Slashdot Mirror


Brazil Admits To Spying On US Diplomats After Blasting NSA Surveillance

cold fjord writes with this excerpt from The Verge: "Brazil this week admitted to spying on diplomats from countries including the US, Russia, and Iran as part of a domestic program launched 10 years ago ... The program was first revealed in a Monday report from the newspaper Folha de São Paulo, which obtained documents from the Brazilian Intelligence Agency, commonly known as ABIN. The revelations come at a sensitive time for current Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, who has been among the most outspoken critics of the widespread surveillance conducted by the US National Security Agency (NSA). According to Folha, Brazilian intelligence spied on rooms rented out by the US embassy in Brasilia from 2003 to 2004. ... The report also claims that ABIN targeted Russian and Iranian officials, tracking their movements within the country ... Rousseff's office acknowledged Monday that the spying took place, but stressed that the operations were carried out within the law. The administration added that publishing classified documents is a crime in Brazil, and that those responsible 'will be prosecuted according to the law.' ....the revelations may put Rousseff in an awkward position. The Brazilian president cancelled a state dinner with Barack Obama earlier this year ... and lashed out against US spying in an impassioned speech to the UN in September."

239 comments

  1. sensational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    the article details some very basic surveillance of foreign personnel in the country. if brazil's intelligence service *wasn't* doing this, it would be a scandal.

    1. Re:sensational headline by rhazz · · Score: 1
      FTA:

      The operations outlined in Monday's report are unquestionably modest compared to the NSA surveillance

      .

    2. Re:sensational headline by laie_techie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the article details some very basic surveillance of foreign personnel in the country. if brazil's intelligence service *wasn't* doing this, it would be a scandal.

      I agree, but the article is apropos due to the fact that Brazil feigned shock and horror at the US spying on them recently. Pot, meet kettle.

    3. Re:sensational headline by RaceProUK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This was spying on a few diplomats within Brazil's borders, not massive wire-tapping on a global scale. So it's not so much pot meet kettle, it's pot meet country music star Dollie Parton.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    4. Re:sensational headline by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well.. usa spying _in_ brazil vs brazil spying _in_ brazil.

      at least brazil also has it's armed forces do the killing _in_ brazil.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:sensational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This sounds like good old-fashioned actual national security work - keeping track of what agents of other countries are doing on your soil.

      As opposed to illegal operations within the territories of allied countries. Or to totalitarian circumvention of checks and balances and due process.

    6. Re: sensational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, and when you bring up the topic of US spying in US, where does that discussion go?

      Double standards all the way down

    7. Re:sensational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the article details some very basic surveillance of foreign personnel in the country. if brazil's intelligence service *wasn't* doing this, it would be a scandal.

      I agree, but the article is apropos due to the fact that Brazil feigned shock and horror at the US spying on them recently. Pot, meet kettle.

      Not really, NSA is dragnet surveiling everyone, including normal citizens. Spying on diplomats is pretty par for the course, especially when you grant them special rights within your borders (e.g. diplomatic immunity). I'm not claiming it's ideal, just that it's not really a pot and kettle situation.

    8. Re: sensational headline by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      When 'spies' from the diplomatic corps are leaving the embassy, they are being tailed in every country of the world you can imagine and they will try to shake their pursuers off. That are just ordinary counter-intelligence operations as opposed to NSA's spying on ordinary citizens (including citizens of their own country) on a widespread scale. The two issues are barely related to each other.

    9. Re:sensational headline by poetmatt · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Also notably, they admitted it - it didn't have to be leaked, in contrast to the shit we've been pulling in the US.

    10. Re:sensational headline by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      Dollie Parton doesn't need to meet the pot, she's well acquainted...

    11. Re:sensational headline by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a matter of capability. They spy to the level they can manage. Lacking global corporations like the US has they make do with what they have.

    12. Re: sensational headline by ewibble · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its not about spying, I would be surprised if there was a country that didn't spy. It is about scale, when you start spying on everyone, indiscriminately it is a problem.

      The government should put under surveillance people that they have reason to suspect of a crime, or has some important information, not just anyone.

      It surprises me when there is outrage when spying happens diplomatic figures like Angela Merkel, but not when it is done on everyone. They are people in positions of power who's decisions may have serious implications, what do you expect? It goes to show the politicians think that privacy is important, but just their own.

      But when you start spying on everyone, no matter who they are, no matter what they have done, then you are now granting the spies far too much unnecessary power.

    13. Re:sensational headline by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      I probably should have mentioned that since my wife is Brazilian (and recent recipient of a green card), we have been following the whole situation quite closely.

    14. Re:sensational headline by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      And you would bet your life that Brazil does not listen into any IP traffic in it's borders? Want to bet that they also have listening posts to pick up any OTA em they can. Best of all the line that leaks like this are illegal and the leakers will be prosecuted.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    15. Re:sensational headline by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Do you have some insider information on the scope of Brazilian surveillance operations or are you just going out of your way to justify demonizing only the US operations. You know sort of like the Brazilian president has been doing. And the massive world wide wire-tapping seems to be a cooperative venture amongst all the other countries on the planet collecting and sharing data on their own citizens with the US. Brazil will not be the last country to step up and admit all their denigrating and histrionics over the US programs were nothing but hypocritical lies created for a domestic audience.

    16. Re:sensational headline by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      I'm going on what's been reported - that's all the info I have to go on.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    17. Re: sensational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One should fully expect the government of a country to spy on foreign nationals within their own borders. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I don't think anyone will seriously cry foul about that. The problem with the USA is that 1) the US government is spying on foreigners in their own countries and 2) the US government is spying on Americans. It doesn't appear (so far) that ABIN is doing that.

    18. Re:sensational headline by martinQblank · · Score: 1

      I understand that it is Willie Nelson who prefers to meet pot.

    19. Re:sensational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so far, so we really don't know the extent of Brazil's intelligence operations.

      It's probably safe to say that they didn't monitor the phone calls of the Angela Merkel, and trawl all of the internet traffic in the world, only to use the gathered data to sneakily get commercially sensitive information and pass it on to major businesses.

