA.

The NSA has been intercepting anything that was technologically feasible since 1945, when it was still the Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA). Read up on Projects SHAMROCK and MINARET (which have nothing to do with Ireland or MENA, despite the names). If it crossed wires, the AFSA/NSA was reading it or recording it. If it had a frequency, they were listening. Anything, anywhere, anytime. They still are. Nothing has changed for the NSA.

Spy agencies spy. That's what they do. Spying on foreign leaders at conferences like the G20 is pretty much the Superbowl of what they do. And they all do it: Russians, Germans, Brits, Americans, Frogs, anyone with the capability to bug each other (and the G20 is basically the top group of countries with the technological know-how, financial support, and proactive sense of initiative to do just that). The Europeans have known for years that they were all intercepting any communications they could: see the table in section 2.5 of the explanatory statement to this July 2001 (before 9/11) report on ECHELON from the European Parliament. Anyone not too poor or too small to do so was intercepting anything they could get their hands on.

If you think 9/11 has anything to do with "increased" surveillance, you've been sold a bill of goods. Surveillance was always as complete as was technologically feasible, and that's how it will be in the future as well, and it's got nothing to do with national borders or allegiances: it's a game that no first-world country is not playing. The quintuple alliance of US/UK/Canada/Australia/New Zealand (and sometimes the Dutch for a sixth hand) just happens to be the best at the game, which is why they can read things that other countries haven't gotten access to yet. "Yet" being the operative word.

CAPTCHA: puppets

Re:War on Terror == War on Everyone

[argStyopa]

For all of you who agree that this reveals that government is untrustworthy, do you START to understand why some people have wanted to LIMIT the power of the federal (and by extension, all) government to the absolute minimum necessary to fulfill its absolute minimum necessary functions?

As shocked as you may have been at the idea your personal info has been Hoovered by the government for decades, does it give you an inkling of how angry and betrayed the founding fathers - loyal British subjects all - must have been, and at least a taste of the rage they felt at their betrayal by the Crown in 1776, such that they were prompted to design a new government in which the key principle was CONSTRAINING the power of that government? ..Yet, in post after post here for years I've seen the majority cheerfully willing to give that government more & more & more power over everything from education to healthcare.

Re:War on Terror == War on Everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

..Yet, in post after post here for years I've seen the majority cheerfully willing to give that government more & more & more power over everything from education to healthcare.

Funny how those who want to limit government always start with social programs. Military spending is ~1/3(?) of the national budget, and far larger then the rest of the world combined. Start with limiting that and you'll find more agreement.

Re:War on Terror == War on Everyone

[argStyopa]

Always? I bet you don't recall that Bush II was actually elected on the premise of downsizing the post-cold war military?

Rumsfeld was brought into the DoD SPECIFICALLY because he was a budget-chopper. Crappy wartime SecDef that he may have been, his reason for sitting in that chair was because he was going to reduce the military.

FYI Defense is less than 1/5 of the budget. (19%)
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and safety nets: 55% of the budget...or roughly 3x defense.

And FWIW, personally, I'd be DELIGHTED if the president sat down and gave the Joint Chiefs the mandate of reducing our post-Afghan military by 33%, bases by 50%, and development budget by 20%. Flat cuts, and if it's recommended to go, no senator or congressman can gainsay it in their pork-defense effort.

Nevar again!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevar again shall a meeting be organizedh over the UK soilh!!
Assuming this is the correct interpretation of what really happened, the UK has proven to be untrustworthy host.

Just face the facts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just face the facts, there is no way on this green earth that this spying is going to stop. Quite the opposite, its gunna get a whole lot worse. Rather than doing anything about it you might as well just buck up and drink the medicine. If you have a firewall and antivirus just man up and do the right thing, uninstall that rubbish, it does diddly squat. The same goes for any attempt at being anonymous, tor and all that baloney. Instant uninstall. From here on in, cc all your emails direct to the NSA so at least you're saving some taxpayers dollars on all the pointless snooping. They want em, just give them to them and be done with it. God Bless America. Now on to your paycheck. Every paycheck, each and every one, invest. You heard me right, invest. Invest fully one third of your paycheck in a defence company. Each week, fully one third. Not a penny more, not a penny less. When the machine breaks down we break down. Put your money where it will make a real tangible positive difference, to this chosen land and your retirement. We will overcome. Now, who to vote for? Just vote and leave it to the professionals. Easy right! You bet it is!

