Snowden: NSA Spying On EU Diplomats and Administrators

An anonymous reader writes "According to a report dated 2010 recently provided by [former NSA contractor Edward] Snowden to the German news magazine 'Der Spiegel', the NSA has systematically been spying on institutions of the EU in Washington DC, New York, and Brussels. Methods of spying include bugging, phone taps, and network intrusions and surveillance according to the documents." All part of a grand tradition.

Comments

For the sake of saving time,

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

Could we just get the list of who the NSA isn't spying on? It seems to be much shorter.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go:

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[SJHiIlman]

If we don't spy on everyone, the terrorists will get us (and maybe the communists, but they're not the big bad bogeymen they once were)! Grope everyone at airports! Have secret courts rubberstamp warrants that allow for the collection of random people's information even though there's no probable cause! Spy on allies! Spy on every single person in existence!

Somehow it seems as if our own politicians hate our freedom more than the terrorists supposedly do...

Re: For the sake of saving time,

[davester666]

only because the Earth has never been so large as it is now...

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[davester666]

They have to spy on everybody, because anybody could be, or become, a terrorist, either willingly or unwillingly.

The only people that can be trusted are obviously only a small group of people close to the President, and a handful of Congressmen and Senators.

Re: For the sake of saving time,

[AK Marc]

You mean other than God and Santa?

He fucking sees little children while they are sleeping. All of them. Every night. The original surveillance society indoctrination.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[tlambert]

They have to spy on everybody, because anybody could be, or become, a terrorist, either willingly or unwillingly.

Obviously, the most at risk people, when it comes to turning on us, are those who actively resent being spied upon. We especially have to spy on those people.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[KraxxxZ01]

Serbia. Check the map. It's the black spot in Balkans.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Cryacin]

You seem to have redacted the Kardashians. No-one of intelligence cares what they have to say.

Re: For the sake of saving time,

[Cryacin]

In Santa we trust.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the NSA thought about recording all the Kardashians' conversations. Then if the secret police ever needed to "break" a prisoner, they could just make them listen to the recordings.

However, the idea was rejected, because even the US government wasn't willing to go that far.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Sir,

Your slavish devotion to the United States government has been duly noted.

For your obedient behavior, you have been awarded one (1) hour of vacation from your wage slavery, to be taken at any time during the next year. It is suggested, if you wish to earn further such credits, that you use this hour to engage in government-approved speech or other nonsubversive activities.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

You seem to have redacted the Kardashians. No-one of intelligence cares what they have to say.

That's because they are actually spooks fulfilling the role of "circus" as in "bread and circuses."

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[stox]

Offices of Congress. If it ever came out that the Congress was being monitored in its offices, the fecal matter would hit the rotating device at supersonic speeds.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[saihung]

Yeah! Why doesn't he appreciate a government that's illegally spying on OUR ALLIES for no clear reason other than to piss them, and everyone else, off?

Re: For the sake of saving time,

[AJWM]

But Santa brings us presents. (Or, worst case, coal.) When was the last time NSA ever did anything nice for you?

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[UltraZelda64]

Good one. Seriously, that was funny... I don't have any mod points, and even though your post is already scored at 5, I'd still mod it +1 funny.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[geekmux]

Actually, the NSA thought about recording all the Kardashians' conversations. Then if the secret police ever needed to "break" a prisoner, they could just make them listen to the recordings.

However, the idea was rejected, because even the US government wasn't willing to go that far.

The idea was rejected?

Well, we do have standards for torture for anyone with an IQ over 70, so makes sense I guess.

Also explains why they are still relevant in any way.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Anonymous Coward]

honestly every westernized nation does this, and in terms of the US/UK/Canada/Australia/New Zealand they all help each other to make it possible, even to each other.

should see some of the stuff the Canadian CSE sets up for allied embassies, sigint at its best except maybe for norwegian installations.

Re: For the sake of saving time,

[Adambomb]

Ahh, I see you show interest in the Naughty Childrens Energy Consortium. Please subscribe to our material at www.caltropsinthefireplace.com

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[amiga3D]

The entire point of having an agency like the NSA is to spy on people. If you aren't going to spy on people why in hell would you have this kind of agency? It makes no sense to get mad about the NSA spying since that is their entire reason for existence. I mean really, you hire a bunch of spies and then what? They spy on people, that's what. Jeeez!

Re: For the sake of saving time,

[hawkinspeter]

I'm so disappointed that that website doesn't exist.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Hognoxious]

they don't need to record the conversations, they could just play the shows.

That'd probably involve an additional licensing fee, as it's not home/domestic use.

I mean we wouldn't want the government breaking laws, would we?

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Could we just get the list of who the NSA isn't spying on? It seems to be much shorter.

So, you believe that we're the only inhabited planet in the universe?

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[PopeRatzo]

they watch it to admirable the Kardashian sisters

You could do infinitely better than the Kardashians by just walking down just about any street in the U.S.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[XcepticZP]

Aren't those precisely the people we SHOULD be monitoring? I mean, they are in public office. We scrutinize every single other piece of their vein lives, why not their office-life? Oh, that's right, because it'll expose the broken system of supposed Democracy(TM) we think we have. They'll just find a myriad of underhanded deals, office-politics, lies, lobbying favors and all sorts of things we would not like. And that's assuming the NSA would divulge that information instead of using it in their own little government power-plays.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[PopeRatzo]

why in hell would you have this kind of agency?

That is the question, isn't it?

It makes no sense to get mad about the NSA spying since that is their entire reason for existence.

See, the idea is that they're supposed to spy on people who mean us harm. Not on everyone.

And if you're going to spy on everyone, why bother spending all the money and energy keeping it secret? Wouldn't it be more effective if you just let everyone know in no uncertain terms that "WE ARE WATCHING YOU"?

I realize that you're just trolling, but it's important for the low-information types that your questions are asked and answered.

Re: For the sake of saving time,

[symbolset]

Not really. In a sense every North Korean citizen is a spy for their thought police, reporting even their nuclear family for any perceived deviation from the required norms on pain of death. Those reported to be unfaithful suffer three generations of punishment: they, their brothers and cousins go to the camp with whatever progeny they have and suffer three generations of punishment where the third generation is guaranteed not to survive. AFAIK that's as large a spying instance as you can get. That's the spying limit.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[ae1294]

They have to spy on everybody, because anybody could be, or become, a terrorist, either willingly or unwillingly.

The only people that can be trusted are obviously only a small group of people close to the President, and a handful of Congressmen and Senators.

Yes I think there are around 400 to 500 of them which collectively own and control our system. They can be trusted because of their mass wealth and the fact that any thing they want whether legal or not will be given to them. They have no reason to get involved with messy religious martyrdom products practiced by poor ignorant brown people. I mean after all they select few have no souls to begin with so why bother with anything other than money an power. If they gamble their money away the government will always cover the lost since they are to-big-to-fail and it was really the consumers fault somehow anyway,

Welcome to our brave new world, It only gets worse from here on out. Start stashing water and food some place safe for when the riots start. There is no way to know when but I'd say with-in the next 10 years the US will be coming apart at its seams... People are perfectly happy to watch TV and ignore everything until they are starving from lack of affordable food and massive inflation in each and every sector of our economy. When people start going hungry (I think congress just failed to pass the farm bill for the first time in 40 years). That's the food stamps program among other thing.. Yeah people get really pissed off really fast when they can't have their Mt Dew and Cheeto's. Doesn't mater if the SNAP program is right or wrong when you are being mugged at knife point so someone can by some Raymons,,, These poor people might be leaching of the rest of us but putting them in jail costs more and they aren't going to suffer like some here would love to see. No they will attack and it will be random and bloody. Think about that the next time you are talking with your friends about cutting mental health and food/medical assistance from the poor. You are being short sighted and you and your family with pay, one way or another...

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[c]

However, the idea was rejected, because even the US government wasn't willing to go that far.

I thought it was because the Kardashians' already record and archive everything they do on the off-chance that it could be turned into money at some point.

I also understand the CIA has drawn up plans to destroy this "archive of mass destruction"...

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[drinkypoo]

You could do infinitely better than the Kardashians by just walking down just about any street in the U.S.

Eh. Strongly disagree. Have you SEEN the streets in the US, and what's on 'em? But you might well find someone who ain't a stupid spoiled whore, and I don't like to give SSWs attention.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Coeurderoy]

Can't you imagine that maybe he actually loves his country and would like it to stop being on a slippery slope ?

You might disagree with his opinions, and believe that his revelations on reveal "normal things", but he does not seems to be doing these for any personal gain, nor out of spite.

Of course if "right or wrong my country" is your motto, then you are in a dangerous place, "following orders" is not an ethical choice, and just put you in the wast camp of the "banal evil".

Of course maybe you where trying to be "funy", but impersonating a moron does not always work

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[khallow]

Yes I think there are around 400 to 500 of them which collectively own and control our system. They can be trusted because of their mass wealth and the fact that any thing they want whether legal or not will be given to them. They have no reason to get involved with messy religious martyrdom products practiced by poor ignorant brown people. I mean after all they select few have no souls to begin with so why bother with anything other than money an power. If they gamble their money away the government will always cover the lost since they are to-big-to-fail and it was really the consumers fault somehow anyway,

I don't get why people think that tremendous wealth is a key to power. Power can always just take wealth or sell its exclusive services for a high price. But in contrast, the kind of power the NSA exercises here can't be created with just wealth.

As to your complaint about food stamps and such, remember the saying that "a government powerful enough to give you everything you need, is also powerful enough to take away everything you have." All these little services are power - both because of the transfer of wealth (which among other things can be partly diverted for projects such as SNAP) and because creation of a public good inevitably leads to regulation of consumption of that public good to avoid tragedy of commons issues. Consider for that last point, the necessity of collecting information about the potential consumers of the good (who has your mental health data for your mental health care?), enforcement of law (just about every bureau and department has some sort of law enforcement group), and the need to regulate related human behavior (selling food stamps for cash).

Your post is a great example of how people can complain about government abuses of power and yet at the same time advocate giving that government power to abuse. It's all the same government. Why can you trust it with food stamps or mental health care when you can't trust it not to nose around in your affairs or with military matters?

You are being short sighted and you and your family with pay, one way or another...

I'd rather my family pay for their own services rather than my family pay with a loss of freedom. With freedom comes risk. I think that's a great tradeoff.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[mapkinase]

>Somehow it seems as if our own politicians hate our freedom more than the terrorists supposedly do...

As one of the "terrorists" (read, Muslims who worth a grain of salt), this is because those are completely different freedoms: spying on your own citizens is prohibited in Islam (hadith of "poking the eye"), while your government enjoys it.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[ifiwereasculptor]

Actually, the NSA thought about recording all the Kardashians' conversations. Then if the secret police ever needed to "break" a prisoner, they could just make them listen to the recordings.

However, the idea was rejected, because even the US government wasn't willing to go that far.

The idea was rejected?

Well, we do have standards for torture for anyone with an IQ over 70, so makes sense I guess.

Also explains why they are still relevant in any way.

Once again, 1% of the population getting special treatment...

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[PopeRatzo]

Eh. Strongly disagree.

Maybe we're on different streets.

The view on a street in Escanaba might be different than the one on Malibu Drive.

All I know is that yesterday, riding my bike around Chicago's North Side, the fauna was awesome to look at.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Cwix]

It is obvious you do not appreciate American style freedoms. (Right to be free from illegal search and seizures). Might I suggest you move somewhere more compatible with your views, like Iran.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[colfer]

Well, their calls are being logged (unless Verizon et.al. have filters). At least one congress member was asking about this on C-SPAN, but I haven't noticed it in the news coverage.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Culture20]

The cheapest way to get security is to not piss people off, if you don't have enemies then security is very easy.

And don't appear weak and have something someone else wants while you're not pissing anyone else off. Attacks happen for myriad reasons, not just anger.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[SuricouRaven]

Wealth is no guarantee of power, but it's certainly a big advantage.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[SuricouRaven]

I think it's wrong to say a religion allows or prohibits anything. A religion is defined by its followers, and can change greatly between regions or historical periods. The best you can really state is that there are some things in a religion which the vast majority of followers will agree upon at this time.

To give a concrete example, a few centuries ago Christianity prohibited lending money*. This wasn't a contriversial thing: Ask any priest, or any layperson with a passing familiarity with the subject, and they'd tell you it was just plain common sense. Today, we'd think this is silly. That doesn't mean the people of medieval europe were 'wrong' - it just means that their religion may have been Christianity, but it was not quite the same Christianity we have today.

*In medievel Europe, almost all money-lenders were Jewish. This is a major part of where they got their reputation for greedyness.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Wealth is no guarantee of power

I'm afraid it really is a guarantee of power. It's certainly not absolute, but being able to afford lawyers, or to invest in politically sensitive causes, or even to pay taxes, all grant some level of power.

It's certainly not absolute.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Antique Geekmeister]

Please review the NSA charter. Quoting Harry Truman's specific words in the original charter:

> The COMINT mission of the National Security Agency (NSA) shall be to provide an effective, unified organization and control of the communications intelligence activities of the United States conducted against foreign governments, to provide for integrated operational policies and procedures pertaining thereto.

They have no legal justification for the widespread monitoring of domestic communications in which they are involved, as documented by Mr. Snowden's leaks. Such domestic monitoring would be the task of the FBI, or for economic matters the Secret Service. Moreovier, the NSA is frequently in vioolation of international treaty with the nature and scope of its monitoring. Being a "spy agency" does not, and should not, provide judicial immunity.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[SuricouRaven]

Sort of.

It's the CIA that is supposed to spy on people - specifically, foreign governments and individuals of interest. The NSA was established in the fifties to assist the CIA in response to the increasing use of advanced cryptography - they were a department of mathematicians, responsible for breaking enemy (Or peaceful-for-the-moment) codes and making sure the US codes were not broken and the interception of electronic foreign communications.

The agency has since experienced considerable scope creep. Both the NSA and CIA are supposed to be strictly prohibited from spying domestically within the US (Law enforcement investigation is the FBI's job), but in practice have found plenty of loopholes.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Chris Mattern]

You seem to have redacted the Kardashians. No-one of intelligence cares what they have to say.

Yes, but you can't expect to find intelligence in Intelligence.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Aonghus142000]

Some of the sheep...

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Loki_666]

As opposed to the USA where you can be *legally* stopped and searched for no reason at all within 100km of the border.... a large % of the US population lives within 100km of a border.

What we found is that fully TWO-THIRDS of the United States’ population lives within this Constitution-free or Constitution-lite Zone. That’s 197.4 million people who live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.
Nine of the top 10 largest metropolitan areas as determined by the 2000 census, fall within the Constitution-free Zone.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Loki_666]

Forgot link: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fact-sheet-us-constitution-free-zone

Re: For the sake of saving time,

[msauve]

Santa is just a dyslexic satan.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[CrimsonAvenger]

To give a concrete example, a few centuries ago Christianity prohibited lending money*.

Umm, no.

What Christianity prohibited was "charging interest". When you can't make any money by lending it, whyever would you bother lending money?

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[CrimsonAvenger]

The cheapest way to get security is to not piss people off, if you don't have enemies then security is very easy.

So, I'm curious - what do you think we did to piss the Japanese off in 1941?

Or the Germans, for that matter?

Do keep in mind that they declared war on us, not the other way around?

We might also wonder what Poland did to piss Germany off in 1939, or what the USSR did to piss Germany off in 1941.

Or what China did to piss Japan off, for that matter...

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[stox]

You may be on to something there.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[PopeRatzo]

It seems like the optimal situation, therefore, is to spy on everyone and don't tell anyone who you're spying on.