      Which is something that only the Chinese do, because they can't do anything original (or some such bullshit).

    20. Re:sensational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, but we punish according to the crime committed and intended.

      You can't put a disabled man in prison for murder claiming that "if he was able-bodied, he might have done". Brazil didn't execute massive international intrusion, and the US did.

    21. Re:sensational headline by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Don't worry - as soon as the proposed requirement for all information systems involved with doing business in Brazil be hosted in Brazil is in full effect, the Brazilian intelligence service agents will have better opportunities. You know - assuming the NSA hasn't poisoned the well and tipped everyone off by then.

    22. Re:sensational headline by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      cute...not a good analogy but cute.

    23. Re:sensational headline by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      This was spying on a few diplomats within Brazil's borders, not massive wire-tapping on a global scale.

      right, and i suppose wire tapping is some moral line that brazil refuses to cross?

      everyone spies on everyone else to the best of their ability. i really don't think it's up to each nation to evaluate the skills of every other country and ensure they aren't spying more than they are being spied upon.

    24. Re:sensational headline by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Do you have some insider information on the scope of Brazilian surveillance operations

      no, but we don't have the naive minds of a child either. this is like the guy that holds up a 7-11 condemning a bank robber. they only reason he's not robbing a bank as well is because he doesn't have the means.

    25. Re:sensational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only been one leak.... so far, so we really don't know the extent of Brazil's intelligence operations.

      You are implying there's (much) more without any evidence. Of course, that's expected, coming from you.

      As a major regional power with aspirations for wider global influence it's practically impossible to believe that Brazil doesn't engage in much broader espionage than what has been revealed in this report.

      It's practically impossible for you, you mean. It's certainly very possible for anyone else to believe that Brazil doesn't engage in "much broader espionage" (your words) than what has been revealed in this report.

      Brazil has an international initiative to build a regionally focused internet section with direct connection to other regions. How do we know that part of Brazil's actual intent isn't to make it easier to spy on its neighbors?

      We don't. And neither do we know, despite your implications.

      They have all the plans to do it in country, and we already know that the data is available to a Brazilian.

      You sure love making unsubstantiated claims and implied conclusions. That's not a good thing.

    26. Re: sensational headline by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      Totally agree. Monitoring the activities of foreign diplomats in your own country is standard operating procedure. To be expected. This story is interned to confuse the ignorant and weak-minded.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    27. Re: sensational headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to admit to spying on your wife.

  2. Brazil spies on us? by jdmuskrat · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    oh shock, oh horrors, oh whatever. why am I not surprised. let he\she who is without sin cast the first stone.

    1. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Huh?

      How is spying on foreign diplomats the same as mass surveillance of the ordinary citizens of your own country?

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Brazil spies on us? by morcego · · Score: 3, Funny

      Using "he\she" when talking about the Brazilian president is oddly appropriate...

      --
      morcego
    3. Re:Brazil spies on us? by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Beautiful switch you did there, substituting "mass surveillance" for "spying on diplomats." I wonder how many people will notice?

      By the way, how do you know that Brazil both doesn't do it, and isn't heading in that direction if they aren't?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Gryle · · Score: 2

      Brazil wasn't upset with the US spying on its own citizens. Brazil got upset that the US spied on the Brazilian president and administration, with the Brazilian president postponing a trip to the US as a way of expressing anger. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/world/americas/brazils-leader-postpones-state-visit-to-us.html?_r=0).

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    5. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a US diplomat in Brazil?

    6. Re:Brazil spies on us? by erikkemperman · · Score: 2

      Read the article.

      Should they have been slightly less self-righteous when "blasting the US" last time? Sure.
      Does this even remotely compare to the practices of NSA regarding foreign (allied) heads of state? Nu-uh.

      The main difference is that this is happening on Brazilian soil.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    7. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      oh shock, oh horrors, oh whatever. why am I not surprised.
      let he\she who is without sin cast the first stone.

      cold fjord is simply a government shill trying to deflect blame off the NSA by the "but they do it too"!! Despite the situations being different.

    8. Re:Brazil spies on us? by erikkemperman · · Score: 1

      BTW The difference between "mass surveillance" and "spying on diplomats" (foreign diplomats as guest in ones own country, that is) is exactly what this is about, so I'm not sure why you're accusing GP of trying to sneak a switch past us.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    9. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Informative

      I thought Brazil was also upset about this:

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

      (Government harassment of Brazilian journalists who expose NSA mass surveillance for the non-clickers).

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Brazil spies on us? by minstrelmike · · Score: 3, Informative

      How is spying on foreign diplomats the same as mass surveillance of the ordinary citizens of your own country?

      They aren't the same.
      Brazil however doesn't give a shit if America spies on its own citizens.
      Brazil was upset because America spied on Brazilian citizens.
      Different perspectives.

    11. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to say "spreading misinformation whenever possible".

      What bothers me most is cold fjord's evident dishonesty. But scruples is unfortunately rare nowadays.

    12. Re:Brazil spies on us? by alexgieg · · Score: 2

      how do you know that Brazil both doesn't do it, and isn't heading in that direction if they aren't?

      Because here in Brazil the government underfunds everything military or related due to the fact that since two decades every civilian government we've had was composed of people who were enemies and/or were persecuted by said military during our dictatorship, and hence deeply, deeply dislike them.

      ABIN in particular is a joke. They have no actual technological prowess nor are they going to develop any. Maybe on the very long-term they do, but right now nope, not a chance.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    13. Re:Brazil spies on us? by iamgnat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The main difference is that this is happening on Brazilian soil.

      Actually I think the main difference is technical superiority. If the <insert country upset about the NSA that also has their own spying programs> had the same capabilities as the US, does anyone in the real world really believe that they wouldn't be doing the same damn thing? In espionage you don't say "well we could tap the phones of the leader of the target country/organization, but that wouldn't be nice so we'll just tap the low level people instead". The whole point of what any of these agencies do is to get as deep into their target as possible.

      I'm not excusing some of the things the NSA has done. I'm just pointing out that there is no large scale government out there that doesn't have a spying program and those spying programs are equally as greedy as those in the US (even if they aren't as capable).