The problem is what they had done !!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is not the people

The problem is that they shouldn't have done all those shit to begin with !

Fighting terrorism is one thing

Fighting terrorism while one becomes a terrorist is another - and unfortunately for the USA, it is fast becoming the latter

Re:The problem is what they had done !!

[symbolset]

Shit is. There's nothing any of us can do about that.

Public Laws

[AndyCanfield]

The worst part about PRISM, IMHO, is that this debate should have taken place ten years ago.

The only (partial) fix that I can imagine this morning is a constitutional amendment saying that any law passed by congress has to be public. Secret laws ought to be unconstitutional, and thus inoperative. It would help.

Re:Public Laws

[meta-monkey]

Sure, and those new laws will be publicly posted in the 3rd Subbasement of the Administration for the Middle of Fuckbutt Nowhere.

The current state of affairs is Orwellian in ways worse than surveillance. Words are simply redefined to make anything legal and everything illegal, depending on who's got the mic. We've traded rule of law for rule of lawyers.

But rest assured, citizen, the republic is alive and well. You live in a country where torture is outlawed, you cannot be denied life or liberty without due process of law and you're protected from unreasonable search and seizure, and no one is listening to your phone calls. And all this freedom is guaranteed because we employ enhanced interrogation techniques on enemy combatants identified via meta-data and through a due, but not necessarily judicial process, indefinitely detain them, or eliminate them via authorized drone interdiction.

Re:Public Laws

[Aighearach]

It did, and then the debate happened again a few years ago. It is called the Patriot Act.

Poor Security and a question of ethics

[Stonefish]

There are two things in play here.
1 Ethically questionable behavior on the part of the UK government which I suspect has drifted into a groupthink position of thinking that conventions and laws relating to privacy and decency doesn't exist and don't apply to them. Before you get upset contemplate if your government behaves in the same manner.

2 All of these 'exploits' rely on poor security practices on the part of the other delegates. Where is the two factor authentication, where are the secure channels, where is the choice of secure device vs Iphone. If you're typing you're logging onto a classified network from an Internet cafe you should lose your job.

The Reality is that these people have a different/special moral compass and thus it has always been. Secondly, fools are being trusted with significant privilege which they are treating in a cavilier manner.

In short your government should be providing you with a secure device, this is not a blackberry or an iphone as there are controlled by external parties. If you want a smartphone use something like to nexus 4, Roll your own (from a government perspective) image.
Include smartcard support and require it for unlocking (via NFC). (Smartcards which meet Common Criteria targets are $10 each)
Ensure that the device filesystems and message stores are encrypted, require smartcard to unlock
Use VoIP back to a single IP address and tunnel this traffic through a VPN, make sure that you include a channel for random padding to stop volume based eavesdropping.
Run something like Strongswan through your governments evaluation process and package this, it's going to be better than what the US sells you. (Guys you're G20 you can afford this)

Feel smug for a minute and then realise that they are still going to have camera and microphones on you at all times, carry a heshan sack around to cover your head when you're on the phone and learn how to sign over the video link ;-)

citations, please

[Anonymous Coward]

otherwise, it's just your opinion. Not persuasive without checkable facts.

Was a Hero, now a Traitor

[LostInTaiwan]

Snowden was a hero for exposing domestic spying of American by NSA. However, by disclosing US spying on foreign governments, Snowden has crossed the line.

Disclosing anything related to foreign affairs short of atrocities that involve the lost of innocent lives is treasonous. By claiming US hacking of foreign networks and now the disclosure on UK spying, Snowden is hurting his own credibility as a whistleblower which will damage the current push to hold NSA accountable for domestic spying.

 

Re:Was a Hero, now a Traitor

[amaurea]

Wasn't it about the United Kingdom this time? And who cares if this was treasonous or not? What matters is whether it was good or bad, and you haven't made any argument for why it was bad that he exposed this. I live in the UK at the moment, and I certainly found it interesting that the government is low enough to steal login credentials from its allies.

I guess you will say that everybody is doing this, so exposing it serves no purpose other than embarassing the government. Well, nobody should be doing this, and this is providing an incentive for them to stop. It is also informing the people about it, so they can make informed decisions when voting, and helps countries decide where not to participate in meetings, as well as reminding them that they need better encryption etc. I think this is well worth some embarassment for the perpetrator.