Mr President, does General Alexander know you're trolling from Starbucks again?

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[mellyra]

The cheapest way to get security is to not piss people off, if you don't have enemies then security is very easy.

So, I'm curious - what do you think we did to piss the Japanese off in 1941?

Or the Germans, for that matter?

Do keep in mind that they declared war on us, not the other way around?

Are you for real? in 1941 you froze Japanese assets in the US and put an embargo on US oil exports to Japan - when Japan was completely reliant on US oil (> 80% of their consumption).

You also used the US navy to escort your allies' (who were engaged in war with Germany) convoys that were carrying war materials to Great Britain and the USSR with explicit orders to treat any German ships as hostile. This lead to skirmishes with German U-boats and to German merchant ships being seized by the US navy - all the while you were still pretending not to be at war with Germany.

The reasons for these acts were attacks against your allies (Japanese occupation of French Indochina, German threat to Britain), no threat to the US itself. It's of course nice if you want to help out your allies but helping out your allies in their wars while pretending to be a neutral party in said wars does simply not work out. I don't see how you can in that situation complain that they made a war official that you had already been waging for several months.

It would be just as absurd as today's US complaining about a declaration of war by Iran, labeling them as the aggressor while ignoring any economic sanctions, assassinations of nuclear scientists, stuxnet, ...

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[flyingfsck]

Well, obviously only people living in the central heartland are true American citizens.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[flyingfsck]

You got it wrong - pretty girls dressed in their summer clothes are flora, not fauna.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[aaaaaaargh!]

So you think that countries like Germany, Denmark, or, say, Luxembourg are all massively tapping into US telecomunications infrastructure in order to extract information about US companies, read private mails of US politicians, and build a large-scale database of all communications of US citizens? Or that they tap into the networks of the United States Congress?

Nobody knows for sure, but none of this sounds very credible.

Re: For the sake of saving time,

[AK Marc]

That was just a test to see what the price was, so we sell our privacy and security. For a stocking full of crap from a dollar store. Or by playing on our anthriphobia, remember, there is no such thing as "clean coal". But why was coal such a bad thing, back in London when wages were low and coal was expensive, and the only way to heat the flat?

Though I guess it's like getting someone a frying pan. Back in the kitchen, woman!

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[SuricouRaven]

That's what I meant. I just worded it poorly. The point remains.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Fluffeh]

You should use mod points where they will make a difference. Find trolls or spam, mod them down. Find that insightful comment that is still sitting at zero and give it a point. That's what mod points are for, not throwing them away because you agree with a bunch of folks that did something else first.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[goldfndr]

Your summary of the the purported border width says 100 km (62 miles), but the actual claim is 161 km (100 miles), as seen in your excerpt. Watch those units!

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[UltraZelda64]

Meh... I never have mod points when I really need them anyway, so really, I don't think it even matters. By the time I realize I have some, they're already set to expire in a day or two. In reality the mod system here is a joke, IMO. And I can almost never use my mod points anyway, because as soon as you post to a story all mods made there are void. Chances are it's those articles I'm interested in that I will read and reply to posts in... and it's those same ones that I actually bother with that I cannot moderate.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[rtb61]

Clearly you fail to grasp what is really happening. This is another example of the tail wagging the dog. All the corporate contractors providing services for the CIA/NSA have turned around and taken over those government bodies and are now actively involved in corporate espionage, for private for profit advantage. Rampant corruption of those bodies by the military industrial complex, for the benefit of the corporations. Whether it be massive data gathering for extortion of public and elected officials and their families or the silencing of all opposition throw exposure and intimidation.

You are basically seeing the activity of psychopaths who should be in prison, attempting to gain total control by creating a digital panopticon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon, via all device connected to the internet.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[s122604]

Damn strait

Thank God for the NSA, we'll never let these oily bastards sneak up on us again

Re: For the sake of saving time,

[Mabhatter]

Come on, during the Cold War this stuff was commonplace. Everybody was spying on everybody else... Political espionage in the 60's - 80's was elevated to an art form, even in polite circles.

Re: For the sake of saving time,

[Mabhatter]

The NSA is chartered to be outside the law... They're spies, paid to catch spies... 90% of what they do is illegal.

Their mission is to not get caught... Which means prosecuting "civilian crimes" shouldn't be a priority... Because their primary, most important job, is to not get caught. THAT is what Snowden violated. We've "false flagged" innocent civilian commercial traffic to get lesser threats than him, trying to go to China and Russia would have got whatever transport he was in and everybody he was with killed indiscriminately in the Cold War days... Kid is making too much mockery.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[khallow]

Ok, I think you're right here. I guess my opinion here is that it looked to me like the poster I was replying to thought that was the prime ingredient. And well, I just don't think wealth by itself is that big a deal. For example, two of the best historical examples of power via wealth are Crassus (who among other things was a key player in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire) and Richard Neville (16th Earl of Warwick). Each was able to parlay their wealth into considerable political power (and in turn obtain considerably more wealth), but in the end they fell due in large part to the limitations of power via wealth. For example, Crassus apparently needed to bolster his power with military victories (he fought against both the huge slave revolt led by Spartacus and the Parthians, finding defeat and ignominious execution from the latter). Neville did well as long as his king was in power, but his wealth evaporated when a hostile king was in power - and he made a lot of enemies who helped that other king establish themselves).

A third example is the Mughal emperor, Aurangzeb (who dominated central India during the 17th century). After ruthlessly imprisoning his father and killing his other three brothers, he obtained control of the vast wealth of central India, making him the most wealthy power of that time. He then embarked on a program of military expansion and the propagation (often by force) of the Islam religion. In about twenty years, he had depleted his treasury, squandering that vast wealth. So he had both great wealth and great power, yet they weren't enough to achieve his goals.

And by his death, the empire was weakened though it would last another century and a half before being taken over completely by the British.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[russotto]

See, the idea is that they're supposed to spy on people who mean us harm. Not on everyone.

How are they to know who means us harm, if they aren't spying on everyone? That's not a joke, that sort of paranoid reasoning makes perfect sense... to a spy.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[PopeRatzo]

How exactly do you propose the NSA determine who means us harm?

By that logic, we should all just line up to get our appendixes taken out.

Do you know about the paradox of false positives? Let's say there are 300 hard core terrorists in the US planning to bomb something. If the NSA were able to determine a terrorist from a non-terrorist 99% of the time (and they're not. it's more like 60% of the time), that means you'd have hundreds of thousands of people declared terrorists who are not. So instead of being 99% accurate, you end up being thousands of percent inaccurate. Plus, you've ruined hundreds of thousands of people's lives unnecessarily.

The question you are asking is very much the wrong one, since almost everyone means us no harm. If you're starting you investigation with "We suspect everyone" then the NSA is a completely worthless organization.

Nobody said law enforcement was easy, but christ, our Constitution made it that way on purpose. It's not supposed to be easy. I bet it was easy to find out who dealt it in Soviet-era East Germany, because the Stazi had their nose up everyone's ass. That's not supposed to be us.

[pardon me for not doing the math precisely. it's late and I drank a few beers while standing at the grill this afternoon. I'm sure there's someone here who has actually passed statistics who can give it to us with more specifics]

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[PopeRatzo]

You got it wrong - pretty girls dressed in their summer clothes are flora, not fauna.

I'm a furry, you insensitive clod!

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[mapkinase]

>I think it's wrong to say a religion allows or prohibits anything

You are an idiot.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[SuricouRaven]

You failed to understand the point.

I'm saying that a religion is too diverse to make blanket statements, because there are very few things within any religion which every follower at every time and in every place will agree on. Any claims that a religion allows or prohibits anything need to be of a more limited scope.

Religions mutate.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[L4t3r4lu5]

First you have to convince people that what someone does in their professional capacity is more important than what they do in their personal time. Unfortunately "Politician does bang up job, everything is going swell!" doesn't sell as many papers as "Politician caught looking slightly towards school playground while driving past in pervert scandal shock!"

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[Loki_666]

Gah, sorry, i'm an expat, got used to referring to everything in km these days.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[steelfood]

I don't get why people think that tremendous wealth is a key to power.

Because people need to eat. Do I need to go further?

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[khallow]

Because people need to eat. Do I need to go further?

No, I think you need to come up with a real argument instead. Your statements are a good example of the irrational nonsense that keeps coming up. Why in the world would you think that the observation that people need food is remotely relevant? Food just isn't that expensive. Nor is shelter for that matter.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[mapkinase]

You are still an idiot, that persists in his idiocy.

You have no idea what religion is.

Re:For the sake of saving time,

[ae1294]

Because people need to eat. Do I need to go further?

No, I think you need to come up with a real argument instead. Your statements are a good example of the irrational nonsense that keeps coming up. Why in the world would you think that the observation that people need food is remotely relevant? Food just isn't that expensive. Nor is shelter for that matter.

Here in the US it sure as hell is EXPENSIVE. you can't live and eat on minimum wage. I'm on disability. I get $710 from Social Security and 56 a month in food stamps. That is my total income. I have been legally deemed not to be able to work because of a medical condition. Before I had my own LLC and was living very nicely. I was not in debt, in fact my FICO was around 800...

OK so you do this experiment. Take $766 and live off it. The only thing I am thankful for is I have medical insurance because of the Disability. So how much do you make a month and how could you live off what I posted above?

No subject

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm probably wrong here, but isn't it against international law to spy on diplomats? If yes, does this apply to only spying on diplomats residing in your country, or elsewhere?

Re:No subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Guantanamo is likely against international law.
Drone attacks based on 'behaviour patterns' is probably that too.
Let alone the whole NSA spying program, which at least violates human rights.

Why would wiretapping diplomats be off-limits for rouge states?

Re:No subject

[lxs]

The US doesn't do international law.

Also yesterday there was this ex-NSA guy accusing seven EU countries of having secret deals with the US to share communications data. (confirming long held suspicions and subject of one interview last week with a member of the Dutch secret service which was hastily denied by the responsible minister)

Now the Guardian piece on it has been taken down pending investigation.

At least the big boys are having to work hard intimidating spreading misinformation and sowing doubt.

Re: No subject

[Zontar The Mindless]

Go tell that to the Khmer Rouge.

Re:No subject

[Runaway1956]

http://pastebin.com/NTJvUZdJ

Deleted Article by The Guardian

Original Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/29/european-private-data-america
Now redirecting to: http://www.guardian.co.uk/info/2013/jun/30/taken-down

===

Revealed: secret European deals to hand over private data to America

Germany 'among countries offering intelligence' according to new claims by former US defence analyst

At least six European Union countries in addition to Britain have been colluding with the US over the mass harvesting of personal communications data,
according to a former contractor to America's National Security Agency, who said the public should not be "kept in the dark".

Wayne Madsen, a former US navy lieutenant who first worked for the NSA in 1985 and over the next 12 years held several sensitive positions within the
agency, names Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain and Italy as having secret deals with the US.

Madsen said the countries had "formal second and third party status" under signal intelligence (sigint) agreements that compels them to hand
over data, including mobile phone and internet information to the NSA if requested.

Under international intelligence agreements, confirmed by declassified documents, nations are categorised by the US according to their trust level. The US
is first party while the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoy second party relationships. Germany and France have third party relationships.

In an interview published last night on the PrivacySurgeon.org blog, Madsen, who has been attacked for holding controversial views on espionage issues,
said he had decided to speak out after becoming concerned about the "half story" told by EU politicians regarding the extent of the NSA's
activities in Europe.

He said that under the agreements, which were drawn up after the second world war, the "NSA gets the lion's share" of the sigint
"take". In return, the third parties to the NSA agreements received "highly sanitised intelligence".

Madsen said he was alarmed at the "sanctimonious outcry" of political leaders who were "feigning shock" about the spying operations
while staying silent about their own arrangements with the US, and was particularly concerned that senior German politicians had accused the UK of spying
when their country had a similar third-party deal with the NSA.

Although the level of co-operation provided by other European countries to the NSA is not on the same scale as that provided by the UK, the allegations are
potentially embarrassing.

"I can't understand how Angela Merkel can keep a straight face, demanding assurances from [Barack] Obama and the UK while Germany has entered into
those exact relationships," Madsen said.

The Liberal Democrat MEP Baroness Ludford, a senior member of the European parliament's civil liberties, justice and home affairs committee, said
Madsen's allegations confirmed that the entire system for monitoring data intercept

Re: No subject

[davester666]

It is believed that 10% of all countries are gay.

Re:No subject

[RogueyWon]

If you want to understand why the article was pulled, I suggest googling the source it quotes.

Wayne Madsen has a long history of being, shall we say, "slightly creative". He's a fully signed up 9/11 conspiracy theorist, birther and ardent believer that Obama is gay. Oh, he also believes that the 2009 swine flu outbreak was a US bioweapons test.

Now, that's not to say that everything he says is automatically wrong. But if you want to look at some of the things he has claimed as absolute truth in the past, then if he were to be right here, it would be on the "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" basis.

For the Guardian to run a major story based on him as its only source is an absolutely shocking lapse in journalistic standards.

Re:No subject

[lxs]

Thanks for the background information. It certainly makes the "Madsen is a loon" theory more likely. That or the "Madsen is a loon who is being fed damaging misinformation by his NSA buddies to divide the EU against itself" theory. His information does line up with other pieces of information that have come out, but then Madsen has access to newspapers as well.

The weird thing is that when I read the story yesterday it didn't seem all that major to me . Another in a long line of leaks that has surrounded the whole Snowden thing. Now because the story has been pulled (not before the Observer had taken over the story and printed it on the front page) it's turning into a major paranoid shitstorm.

Re:No subject

[Anonymous Coward]

um, it looks like the guardian got suckered by wayne madsen, you know there is a serious issue being exposed when wayne madsen is rolled out to muddy the waters. on the conspiracy dis-information scale he is somewhere between david icke and alex jones, he is a bit calmer and less frantic but no less dangerous, for some reason his conspiracies sit well with a certain subsection of the more extreme right wingers among us if you catch my drift. it is my personal opinion that many of these so called truth-seekers are a big part of the problem, and intentionally so, they deflect so much energy that could be spent actually doing something useful.
i dont understand why people that find out that what they know is a big lie suspend disbelief when buying into the theories of those people who are there waiting patiently or impatiently for those people with just more lies.

Re:No subject

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that he is an untrustworthy source. However, what he said in this case seems consistent with other information, including the "second and third level" country status.

Re:No subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... It's not that Guantanamo is against international law, it's the things that happen there that are against international law.
- Detaining people under the age of 18.
- Torture.
- Not following Article 5 of the Geneva convention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_Status_Review_Tribunal
- Keeping people detained indefinitely without a trial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights requires "rights to due process and a fair trial"

For some more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#International_law

Re:No subject

[horza]

He apparently claimed in 2009 that the NSA planned to infiltrate Wikileaks to identify journalists that were leaking classified information. Then in 2011 the US government recruited Sigurdur Thordarson. I think it would be fair to say Madsen REALLY doesn't like Obama, sadly like most of the world now :-(, but he may have scored a hit with his latest one. Though it was only a semi-secret anyway.

Phillip.

Re:No subject

[allo]

human rights?

Re:No subject

[the eric conspiracy]

Yes, where slightly creative includes creating forged Kenyan birth certificates for the President of the United States.

This guy is a 100% NUT JOB.

Re:No subject

[Antique Geekmeister]

Besides the Geneva Convention on handling prisoners of war? Even if you accept that the prisoners there are not from nations with whom the US was at war, the Convention Against Torture certainly applies to US handling of prisoners in Afghanistatn (with the Abu Ghraib fiasco) and at Guantanamo (where compelling testimony from former prisoners reveals the presence of a building especially for tortuer, in which at least 3 prisoners have died).