    14. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the "technical superiority" argument against a BRIC nation...

    15. Re:Brazil spies on us? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Well, see, first you need to REALLY REALLY REALLY want the US to be "the good guy" in this situation and all situations. Then you'll see how they're the same.

    16. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh shock, oh horrors, oh whatever. why am I not surprised.
      let he\she who is without sin cast the first stone.

      Look, calm down, calm down. If you'd just RTFA for once, you'd understand this was Brazil spying on someone else. Since that's a different country than the US doing the spying, it's A-OK and a model example for other countries! See?

    17. Re:Brazil spies on us? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I certainly wouldn't disparage the ability of Brazilian programmers. In fact Brazil is actually an under appreciated powerhouse in that regard based on what I have seen. I also wouldn't doubt that many of them are proud Brazilians willing to assist their government if asked to do so.

      Even if Brazil isn't currently engaged in espionage, it has much more potential than many people give it credit for. Even in military affairs this is true. After all, it was Brazil that taught the Chinese many lessons about operating aircraft carriers.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    18. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Read the article.

      Should they have been slightly less self-righteous when "blasting the US" last time? Sure. Does this even remotely compare to the practices of NSA regarding foreign (allied) heads of state? Nu-uh.

      The main difference is that this is happening on Brazilian soil.

      Got it. It's not what you do but where. So as long as the NSA ensures its collection activities occur on US soil it's OK.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    19. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Xest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes actually.

      Countries like France and Germany have larger economies than the UK so could trivially be doing the same kind of blanket spying GCHQ has been doing but they don't.

      So yes I genuinely believe there are countries who don't do what the NSA and GCHQ does, not because they can't, not even because they can't afford to, but because they either realise it's morally unacceptable, or that spying on your average citizen is just going to land you with more data than you can possibly do anything useful with which is why the Boston bombings still happened and why a soldier was still brutally murdered on British streets despite the people who committed those acts being known to the security services in both cases.

      Staff at the NSA and GCHQ were probably just too busy giggling to themselves about some intercepted teenagers cybersex session that they stumbled across randomly to spot the guys that the Russian and South African security services had explicitly warned them about before it was too late.

      There are both moral and logical reasons for not doing broad blanket surveillance of everyone you can as opposed to classic focussed intelligence work and the NSA and GCHQ are the only ones who don't seem to get that which is why despite their "technical superiority" coupled with no shortage of old school warnings about specific individuals by allies and enemies alike the US and UK are still both the most prominent targets of and arguably the largest victims to terrorism in the West.

      Pretending "they're just jealous that they can't do this" which is what you're basically implying just gives them an excuse that is not valid and that they do not deserve.

    20. Re:Brazil spies on us? by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Trusting fool. How do you know the don't? Because they say so?

      France in particular has a long history of spying on _everyone_. Their national intelligence agencies even work for private companies, just to help them make sales.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    21. Re:Brazil spies on us? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Beautiful switch you did there, substituting "mass surveillance" for "spying on diplomats." I wonder how many people will notice?

      By the way, how do you know that Brazil both doesn't do it, and isn't heading in that direction if they aren't?

      Does the Brazilian Constitution prohibit their government from searching citizens without a warrant? Because the American Constitution does.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    22. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is strong evidence that the U.S. illegally spies on many millions if not billions of citizens of other countries, in which they have no right to do so at all. This article suggests that the Brazillian government spies on specific persons in Brazil, quite likely completely within the bounds of Brazillian law. One might have legitimate concerns about that, but it is definitely something completely different.

    23. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it happens on U.S. soil it is an internal affair of the U.S., unless international agreements are violated. It would merely mean that sane individuals and companies would need to cease transferring data to that country (and perhaps doing business with it). The problem is that they also do it abroad, which means that an individual cannot easily prevent data theft by American government agencies.

    24. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes actually.

      Countries like France and Germany have larger economies than the UK so could trivially be doing the same kind of blanket spying GCHQ has been doing but they don't.

      Interesting reasoning, but please provide a reference to support it, otherwise it is just "argumentative".

      So yes I genuinely believe there are countries who don't do what the NSA and GCHQ does, not because they can't, not even because they can't afford to, but because they either realise it's morally unacceptable, or that spying on your average citizen is just going to land you with more data than you can possibly do anything useful with which is why the Boston bombings still happened and why a soldier was still brutally murdered on British streets despite the people who committed those acts being known to the security services in both cases.

      Staff at the NSA and GCHQ were probably just too busy giggling to themselves about some intercepted teenagers cybersex session that they stumbled across randomly to spot the guys that the Russian and South African security services had explicitly warned them about before it was too late.

      There are both moral and logical reasons for not doing broad blanket surveillance of everyone you can as opposed to classic focussed intelligence work and the NSA and GCHQ are the only ones who don't seem to get that which is why despite their "technical superiority" coupled with no shortage of old school warnings about specific individuals by allies and enemies alike the US and UK are still both the most prominent targets of and arguably the largest victims to terrorism in the West.

      Moral reasons never apply to spying. Ever. It's always about trying to find out out what the other side "knows" and then verifying that position is true or false.

      As for "why" the US or GCHQ can do "dragnet data collections"? Because they can? Because they were the 2 leading spy agencies during World War 2 and nothing has changed? Because the other european countries are more interested in their regional politics rather than world politics?

      Pretending "they're just jealous that they can't do this" which is what you're basically implying just gives them an excuse that is not valid and that they do not deserve.

    25. Re:Brazil spies on us? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      France?

      http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/14/news/14iht-spy_.html?pagewanted=1

      Notice the article is from the NY Times and quotes NBC news, two ultra liberal media outlets that normally slobber all over France's ass and any other socialist country. I mention this just to avert the all so common "Faux News" diatribe.

    26. Re:Brazil spies on us? by iamgnat · · Score: 3

      Countries like France and Germany have larger economies than the UK so could trivially be doing the same kind of blanket spying GCHQ has been doing but they don't.

      International spying is not a trivial thing that is solved purely by money. China, Russia, the UK, and the USA are the only major players because they are the ones that have been doing it for a long time (China is the upstart, but there are multiple reasons for their quick up take beyond just money) and continue to focus on it.