London is finished as a conference center

[Animats]

It's going to be a long time before anyone holds another major international meeting in London. Geneva, maybe.

Re:London is finished as a conference center

[Xest]

Yeah, because of course Britain is the only country that spies on conference delegates.

You really think this doesn't happen in every single country? You really think delegates aren't aware of this?

Hell, I ran for a run of the mill not particularly large engineering firm for some time and we got enough memos round reminding people when they're overseas to be cautious of where they plug there laptops in and so forth for precisely this reason.

This wont change a thing because everyone that mattered for this sort of decision making already knew.

Re:London is finished as a conference center

[Grumbleduke]

You'd think, but as it happens yesterday and today the UK is hosting a G8 summit. Now this is in the depths of Northern Ireland rather than London, but I imagine the principles are the same.

No such thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no "allies", only people you're not officially at war with at the moment.

Spying on the UN

[ssam]

This fits with reports that UK/USA have spied on the UN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_the_United_Nations

I prefer wikileaks

[amaurea]

I must say I prefer it when leaks go through Wikileaks. In that case, I can see the whole leaked document for myself, rather than getting two paltry screenshots from the Guardian.

Bad apples or bad barrel?

[TapeCutter]

Those were soldiers run amok over a short period of time. A number of them went to jail. They were criminals, and were treated as such.

Agree "following orders" is not a valid excuse for war crimes. However that's only half the story, it has been common knowledge since the 70's that normal humans will behave like a death camp guard/inmate if they find themselves in the right environment, there was even a movie about it. The catch 22 from those famous experiments? - Turns out the more you believe that you are incapable of acting like a dungeon master/slave the more likely you will do so if you find yourself in the right social environment for what is essentially (but uncomfortably) "normal human behavior" to emerge.

While the army were busy identifying scapegoats for prosecution did any of them stop to wonder why all the "bad apples" were found in the same small barrel, a remarkable "coincidence", no? The Iraq prison system of which we speak could not have created a real life "stanford prison" environment any better if they had done so on purpose. So the (multi-part) question was (and still is): Who set up the system that created this environment? Why did they not know the first thing about the psychology of imprisonment? Or if they did, why aren't they in jail?

Having said that, any army would instantly be mowed down on the battle field if it did not take full advantage of it's soldiers natural ability to dehumanize the enemy.

Re:Bad apples or bad barrel?

[tibman]

I think they were just bad apples. My company put down riots at Camp Bucca twice (the USAF was in charge of the base). They somehow cancelled our mission up north and got us moved to Bucca permanently (blah!). Anyways, i spent several months working detention at a facility larger than Abu Ghraib.

The only people that treated the detainees like subhumans were the typical homophobic/xenophobic bunch. They would have done the same to American detainees, i'm sure. Thankfully, shitty soldiers are the minority in a good unit. Good soldiers just treat them like normal people. Blah soldiers are indifferent.

Abu Ghraib was a huge embarrassment for the US Army. Not because of politics or anything like that. But because we had brothers and sisters who were that cruel and stupid. We were all guilty by association. We wanted to kill them. They were no better than the Sunni who were killing the Shia (and vice-versa). Hatred fueled by ignorance.

The US Army is supposed to have one thing that the guards in those prison scenarios don't have. LDRSHIP: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless-service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage. The Army Values. That is the thing that is pounded into everyone's brains since the day they sign up. So not only did those bad apples break the law, they failed the Army core values. That goes for everyone who knew what was happening and didn't speak up. Personal Courage is supposed to cover that one. The US Army wants soldiers who refuse illegal orders. It wants people who are intelligent, thoughtful, tough, trainable, and can quickly murder someone when required.

I'm biased, lol : ) Fuck those guys, glad they are in prison. You're right though. Power corrupts.

Re:Bad apples or bad barrel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Abu Ghraib was a huge embarrassment for the US Army. Not because of politics or anything like that. But because we had brothers and sisters who were that cruel and stupid. We were all guilty by association.

Well yeah, you're essentially hired killers. You control yourselves much better than the hired killers employed by many other nations but you're hired killers all the same. Of all the many ways someone could work for or serve their country, you guys chose this way because you're violent men. Highly disciplined and loyal, certainly and I don't dispute that, but you're violent men who signed up to do violence on command. That they act violently especially against someone labelled as The Enemy just isn't surprising. The only surprise is that it doesn't happen a lot more often.