The USA ratified their signature in 1994.

Re:No subject

[SuricouRaven]

When the confirmed-true-beyond-doubt stories look like the ramblings of a crazed conspiracy theorist, it becomes impossible to say which conspiricy theorists are really crazed. He's probably full of crap, but it's no longer possible to just dismiss the seemingly crazy out of hand.

Re:No subject

[Sir Holo]

Take you hat off.

The Guadian's "article" is up, and in any case, just repeats the contents of Der Spiegel's article from yesterday.

Clouding the facts helps nothing.

Re:No subject

[allo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

Re:No subject

[allo]

no torture?

somebody's got some splaining to do...

[Midnight_Falcon]

Now that the Obama administration's previous talking points about the spying being very limited, tightly controlled and focused on finding terrorists and those bent on harming the US and its allies -- we found that part of the program is in fact, to spy on our allies? To spy on the EU -- which is essentially an NGO -- is certainly more in line with spying for economic and political interests rather than defensive purposes.

I wonder what poor sap at the White House press room will have to figure out a way to try to smooth over this one, or manufacture a distraction...

Re:somebody's got some splaining to do...

[White Flame]

Actually, countries likely have a mutual spying agreement. USA spies on $COUNTRY, $COUNTRY spies on USA, and they share information. Both never technically spy on their own citizens and therefore obey their own constraints, yet they effectively have full unchecked information invasion on their own people.

Re:somebody's got some splaining to do...

[MrDoh!]

Yup, this is why the UK dropped out of the last time it was done, Echelon. The US was spying on the UK but wasn't handing all the data over, but giving it to US companies to get better deals.

Re:somebody's got some splaining to do...

[rabbitfood]

That's a good description, with interesting ramifications.

One thing that seems to be falling out of this is that, on account of the secret work of these secret agencies being secret, they're not really accountable. They can't, for example, publish the data they're not supposed to know about, or reveal very much of it even to the governments that are supposed to be running them. Effectively there's a massive, largely autonomous, supra-national bureaucracy, analogous to the G8 or the OECD or whatever, but unanswerable to any such organization or individual government.

Given the intriguing suggestion that every past human civilization has fallen owing to their bureaucracy going rogue - either becoming so unwieldy or corrupt that it's become impossible for governments to govern - I'm wondering if this mightn't be the start of something interesting.

Re:somebody's got some splaining to do...

[Zontar The Mindless]

The talking points are part of the program. The "damage control" part.

Re:somebody's got some splaining to do...

[niftydude]

The US was spying on the UK but wasn't handing all the data over, but giving it to US companies to get better deals.

Yeah, the CIA did this (are still doing this?) to a bunch of Aussie companies as well - used CIA/ASIO information sharing to let US companies know what Aussie wheat prices were going to be so that the US could undercut the Aussies in key markets, etc.

Re:somebody's got some splaining to do...

[Anonymous Coward]

They did the same against Swedish companies.

Trusting the US is generally not a good idea, they don't play well with others.

Re:somebody's got some splaining to do...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Obama is explaining right now: "Obama aims to spread electricity to more Africans", http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-obama-electricity-africa-20130630,0,1234807.story

Obama's initiative, dubbed Power Africa, will attempt to double the number of people with access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa, White House officials said. The president will announce an initial commitment of $7 billion over five years, federal money that will add to private investment and partnerships in six African countries.

He's explaining to Europe who his true allies are . . .

. . . or . . . the NSA told him that they couldn't spy in Africa without electricity!

Re:somebody's got some splaining to do...

[SuricouRaven]

The president can't just hand over money like that, the budget needs to be approved by congress, or at least a department head who is getting their budget approved by congress. So I suspect there is something going the other way too. At a guess, almost all of that $7B is going to be spent paying US-based engineering and construction companies. It's a good plan: Split the bill with Africa in return for building up international trade relations and establishing contacts that could last for decades. Everyone wins. Just don't pretend this is a grand altuistic gesture.

Re:somebody's got some splaining to do...

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's even more complex. It's normally illegal for the NSA to spy on US internal communications., but it's not illegal for them to _trade_ information on North Korea communications with the Australians to obtain that same USA internal communications. So worldwide monitoring facilities have a fascinating tradition history of monitoring everything, except their own nations, and trading content with the other facilities to get their own local content.

Re:somebody's got some splaining to do...

[Imbrondir]

Sounds outragous! Anything proof to support such a claim?

The US is nobody's friend

[0111 1110]

Our government is a bit like a sociopath. We are nobody's friend. Everyone is merely a potential enemy. We spy on everyone. No exceptions. I'm sure we even spy on the UK and Canada as utterly pointless as that may be. If we ever ended up at war with either Canada or the UK then we'd almost certainly be better off losing anyway.

Of course, from Washington's POV the problem is not so much that we spy even on our friends, but that someone blabbed about it. They won't think about changing their behavior toward our allies. About acting honorably at least toward our allies. Rather they will think more about how badly they can punish the leaker. I can only imagine how badly they are itching to get Snowden's ass to gitmo and torture him to death in very creative ways.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[Anonymous Coward]

for a moment i thought you were describing Soviet Russia

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet many republicans want to have a bigger government... in certain areas. What areas? The same areas we have to thank for all of this spying. Worst of all, the democrats are right on board with them.

How big the government is is not the problem; the problem is whether or not the powers they have are easily exploitable and whether or not they could be used to violate fundamental rights.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[rusty0101]

In other words they are learning from Business. No wonder they are giving businesses so many perks lately.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that, *by treaty* The US, UK, NZ Canada and Australia are allegedly sharing all intelligence each of their respective agencies gather. Originally; the intent was to let each nation focus its spending and efforts on just one region that it already had a substantial interest in while still benefitting from a dliligent approach in all the other regions. Explicit in this was a reciprocity. The American NSA, with all its well known and not so well known programs, harvests vast amounts of data on say, UK citizens, perfectly within it's purview of external intelligence, meanwhile MI6 shares all the data it has collected on US citizens.

A lot of people; including myself, have been very vocal about their concerns at the scope of data being collected by the various three letter agencies of the US government. Many people in power get reassured by statements along the lines of "we never keep any data on our own citizens unless there is a link to a person of interest". What gets overlooked is that the US doesn't *have* to keep data on all it's citizens, all they have to do is pass along all the raw data they collect, in keeping with the treaty, and then just ask the partner nations for the digested and analyzed results. (and they of course do the same in return)

It is the top secret version of the "business in the Cloud" problem. The organization WILL collect everything it possibly can, data mine and analyze as they see fit, they will just keep the actual data stores in servers located and operated offshore by "affiliates". Some court rules the organization cannot collect or keep such data? No problem, our affiliate will do that for us offshore and dodge those pesky laws.

The difference here is, the organizations are not in it for profit (though funding is always a motive) they are in it because they genuinely believe it is their duty to do so. Think of it this way; you are a bodyguard, your livelihood depends on the client staying healthy, you love the client and want them to stay healthy as well. Yet the client has made a bunch of rules tohis/her own taste. The upshot is that you can only stand on the left side and can only be within arms reach durign daylight. If you take your job seriously, you would be very motivated to team up with another clients bodyguard so as to cover those gaps in the protection you provide. Your client never said anything about having the _other_ bodyguard in the bedroom at night after all, just you.
  All intelligence agencies have that problem. Being a good weasel makes you good at your job of collecting intel, but the better weasel you are, the easier and more likely it is that you end up no longer truely serving the people you are trying to protect.

If there is one thing history AND/OR current events can teach us, it's that it is a HELL of a lot easier and safer to do ones job well rather than ones duty well.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[Zontar The Mindless]

"Be careful how you choose your enemy, for you will come to resemble him."

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[Gary Perkins]

Actually, I think it's a good thing we're keeping tabs, because allegiances do change. Better to keep our guard up rather than let it down. This is what we pay them for. We're allies, working towards common goals, but NOT the same nation, and we'd damn sure want to keep these intelligence channels open in case something that's unthinkable now comes around tomorrow.

Re: The US is nobody's friend

[fredgiblet]

Both parties are guilty, this isn't a left-right thing.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[hherb]

> Our government is a bit like a sociopath. We are nobody's friend.

I think the rest of the world is intelligent enough to realize that there is a difference between the US government (which indeed appears to everybody else as a sociopathic rabid bully and war mongerer) and the people living in the USA, which are mostly just the same as everybody else on the globe, wanting to make a living, fall in love, raise their children and have a good time.

Yes, I feel threatened by the US government - same as I feel threatened by North Korea and similar totalitarian war mongerers. But no, I do not resent the vast majority of peaceful people in the USA and would like to welcome them as my friends as long as they reciprocate. I guess most educated and thinking people around the world will think similarly.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[govett]

Want a friend? Visit your mother.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[romiz]

We may make a difference between government and distinct individuals, but in the end, the only thing that can stop a government is its own people. As long as the citizens of the States of the Union continue to tolerate unlimited corruption in name of "campaign contributions", broken election methods for representatives, and as long as this corruption leads them to elect a leadership with the same behaviour, the rest of the world can only conclude that the people of the USA wants it.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[cold fjord]

The only reasonable explanation for someone believing that the US resembles the USSR is nearly total ignorance of Soviet history.

The Soviet Story (2008)
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police
Katyn massacre

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[AHuxley]

Re the US on Katyn and Polish history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre#Western_response

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[0111 1110]

Or at least don't visit the US. Don't try to make friends with a sociopath or a government that is indistinguishable from one.

Are we like one of those guys who enters a school with a machine guns and grenades? The students might smile at you, but really they just want to get away from you. I used to think we were the good guys.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[dbIII]

There's a big difference between a slight resemblance and a photocopy.

Re: The US is nobody's friend

[cold fjord]

The US has left-wing parties, including several communist parties. The difference is that few if any voters in the US will vote for them. Don't confuse lack of voter interest with non-existence of a political party.

Communist Party USA

And no, the democratic party is not hardcore right-wing. Unless there is wide agreement the American system effectively forces incrementalism.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[MRe_nl]

The American Story
http://www.ted.com/talks/aaron_huey.html
A Portrait of McCarthy: Secret Police
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
My Lai Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre

Cheap easy & lazy wins the day ,Coldfjord'sAmericanExceptionalinsm

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[sqrt(2)]

There's another option. Accept the fact that you will never be truly safe, and live with the possibility that any moment could be your last from a terrible accident or crime. While you are alive, however, live your life as freely as possible, harming and infringing on the rights of others as little as you can while still participating in a modern, thriving, society.

I'd rather a 9/11 size attack happen every generation than suffer through the insults to my dignity and liberty required to prevent it--and in reality you'll never be able to prevent them all anyway. Might as well be free and unsafe, than enslaved and still unsafe.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[Savage-Rabbit]

The only reasonable explanation for someone believing that the US resembles the USSR is nearly total ignorance of Soviet history.

The Soviet Story (2008)
A Portrait of Stalin: Secret Police
Katyn massacre

resemble != photocopy ... the US obsession with spying on absolutely everybody including their own citizenry is starting to cause the NSA/CIA/etc. to make the Soviet KGB and the East German Stasi look like amateurs by comparison and that is quite an achievement. There were places you could get away from the KGB/Stasi without divorcing yourself from modern industrialised society. There is effectively no place on the planet where the US can't spy on you except perhaps if you move to the Amazon, the Siberian tundra, the Rocky Mountains or the Australian outback, build a little hut and abstain from using any electronic communication devices.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[Smivs]

"Be careful how you choose your enemy, for you will come to resemble him."

[attribution needed]

The quote is part of this statement by Michael Ventura

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[C0R1D4N]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ventura

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[horza]

It is a bit strange. The diplomatic cables leak was embarrassing but mostly damaged dictators overseas. It actually showed the US as pretty reasonable behind the scenes. Of course Manning should be punished, he clearly betrayed the trust put in him, but the incredible level of torture he was put through completely contradicted the Obama aim to close Guantamo Bay as a show of a return to human rights. Then chasing a journalist like Julian Assange including leaning on the Swedish and UK governments? Ridiculously over the top. The US is just painting itself out to be a global bully, trampling on the rights of its allies. If they kill somebody in the Middle East we just skip past that page in the newspaper but their actions clearly show it could be *you* next that gets "extraordinary rendition" if you accidentally upset them. A bit worrying.

The same thing with Snowden. Here the leaker may actually have a point, if he genuinely believed he was revealing systematic breaking of the law by officials put in place to protect them. In the UK we've known about the US slurping up all our communication for decades. We know we are getting a pretty raw deal, with 'sanitised' intelligence scraps being thrown to us when the US feel like it. They just have to keep silent on this debate and it will be forgotten in a couple of weeks. All they have to do is say "Snowden broke law X, and if he returns to the US he will be arrested". Leave it at that! A witch hunt shows a level of immaturity other governments do not want to see from a nation with the sigint and military might the US has.

Phillip.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[Sponge Bath]

Accept the fact that you will never be truly safe...

Here, in my fear bunker, I have everything I need. Plastic bottles of water, adult diapers and the re-imagined armageddon version of the bible produced by J.J. Abrams.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[mapkinase]

That's how Muslims live.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[the eric conspiracy]

Apparently the GP is wrong. Some people are not intelligent enough.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[Gary Perkins]

I'm not rationalizing or dismissing anything, I'm simply making the point that this is what governments have been doing for the last couple thousand years. The last several hundred they've gotten better at it. Intelligence services were set up so that when military leaders need to take some actions, they have someone to turn to who has ready information at a moment's notice. A leader has someone to turn to when your ally has been accused of really bad things, when in fact nothing occurred. It's always been a rather nasty "industry", and was particularly gruesome in the Cold War years, but I don't see it going away. It's a part of the modern government now all across the world.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[SuricouRaven]

You could only get away because of the limitations of technology at the time. Even the KGB couldn't hire enough people to read every single letter sent or watch every last person entering a shop to note down what they buy. That the NSA can isn't a tribute to greater skill, it's tribute to them owning giant supercomputers and living in a time when everyone carries a trackable cellphone.

Re: The US is nobody's friend

[SuricouRaven]

It's all relative. What is left in one country can still be seen as right in another.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[SuricouRaven]

For all that 9/11 terrorised a country, the death toll is equivilent to a little more than a month's worth of fatalities in traffic accidents.

Cars 'attack' the citizens of the united states with a 9/11 every month. You don't see any mass outrage or panic about that though.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[SuricouRaven]

2 doesn't really apply to nuclear-armed countries because they can never really 'lose' a war. They can certainly lose battles overseas, and lose the ability to defend their interests there, but the moment any opponent starts to look like they could really be capable of actually invading and deposing a government you can bet the nukes will come out. Victory follows: War doesn't determine who is right, but it can determine who is left.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[cpt kangarooski]

Isn't that the one where the lens flares appear even before the trumpet that is supposed to herald them?

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[thoth]

Except for the fact that, *by treaty* The US, UK, NZ Canada and Australia are allegedly sharing all intelligence each of their respective agencies gather.

You misunderstand the treaty, it's called the Five Eyes agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement) and the sharing is of signals intelligence, not "all" intelligence. The history of this arrangement stretch back to the WW2 era.

All intelligence agencies have that problem.

It is said that there is no such thing as friendly intelligence agencies. Even for allied countries, their intel agencies are wary of each other.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[flyingfsck]

The problem is that the USSR (and Russia) was a fascist state until the WW2, while the USA is becoming a fascist state.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[flyingfsck]

Just put a period between, 'you' and 'expect', then hit the Del key...