      I would agree that some of those countries focus their resources in other places which indeed impacts the technical ability (both toys and ability to use them effectively) of their agencies, but if they suddenly redirected resources it wouldn't change things in the near term.

      So yes I genuinely believe there are countries who don't do what the NSA and GCHQ does, not because they can't,

      I'm sorry, but you are childishly naive about human nature if you truly believe that. For it's security a nation needs to know as much as possible about both it's friends and foes. That is an undeniable fact. The question becomes one of balance with the other things that is expected of the government. A central similarity between the main players is that they have allowed (willingly or not) their governments to go to extreme ends for "safety".

      I would also point out that a few months ago the average American would have (equally naively) argued that the US doesn't go to the levels that has now been made clear. Just because a spy agency hasn't been caught doing such things doesn't mean that they aren't doing it and to trust that they aren't is sticking your head in the sand.

      Pretending "they're just jealous that they can't do this" which is what you're basically implying just gives them an excuse that is not valid and that they do not deserve.

      I'm not pretending anything. The whole point of spying is to get as much data as you can about the target. That's it. Nothing more. The problem comes into when there is little or no oversight to control how far that goes. In the US the oversight (such that it is) isn't ruled by some moral compass (and I doubt it is in most other places either). Such oversight is done through politics so each decision comes down to either "how can I benefit" or "how will this hurt me" in regards to the political career. There is no room for purity in successful politics or spying.

    27. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do we know you aren't a shill for the Brazilian intelligence services trying to deflect blame from them?

    28. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      Trusting fool. How do you know the don't? Because they say so?

      What evidence do you have to support the claim?

      Perhaps all governments are run by people with similar traits that would lead to spying on friends... or perhaps you have a cultural bias. Who knows?

    29. Re:Brazil spies on us? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What evidence do you have to support the claim?

      History. Particularly the frog spying related to sales of airplanes to the Saudis.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re:Brazil spies on us? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      By the way, how do you know that Brazil both doesn't do it, and isn't heading in that direction if they aren't?

      The same way we know you aren't killing babies in satanistic rituals in your basement: we don't, we just have no reason to suspect it. And neither do you, you're just desperately trying to justify US government's actions for whatever reason. Care to explain why? Because, even for an excuse, "they might be thinking of doing it too" is beyond pathetic and bordering on pitiful.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    31. Re:Brazil spies on us? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2

      The history shows that countries gather intelligence on each other in any way they can. It would be irresponsible not to do so. Based on anything I know about international diplomacy I would be absolutely amazed if any country refrains from gathering data for ANY reason other than actual inability to do so. Of course US has more power in this regard than Brazil but I'm pretty sure countries like China and Russia are doing everything US is doing and more.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    32. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is not enough information to reach a conclusion. OTOH, cold fjord and his sock puppets work hard to get the propaganda across.

    33. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Useless analogy.

      If Brazil spies on diplomats, to me that is a pretty clear reason to suspect that there might be additional surveillance taking place. It doesn't mean that it is taking place, but it doesn't pass the straight face test to say there is "no reason to suspect it".

    34. Re:Brazil spies on us? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Should I change the gender of the world "president" in english too?

    35. Re:Brazil spies on us? by stenvar · · Score: 2

      Rousseff doesn't give a f*ck about whether the NSA spies on Americans and that's not what she was complaining about.

      Rousseff was complaining about American surveillance of Brazilian diplomatic staff, and that makes her a hypocrite.

    36. Re:Brazil spies on us? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Based on anything I know about international diplomacy I would be absolutely amazed if any country refrains from gathering data for ANY reason other than actual inability to do so.

      You must not have followed news lately, then, since the whole outrage - whether real or opportunistic acting - over US spying implies there's a potential cost for data gathering operations. Even completely amoral sociopaths tend to engage in simple cost-benefit analysis before acting. Which points to yet another reason why even countries who aren't outraged might want to put more distance between themselves and the US: this whole affair shows remarkably poor judgement on NSA's part.

      Even if every country is indeed evil, it still doesn't follow they're all stupid too.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    37. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      let he\she who is without sin cast the first stone.

      I haven't spied on anyone. Can I throw rocks at these people?
      (oh please oh please oh please oh please oh please...)

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    38. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The frog, as you put it, was thevictim that time, of the UK using Echelon to spy on "the frog" to tip the process BAE's way. They bought the Saudi hypocites out with booze and prostitutes, and flogged them shit British planes instead of the Mirage 2000s the Saudi Airforce wanted. The Al Yammama deal.

    39. Re:Brazil spies on us? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Happened more then once. Sometimes the frogs win sometimes they lose.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    40. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Xest · · Score: 2

      I'm not a trusting fool, I'm just not a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

      GCHQ got caught because it did it with the Americans. How exactly would France etc. get away with it? You don't think GCHQ etc. would find their cable taps when placing their own at key UK transit points as the NSA had to do?

      We know France isn't doing large scale internet tapping for the simple reason they'd be named in the NSA files alongside GCHQ and Australia intelligence services.

      The rest of your post just confused targeted spying which I never said they didn't do our argued against with the dragnet operations of global internet and telephony data that I was talking about but you obviously missed that in your bile fueled nationalist rage about the suggestion that anyone could dare suggest the the five eyes nations were doing this on a far worse scale than anyone else.

    41. Re: Brazil spies on us? by mtthws · · Score: 1

      Now that you have gotten done feeling superior, how do you explain the fact the EU citizens that where spied on by the US had their info given to the NSA by their own intelligence agencies?

      --
      "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." -- Mark Twain
    42. Re: Brazil spies on us? by mtthws · · Score: 1

      If you actually take the time to look at some of the material that has been published and ignore the hype people like greenwald put in to push their point of view rather than report on what is actually there you would actually see a lot more protections and checks than is being reported generally. Also it is amazing how often after some sensational article comes out, when it gets more scrutiny it turns out to not really be all that damming. Probably the most telling thing is that even with people going out of their way to look for evil intent they have so far only shown the possibility of abuse, not the actual large scam systematic abuses everyone worries about. Yes, there appears to be some large scale collection programs, but in today's world it does not seem like there is any way to do intelligence gathering any other way. This is not the 40s where every phone call occurred on its own individually hand switched circuit anymore. And phone calls now are really just a minor part of what is going around.