I think soldiers mean well and intend good and are willing to endure the worst situations and sacrifice their very lives to achieve it. I also think you would enlist because you don't see the big picture. The US military hasn't fought an enemy because they were a threat to the US since WWII. Every conflict since then has been manufactured for the sake of economic and political power. It's not a conspiracy (though the powers that be are aware of this) so much as an economic demand.

WWII got the US out of the Great Depression but at the expense of having a military-industrial complex that requires war in order to keep that economy afloat. The solution since then has been to have small-scale undeclared wars away from US soil against enemies with little or no ability to invade and occupy US soil. That's why they aren't going to try this with say China because it would be far too destructive - it would destroy the economy they're trying to prolong. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq were all this way. Afghanistan was perfect for the purpose because no one has ever been able to conquer them - it's ideal for a war that lasts indefinitely. Now they're gearing up for either Iran or Syria. It has to be Communism or terrorism or some other ideology because you can't use bullets to destroy an idea.

Understand that you're not "defending freedom". You're dehumanizing and killing enemies that were created for the purpose in order to keep the economic machine running. I don't want you to take my word for it. I would like for you to do your own research. You can start with the fact that bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were connected to and trained by our own CIA. That's why, when he wouldn't play ball anymore, previous attempts to assassinate Saddam failed - we taught him well and his security was too good.

Knowing how the real world works (not that claptrap they teach you in the media while banging the drums of patriotism) means I couldn't take part in this. If a foreign enemy invaded US soil I would seriously consider grabbing a rifle myself because defense of one's home is quite legitimate, but what we're actually doing now is a horror. Like I said I do believe you have the best of intentions and are probably a noble person. I also believe that these good traits you have are being exploited to further goals you would not personally agree with.

Re:Bad apples or bad barrel?

[tibman]

Hey there : ) I feel like you're using me as a punching bag right now. I know all about our government shenanigans. You don't have to dehumanize someone to kill them. You don't even have to think about them, if you want. Or you can imagine yourself snuffing out a life before it has been able to fully contribute to the world.. and cry about it (which is healthy). Just because someone is/was a soldier doesn't mean they live with their head in the sand. I think you'd find most soldier's blaming the civilian government for being the real warmongers. We are just supposed to go where you point : )

Hired killers is too limiting. You need to add medical aid providers, trainers, builders, and general helpers to your list : ) Otherwise it would be a terrible mistake to send the US Military to assist after earthquakes, tornadoes and other natural disasters, lol.

You can love your country and still point out all the fucked up shit going on with it : )

Re:Bad apples or bad barrel?

[cold fjord]

I'm afraid you have a very distorted picture of the US based on misinformation.

The US defense budget at the end of WW2 was approximately 38% of GDP. It now hovers around 4-5%. The idea of an all powerful "military industrial complex" is a distorting myth. The defense budget is in fact dwarfed by social welfare spending. And don't forget healthcare spending, which is three to four times larger share of GDP than defense spending. You can see a chart of defense spending at the link below:

Defense Spending as Percentage of GDP Well Below Historical Average

Also, your idea about the nature of the conflicts doesn't really match up with the history. The 9/11 attack killed about as many people as the Pearl Harbor attacks which caused American entry into WW2. The 9/11 attacks resulted in about $100,000,000,000 in damage to the US economy. The fact that something is not an existential threat does not mean that it is not dangerous and has to be dealt with.

Saddam's invasion, conquest, and annexation of Kuwait in 1990 was also another military episode that was properly dealt with. The UN took action and a large international coalition of nations drove Saddam's army out of Kuwait. Completely proper, and justified.

I think you have a very one dimensional view of the American armed services which is an all volunteer military which both protects the United States and helps abroad.

U.S. Aircraft Carrier Leaving Disaster Zone After Tsunami
U.S. Military Relief Mission in Haiti Ends

Re:Bad apples or bad barrel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that you realized what you were serving and got out as a result of that realization? Or did you know full well what you were doing and did it anyway because you needed to or wanted to? See there has to be either a head in the sand (at some point, even if they wake up later) or indifference or evil.

I mean, we haven't had a draft in a long time. They don't "go where you point" until after they sign up. And I see your point about doing things other than killing, I admit you were correct to point that out, but I don't exactly consider the US military to be a charitable organization either.