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[yusing]

One (eastern) Indian version of this goes something like "That which you hate, that you become." I've -read- that there were some who hated God in hopes that doing so leads to enlightenment.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[sqrt(2)]

Is that a joke? Islam systematically infringes on the rights of non-Muslims and women all the time. They either explain this away as some sort of god-intended hierarchy; the rights of Muslims come first, and then everyone else is considered if it doesn't inconvenience Muslims--or it's good old fashioned sexism that was endemic to the entire world when their religion was founded. They've never had a reformation period to bring their faith in line with modernity like Christianity and Judaism have gone through. And certain features of Islam, the Arabic language, and middle-Eastern culture, make such a reformation very unlikely.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[Zontar The Mindless]

Read up on a place called Andersonville.

When you're done, you can bury my heart at Wounded Knee.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[cold fjord]

If you make the difference big enough then the resemblance becomes inconsequential, and likely uninstructive. I doubt that anyone that watches those two programs would confuse the US for the USSR while both countries existed any more than they would confuse me for Lionel Messi when playing football. And that might be considered a generous narrowing of the difference since the actual difference runs in the millions - roughly 20,000,000.
 

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[cold fjord]

So you're reaching back ~ 120-150 for a limited number of people?

Why don't you watch at least the first, if not first two, of those videos and get back to me?

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[dbIII]

That doesn't change being able to label draconian measures as "soviet style" when they are similar to what the USSR did even if the countries implementing the draconian measures are vastly different.
Analogies seem to be misunderstood a lot on the internet, sometimes deliberately by people that want to stir up a bit of fake drama.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[Zontar The Mindless]

Because I'm a student of the period (I read Russian, BTW), and I am about 99% sure I already know more about it than either you or YouTube do.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[cold fjord]

That is really a pretty weak response, sad really. I assume that you didn't bother to watch so much as the first video since the time of your posting wouldn't have allowed that. It goes without saying the others must have been unwatched as well.

The My Lai Massacre is instructive. The massacre was not ordered by central political authority but was the result of low level soldiers engaging in misconduct. Although that misconduct was initially covered up by the lower levels of their chain of command, when word got out, the Army investigated. The Inspector General turned it over to the Army Criminal Investigation Division which pursued detailed investigation to prepare criminal charges. A number of people were charged, and some were tried. A complicating factor was the statue of limitations. Ultimately the officer in charge at the massacre, Lieutenant Calley, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment at hard labor. Due to widespread protest and political pressure, including that instigated by Democratic Governor, later US President, Jimmy Carter, Calley's sentence was reduced. The only medals awarded were to a couple of soldiers that did what they could to stop the massacre. You can read more here.

This is a marked contrast with the Katyn massacre of the Polish officer corp. The Katyn massacre was ordered by the national government, and followed the Soviet aggression of invading Poland as part of a secret pact with Nazi Germany to invade and divide Poland between them. It was not treated as a criminal act. In fact medals were awarded to the killers for the massacre. There were probably 22,000 people killed as part of that massacre, versus 300-500 at My Lai. The Katyn massacre was not unusual behavior for the Soviets, My Lai was exceptionally unusual for the United States. You try to compare very atypical criminal behavior that was treated as such by the United States with common behavior that was rewarded (mass murder) by the Soviet government. My Lai was one or two nights work for the NKVD in just one limited area of the Soviet Union - and they were busy on many, many nights across the country.

As bad as My Lai was, it was by no means the worst massacre of the Vietnam war, not even close. The Dak Son Massacre (250+ dead, 400 missing, 1,300 refugees) is quite gruesome, although it is dwarfed by the Hue Massacre ( 2,800 to 6,000 killed). Both of those were massacres by Communist forces of innocent civilians. I doubt anyone was punished for those massacres.

If you bothered to watch the first video, you might have an idea why Americans were averse to communism taking root in the United States. Mass executions, abuse, and government confiscation of food to create a famine resulting in the killing of millions of people will do that. And so you aren't confused about that point, there are several different communist parties in the United States. The CPUSA was shown to be taking orders from Moscow.

And bringing up Senator McCarthy is once again sad testimony to the imbalance here. He was a member of the senate, not in the executive branch. His power was very limited indeed. Trying to balance his limited actions for a relatively short time against the long period of Soviet mass murder and repression is ridiculous.

What you've really demonstrated isn't "cheap easy & lazy wins" so much as cheap and stupid. You really have no clue.

Re:The US is nobody's friend

[cold fjord]

A student of the period? Really? If that's true it raises some interesting questions. I assume your interest is in literature then? Lermontov, Pushkin, commentaries on them, Bunin, Gorky, that sort of thing? If not, then I really have to wonder.

Wounded Knee versus Katyn? The US Civil War Andersonville atrocity versus the Ukraine terror famine that killed 7,000,000? That is some pretty weak broth you're offering, in more than one respect. That doesn't even take into account the normal mass executions, deals with Nazi Germany, aggression against Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, and others, Soviet anti-Semitism, the Gulag system.

I'm not completely ignorant of various aspects of Soviet history and I learned a thing or two from the first video. You must be accomplished indeed to be so confident you have nothing to learn, especially with the Soviet archives only being really accessible to varying degrees for the last 20 years or so. Well, neither Lermontov nor Lenin has written anything in a very long time. With Lermontov you're on safe ground. But for Lenin, the bloody legacy of his revolution and the bloody results of Soviet communism in governing are still being uncovered and digested. I hope for your sake that you aren't a devotee of Lenin or Stalin.

Cheers

Google were telling the truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you missed the Washington Post PRISM 2 leaks just released?:
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/inner-workings-of-a-top-secret-spy-program/282/

It proves what Google and Facebook said all along.

When Google Microsoft and Facebook deny they gave *direct* access to the NSA, they were telling the truth. They gave direct access to the *FBI* who gave direct access to the NSA! See! Not a lie!

In the same way I'm not accessing Slashdot, I'm accessing my router! In fact I've never visited Slashdot! You can't prove I'm lying so its the truth!

And they only collect Metadata: Meta-Chats, Meta Emails, Meta File Transfters, Meta VOIP, Meta Logins, Meta IDs, Meta-Metadata (!), Meta Photos, Meta Social Networking, Meta Stored Data, Meta Video, Meta Video Conferenceing.... why, hardly anything at all!

And they do have due-process. They 'duly process' everything with an NSA controlled filter known as PRINTAURA. See, no lie there!

And they told the truth when they said they don't collect files on everyone. 49% is not everyone! Why, it's not even half of everyone!

And they do have warrants to look at the data, the cloud warrants even have a checkbox "[X] are you sure this is legal?" *see*! double checked!

And checks and balances too, Dwayne checks Wayne's filled the form in correctly "[X] is Dwayne sure this is legal?"

So move along citizen, nothing sickening to see here.

Re:Google were telling the truth

[swillden]

Have you missed the Washington Post PRISM 2 leaks just released?: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/national/inner-workings-of-a-top-secret-spy-program/282/

It proves what Google and Facebook said all along.

When Google Microsoft and Facebook deny they gave *direct* access to the NSA, they were telling the truth. They gave direct access to the *FBI* who gave direct access to the NSA! See! Not a lie!

That's not what Google said. Google said "First, we have not joined any program that would give the U.S. government—or any other government—direct access to our servers. Indeed, the U.S. government does not have direct access or a “back door” to the information stored in our data centers."

Note that the statement was not limited to NSA spying.

That WP graphic you linked isn't inconsistent with Google's statements, though. The graphic implies, but does not state, that the data for the "tasking" is automatically extracted and returned to the FBI without any involvement by the company. If instead you assume that the tasking merely results in the delivery of a properly-formatted request to the company, then it fits. Google's statement does say that Google provides data to the company after its legal team reviews the request, and the Google Transparency report shows that Google does provide at least some data for 70% of requests. If we assume the legal staff reviews requests, pushing back on overly broad or otherwise inappropriate requests, then directs the collection of the data and sends it to the FBI, that process would match what's described, with the key addition of a human review process.

(Disclaimer: I work for Google, though I don't know anything about any of this stuff. I do, however, have pretty good reason to believe that Google is being truthful, mostly because Google's statements fit the company's culture and approach, and the theories about direct access or backdoors do not, and because I think this kind of program would be very hard to hide from Googlers... and I think the aforementioned culture would make it impossible to suppress if it were discovered.)

Re:Google were telling the truth

[SuricouRaven]

I doubt it all matters that much really. I'm sure the NSA has taps on every fiber line to any major internet company. Anything that goes cleartext is available to them - even if you use SSL to connect to your gmail server, unless you're emailing someone else on gmail it'll still go cleartext to the SMTP server at the other end. They are also certain to have the ability to spoof SSL certificates - not via any high-tech method, but simply by leaning on the root CAs to sign them - but I imagine they'd use that trick sparingly to avoid detection.

Re:Google were telling the truth

[tokencode]

Good is a US based company and is legally bound to NOT be truthful, just as Verizon, AT&T and other are.

Re:Google were telling the truth

[swillden]

Good is a US based company and is legally bound to NOT be truthful, just as Verizon, AT&T and other are.

I don't think that's true. I don't think the US government can compel companies to lie. Note that it doesn't appear that Verizon and AT&T lied: they kept quiet for a long time, but when they were eventually asked they admitted to handing over essentially all US call traffic.

Re:Google were telling the truth

[swillden]

Anything that goes cleartext is available to them - even if you use SSL to connect to your gmail server, unless you're emailing someone else on gmail it'll still go cleartext to the SMTP server at the other end.

True, unless the remote server implements SMTP over TLS. Google opportunistically uses that whenever it's available. Unfortunately, basically none of the big mail providers (other than Google) do SSMTP, and it's hit and miss on the smaller ones. They should all do it.

They are also certain to have the ability to spoof SSL certificates - not via any high-tech method, but simply by leaning on the root CAs to sign them - but I imagine they'd use that trick sparingly to avoid detection.

Very sparingly. Among other things, Chrome automatically pins all Google certs and screams loudly if a cert changes when it shouldn't. That's actually how the DigiNotar breach was discovered; someone tried to use a bogus google.com certificate and Chrome users got a bunch of red screens and complained. I suppose they could try to identify Chrome browsers and avoid MITMing those connections, but that's difficult because the TLS parameters are negotiated before the HTTP traffic begins, meaning before the useragent string is sent. They'd have to identify the browser by looking at unencrypted traffic to another destination first, and even that's a bit risky due to agent string spoofing.

Russia?

[Roger W Moore]

Well so far Russia seems to be absent from the revelations which, if true, would be amazingly ironic. Perhaps that's why Snowden went there.

Re:Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, there can be no doubt that NSA spies on the Russians. So, on the other hand Snowden seems to consider Russia a legitimate target, and does not reveal anything about NSA activity over there. Then he goes to Russia on his own and ends up being questioned by Russian officials.

Re:Russia?

[anarcobra]

Or, more likely, he released a report about spying on EU states.
Since Russia is not a member of the EU as far as I am aware, that might explain why they are not on the list.

Re:Russia?

[0111 1110]

I don't think going to Russia was ever in his long term plan. He was clearly hoping Hong Kong would not extradite him. At some point he changed his mind about that. Russia was likely just part of some short term strategy to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison for doing a good deed. At this point however he may have no choice but to apply for political asylum in Mother Russia. It may not be a Libertarian Utopia. Certainly no more than the US. But it's a hell of a lot better than a US prison or gas chamber. Even North Korea would be better than that.

I probably would have flown to Laos. Not as modern as Hong Kong, but no extradition treaty with the US. It's cheap, and the people are some of the nicest in the world. It might be considered Communist, but it feels freer than the US because no one really bothers you. On paper you're not at all free, but in practice you are often more free than in the US. But I guess Russia isn't so bad.

Re:Russia?

[symbolset]

I don't think we needed to be reminded that NSA spies on Russia. Also, Target spies on Sears, and my daughter who runs a lemonade stand spies on her rival one block over.

Re:Russia?

[quenda]

I probably would have flown to Laos.

Unlike HK or Moscow, the CIA would not think twice about illegally kidnapping him from Laos.

Re:Russia?

[Anonymous Coward]

You only feel free in Laos because 1) you are rich there, and 2) your passport gives you preferential treatment and an emergency exit should things turn sour. This is why ne'er-do-wells from the 1st world love staying in the 3rd world, and why the cream of the crop from the 3rd world work their butts off to go to the 1st world.

Re:Russia?

[Sponge Bath]

Or just putting a bullet in him.

[somewhere in Laos] knock, knock, knock... Pizza man!

Re:Russia?

[Cwix]

*golf clap*

Re:Russia?

[quenda]

First, we kind of expect the US to behave better than China, otherwise this fuss would not have happened.
Secondly, no, HK is not China, little more than it was previously England.
Among other things, Hong Kong has its own hard currency, laws, passports, government, judicial independence, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
These freedoms are not merely theoretical, but frequently exercised in a way that may indeed have people sent off for reeducation if done in mainland China.

Beijing may well have forced HK to warn Snowden out, but that's better than the pressure that would have come from Washington on many other countries.

Progressive Disclosure

[umundane]

The leaks seem to be coming out in a clever order, starting with the most credible. An obvious benefit of this is that each lends credence to the next. Perhaps less obviously, each time the government passes up an opportunity to come clean, it makes the lies more obvious. We might have already known (or guessed) all this stuff, but now we have government officials on record lying about the extent of surveillance, over and over, just before backtracking to defend it.

Re: Progressive Disclosure

[AHuxley]

Yes the term limited hangout psy-op is been used.
The public outing of 1980's diplomatic communications between Tripoli and the Libyan embassy in East Berlin should have been a warning to the EU.
The IRA ands its connections to unique supplies from the US east coast should have been a warning to the UK/EU.
The strange messages leaked via Iranian communications in 1991 should have have been a warning to the EU.
The low cost and total trust the EU and NATO put in 1970/80's US crypto compatibility is only now getting traction in the EU?
Did the EU play the USA? Accept the role of Soviet proof communications but fill the pipe with junk?
The NSA went running to the State department over aircraft deals and the EU sat back and LOL - yes we are as corrupt as our coded message imply?
On an international scale nothing is new just confirmed?.
All the good domestic stuff came out with the Room 641A ending and retro active US telco protection.
On a domestic scale nothing is new just reconfirmed?.
US firms helping the Feds as they have always done wholesale and without any legal protest or data protection via CALEA/FISA/letters and private contractors.
The US confirms its all true in public via a demand for a sealed court case?
Expect massive funding for freedom fighters in Syria, a huge hunt in the USA for leakers? A legal/trust disconnect between the US press and been able to ever talk to people in the US gov again?
A buddy system for admins on gov duty and huge new psychology/network roll out to track US gov staff and their habits at work and home?
As for the EU are we really to understand they would test the network traffic only, find it safe and pass on the ok to buy more cheap US/UK encryption units?
The EU seems able to teach math, crypto, CS, physics to an international level, have a history of keeping East Germany/Warsaw Pact efforts out, understand what the Soviet navy and airforce tried to do...
Did EU gov engineers not read up on TEMPEST and look at past cryptographic units sold to them and ask any questions?
Some political deal to just let the USA/UK have it all so they could move up to just under the AUSCANNZUKUS clearance?
Stunned to what the USA/UK can do in 60 years with past ww2/ex Stasi help on a telco system sold to the EU under US guidance?

Re:Progressive Disclosure

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The leaks seem to be coming out in a clever order, starting with the most credible.

Depends on your definition of "credible" - the idea that the NSA spies on non-citizens was not a secret, the particular methods and specific targets were official secrets, but it was basically the official reason for the existence of the organization.