      --
      "Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." -- Mark Twain
    43. Re:Brazil spies on us? by morcego · · Score: 1

      Well, she is kinda genderless herself, so...

      --
      morcego
    44. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Xest · · Score: 1

      "International spying is not a trivial thing that is solved purely by money. China, Russia, the UK, and the USA are the only major players because they are the ones that have been doing it for a long time (China is the upstart, but there are multiple reasons for their quick up take beyond just money) and continue to focus on it."

      Nonsense. Israel and France have two of the best spying agencies in the world and plenty of other nations have massive capability for this sort of thing, including many of our enemies. North Korea being the obvious example. The list you provided is just a reflection of your ethnocentric views about who the world's big boys are more than anything.

      "I'm sorry, but you are childishly naive about human nature if you truly believe that. For it's security a nation needs to know as much as possible about both it's friends and foes. That is an undeniable fact."

      After your ad-hominem attack you now seem to have trailed completely off-topic into the realm of general spying. I never argued countries don't spy in general, I argued that they don't engage in massively costly and arguably ineffective (at least very much so relative to the cost) dragnet operations.

      "I would also point out that a few months ago the average American would have (equally naively) argued that the US doesn't go to the levels that has now been made clear. Just because a spy agency hasn't been caught doing such things doesn't mean that they aren't doing it and to trust that they aren't is sticking your head in the sand."

      Yes, and I've long been pointing out that the US has been engaging in hypocrisy by complaining about Chinese cyber-attacks all the while getting involved in things like Stuxnet. But none of this means that everything is based on assumption.

      There are two reasons I made the argument I did, the first regarding not wanting to get involved in that sort of operation we'll use the example of France. The dragnet operations have relied on tapping communications across the two main bottlenecks in the globe - the Atlantic, and the Pacific. On the Atlantic side the NSA led operation has had to tap conduits in five-eyes nations such as the UK, US and Canada to capture as much transatlantic data transfer as they can. On the Pacific side it's been the other two five-eyes nations - Australia and New Zealand. It's now well established that the US also tried to involved Japan but that they opted not to get involved for the same reasons I'm arguing France hasn't - because it's too costly relative to the benefit (or lack of) because once you have that data you have to do something with it and you're just going to end up with a larger noise ratio of false positives to actual useful intel.

      So to go it alone, France would have to infiltrate NSA/GCHQ facilities and place it's own equipment and lay it's own cables to pipe the data out somewhere, something which it's obviously not going to be able to do. France has no transatlantic or pacific links of it's own outside five-eyes jurisdiction but within it's jurisdiction that it could tap. At best it has ex-colonial land or ex-colonial allies who may assist it in a similar project in the Africa-Middle East region which would be valuable to the NSA/GCHQ project as an addition, but not much benefit by itself.

      If a nation like France wanted to get involved the most simple route would've been to join the NSA/GCHQ in their endeavour and add to their network but like Japan it obviously opted not to because again, it's expensive and it nets what exactly? I don't see any greater decrease in terrorist attacks, I don't see any effective improvements in five-eyes business opportunities compared to the general economy before these programs were in place (in fact the UK has now slipped behind Germany and France as an economic power despite this advantage) - countries like France and Japan got this too, they realise it's a waste of money.

      But then there's the other side of the coin, Germany, Germany wouldn't get involved because it genuinely doesn't wan

    45. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To me ?

      Yeah to me it would be great... All I would have to do is just avoid the states, and I already do that since flying through the states is a pain in the ass (only place in the world I know that makes you do customs for a connecting flight).

      So please... if you could just limit your mass surveillance to yourselves, that would please me very much.

    46. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting point man !

      I've lived for years in Brazil, and the police in Brazil is something I really appreciate in comparison to Canada and USA.

      Simply put, Brazillian police officers are gangsters, and blatently so.

      Compared with north american police officers, who are also gangsters, but are convinced that they are in the right.

      It's a great feeling when dealing with gangsters, that said gangsters don't pretend to be something they are not.

    47. Re:Brazil spies on us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tables really need to be turned around here.

      Since the USA is obviously out of control, the rest of the world has a moral obligation to perform mass surveillance on the Americans in general.

      Someone has to intervene, obviously the US citizens have lost control, their government is a danger to everyone else and also a danger to US citizens, so a collective intervention is definitely called for.

      Let's liberate the americans from thier evil 'democratic' overloards, who's with me !

  3. As Barney would say... by mu51c10rd · · Score: 3, Funny

    I spy on you...
    You spy on me...
    We're a spying family...
    With a great wiretap and a dead drop from me to you...
    Why can't we just spy on everyone too?

  4. Everybody Spies on Everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And we always have. We always will. It doesn't matter if it's an ally or an enemy - everybody spies on everybody else. Additionally, everybody knows that this happens.

    It isn't even a problem when it is discovered - it's more of a game than anything else. Gotcha! Caught you spying! Oh, you naughty person! Tee-hee! Now we get to beat you up in the media for a bit as a penalty for your mistake, and then we can get back into it.

    1. Re:Everybody Spies on Everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you said is very wrong, the Brazilians were not caught spying everyone, they were spying actually good targets (individuals involved in crimes against their national security and international laws) on their own soil. That is very different from spying everyone and you would be outraged if the Brazilians were spying you American citizen who did nothing wrong (besides not taking care of your corrupt government).

  5. Sause for the goose by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Sauce for the goose? Or is it crow? I wonder how they prepare crow in Brazil?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Sause for the goose by Night64 · · Score: 1

      Sauce for the goose? Or is it crow? I wonder how they prepare crow in Brazil?

      Well, we don't. The common crow isn't found in Brazil. We have Azure Jays and White-naped Jays (same family, different genus, I believe). But what "sauce for the crow" means? Sorry to ask, but English is my second language.