I would like to love my country. I want to know what that feels like. The people who manage it seem to enjoy it. I certainly cannot love its government, so that's right out. I want to love its people, but too many of them are fat, intellectually and emotionally shallow, self-centered, as well as inconsiderate and rude. Many of them didn't grow up with any kind of father figure and it shows. Too few of them think for themselves and know how to question. So what is there to love? The landscape? I do love the beaches and forests and mountains, yes I do, but the USA isn't the only place with those.

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here. This is how I genuinely feel. I don't think it's funny or cool, I think it's unpleasant. I don't want to feel this way. My father and grandfather didn't feel this way, they were full of hope and optimism and thought we were the light of the world, but they also see how things are today.

Honestly the only reason I still live in the USA is because I can't afford to move to a small European nation and become a citizen. I think someplace like Finland would suit me much better. I hear some places in South America are also pretty nice but that's still more money than I have.

Re:Bad apples or bad barrel?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm saddened to read of your plight. Although the US does have its share of problems, it is still a great country with much to offer, even if we may soon be passing the easy road for addressing some of its issues. Something like 80,000,000 people visit the US each year, and many immigrate to the US. Some people are desperate to reach the United States, willing to risk death. And it is very likely you are too far away from Europe to see its many problems, at least some of which are going to get worse in the years ahead due to massive demographic changes and financial problems. One recent example.

Although it is possible that you have some sort of medical condition that results in your unhappiness, it is very likely that your values play a part. I'm going to go out on a limb - a small one - and guess that you are left of center, maybe by a long ways. There are aspects of values of the left that add to personal unhappiness. After all, it is hard to be happy about a country if you misunderstand it and its values, believing it to be toxically racist, and militaristic, and having many other distorted, exaggerated, or imagined faults. That means seeing more clearly, not putting on rose colored glasses. Just one example: If the military industrial complex is so powerful, why has its slice of the fiscal piet fallen so much over the years?

Perhaps you would consider widening your exploration of the world of ideas. One of the odd things of life in America is that more people than you might suppose have many conservative values, but significant parts of the culture tell you that good people are on the left, so people misidentify themselves.

You might try listening to this gentleman's radio program (The Dennis Prager Show), and maybe read some of his writing.

Why Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals

He tends to be thoughtful and explores ideas and values. He also has a weekly hour of his program devoted to happiness, called "The Happiness Hour." Catchy name. ;) It's the mid hour of his program on Fridays last I recall. He also wrote a book: Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual

Dr. William Bennet is another thoughtful commentator.

Beyond that, do you have unmet spiritual needs? Have you explored Christianity? This is a great program: Insight for Living Having faith in God doesn't necessarily mean that our circumstances are better, but we better able to live with our circumstances due to faith in God, and the changes He brings about in us. Pray to God to ask for faith and guidance. If that doesn't seem scientific, remember that science lives with many ambiguities, and uncertain data. And note that some of the greatest minds and people in history have been Christians. And just because you lean to play baseball doesn't mean you forget how to play football.

It can also be helpful to give of yourself to other people - volunteer at a hospital, or food bank, or maybe something else. There are many people in this world that can use a helping hand. (But realize that not all of them are grateful.)

I'm not trying to be glib or dismissive of any challenges you may face. I'm just sharing a few things that have enriched my life over the years. And don't be discouraged if you don't feel different right away. Sometimes you must travel a ways down the road. There are still many things I continue to discover about

Re:Bad apples or bad barrel?

[Aighearach]

Social Security isn't "welfare." L M A O

Re:Bad apples or bad barrel?

[cold fjord]

Social Security isn't "welfare." L M A O

Social welfare programs are also known as social programs. Both Social Security and Welfare, as well as various other programs are social welfare aka social programs.

Sometimes things that seem stupid to you are an indication that you are the one that doesn't understand. You might want to write that down, and then pick up your A**.

Better staff training?