That the NSA spies on citizens is a whole different concept, one that has been officially denied anytime there was an undocumented leak and had to be internally justified by essentially redefining words like changing "collect" to no longer mean "gather up" but instead to access from a database full of information that had already been gathered up.

now we have government officials on record lying about the extent of surveillance, over and over, just before backtracking to defend it.

Other than Clapper who outright lied to Congress before any of the Snowden Files were made public, what are you talking about? Did somebody say "we don't spy on the UN" in the last week or two?

Re: Progressive Disclosure

[dbIII]

The IRA ands its connections to unique supplies from the US east coast should have been a warning to the UK/EU

Which reminds me that one of the Senators calling for Snowdon's blood used to finance the IRA. Puts it in perspective doesn't it? A leak versus giving money to terrorists, who bought their explosives from Libya. Explosives manufactured in Eastern Europe in the depths of the cold war. I know which one looks a lot more like treason to me.

Re:Progressive Disclosure

[umundane]

Other than Clapper who outright lied to Congress before any of the Snowden Files were made public, what are you talking about?

Clapper was a great start -- not in response to the leaks, but certainly a good example of an official lie followed by convincing evidence to the contrary.

Then there was Obama on June 17: "What I can say unequivocally is that if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails and have not." (http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/17/pres-obama-if-you-are-a-us-citizen-the-nsa-cannot-listen-to-your-telephone-calls-and-the-nsa-cannot-target-your-emails/)

This was countered by leaked FISA secret court documents on June 20: "...orders which allow the NSA to make use of information "inadvertently" collected from domestic US communications without a warrant" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant)

And on June 25, the NSA deleted the FISA fact sheet after being called out by Wyden and Udall. That is, the fact sheet lied, Wyden and and Udall said so, and the NSA pulled it, more or less confirming that it contained lies. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/nsa-fisa-fact-sheet_n_3499026.html)

And ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell me something I don't know. They spy on diplomats. Really? Say it ain't so.

With allies like this

[gmuslera]

you don't need enemies. Anyway, some of them could had been aware, at least the NSA had a data collection agreement with several european countries. But i suppose that the information they gave didn't included the part where they were a target too, and how much truth were in the provided information, the best lies are half truths.

Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

it is after all their job to spy.

Is anyone honestly going to claim no one else is spying? Who thinks the EU doesn't spy on the US? etc?

Everyone is spying on everyone else. Its part of diplomacy.

Why? countries lie. Countries manipulate. And no one really trusts anyone in the end. So you spy.

Every nation spies on every other nation to the extent that they care and have the resources. This is why the US catches Russian sleeper agents occasionally... or busts Chinese spies. This happens all the time. And the general convention on the matter is that if we don't punish their spying we won't punish their spying.

How many spies has the US executed recently? None. And we could by international law. Same thing with the spies they catch. They aren't killed. They're exchanged.

Re:Of course they are...

[romiz]

Who thinks the EU doesn't spy on the US?

Just for measure, as you may not understand the EU institutions.The European Council is composed of the governments of the states of the EU. It usually works by organizing reunions of ministers for each political domain, as well as reunions of the heads of government, and that's currently the place where important decisions are taken. Given that there are 27 members, it is a piece of cake for the US to know what is said in there, and some countries' governments will gladly tell the US if they ask. Except that they may distort the message to fit their interests. Thus, it is interesting for US spys to get the information directly.
But on the political level, this spying is tantamount to bugging the White House's main conference room.

Re:Of course they are...

[ladoga]

his is why the US catches Russian sleeper agents occasionally... or busts Chinese spies. This happens all the time. And the general convention on the matter is that if we don't punish their spying we won't punish their spying.

Being in company of China and Russia with your track record isn't something I'd consider to be proud about.

Re:Of course they are...

[gl4ss]

I really don't think Finland is spying on the congress.. unless you count reading newspapers as spying - which you very well might.

but now - if their hacking gets caught red handed it's extradition requests time!

(EU doesn't have a NSA equivalent no matter how much you fantasize about james bond, no central CIA either, because many countries don't want to deal with the political and moral problems of assassinating people, because that's not how we roll and you better hope we never start to roll that way)

Re:Of course they are...

[lxs]

So that's denial and anger out of the way next step: bargaining.

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

That's only because finland and similar countries have outsourced their strategic security to the United States or some other foreign agency.

That is... they don't spy because we do it for them. And in fact, the NSA just revealed they have a formalized relationship that is basically exactly that. The US does spy on Europe. And as part of the deal, we share that intelligence. The US shares most of its information with its allies both because we're allies and on a quid pro quo basis to get additional information they might get about various things.

So again... presuming a holier then thou attitude on the matter is merely ignorance masquerading as virtue.

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

We're on the same planet.

We all come into this world red and screaming.

Tell me how you stay in that ivory tower of yours riding around on unicorns without reality laughing you out of existence?

Be reasonable or die. That is not a threat. That is a rule the universe has... you can be reasonable or you can die.

Choose.

We are going to continue to spy because to do otherwise would be death.

Re:Of course they are...

[Rockoon]

because many countries don't want to deal with the political and moral problems of assassinating people

yeah, its not like you guys kicked off any major wars by assassinating high rankers members of foreign governments...

..its just nice peaceful nationalism and socialism, right?

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

First off, the US is mostly not in the habit of killing people it doesn't like. The exception might be terrorists but really what are your alternatives with people that like to blow up bus loads of civilians? Our preferred method is bribery. We pay people to do what we want. Its sometimes expensive. But when we want something sacks of cash will just show up on someone's door step.

Second, the EU states are not really involved in geo politics anymore. They've outsourced it to the US. We negotiate on their behalf. That is effectively what NATO means. We provide their strategic security. They know that. We know that. It is why they give us access. It is why they defer to us on many matters concerning security. We protect them. So why do they not have an expensive intelligence gathering system? The same reason they don't have large nuclear aersinals or navies or armies. Its been outsourced.

They are no more moral then the Italian city states were moral when they refused to do their own fighting and instead hired mercenary armies. Difference is that the europeans don't pay us in gold. They pay us on power. We provide the military and diplomatic muscle. They give us control.

Quid pro quo. Don't like the arrangement? Provide your own security. French tried that and they didn't like being out in the cold.

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

Well aware, I meant the member states. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if the EU itself has its own intelligence division if only to get leverage on member states.

Don't delude yourself into thinking the EU has no identity outside of its member states. That would be like saying the US federal government has no identity outside the member states. Its more complicated then that. The EU itself has an interest indifferent to its member states as does the US federal government. Human institutions are like that.

Re:Of course they are...

[the eric conspiracy]

The EU has some intelligence analysis services.

However they are hamstrung because the state level agencies don't trust each other. After all they were at war with each other not that long ago.

Having a confederation to watch is endlessly amusing.

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

We were talking about morality and ethics.The assertion was that the EU nations or the EU itself was more moral because it didn't spy.

It does spy. And what spying it doesn't do is due to politics and resources.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

Don't like the arrangement? Provide your own security. French tried that and they didn't like being out in the cold.

Unfortunately, this looks more like a leader personality rather than long term politics. France had an autonomous defense policy because president de Gaulle wanted it, and that was scraped because presidents Sarkozy and Hollande do not believe in their own nation potential.

That look strange but it is a consequence of France's political institutions, where the president has a lot of powers, and parliament is weak. That lack of counter powers is often mocked as a "republican monarchy". It was built by de Gaulle, for de Gaulle, and recent presidents are obviously too weak for the position.

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

You assume the system was healthy under de Gaulle? Just because something was preferable by him or not doesn't mean it was working or not.

The reality is that a robust military and intelligence network is not cheap. Cut too many corners and you have NOTHING. That is how competition works. There are winners and losers. Binary. And if your assets are substandard you're going to lose practically every time. Thus rendering the whole fact that you have any military or intelligence network at all pretty much irrelevant.

Who thinks the French intel network in world class? That is why countries contract with the US NSA. Say what you like, its a world class intelligence agency. And they're willing to share with allies in return for cooperation. Its a good deal. Smart nations accept it. Even if you have a world class intelligence agency like the British, you'd still contract with the NSA because why not? There's no downside.

I agree that de Gaulle had ego issues. More is the pity. We actually catered to the man's ego when we let him enter liberated Paris first. As if he had anything meaningful to do with its liberation.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

That is why countries contract with the US NSA. Say what you like, its a world class intelligence agency.

Well, recent revelations had shown that NSA hold its secret only by terror. One just have to work 3 months as a sysadmin for NSA supplier to get access to a trove of secrets. Is that good intelligence?

We actually catered to the man's ego when we let him enter liberated Paris first. As if he had anything meaningful to do with its liberation.

That is not obvious but he did have something to do with it, as he was able to unite France's interior resistant movements (FFI) under his commandment. Jean Moulin did the dirty work inside France for him, but the result is that de Gaulle was indeed recognized as the de facto leader by all the FFI movements. Without that, balkanized FFI would have had trouble to raise the insurrection against the germans, and even if they had managed to do it, it would have been impossible for de Gaulle to take power. Without the work coordinated by de Gaullle, the AMGOT would have been able to administer the country just like planned by the US.

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

1. The NSA doesn't only hold their secrets by terror. In fact, that is the least of their tools. They're not actually very good at terror.

2. The leak was an aberration and similar leaks have occurred elsewhere in other organizations all over the world. Its just rarely wikileaked. Do you know how many times the US received a Russian or Chinese agent that revealed all? Be realistic.

3. That union would have happened regardless. He was their leader but as with most things had they not had him they would have found another and it would have worked out much the same. The man was deified so the french could recover from the shame of falling to the Nazis. He did nothing that was especially brilliant or pivotal.

After WW2, the Allies needed stability in Europe. Gaulle secured France. That box was checked and we moved on to other things. He unfortunately let the power go to his head and turned into something of an egomaniac. But happily there was no lasting damage from it.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

3. [FFI] union would have happened regardless.

I would not take that for granted. We have a first hand testimony of the problem though Daniel Cordier's excellent book Alias Caracalla. He was Jean Moulin's secretary between 1940 and 1943, an horribly dangerous job despite the modest title. The book shows rival FFI groups with antagonist political positions like nationalists and communists, and FFI chiefs that hate each others.

De Gaulle best tool to gather them is money that the british government landed him, plus the extreme motivation of people like Jean Moulin or Daniel Cordier that answered to his call from London.

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

Claiming de Gaulle was required for a french resistance is as silly as claiming that Eisenhower was required for an effective allied command.

Gaulle was simply the man conveniently at hand that could do the job. The war was bigger then any one man. Had we not had Gaulle, we would have found another.

You know that.

Nothing on the allied side hinged on any one man. Not one. Not Roosevelt. Not Churchill. Not Eisenhower. Not any one of the scientists, generals, industrialists, or politicians...

Kill Hitler and that might have had an impact. But on the allied side... Our war was a reaction to the Nazi aggression and not the ego trip of any one man. If any of our leaders or bright lights had fallen... they would have been replaced. Possibly not as effectively but then again possibly even more effectively.

Can we say de Gaulle was the absolute best man for the job? We didn't try everyone. He was sufficient to our ends. That is all we needed. And after the war we set him up as a hero to stabilize his country and do something to heal their national pride.

And that is in the end what Gaulle has come to mean... Pride. Pride is fine so long as you keep it under control. Let it run wild and its a menace.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

Claiming de Gaulle was required for a french resistance is as silly as claiming that Eisenhower was required for an effective allied command.

I never said he was required for anything. I just said that he was the strategist that solved the problem of FFI fragmentation, with the help of Jean Moulin and many less known heroes. And once he had been recognized as the leader by the FFI, we was the only one in position to take power in France.

Gaulle was simply the man conveniently at hand that could do the job. The war was bigger then any one man. Had we not had Gaulle, we would have found another.

Assuming "we" is the US here, you have to note that US had never been fond of de Gaulle. He had been ignored as long as possible, and US plans for France was the AMGOT, and not installing de Gaulle as a leader.

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

As to AMGOT and the FFI and de Gaulle... All I am saying is that the man did not liberate france and that left to its own devices the FFI would not have liberated France. And without either de Gaulle or the FFI, the allied powers would have liberated France.

Between the United States, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union... the Nazis were going down. One way or another.

Without those powers the French would have remained a subject power to the Reich. Just reality.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

You are right, de Gaulle would have been nothing without the FFI, and the FFI would not have freed their country from the Reich without allies' help. But in fact I think France have to thank Stalin, despite the man being what he was. US was not really willing to fight for Europe liberation until communist Russia came into a position to swallow it all.

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

The US was engaged before the soviets became a credible conqueror.

And remember, we supplied the Russians as well. The US was the arsenal of the allies WW2 effort. The guns, the food, the metal, the fuel... much of it came from our factories and farms. On a simple tonnage basis the US out produced the axises war effort by a ratio of ten to one. That is how one sided US production was towards the end of the war. Much of that was because the axis factories and farms were laid to ruin. But one cannot deny that the US was also producing far more goods then any other war power by a magnitude.

We were not the only ones to use that material. Much of it was to fund the allied effort.

Which is where we come today. Europe getting the benefit of US resources. In this case, our intelligence network. The war is over but the alliance remains. The US is a friend to Europe. A friend to Germany, France, England, Sweden, Spain, Italy, etc. And part of that friendship is sharing intelligence. We spy on the EU because we spy on everyone just as everyone else spies on everyone else. But what is more, we share our intelligence with EU members on a quid pro quo basis. Basically... honor your end of the alliance and we'll honor ours. Its entirely normal and reasonable. Furthermore, as with much of this... were the EU member states not to take advantage of the intelligence and other aid provided by the US they'd have to provide it themselves which would be expensive. And not only that but they'd have to get their hands dirtier then they're accustomed.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

The US was engaged before the soviets became a credible conqueror.

US entered the war in Nothern Africa in november 1942. That is during the Stalingrad battle on the eastern front, which is the time when Germans started loosing ground to the Red Army. Obviously Roosvelt wanted to get involved earlier, but getting Congress support had been difficult.

The US is a friend to Europe.

What friend would spy on its friends? And it is quite unfortunate to spy UE officials just when starting the TTIP discussions. You do not have to support everything your government does without asking the US people, you know.

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

As to the US entry into WW2, you don't attack an enemy where they are strong. You attack them where they are weak.Cutting them off in Africa isolated the germans into europe and cut them off from resources. It also gave time for the US to move forces across the Atlantic which was the great struggle of that war for the US. Everything the US brought to the fight had to be shipped across the Atlantic ocean. It was an intercontinental invasion for the US. Neither the Russians nor the English had the same problem since their forces could literally walk to battle in the case of the Russians and the English were only a channel ferry away from the mainland.

What that meant for the US was time. Everything took time. What's more there was a great deal of waste with lost shipments, destroyed ships, etc.

As to what friend would spy on his friends?... Nations spy on other nations. Even friends. The English, Japanese, and Israelis spy on the US for example and we consider them all friends.

Getting upset about this is simply naive. We all spy on each other. We are friends. But because we're friends doesn't mean we trust you. No one trusts anyone. But you can be friends with someone you don't trust. You can like someone you don't trust. You can love someone you don't trust.

Stop for a moment and ask yourself if a parent that spies on his children cannot love his children? This is not to imply europe is a US child... merely that there is no implicit hostility in spying.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

It also gave time for the US to move forces across the Atlantic which was the great struggle of that war for the US.

On that point, it is worth noting that Germans's U-boot ruled high sea during the first part of the war. Only the advance on sonar reversed the game. Allies were unable to start anything serious before that happened.

We are friends.

Sure, I am certain this is the feeling of most Americans and Europeans. However the US government is obviously not our friend. It is not friendly to anyone, not even its own citizen.