      --
      Grey's Law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
    2. Re:Sause for the goose by laie_techie · · Score: 2

      Sauce for the goose? Or is it crow? I wonder how they prepare crow in Brazil?

      Crow is rare in Brazil, but they'd probably try it churrasco or rodizio style. Slather it with sal grosso, spit it, and cook it over flames. gostoso!

    3. Re:Sause for the goose by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      He's mixing metaphors. "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" is one, and "eating crow" is another.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Sause for the goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    5. Re:Sause for the goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Eating a crow = when you say something wrong, admit it and it leaves a "bitter taste" in your mouth.
      Sauce for the goose = "Don't do against the others what you don't want to be made against you."

      And don't touch our Azure Jays, it'll be our national bird someday.

    6. Re:Sause for the goose by dmbasso · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it tastes much worse in America. To blather America is the bastion of freedom and human rights, just to later be proven war criminals* and torturers, with complete disregard for its own constitution and international laws, and clearly going in the way to a police state.

      And just to be clear, I'm talking about the American *government* (yeah, your employer, cold fjord), not the American population, which unfortunately stays mostly anesthetized through all these wrongdoings.

      * e.g. in the Collateral Murder video, or the recently atoned Vietnam war files

      --
      `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    7. Re:Sause for the goose by dave420 · · Score: 1

      When Brazil gets caught spying on millions of people around the world, you'd have a point. Or bugging the phones of dozens of allied leaders. Just spying on a few diplomats in their own country is hardly the same. But I'm sure to you they're identical, as that easily allows your simmering brain to relax slightly, safe in the knowledge that even if the US is doing something bad (which you'd sorely hate, and refuse to believe even in the face of evidence), someone else is doing something too, even if it doesn't compare to what the US is doing in the slightest.

    8. Re:Sause for the goose by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Collateral murder video was not a war crime. No matter how much it was edited.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Sause for the goose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really going back to 1970?

    10. Re:Sause for the goose by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      The president of Brazil explicitly condemned spying on diplomats in her speech at the UN. Brazil has been revealed to spy on diplomats. It's not a subtle point, and very little counting is required to understand it.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  6. Kind of like some of those gay bashers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    A lot of the most outspoken ones are in the closet themselves.

  7. Not quite the same... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comparing routine counter-intelligence operations with direct tapping of communications from a Head of State is, at the very least, an exaggeration.

    1. Re:Not quite the same... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparing routine counter-intelligence operations with direct tapping of communications from a Head of State is, at the very least, an exaggeration.

      I don't know about that....just because you can't doesn't mean you wouldn't. Given the resources of the NSA, how many countries would be doing the exact same thing?

    2. Re:Not quite the same... by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      Given the resources of the NSA, how many countries would be doing the exact same thing?

      The more appropriate question is 'Given the resources of the NSA, how many countries should be doing the exact same thing?'

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    3. Re:Not quite the same... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that decent countries choose not to spend the same resources on spying or war. There is no lack of money here Brazil, the government is always giving 120billion here (for a railroad) or 30bi there (to foreign auto industries) or cutting 40bi on taxes to make the market happy, having a free health system, free education, but they are not giving this kind of money to wrongdoers like army or spy agencies. If you had a decent country, you would stop financing these criminals (who kill in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan and plan to kill in Iran or disrespect international human rights treaties you've signed) and would start helping people who need, like in Detroit or suffering from your fucked up health system.

    4. Re:Not quite the same... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more appropriate question is 'Given the resources of the NSA, how many countries should be doing the exact same thing?'

      Oh, that's easy: all those countries, that feel like they have too many allies already, and would like to discard some by pissing them off.

    5. Re:Not quite the same... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Given the resources of the NSA, how many countries would be doing the exact same thing?

      The more appropriate question is 'Given the resources of the NSA, how many countries should be doing the exact same thing?'

      Until everyone is in a group-hug kumbaya fest, all of them.

  8. political theatre pure and simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a government vocal against spying is caught spying... wow... what a plot twist.

    1. Re:political theatre pure and simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a government vocal against spying is caught spying... wow... what a plot twist.

      A government vocal against international dragnet spying admits to spying... on the diplomats from the country caught using an international dragnet.

      Duh?

  9. Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I guess the big question is: Did they spy on their own people? I think that is why most Americans feel so betrayed.

    1. Re:Not surprising by lvxferre · · Score: 1

      They do. All the govs do.

      --
      Nerdy news for your nerdy needs? http://www.soylentnews.org Soylent News is people!
    2. Re:Not surprising by somersault · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference is that the US makes such a big deal about being free, that irony continues to gush uncontrollably from the whole NSA scandal, the PATRIOT act, the TSA bullshit, the constant invasions of other countries, the attempts at blocking healthcare for poorer citizens, etc, etc...

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't, and they underfund their spy agency enough to guarantee that. (I'm Brazilian)
      The only somewhat "spying powerful" government group in Brazil is the IRS equivalent, and what they do is to get some of the bank transactions and run trough mathematical models to search for evasion. But they actually have to ask for judicial authorization (no secret courts) to go trough bank accounts.

      And I think most Americans should start caring about what your government is doing outside of your borders.
      In this case, the Brazilians were not in US spying innocent American citizens, they were in Brazil spying Americans who were actually committing crimes against Brazil. But the Americans were in Brazil (so should be respecting Brazilian laws like we do when in America), spying against innocent Brazilian civilians (like me) who were no threat. As a fellow human being, I do care for your rights being violated by your agency, and I would appreciate if you cared about my rights being violated by your agency too. Besides being a "friend" nation to US, Brazil is a peaceful nation, with a small army, no terrorists and a constitution that states we won't get involved in wars outside our borders except to provide humanitarian help.

      By the way, I also care about the crimes the Brazilian army is doing Haiti supposedly providing humanitarian help (even though our army is one of the least violent ones of the "international help").

    4. Re:Not surprising by Yakasha · · Score: 1

      The difference is that the US makes such a big deal about being free, that irony continues to gush uncontrollably from the whole NSA scandal, the PATRIOT act, the TSA bullshit, the constant invasions of other countries, the attempts at blocking healthcare for poorer citizens, etc, etc...