[AHuxley]

Lets go down the 2009 list:
Argentina/Brazil - they should know what the GCHQ did in the Falklands war and the great telco help the NSA/CIA gave during the 1970's dirty war...
Canada/Australia/South Korea/Turkey - the GCHQ/NSA's helpers should have been very aware of what the USA and GCHQ can do...
China - did they really just forget the GCHQ efforts in Okinawa, Little Sai Wan?
France, Italy, Germany - in NATO - they should know what the NSA and GCHQ did to them .... and their trade deals
India- recall Perkar on Ceylon?
Indonesia - did they forget what Singapore gave the GCHQ in the past?
Japan -GCHQ efforts in Okinawa?
Mexico - recall the Security Council efforts re Iraq?
Russia -FSB has unique insight into all of the UK efforts :)
Saudi Arabia - did they not recall the GCHQ's efforts in the Yemen Civil War?
South Africa -recall Silvermine?
Why would any of the above with generation awareness of working with or been under GCHQ collections methods really just let their staff wonder over to 'free' wifi in a foreign country and chat with home?
Are they really unaware of email interception programmes and key-logging software?
Did they not understand the help Canada based hardware and software firms must give the GCHQ/NSA- thats the CSEC or CSE...
Or do they bring teams dedicated in generating junk that the GCHQ passes onto their masters and everybody is happy :)

Memories of Bush & Blair

[Anonymous Coward]

Although Brown presided over this, it got me all nostalgic for the Bush/Blair days. I remember watching Blair on TV, looking at this eyes and thinking to myself "he might actually believe what he's saying!" That thought used to chill me to the bone in the same way I feel when an otherwise nice person says incredibly inhumane and backwards, and defends it as part of God's loving plan for us all.

Snowden may be toast

[Anonymous Coward]

He's starting to be in-discriminate with his leaking.

1) Leak that the US is hiding FISA warrants that it has no reasonable excuse to hide. Good leak, might fix the process.
2) Leak that the UK is spying on foreign diplomats. Bad leak, will only cause a diplomatic embarassment, not a change of action.

sneeky perverts like parent poster

[Anonymous Coward]

sneeky perverts like parent poster like to skulk around peering in windows ( yea funny how the main operating system is a thing called windows that they peek in )
I SAY a PEEPING TOM is A PEEPING tom and a pervert like that we in society can do without

* eyeroll *

[Hognoxious]

The cat's out of the bag now. It won't be long before they're all at it.

spying is the new normal?

[Anonymous Coward]

so now spying is legit? every government is spying, we are getting used to it, its yesterdays news. is this what is it all about? getting this sort of things widely recognized and lead us to believe its ok?

old illuminati industrial complex

[globaljustin]

yeah, I am aware...it's not really about nation/states or polities...

it's spheres of influence among oligarchs...usually rich people with some connection to english or dutch royalty or the catholic church...or the saudis...

in this context, the 'government' is the people's best friend...democracy is our weapon against oligarchy

So G20 conferences are for real after all!

[mileshigh]

To think that for all these years I had assumed these types of conferences are just well-publicized cocktail parties. Maybe that's the most revealing part of this new round of disclosures. But then again, those upper-crust Brits have been known to take their parties (and their spying) pretty seriously...

Hong Kong avoided raising suspicions at NSA

[UpnAtom]

Question:
ewenmacaskill 17 June 2013 3:07pm
I should have asked you this when I saw you but never got round to it........Why did you just not fly direct to Iceland if that is your preferred country for asylum?

Answer:
Leaving the US was an incredible risk, as NSA employees must declare their foreign travel 30 days in advance and are monitored. There was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en route, so I had to travel with no advance booking to a country with the cultural and legal framework to allow me to work without being immediately detained. Hong Kong provided that. Iceland could be pushed harder, quicker, before the public could have a chance to make their feelings known, and I would not put that past the current US administration.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-files-whistleblower

Since we have a secret government ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we have a secret government that passes laws in secret, evaluates them in secret, applies them in secret, and even ignores them in secret you cannot possibly know any of this. Your words are just as much bullshit as any Congressperson, President, Federal Judge or other "elected" or "appointed" official. In truth they are selected by, and serve, the 1%. Or more like the .0001 %

Democracy, or Representative Republic, or whatever the US is pretending to be currently is bullshit without an informed electorate. Every year more and more is hidden from the electorate to the point that no voter can vote with any confidence that they know what is going on, nor can they evaluate the performance,. reliability or anything else about their representatives.

I'm pretty sure what we have been allowed to know, or what has leaked is just the tip of the iceberg. Tuskeegee? Abu Graib? And many other secret bullshit moves by the gov't? Sorry pal, you are just another apologist for evil and lies.