As I said, you do not have to approve everything your government does. For instance, I am ashamed of how EU governments have treated Evo Morales.

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

As to the uboats... the convoys and sea plane patrols also shut them down. You forget that those subs couldn't stay under water for very long. They had to surface.

The supply line for the subs were the "milk cow" refueling subs which we hunted mercilessly. Without the milk cows the subs had no range and couldn't operate much beyond german waters.

As to the US government being a friend of european countries. You have a naive grasp of what friendship between nations means. It does not mean we don't spy on you. It means we protect your strategic interests.

Do we or do we not protect your strategic interests? That is rhetorical. We do. Were we not friends we would not.

You're getting upset about something small and missing the bigger picture. You're further not grasping that the spying is required. We must do it. And we are not alone. Everyone does it to everyone.

In fact, much of our spying on you is for you. That is to say, it is politically problematic for many EU countries to spy on EU countries. So we do it for you. It is also problematic for the US to spy on its own people. So we contract some EU nations to do that for us as well. MI6 for example does some spying on americans. And sometimes they do it for the US government. It is illegal for the NSA or the CIA to spy on Americans. But it isn't illegal for the NSA to contract MI6 to spy on Americans and then collect their intelligence.

Its some legal and moral slight of hand but its pretty typical in large government bureaus.

Regardless, the US government is the best friend Europe has... if you don't understand that then you don't know what friendship looks like in the first place.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

It means we protect your strategic interests.

I am sorry, but I am tempted to call you naive on this one. US government protects EU interests? I wonder where. US government spends money to protects US interests, what do you imagine?

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

Never mind we kept the Soviets out of Western Europe.

Never mind we gave Europe money to rebuild after WW2.

Never mind we've given you power and political legitmacy you wouldn't credit without our support.

Never mind we have given you the benefit of our military deterrence allowing European nations to atrophy their defense.

We have acted as friends for generations. My grand father's generation were your friends. My father's generation were your friends.

What are you telling me? That we're not friends anymore? You might just break my heart.

Gratitude might be the weakest of human emotions but stupidity is one of the greater sins. If you truly think you get nothing from us it is because you've grown to take our security for granted. Which means even if we remain your friends we shouldn't protect you... because it merely makes us co-dependent enablers in your self delusion.

For your own good... we should really let you fend for yourselves a bit more. It would be enlightening.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

You do not read what I say. People can be friend, and I hope they are. Governments have no friends, they have interest, which may intersect or conflict with their peers

When US helps Europe reconstruction after WWII, it is not only because Europeans are friends, it is also to fight communism, which was rising in western Europe elections. And when France helped US becoming independent, it was not only because Americans were nice, it was also to weaken England.

On US defense which benefits EU... That is a gift with strings. It binds our governments to US will, and as a result they cover us with shame by treating Bolivia's president like a terrorist, or by hunting for WMD in Iraq. And what is the benefit? For France and UK, which are nuclear powers, it is null. For other western EU countries, which are not under threat of other nations, it is weak. Only eastern EU nations that feel threatened by Russia have a real benefit here.

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

I read and understood what you said. I think you're wrong.

1. Nations can be friends. The US has been more generous then would be justified merely by its strategic interests to its european allies. We didn't need to rebuild europe and we didn't need to even ally with europe.

2. We fought communism mostly to help you because the Communists were breathing down your necks. They were not a threat to the US itself but to our allies.

3. As to France helping the American colonies to weaken England... we know. Which is why that friendship didn't last. They didn't care about us and would not sacrifice on our behalf unless it suited them. We have already done that for some other allies which means we're either stupid or showing friendship. You decide.

4. The gift has very limited strings. You don't really have to do much for it.

5. As to nuclear powers having no benefit from being in such alliances, that is naive. If nuclear forces were all that was required then there are a dozen conventional ways you could be crushed. And beyond that you assume the nuclear weapons held by France and England will be competitive in the 21st century with advances in anti ICBM technology. Furthermore, against an enemy that is willing to call your bluff what defense do you really have? Nuclear weapons are a deterrent but they are not a total defense.

6. The eastern EU is only less safe because they haven't come under full US protection. That is literally the only difference. Roll back the clock a few decades and Germany, France, Greece, etc could have all been in the same position.

You want to pretend like the US does nothing and is really a sinister enemy of the EU? I cannot stop you from deluding yourself. But you have no evidence for it besides your own paranoia and cynicism which frankly reflects more upon yourself then upon us.

Good day.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

1. Nations can be friends. The US has been more generous then would be justified merely by its strategic interests to its european allies. We didn't need to rebuild europe and we didn't need to even ally with europe.

You confuse nations and governments, sir.

US strategic interests in Europe was to avoid communists taking over France, Italy and Greece. The Marshall Plan happened to be completely in alignment with European countries interests, but it was done because it served US interests. You do not convince tax payers and parliament to give away that much money just to be nice. If that were the case, nobody would be poor in Africa anymore.

3. As to France helping the American colonies to weaken England... we know. Which is why that friendship didn't last. They didn't care about us and would not sacrifice on our behalf unless it suited them. We have already done that for some other allies which means we're either stupid or showing friendship. You decide.

Right, I chose that example on purpose and I think I now understand your position. I will try to sum it up by saying that when US helps another country, it is humanism, whereas if US gets some help (which does not happen today because this is a much greater nation that everything else on earth), it is with other dirty intend in mind. I am not sure it is worth discussing it further, you seem happy with that view of the world, and I would not like to make a friend uncomfortable with an absurdly different point of view..

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

1. The US had no conflict with the Russians until we defended europe from the communists. Had we shown no interest in defending the cold war wouldn't have happened. We could left Europe twisting in the wind.

And were you the sort of ally you think we were then... you would have left the Europeans to rot. We didn't. Europe got US charity. And if you want to delude yourself into thinking it all can be explained as enlightened self interest... so be it. The fact remains we risked our blood for another. How many of your own petty powers can make the same claim? Precisely.

3. In response to your sum up... I did not say that when the US gets help it only because there is some sinister movitivation. I said instead it isn't helped. Or if it is helped you expect to be paid. The Europeans always want to know what they get for it. Never mind they've been given many things in the past without having to give anything in return. And continue to get things for which they do not pay. But when the US wants something we have to pay for it every time.

We are not your slaves and you are not our masters. You do not dictate our resources or have any claim to our power. We do what we do because we wish to do it. Not because you wave your hands in our direction. Any cooperation or aid we extend is a choice on our part which can be ended at our will.

If you truly think there is no friendship between our powers then either your elders failed to educate you or your elders successfully fooled my elders. The generations that came before mine believed they did you a service and that they earned your good will. Either you were not made aware of that or my elders were naive enough to think gratitude was something of which you would be capable.

Regardless... this merely strengthens my conviction that the US should distance itself from western Europe in its state craft. We have friends in eastern europe, Asia, and elsewhere. You can make your own alliances without us.

This is not a declaration of hostility so much as my disappointment that you count our strategic friendship as being so dispensable.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

We are not your slaves and you are not our masters.

Once again I feel like you confuse government and people. Anyway, this is a rather paranoid point of view, in my opinion. It is US help that turns EU government's into US abiding pets, not the other way around. How do you explain France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain's governments covered us with shame by stopping a Bolivian diplomatic flight, just because Edward Snowden might have been aboard?

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

Governments are made up of people. You can't abstract away the human element. It always exists.

As to aid turning EU members into pets... it isn't in the EU's interest to undermine a powerful ally or weaken their own governments by providing aid and comfort to a leaker that could have just as easily come from their own governments.

Imagine if Snowden were French or German or English... and fled to the US.

What would the US do in response? Provide him amnesty? No. We'd return him to his home government. Its what friends and allies do for each other.

Do you see? If the EU are pets then the US is no less the pet in that example. Provide a better one. I think you'll find that you do not have anything to base your argument on.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

Governments are made up of people. You can't abstract away the human element. It always exists.

Government's general will is a particular will, which will always diverge more or less from the People general will. For instance my government denied Evo Morales the authorization to fly over our territory, but I can tell you that it is difficult to find anyone that backs this action in the People.

As to aid turning EU members into pets... it isn't in the EU's interest to undermine a powerful ally or weaken their own governments by providing aid and comfort to a leaker that could have just as easily come from their own governments.

Imagine if Snowden were French or German or English... and fled to the US.

This was a presidential flight, subject to diplomatic immunity. Do you expect your friends to break the law and insult their other friends to defend your interests?

Diplomatic immunity is there for a reason, which is reciprocity. Imagine if your president was grounded with local police claiming they should search the plane. Would you care if it was to search a fugitive which was not there at the end of the story?

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

The people are just individuals as well. There is no singular public will. And neither is there a singular governmental will unless its a dictatorship or a monarchy. Governments like the US are a composite will made up of the tens of thousands of people in the US government that have opinions that effect day to day policy.

If that group of people likes you then the government likes you. If they don't then it does not.

The US government has gone out of its way to help europe.

But the snarky attitude makes us think we're not appreciated. And even if you like someone, it does hurt your feelings when they don't share the friendship. Sadly, for our own self respect if nothing else... we should probably find allies that can return the friendship.

Its okay. You don't have to like us. But we should probably stop deluding ourselves that we're friends if you really just don't like us.

The US gets very little for its friendship with europe. European powers have very poor military resources. Little political will or resolve. And economically most of the core EU powers have been treading water to flatlining for a generation.

Even if we were to be crass and materialistic about it. Why would the US sacrifice for such worthless allies?

So by either evaluation... the US should distance itself from Europe.

As to diplomatic immunity:
http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1120886/diplomatic-immunity-granted-11-times-hong-kong

It doesn't work the way you think it works.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

There is no singular public will.

I believe I did not use that words. General and singular are not synonyms.

The US government has gone out of its way to help europe.

But the snarky attitude makes us think we're not appreciated.

Here again you confuse government and people. I have nothing against american people, except perhaps that they do not look enough after what their government is doing.

As to diplomatic immunity [link to article on Hong-Kong] It doesn't work the way you think it works.

I do not know why you tell me about foreign diplomat's offences in Hong Kong, while I tell you about grounding a presidential flight. How is this article relevant?

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

If there is no singular will then you can't identify the government as a discrete identity.

What you are left with are the wills of thousands and thousands of people... if not hundreds of thousands.

As to confusing government and people... I don't really care what you think of either. Your opinions are your own. If you like the color yellow or enjoy hop scotch that is your business. However, you cannot say the government is not made up of people.

You keep trying to abstract the government off as a non-human entity with its own decrete identity that is independent of any originating agency. Its not logically possible. The government is not a living thing. It is an organization which is itself a collaborative entity made up of many individuals which collectively effect its policy. Those members are Americans and most of the actions taken by the entity are supported or not objected to by the majority of the American people. As a result, it is OUR government.

The very nature of a republican democracy is that the system work in this fashion.

As to grounding a president's flight... read how diplomatic immunity works please. You can't just randomally grant someone diplomatically immune when they're not your own citizen and they're not even in your country.

For example, could Sweden grant diplomatic immunity to every singe prisoner in French jails? No. Why is that?

What would happen if a known french felon were put onto a Swedish diplomatic plane. Would the french allow the plane to take off? No they would not.

The plane was stopped because rules were being broken. Doubtless some feathers were ruffled but all insults were self inflicted. Don't break the rules and don't get your privileges checked.

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

If there is no singular will then you can't identify the government as a discrete identity.

I never said there is no singular will (that seems like pure nonsense to me). I will try to make it simplier: the group of humans known as government does not have the same will than the group of humans known as the People (that is: all citizen).

However, you cannot say the government is not made up of people.

Never said that.

[Evo Morales] plane was stopped because rules were being broken

What are you talking about? What rules were been broken?

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

The group of people known as the government are however capable of having friends and enemies. You stated that government can't have friends which is nonsense.

Most of the EU nations are classed as friends by the United States government. Not only in policy but in the manner in which the US government treats them.

As to you never saying the government is not made up of people, you did try to abstract them to being non-human which would include not being made up of people.

As to diplomatic immunity... its been abused many times in the past:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19591_6-most-ridiculous-abuses-diplomatic-immunity.html

Funny list of some extreme examples. The point of it is not to let you f' over other countries. The point is to smooth over little issues and facilitate cooperation.

Smuggling people out of a country is not a little issue. Use it to avoid parking tickets or minor fines. But if you're playing a bigger game no one is going to blink at going right through it.

Now did the Bolivian president smuggle Snowden out by plane? No he didn't. The whole thing was clearly pretty embarrassing for everyone. But do you think a US diplomatic plane could leave Bolivia with a wanted criminal? Unlikely.

Again... regrettable. However, the overblown offense of the Bolivians is frankly as tiresome as it is sad.

The United States is subjected to worse offenses against our national dignity then that on a daily basis. Chavez for example called Bush the devil and suggested the place he stood not long ago still smelled of sulfur. To which American comedians suggested that Bush might have had an Egg Salad sandwich for lunch.

But that sort of thing is frankly ongoing. To say nothing of the mindless anti americanism we're treated to throughout the world.

Look at the Egyptian protesters. Both sides blame America somehow. The Muslim Brotherhood which Obama helped get into power by respecting the democratic process by which they obtained power blame Obama/The United States for losing power to a military coup. At the same time, the military faction blames the US for helping the Muslim brotherhood and otherwise opposing their coup which they see as righteous for various reasons.

THAT is what most opposition to the US looks like throughout the world. Both sides blaming the US without any real evidence of it. We're the international scapegoat of the incompetent. If your government is badly run or you're otherwise in danger of losing power due to incompetence... Blame the US. Its our fault they're stupid. We apparently picked them out of their mother's arms when they were babies and promptly dropped them on their heads.

And despite the ongoing mindless stupidity and unjustifiable hostility... We continue to work peacefully and constructively with powers that frankly don't deserve that much respect. Why? We have no choice. We can't choose the planet we live on and we unfortunately live on planet Earth which appears to be populated by morons.

Is the US perfect? Hardly. But we're not a banana republic yet. We are not strategically beholden to anyone. We are one of the few independent nations left on this planet. Secure in our own power and truly sovereign in our own territory. That is an accomplishment few other nations can claim. We have also maintained the same government since the 18th century. Through invasion, war, civil war, world war, world war again, the cold war, and now whatever you want to call these terrorist attacks. We have prevailed through it all. We have survived problems political, economic, social, and religious that have laid low lesser nations. And we have done it all without devolving into a police state or a dictatorship.

We have also stood by our allies. There are few powers on earth that are worth having as friends. And despite all of that... you want to spit on our faces because we conduct a global intelligence network that lik

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

The group of people known as the government are however capable of having friends and enemies. You stated that government can't have friends which is nonsense.

Okay, let us say that governments can be somehow friends. But that is quite superficial friendship, when one is ready to dump the others as soon as its interests are at stake. The primary goal of a government is to run its own country, having friends is an bonus if situation allows it. Telling others that they are friends is a good practice, though.

Chavez for example called Bush the devil

It may have something to do with US supporting a coup against him, don't you think?

And despite all of that... you want to spit on our faces

I never meant to spit on your face, and please pardon me if I gave you that feeling. Obviously you feel offended by how the world see your government, and you take it for yourself, which may not be relevant as I already tried to explain : You are not your government.

May I suggest that instead of taking the heat personally, you try to understand why there are so many that do hate how the US government behaves?

The offense of the comical regime in Bolivia is meaningless in the context of what was done

I am not sure why you call it comical, and I would like to remind you that there are no irrelevant People. Almost all Latin America was badly offended by this incident. I do not feel it is meaningless.