      How does blocking Obamacare qualify as irony in regards to being free?

    5. Re:Not surprising by somersault · · Score: 1

      Well, I get that you can be "free to be sick and not afford health insurance". But any nation that's pushing freedom, should also be promoting at least a good basic quality of life for its citizens.

      I know it's a bit cliched to say by now, but if you cut down on military spending, you could easily afford for everyone to have decent health care, and I'm sure make your country greater in many other ways too. There is no rational justification for your "defence" budget being so ridiculously large.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    6. Re:Not surprising by Yakasha · · Score: 1
      Believe it or not, some people oppose Obamacare because of the how, not the what. Confusing or assuming in that regard is a big part of the demagoguery we have to deal with in politics today.

      In truth, a big chunk of the people that did oppose Obamacare were opposing it on the basis of freedom. The first thing that popped in my head when I heard it was: Here comes Orwell. That is not why I oppose it, but I do understand the argument as I do believe the Feds (Obama especially) are abusing the commerce clause to the extreme. The justification they used makes it impossible to see the limit of what impacts interstate commerce, and therefore what is in the power of the Feds to control.

  10. Holy smokes ... by pablo_max · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's almost as if governments, in general, are not to be trusted. Wow! Who would have ever imagined that their own government would do something like that? I mean, it is not as if every single government since the beginning of time as eventually gotten out of control or anything like that. Oh, wait....

    1. Re:Holy smokes ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's almost as if governments, in general, are not to be trusted.

      If you want to, you can go join a pacifist, isolationist state. I trust my government to do its job.

    2. Re:Holy smokes ... by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      I trust my government

      There's your problem. A bit of history would probably tell you that doing such a thing is not advisable.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    3. Re:Holy smokes ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm told they're really good at spying on other countries, which is one of their jobs.

  11. Weak Sauce by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This story reeks of the NSA trying to do damage control and doing a piss-poor job of it.

    As best as I can tell it boils down to brazil having tailed some foreign diplomats while they were in country. OMG! So that makes them even with the NSA breaking into anything and everything on the internet. It's totally the same!

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Weak Sauce by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      I am sure the MI5 and the FBI dont tail our allies diplomats and nothing in snowden and manning says other wise

    2. Re:Weak Sauce by Desler · · Score: 1

      Of course it is. And cold fjord is a shill, propaganda mouthpiece.

    3. Re:Weak Sauce by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You missed something.

      Brazilian intelligence spied on rooms rented out by the US embassy in Brasilia from 2003 to 2004.

      I'm pretty sure they weren't tailing foreign diplomats in a room.

      Unfortunately we don't have well over 60,000 documents on Brazilian intelligence operations to sort through to know more about what was going on.

      I'll sum this up as: Brazil caught spying, Slashdot commentator condemns US. Film at 11.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:Weak Sauce by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Lol, sweet argument.

      Your argument (and Brazil's, it seems) is that since they're a shitty country with poor capabilities they weren't as effective at spying. Therefore they have the moral high ground.

      Fucking seriously? If Brazil had the money and technology we have they'd be spying the shit out of their own people and everyone else in the world.

    5. Re:Weak Sauce by intermodal · · Score: 2

      Everyone keeps a watchful eye on diplomats. It's not even remotely like what the NSA has been up to.

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    6. Re:Weak Sauce by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Actually, they almost certainly do, as part of normal espionage practice. I'm not saying they're monitoring every time a diplomat takes a shit, but they will be keeping half an eye on their actions w.r.t. international relations.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    7. Re:Weak Sauce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, never heard of counterintelligence?

      When our intelligence guys (domestic FBI, NSA, foreign CIA) follow their intelligence guys.

    8. Re:Weak Sauce by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      oh yes keeping tabs on your formal interactions or building a profile on avowed diplomats is one thing but tailing! its what you do to people considered to be actual Intelligence officers to see who they contact and if they are running any illegals or other agents.

    9. Re:Weak Sauce by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Depends on exactly what you mean by 'tailing': you could track someone's every action, or just keep a rough itinerary of their general movements e.g. ''1pm - had lunch with PM at Nandos, 2pm - went to cinema'. Anyway, who's to say a diplomat isn't an intelligence officer? I bet someone's tried it.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    10. Re:Weak Sauce by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure they weren't tailing foreign diplomats in a room.

      You got me! They bugged a room with diplomats, which is exactly the same as scooping up everything they can get on anyone they can think of.

      I don't really have a problem with any spy agency spying on another government, that's their job and so this whole thing about Angela Merkel losing her shit is laughable. In fact its sauce for the goose since she didn't seem to have a problem when the NSA was only spying on regular people.

      This example in Brasil is just government-on-government spying and really low-key spying at that.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    11. Re:Weak Sauce by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Of course it is. And cold fjord is a shill, propaganda mouthpiece.

      No, I don't think so. I think he's just a jingoistic authoritarian. There are real people like that, living in a mental box they've built for themselves thinking it is really "the real world."

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    12. Re:Weak Sauce by Desler · · Score: 1

      No the point is that this is weak propaganda meant to deflect from the fact that the NSA is many times worse than anything Brazil is doing.

    13. Re:Weak Sauce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point by so much you must be doing it on purpose.

      Noone has said this is an excuse for the NSA spying on everyone in the world, including US citizens. What people HAVE said is that every nation spies on each other to the extent of their capabilities. The Brazilian president was not outraged that the NSA was spying on US citizens, rather that the NSA was spying on Brazilian officials. Along comes this story that demonstrates what everyone already knew, the afore-mentioned every nation spies on each other to the extent... blah blah blah.

      Noone is going to stop being outraged about NSA abuses, of which there are many, but it is foolish to be outraged over the exact things they are designed to do: gather intelligence on foreign entities and nations. Any nation NOT doing that will eventually be blind-sided, because that's the world we live in. I admire your idealism, but you are naïve as well.

    14. Re:Weak Sauce by dave420 · · Score: 1

      There are dozens of countries with more than enough money to engage in that level of spying, and yet they don't. You're just making excuses so you don't have to think your country isn't the bastion of freedom it claims to be.