Re:Since we have a secret government ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is a mix of both insight and nonsense. Laws are publicly available, as are the voting records. There are some instances were aspects of national security law are kept secret, that that has little to do with the law of war questions. Nobody gets elected to office by the ".0001%." You need a majority of the voters. If you think otherwise, please provide some evidence of that. Are tens of millions of votes being faked and that is slipping by the election judges? Nonsense. The totals are public and well known.

The fact that you bring up Abu Ghraib shows you don't have a good understanding of what is going on. People went to jail for that, it was an abuse by soldiers running amok, not a conspiracy. More here in a previous post.

US is NOT at war with al Qaida.

[Anonymous Coward]

US is NOT at war with al Qaida. Just more or your parroted bullshit.

"Wars in the modern age, when not civil in nature, have been among nations and done by states. If al-Qaeda never has been a state, and it never has, how can the U.S. possibly be at war with al-Qaeda? It can't. If al-Qaeda has never been chosen to represent a nation of people by any of the usual political means, how can it possibly be conceived of as having the consent of a people and being a state? It can't. If al-Qaeda unilaterally declares itself as a leader of some people and issues a declaration of war, how can that possibly be construed as a real declaration of a real state? It cannot. If several leaders of al-Qaeda unilaterally issue a fatwa but they have no religious standing among the people they claim to speak for, how can that fatwa be anything other than a declaration of their own and only their own violent intentions? It cannot."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133568.html

You cannot be "at War" with a random group of people, or with a tactic (terrorism) [A tactic by the way practiced by the Allies in WWII - Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.]

Wars are between NATIONS. Laws about War are enforced by whom exactly? By the victors. That makes those laws and pronouncements about them suspect as well.

Terrorists like al Qaeda are simply criminals and should be treated as such. What the US has done in prosecuting these ridiculous wars is wasting our blood and treasure and handing Bin Laden the victory he wanted: Steady destruction of the US from within, starting by fighting over money (9-11 special master, etc.) and progressing to loss of freedoms, subjugation of the people, exhaustion of the military (stop-loss) and economic collapse. We are moving in lockstep to Bin Ladens wet dream.

Re:US is NOT at war with al Qaida.

[cold fjord]

I regret to inform you that you don't know what you are talking about.

In their mind, Al Qaida is fighting on behalf of, and to reestablish, the Islamic Caliphate government that was dissolved in 1923 after the fall of the Ottoman empire. The nonsense about "never been chosen to represent a nation of people" would make the silly claim that any modern insurgency to overthrow a government by violent means isn't really a war.

The "War on Terror" is symbolic language, just like the "War on Fascism" in WW2. It is ridiculous that supposedly educated people can't figure that out. The Authorization for Use of Military Force makes it clear who the US is fighting again, and that it is at war. It is well settled law that such an authorization is legally equivalent to a declaration of war.

You can tell al Qaida and the Taliban are not ordinary criminals since they actually ran the country of Afghanistan, and have been trying to overthrow several others. The 9/11 attack is the only time that the self-defense provision of the NATO treaty has been invoked following an attack. NATO aircraft flew over American cities to protect them. The Taliban and al Qaida use heavy weapons and have been organized at the brigade level. They are regularly engaged by the US Air Force which is targeting them with missiles and dropping large bombs upon them. This isn't a problem with traffic stops gone bad, or a gang of bank robbers, or even the Crips and the Bloods.

Bin Laden was an utter failure. He made the classic mistake of dictators and would-be dictators in attacking the United States. The additional cost of the war is a pittance in the total federal budget. His organization is very badly damaged. There has been little if any genuine loss of real freedom, and modest impositions on privacy. The true threats in terms of spending come from the enormous growth in social welfare programs, and the damaged economy which is exacerbated by the current administrations over-regulation.

You've got things almost entirely wrong. It doesn't help that you get your news and views from fringe sites. Maybe you should try a few different ones.

National Review
The Weekly Standard
PJ Media

Re:US is NOT at war with al Qaida.

[Aighearach]

Just because you don't like the idea of Congress declaring war on non-state parties, and in this case on parties not named in the declaration but rather whoever the Executive certifies as meeting the conditions of the declarations... doesn't keep that from being what happened.

And in particular, your claim that we "cannot" be at war... with who we've been at war for 12 years... is kinda strange. At this point I would think it is clear that we can. And are.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

        (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.