Look at the countries that are welcoming Snowden and tell me how many of those governments you actually respect

I respect all nations (and I assume you meant nation here instead of country: the country is the territory, the nation is the People). I may have no respect for some governments, but not thoses ones.

Re:Of course they are...

[Karmashock]

As to the friendship between governments. It is no more superficial the the friendships between people. Untrustworthy people make untrustworthy friends. It does not mean governments cannot be trusted friends it merely means that some governments with the people running them make poor friends.

That is it an individual issue and not a question of all governments. You're painting with an overly large brush here and it isn't justifiable.

As to the coup attempt, the US didn't organize it. Members of the coup reached out to the US and asked for the blessing of the US government which was likely given. Why would we not bless it? Chavez went out of his way to annoy us long before that. We were not putting him out of power. We were not involved. We merely knew about it and said we'd be fine with it. For that we don't earn more ire from him. And what did he do to his country? Look at it. His country is basically the Saudi Arabia of South America and they're so incompetent that they're still going broke. Its beyond pathetic. A retarded five year old could run the country better then those twits. So yes, we were okay with someone less "special" running Venezuela.

As to comical insults, its a minor issue that doesn't need to be blown up. Bolivia's offense to the matter is overblown and out of proportion. Their reaction to the matter is comical in the context of who they are, what was done, the circumstances of the matter, etc. Remember Gaddaffi? Remember his military uniform?
Here's an image of it from the web:
http://en.rian.ru/images/16275/50/162755026.jpg

Its comical and cartoonish. He might as well wear a pope hat, carry a king's scepter, and begin every sentence with "do you know who I am!?!" Its silly.

And if you think the US could claim diplomatic immunity in their territory given similar circumstances you're kidding yourself.

As to there being no irrelevant people. We can't all be relevant. That would imply that we have to take into consideration everyone all the time. And NO ONE does that. It is literally impossible for the human mind to keep in mind all those people at all times. What we do is try to prioritize people based on how important they are to us for various reasons. If you are so far down the queue that no one bothers regarding you then you are de facto irrelevant. That isn't an opinion. It is reality.

As to respecting all nations or countries, you do not. Would you respect a nation that regarded ritualistic cannibalism? Of course not. What if a nation had the religious belief that all other people's are in fact breakfast cereals?

When you respect everything you respect nothing. Respect is a relative quality like light and dark. You respect and disrespect. When everything is light there is no dark and light loses its meaning. Respect only has value in relation to things you disrespect. You cannot respect everything and have respect mean anything.

So no, neither of us respect all nations or countries. You might regard all nations or countries as having rights. But all rights have a context and limitations. Cite any right and I can come up with a context where you'll violate it. It might be an extreme example but the rights are not absolute.

Ultimately, all rights must be secured individually by every person, citizen, company, nation, group of nations, etc. If you cannot protect your rights then you'll find them violated. Why do Americans often find their own rights ignored by their government when they have some of the strongest protections for civil liberties in law? Because Americans sometimes don't protect their rights. And when they don't protect them or are unable to protect them they are sometimes violated. The same goes for everyone and everything.

There is a US company in France for example that wants to close a tire factory. The local labor union says the tire company has no right to close the factory and must keep it open indefinitely even though it loses money. Clearly

Re:Of course they are...

[manu0601]

And what did [Chavez] do [Venezuela]? Look at it. His country is basically the Saudi Arabia of South America and they're so incompetent that they're still going broke.

Actually, Chavez had some relative success, it depends at what you look at. On criminality, economic diversification, or food sovereignty, it is a disaster. On analphabetism and poverty reduction, you will need bad faith to deny success.

And if you think the US could claim diplomatic immunity in [Bolivia] territory given similar circumstances you're kidding yourself.

I am certain Bolivia would not have grounded Obama to search its plane, yes. And I am not convinced they would dare do it even now.

Would you respect a nation that regarded ritualistic cannibalism?

What nation do you think about?

Cite any right and I can come up with a context where you'll violate it.

Let us start by the beginning: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". But I am sure you will find a way to waive that principle, since you already explained that there were irrelevant Peoples

That doesn't make it right

[phantomfive]

All part of a grand tradition.

That doesn't make it right.

Re:That doesn't make it right

[techhead79]

That doesn't make it right.

I think you're confusing a personal moral you have with the obligation a country has to defend itself.

Re:That doesn't make it right

[phantomfive]

In all honestly I think we can defend ourselves perfectly well without spying on Britain and hacking their computers.

It's not about morals, it's that at some point, the threat from having a dark, hidden organization inside the government, operating away from the light of disclosure, becomes greater than the threat of foreign countries invading. It's been a long time since Britain attacked us.

Re:That doesn't make it right

[someone1234]

The problem with this spying on your allies is not exactly vigilance (while it is also mildly repulsive). The problem is that you guys found ways to use 'useless' financial information. You effectively already wage a war on your allies like Britain and the EU.

Re:That doesn't make it right

[khallow]

As for our own governments being a greater threat than the threat of foreign invasion, despite some examples you could give me I am afraid you are lacking in imagination or much knowledge of history.

Even foreign invasions can be due to failures of governance. For example, during the Second World War, I'd chalk up the invasions of Russia, France, Germany, Italy, China, and Japan to the weaknesses and poor judgment of their respective governments.

Re:That doesn't make it right

[phantomfive]

It's amazing to me that you managed to write such a long post while completely ignoring the point of what I said. Please don't reply to me again without reading what I say. The problem has nothing to do with complacency, vigilance, or paranoia; it has everything to do with a cost/benefit analysis.

Re:That doesn't make it right

[phantomfive]

You effectively already wage a war on your allies like Britain and the EU.

You clearly didn't read his post, since he stated that he served in the British army.

Re:That doesn't make it right

[nukenerd]

.. you managed to write such a long post while completely ignoring the point of what I said. Please don't reply to me again without reading what I say. The problem has nothing to do with complacency, vigilance, or paranoia; it has everything to do with a cost/benefit analysis.

I have read it again and see that I was picking up two of your points : (1) "we can defend ourselves perfectly well without spying on Britain" - which I why I raised the subject of compacency, and (2) you said that threat from within one's own government is greater than threat from foreign invasion - which I responded to without much enlargement in my last sentence. I did not see anything about cost/benefit.

"Threat" from your own government might be a more continuous undercurrent, while foreign invasions are occasional events; but the latter are generally far more devastating, and indiscriminate about who the suffering falls on.

Re:That doesn't make it right

[Subm]

It's been a long time since Britain attacked us.

The British invaded in the 60s with biological vectors like Beatles, blunt objects like Stones, and aerial attacks by Zeppelins. On our side some were Grateful just to be Dead.

Re:That doesn't make it right

[thoth]

In all honestly I think we can defend ourselves perfectly well without spying on Britain and hacking their computers.

It's not about morals, it's that at some point, the threat from having a dark, hidden organization inside the government, operating away from the light of disclosure, becomes greater than the threat of foreign countries invading. It's been a long time since Britain attacked us.

That wouldn't be the point of spying on Britain. If it happens (probably, but I don't really know) it would be for diplomatic advantage or information. Can we count on them to back us in some action we're going to take (e.g. invade Iraq)? Are they leaning one way or the other, and how can we tip it our direction? That is, what's really going on in their internal discussions, not what they are telling us is going on.

So no, we aren't trying to rip off their military plan for reconquering the American colonies. It's probably all about economic/political info. And they'd do the same. And so does every other country.

Re:That doesn't make it right

[phantomfive]

So is that worth the cost of having a dark, hidden organization inside the government, operating away from the light of disclosure?

Re:That doesn't make it right

[quenda]

It's been a long time since Britain attacked us.

They did in 1812, but the US invasion of Canada might be seen as extreme provocation.

I don't think the UK has ever initiated hostilities against the US, has it?

More "revelations" from Snowden

[xiando]

It's interesting how the "revelations" from "former" CIA employee and short-term NSA external contractor are so ground-breaking and not just what people who don't own a TV have known for years. Bread and circus, knew the Roman Empire, keep people from revolt. Snowden is a circus. Putin said it best when he pointed out that FSB had no interest in Snowden, it would be like trying to skin a pig: Lots of screams but no wool.

Yeah, I know this is too true information even for slashdot, I'm guessing this will be modded down.

Re:More "revelations" from Snowden

[phayes]

In complete agreement here.

The major success of the Cold War was the avoidance of a nuclear war. This came about in large part because both sides had good information on the other's forces & equipment. Not just because we signed treaties but because we were checking on each other.

The key phrase was: Trust, but verify. Even with allies, trust but verify avoids surprises.

Re:More "revelations" from Snowden

[dbIII]

This came about in large part because both sides had good information on the other's forces & equipment

What people in politics, especially JFK before election as President, said about the USSRs forces & equipment was grossly overstated by around an order of magnitude. Whether that was entirely deliberate or whether we can see more clearly in hindsight is debatable. There were certainly some people in US intelligence that has numbers that turned out to be accurate but I don't know if their reports were read and believed or if the bullshit won.

We do know however from Russian records that Nixon's "madman theory" wasn't even noticed by the USSR. They were used to dealing with real madmen so didn't pay attention to the game. By the time Reagan was, by choice or accident, trying madman part two the USSR was too busy falling apart for it to matter.

Re:More "revelations" from Snowden

[Rockoon]

The genius of Reagan "the madman" wasn't in its effects in the U.S.S.R, but instead its effects on the allies of the U.S.S.R and the U.S's quasi-friends such as France.

When bombing Libya and killing the leaders family in 1986, we also "accidentally" bombed the French embassy when our laser guided bombs went "off target." It was completely a coincidence that France refused to let us use their airspace for the bombing mission, adding thousands of kilometers to the trip. Completely a coincidence I tell ya!

It was at that point that it became clear to the rest of the worlds governments that you simply do not fuck with America, and when asked to do something you just fucking did it. The effects of this lasted into the 90's, as could be observed when the U.S. was allowed to invade Panama, dissolve its military, and capture its leader putting him on trial in American courts.... not a single fucking country protested.

Re:More "revelations" from Snowden

[phayes]

Of course, neatly overstepping the revelations from kruschev's diary & other sources that other "madmen" just as careless of human lives but dedicated to the extermination of democracy & this free speech we enjoy on the other side.

Thus, trust, but verify, which has serves us all well.

Re:More "revelations" from Snowden

[dbIII]

Nice try. Reality had Thatcher pushing back hard at the USA when things happened like the invasion of Granada and Alexander Haig assisting Argentina in the Falklands war.

Re:More "revelations" from Snowden

[dbIII]

Maybe I should have put this text in bold "USSR. They were used to dealing with real madmen". They had plenty of madmen of their own running things over the years so Nixon's game just did not register.

Re:More "revelations" from Snowden

[the eric conspiracy]

The United States has a special relationship with Panama, i.e. Panama is something we've been fucking over bigtime for a century. What happened under Reagan was hardly something unusual.

And by the way the French were in there first.

In fact the French, in their own inimitable way were able to build their adventure up to the biggest corruption scandal of the 19th century.

Re:More "revelations" from Snowden

[dbIII]

The French also continued their policy of extending a rude middle finger in the direction of anyone that told them what to do. The Germans grumbled a lot and were shit scared about increasing the number of missiles on their soil. Italian politics was like a bag full of fighting cats and didn't really notice much of what the US was doing.

The source for the spammy blog

[Frosty Piss]

The source for the spammy blog that the "summary" references:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/nsa-spied-on-european-union-offices-a-908590.html

Sunday morning here

[vikingpower]

European online editions of newspapers have it all over their title pages. Scores of EU politicians and servants indignated. I suddenly wonder if, ironically, this could be one of the many little pushes the EU needs to attain more internal unity. Sad it should be brought along by the discovery of a new intimate foe... But then again, the sun has been going down over the US for some time already now.

Lives there a human...

[govett]

Lives there a human so resolutely benighted as to be unaware that the EU spies on other countries, as do the Russians, Chinese, and every other government, with the possible exception of the Kingdom of Polish Bohemia?

Re:Lives there a human...

[vikingpower]

Don't rule out the Grand-Duchy of Transylvania, either. Duke Vlad the Impaler has no citizens left to do any spying for him. Although wait - his castle is full of bats. Now what with their echolocation capabilities when they fly over neighbouring Romania....

Re:Lives there a human...

[rubycodez]

you are confused. this is not about intelligence gathering in the usual sense, this is about bugging offices and treating supposed allies as "cold war enemies"

Honestly fine with that

[SuperKendall]

I don't see any issue with governments spying on each other. You kind of expect they would do that.

I see far more of a problem with spying on arbitrary citizens with pretty much no oversight (although it amazes me that this comes as a surprise to anyone at all).

Friends

[tsa]

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Re:Friends

[dkleinsc]

The US needs enemies - without them, they can't justify the country's wartime government budget that has lasted since approximately 1940. If the US doesn't have any enemies, it goes out of its way to create some.

Of course, "terrorist sleeper cells" are the best enemy anyone's ever thought of because (a) they could be anywhere, (b) it's impossible to say you've destroyed all of them, (c) everything you're going to do to stop them is required to be secret, (d) they could attack anywhere in the US at any time creating a wonderful fear factor, and (e) the government is supposed to catch them before they've actually done anything criminal.

Re:Friends

[tsa]

Michael Moore was right. You really are a fear-driven society. We should all pity you.

Why is anyone surprised?

[davmoo]

This shouldn't be at all surprising to anyone. Countries have been spying on each other and their own citizens since the dawn of civilization. And anyone here who thinks only the US does this and their country doesn't spy on its citizens is living in a dream world.

Re:Why is anyone surprised?

[jopsen]

And anyone here who thinks only the US does this and their country doesn't spy on its citizens is living in a dream world.

I'm fairly confident that my government is too incompetent to build a secret successful IT project on a scale that can register anything about its 5 million citizen :)

Luckily they're aren't completely incompetent when it comes to non-IT related things. Though they still weren't able to keep extradition of POWs to US troops in Afghanistan a secret. Note such extradition is a war crime, given that US troops are known to employ torture.


On topic, yes - I'm surprised. This is a new low for the US government.

More dirty work by the NSA...?

[lordholm]

I am expecting that the newspapers soon find documents linking the NSA to the Athens affair and the death of Kostas Tsalikidis.

MUCH WORSE: Normal EU citizens also being spied on

[rodia]

States or "state-likes" like the EU spy on each other, ok.
I find it much more worrying that normal EU citizens are being spied on by UK services. My government (German) tells me they didn't know about it, and of course I am inclined to believe they are not telling me the truth (new default reaction to free world government officials saying something). The reaction our minister of justice got when she dared to demand some clarification from the Brits, a polite "go f**k yourself", is still interesting. Oh, and literally while I write this comment, this just in: (article in german) the NSA also massivcely spies on the german public.

It is after all their job to spy

[Anonymous Coward]

How naïve you are.

Of course they do spy on each other, that we know already. The gross part is that they *collude* to spy on *us* in ways they aren't allowed by law.

The NSA wants to spy on you (an USA citizen, I assume)? They aren't allowed by law? No problem. The MI6, for example, would have no qualms with that and would, by virtue of some secret international treaty, gladly oblige to forward this information to the NSA. Or whatever (MI6 was just an example among dozens of possibilities).

How are democracies supposed to work under this mess?

Can't fracture again

[dutchwhizzman]

The EU never was a Union. It has always been a trade treaty and some fools tried to make more out of it. They spent billions and came up with nothing. The countries in the treaty are just way too autonomous and have their own language and culture. Every county is in it for themselves, not for the greater good of the whole, except maybe the Dutch politicians, that don't want to listen to their people and keep pumping money in. Ask any citizen in the EU if they want the EU to have influence on their local legislation and most of them will say no. They just want the money from the EU to subsidizing their economical project, but not the meddling.

Re:Can't fracture again

[lordholm]

"The EU never was a Union. It has always been a trade treaty and some fools tried to make more out of it."

The intent of the EU / EC / ECSC was always to form a political union. Granted it is not there yet, but the founding fathers where quite clear on this, and any state joining signs up for this long term goal.

I can guarantee you that a lot of citizens who are involved with anything dealing with more than two EU members are quite happy with the Union influencing the local legislation.

I for example have been living in 4 different member states, and often spend weekends with the in-laws in a fifth. The Union's influence on local legislation using directives and the Euro is absolutely essential for making life bearable for millions of people. As an example, due to the EU influence on the local legislation, a person moving to another state does for example no longer have to exchange their drivers licence any more (in my case, I would have had to change it 3 times during the last 5 years if the old rules would have applied). In addition, no paperwork has to be filled in if you get a job in another member state, this saves tons of money for business and a lot of time for citizens who have to deal with the mess otherwise. I could probably write a full book on how the influence on local legislation simplifies matters a lot.

Re:Can't fracture again

[gl4ss]

European Union never was an Union eh?

look man - I DO WANT the EU to have affect on my local legislation. do you know why? I don't think that protectionist tolls on products and produce are good for me. I don't want alcohol tax to be so fucking high. I want to be able to buy already taxed used cars from germany without having to pay taxes again on it. I do want to be able to go to work in other EU countries without fuss. I do want to be able to buy whatever I want from germany and uk if I want. I do want that someone else than a local politician decides if we should devalue my bank account(because gee whiz the local politicians fucked things up way more than eu did).

Re:Can't fracture again

[nukenerd]

The [European] Union's influence ... is absolutely essential for making life bearable for millions of people. As an example ... a person moving to another state does [not] have to exchange their drivers licence any more (in my case, I would have had to change it 3 times during the last 5 years if the old rules would have applied).

Having to change a driving licence if you move to a new state your definition of "Unbearable" !? Well I have moved house, not between states, several times and it is almost unbearable dealing with removals companies, estate agents and solicitors; applying for a driving licence is trivial by comparison.

Then the vast majority of people in the world find life "bearable" without moving out of their state at all. Some people (the survivors) even found living in Auschwitz "bearable" (or they would not have survived).

Reminds me of the story of a guy rejected by his girlfriend. "I cannot bear to live without you!" he said. "So how come you are still alive then?" she asked.

Re:+1 terrifying

[lxs]

What about the Dutch Secret service?

They are mostly a sad incompetent lot fighting yesterdays wars. Each time their budget is threatened they produce a glossy report explaining that terrorists are a really real threat now.
They are creaming their pants at the thought of being allowed to play with the big boys. Then the big boys take their toys away and give nothing back.

Terrorists

[Frankie70]

They are just keeping the EU safe from terrorists

Re:That is what the NSA is *supposed* to do

[gl4ss]

...sure, survaillance done inside USA on foreign subjects inside usa.. that could still fly.

but they're moving the definition so that as long as the operators are inside usa they're free to hack globally. of course this is a legal pothole since when it's the other way around they argue that it is indeed the other way around and the hackers are committing crimes on american soil to be tried with american laws..

Why are we focusing on the wrong problem?

[Seumas]

More than half of the discussion I hear recently is about how awful it is that the US is spying on other countries. I'm baffled by this. Of course we spy on other countries. And they spy on us. And each other. That's what the CIA/NSA/KGB/etc are for. That's their role, am I incorrect?

The issue isn't "ermagherd, we're spyin' on other countries!". It's "holy fuck, our own government is spying on its own citizens, even though they are expressly forbidden from doing so".

Re:Why are we focusing on the wrong problem?

[rubycodez]

you are just behind, in the past it was revelation that u.s. was spying on its own citizens that had the US medias' attention. this week it is not spying, but rather the manner of spying that is the rage. it is one thing to data-gather, it is another thing to put bugs in your allies' offices. that is something one normally does to enemies. we are treating our allies as enemies, that is the problem. they don't like that.

Re:Why are we focusing on the wrong problem?

[Arker]

It's more than that, the issue is a state apparatus completely gone out of control and we are just seeing signs of it. Contrary to all the faux-sophisticates in this thread, spying isnt a matter of everyone does it and anything goes. Of course intelligence agencies *gather data* but bugging diplomats is quite illegal in most circumstances, both under international and domestic law. It also tends to piss people off. Spying on a nation you are at war with is expected, yes. Spying on your own allies is just a dick move though.

These American people, embarrasment that we are to our founding fathers, dont seem to grasp matters of principle anymore at all. So we (present company excluded of course) seem not to give a damn how many of those funny foreigners our government spies on, burns alive, kidnaps and tortures, etc. Only when we find out they are doing it to us does some dim remnant of intelligence cause us to furrow our brow. But as long as they are only attacking foreigners so many of us seem to lap it up. And so we have a vicious cycle, the more foreigners our government maims or murders or mistreats in whatever way, the more foreigners there are that want to kill us. And the more they want to kill us, the more the populace clamors for yet another bucket of gasoline to be poured on the fire. But when we find out that the machine built to use against the filthy foreigners has been turned against them, THEN we suddenly discover that there are laws and principles to be respected. Hah.

On the other hand, our allies are countries like ours with rulers who give lip service to democratic forms but think no more of their peasants than those in DC think of the rest of us. THEY dont mind a bit that the NSA is spying on us little people, in fact they are overjoyed at the opportunity to sidestep their own laws and share information with the US, so that the US gives them information on their own citizens they are legally prohibited from collecting. But the revelation that this same machine they are so happy to collaborate with targets them directly as well... oh, suddenly they are outraged.

It's a game of hypocrisy and all sides reek. Karma is coming and I bet she'll be a bitch. Unfortunately a lot of innocent people will wind up getting hurt.

EDIT: MUCH WORSE: Normal EU citizens also being

[rodia]

Instead of
"... the NSA also massivcely spies on the german public."
should it be
"...on the german population."?
"Spying on the public" seems kind of silly when I look at it now.

Good luck with that

[Hentes]

We made our bureaucracy so vast it's impossible on spy on all of it.

You think they are the only nations that spy?

[Sycraft-fu]

Pick the nation, I can likely name the intelligence agency. How about Canada? Those nice Canadians surely don't have one. Oh wait, they have the CSIS, modeled after the British SIS. Ok well not the Norwegians, I mean they are such a wonderful country. Oh, no, wait, they have four of them, three mostly foreign (NIS, FOST, NSM), one mostly domestic (PST).

I really can go on for basically any nation. Nations have collected intelligence on each other for basically as long as we've had nations. This shouldn't surprise you if you've studied history at all. There are also some fairly recent (in historical terms) events that remind nations of the importance of intelligence, like the second world war.

That the US spies shouldn't surprise you. If you think it shouldn't, ok that is valid, but understand it would be essentially the only nation that doesn't. You also might want to learn up on problems that would cause, and then see if you are still ok with the tradeoff.

The EU doesn't, but members do

[Sycraft-fu]

The UK's SIS is one of the all-time legends of the intelligence community. Not surprising, given the importance that intelligence played in WWII and the threat that the UK faced. The SIS is one of the best of the best. Likewise France's DGSE is a pretty heavy hitter, with a number of publicly known operations (and likely many more not known) and a six hundred million Euro annual budget.

So ya, the EU itself has no central intelligence agency, but if you think its members don't, well then you haven't bothered to check.

In case you are wondering, they HAVE in fact killed people. One example that is publicly known? The DGSE sunk a Greenpeace ship in New Zealand, which killed one person. It was called Opération Satanique.

So sorry to burst your bubble about the EU and members being nothing but noble, but they are nations, with interests, just like all the others and they have intelligence agencies to that end.

I wish Sneakers was true...

[turp182]

NO MORE SECRETS

I watched the movie last week and Snowden was in my mind while doing so (to be fair, Assange was in my mind last time I watched it, earlier this year).

Everyone is a suspect. Or so it seems.

Why is this news?

[argStyopa]

Everyone spies on everyone, even their friends, in case friends turn out to be enemies.

Jesus people, this is geopolitics 101 going back to the Assyrians and the Babylonians.

Only in this, the most-informed but apparently most-naive culture in human history, could this possibly be a surprise.

Re:Cool, the NSA is doing their job

[PPH]

At this point, it's looking more like his goal is notariety at the expense of us all.

Right now, he's stuck in the international terminal in Moscow (as far as we know), incommunicado. So what we know about his actions subsequent to his own statements may very well be manufactured.

If you are going to assassinate somebody* (character or otherwise), the first thing you have to do is cut off their communications and replace that with your own PR.

* In what passes for a democracy. A totalitarian regime would just say "Fuck public opinion" and carry on.

Re:That is what the NSA is *supposed* to do

[multi io]

Of *course* the NSA is intercepting foreign communications. That is their mission. That is what they are funded for.

Maybe, but Obama said that they don't spy on people lightly, and they only do it to fight terrorism. That kind of doesn't fit with bugging EU offices in Brussels.

Re:MUCH WORSE: Normal EU citizens also being spied

[the eric conspiracy]

The statement that they didn't know about it is very bad.

1. If they didn't know about it they are completely incompetent.

2. If they did know then they are lying.

Likely always has been happening

[richman555]

I believe the US has been spying like this for years. Tapping our phone conversations, planting bugs, and even sitting outside our house. Its just that technology has caught up so that alot of this information is digital and can be aggregated over time and searchable. Honestly, if you can't trust your government who can you trust. You hope that they use this information wisely. Also other countries would love all of this information as its a new age of espionage.

Nothing new, many decades old

[bussdriver]

Small leaks and implications by former government employees, reasonable deductions, disclosures from other nations, proper expert speculation and historical references have been telling us the sort of information that Wikileaks and Snowden have been leaking for over a generation.

The difference is that it isn't released with so much attention so the masses become aware of things that an informed elite were already aware of. Sure, you can't prove a lot of things in court or scientifically but that does not make them false. This is why you ask competent experts for their guesses and opinions; the odds are in their favor.

When the proven truth leaks out, one should go back an evaluate the experts and the winners should get higher standing. The press does not do this; less now than ever before. When somebody who just competently does a simple job like election polling, and that man becomes a celebrity genius you know the system is broken... and that is a rare situation today, most the time being correct is not rewarded.

Snowden is doing a great deal of good in his attempt to wake up the public. Diplomats KNOW all this stuff already or at least suspect it - they are professional liars after all... It's complete propaganda that this changes diplomacy much, each side always suspects the other - they just get to enjoy little jabs and fake excuses to stick it to US diplomats for a while. Diplomats eat shit for a living they can handle it and continue to smile. (people who don't understand this should shut up; sadly, Americans are raised to be over confident - and scientific studies back that statement up.)

Cold War budgets didn't go down and the NSA has many times the budget as the CIA, how anybody can think they stopped doing all those things that have been leaked or declassified from that era? We may not crash planes as much but that doesn't mean that we are not giving mildly radioactive items to people we don't like...

to Young Consultants, this is a surprise

[bussdriver]

This was bound to happen when the government privatizes it's services. It is extremely foolish and moronic to take such secretive organizations and begin to privatize them.

The GOOD thing is naive young consultants gain access to things that were out of reach (until they were ready) and can let the public and officials know definitively what is going on. This is the only good aspect to this privatization religion we've subscribed to. On the flip side, we have created the largest most powerful and up-to-date private corporations in the security, intelligence, and military realms probably in modern history. They won't or don't exclusively work for 1 client...

The CIA won't be the one crashing your plane, blowing up your car or giving you cancer in the future (arguably, it has been going on since the mob hired vets.) Powerful corporations can ask their security firms to take care of people and more skillfully than a mob boss ever could. If you do catch them, they are extremely well protected. We already have some disclosures of private firms spying on activists and don't forget the mercenaries going in on their own after Katrina (where looting was not the problem... at some point the contractors will influence the news as a form of advertizing.)

Re:BFD

[maliqua]

because you finally pissed of your allies enough, lets hope the war comes soon and your fascist regime is brought to its knees quickly

Legal, illegal, oh well ...

[golodh]

I'm unsure what to think of it all.

On the one hand the NSA is one of those agencies that really seems to deliver value. And now it's being damaged by being put in the spotlight and having details of its most basic data-gathering methods advertised on the Internet. For a spy-agency, such leaks can ruin its effectiveness because smart targets can now take specific measures to evade this particular system.

And about the whole PRISM business: its such a lot of data that you really don't know what to look for. So unless you want to risk missing something vital, you collect *everything* and then scan the lot. And since you probably can't do that in real-time, you need to store it for awhile. Like e.g. the NSA seems to do with its PRISM program.

It can't come as a surprise really, in view of this slashdot story: http://slashdot.org/story/06/06/15/1829246/government-adds-consumer-databases-to-mining-queries . Remember that admiral Poindexter with his Total Information Awareness (TIA) programme? It looks as if his ideas have been implemented from the first to the last, only better.

On the other hand, I'm getting a bit worried in that the NSA really does seem to be operating outside its original brief and that politicians don't seem to be aware that it does. Of course it's terribly inefficient to have two agencies monitoring communications when one party happens to be in the US. And even if you did hand over to the FBI as soon as it involves anyone on US soil, it would probably still have to be the NSA that operates the computers.

In this respect however I was uncomfortably reminded of the following quote from Henry Kissinger:

Kissinger: Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, "The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." [laughter] But since the Freedom of Information Act, I'm afraid to say things like that. (see http://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/P860114-1573_MC_b.html )

Judging from the context he probably was only half joking. Clearly the executive arm really does have a dynamic of its own and should therefore be adequately monitored. Even if its power against well-prepared enemies might be "barely sufficient", its current abilities and modus operandi carry a definite potential for wide-spread abuse against ordinary US citizens.

The problem is of course that there is tension between being effective, cost-effective, and safe: you can only get two out of three.

Re:Legal, illegal, oh well ...

[SJHiIlman]

On the one hand the NSA is one of those agencies that really seems to deliver value.

You should become a comedian. Really.

The Kardashians are NSA CGI anyway

[billstewart]

Any time there's significant news that's bad for the NSA, they fire up the Kardashian news generators to distract the public.

NSA

[golodh]

Yes. Repeatedly explaining the blatantly obvious to people often seems to strike a comical note.

The NSA is enormously effective at intercepting communications and sifting through them. Agencies such as the CIA, FBI, USN, USAF, US Army generally depend on it for their signals intelligence. The current trouble isn't about the NSA being ineffective, it's about it being too effective and going outside its mandate.

There is no substitute for SIGINT work, in fact it's becoming increasingly important. It provides tremendous value for money in that it can dig up needles in haystacks you couldn't otherwise find.

Even if there really are people out that who don't seem to realise that.

Re:NSA

[SJHiIlman]

The NSA is enormously effective at intercepting communications and sifting through them.

I don't care. You claimed that it delivers value, and I don't consider that very valuable. I really don't care for all the warmongering; I'd rather my tax dollars go to better use.

Re:Because you know of a few examples

[khallow]

Because you know of a few examples of "failure" to manipulate power with wealth you think you have the rich pegged.

Pretty much. These are mind you, some of the best historical examples of power through wealth.

They buy and sell you my friend. You have no idea of their reach and power, nor of what they really think of you, if they bother to think about you at all.

I'm not your friend. And I think you "peg" yourself with that line of bullshit. I think you don't have a clue of their reach and power, or you wouldn't be making such a big deal of it now.