    15. Re:Weak Sauce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spying on Brazilian officials IN BRAZIL. No one complained that USA spies on foreign officials in USA. But when they started to spy abroad on PRESIDENTS, Ministers and got caught they rightly so deserve all the blame.

    16. Re:Weak Sauce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are dozens of countries with more than enough money to engage in that level of spying, and yet they don't.

      My, that's an awfully definitive sentence you just typed in there. I assume you have evidence to back this? After all, the US "wasn't" spying on anyone until Snowdie showed they were, paranoid conspiracy theorist nuts notwithstanding.

    17. Re:Weak Sauce by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      actually they bugged the US embassy. which is US territory, not brazil's.

      so brazil spied on us citizens within the us. ehrmagerd!

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    18. Re:Weak Sauce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brazilian intelligence spied on rooms rented out by the US embassy in Brasilia from 2003 to 2004.

      So, it was in the first year of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's presidency. As a socialist president he probably wanted to make sure that the U.S. weren't planning a regime change in Brazil.

      Washington had just claimed to have approved and supported a coup against the Venezuelan government a year earlier.

    19. Re:Weak Sauce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There seems to be an awful lot of point missing going around...

      The other side of the story is that (wait for it) "diplomat" is a PC name for "spy". While the Minister of Parks and Recreation has a mandate to improve Parks and Recreation, the diplomat is supposed to act 1) as a mouthpiece for their home country and 2) as an intelligence gatherer for their home country.

      So, what most of the people are responding with on here boils down to "The Brazillian government admits to bugging US diplomats on their soil" (assumedly, to discover what intelligence they're gathering on Brazil) is in no way duplicitous with Brazil being outraged over the US being caught spying on foreign government officials.

      You see, if you spy on the diplomats (or diplomats target spying on government officials), that's the way the game is played -- it is a way of validating that what people tell you to your face is true. However, when you start indiscriminately collecting information on government officials that has nothing to do with diplomacy, you're not just improving diplomatic intelligence, you're into espionage territory, giving your country advantages over the target country on a commercial scale. This is historically done against countries you are at war with, or countries supporting those you are at war with -- which is why governments are outraged that it is being done against countries they thought they were "friends" with. This kind of activity basically invalidates and thumbs its nose at all sorts of trade agreements and information transfer treaties that have been set up over the past 50 years.

      Does that make the point any clearer for you?

    20. Re:Weak Sauce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong in every aspect, we choose to underfund the army and the spy agency because we are not a shitty country of people who likes to kill foreign nationals in foreign soil, we have free health care and free education instead, we think taking care of our own people is more important than killing and disrespecting laws abroad. Try checking our unemployment stats. You have no idea of how much money the government gives away to help the market, to help big companies, to create a few jobs in times of international crisis, to the free health system, etc. Fucking seriously, you assume things based on your people that are simply not true in other cultures (and not true to big part of the US as well).

      The Brazilian argument is that they were spying in individuals who we now know were involved in crimes against national security on their own national soil, all done respecting national and international laws.
      While the Americans were spying in whole nation citizens, companies and governments, all of them not involved in crimes against national security, in foreign or international soil as well as on national soil, and because of that disrespecting national and international law. And I must add that they were disrespecting Brazilian law when spying on Brazil, disrespecting international law when spying in the UN and disrespecting American national law in US as well, since they were spying your own citizens.

    21. Re:Weak Sauce by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying they're monitoring every time a diplomat takes a shit

      Actually they probably monitor when, and what's in the shit. What better way of extorting information than "We have the cure for your dysentery right here in this great cabbage Kimchi we made!

      Never put shit above shitty people, they tend to fester in the same pools.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    22. Re:Weak Sauce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually they bugged the US embassy. which is US territory, not brazil's.

      Rented by the US embassy, not actually in the embassy.

    23. Re:Weak Sauce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone tell me if this scandalous NSA shill has subverted the moderation system?

      Because I don't believe for one minute his mod points reflect community opinion.

      Oh yeah, I forgot the ./ editors regularly give him a podium, too.

    24. Re:Weak Sauce by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure renting a hotel room does not change the sovereignty of the hotel, even if it's a diplomat renting it.

    25. Re:Weak Sauce by Desler · · Score: 1

      Noone has said this is an excuse for the NSA spying on everyone in the world, including US citizens.

      cold fjord and his sockpuppets excluded, I assume?

  12. Everyone Spies on Everyone by Gryle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I fail to understand why international espionage comes as a shock to anyone. Nations (or states or political entities or nation-states or what-have-you) have been spying on each other since someone figured out that knowing more about someone than they know about you can give you an advantage.

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
    1. Re:Everyone Spies on Everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said it's a shocking to anyone? It's more like free popcorn entertainment to see who gets outed next! It's more shocking to think anyone is shocked by this.

    2. Re:Everyone Spies on Everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this is exactly the attitude that the surveillance agencies want you to have. its not shocking that agencies spy, its shocking that they are mass hoovering up information, information that taken in any way out of context could incriminate anyone. even you!

      the agencies want you to not be shocked and make posts like this, they help calm the masses and foster acceptance. they want people to say "its ok if they spy on all of us, they are protecting us"

      and before any one replies with "well if you don't have anything to hide then why make a stink" well, then can i have all of your bank information, your sin number and any of your credit card information.

      in this day and age information is control and by willfully giving it up to these agencies who have shown to have gross oversight issues you might as well sign your self up for slavery as you are giving up total control of your life. and if that's the case, well i have farm land somewhere that could use a bit of cheap labor.

    3. Re:Everyone Spies on Everyone by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I fail to understand why international espionage comes as a shock to anyone.

      There is a simple rule to understand. If the US or UK* does it, shock and outrage follows. If anyone else does it, the reaction is, "everybody does it" and a pass is given.

      * Or any other country in the Anglosphere

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:Everyone Spies on Everyone by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Not everyone thinks about international espionage for one, so that's why it's a shock to some people. And some of us are merely ACTING shocked, since acting like it was normal and okay only serves to keep big brother going.

    5. Re:Everyone Spies on Everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an there you go intentionally missing the point, shill
      of course, when you work for the Stazi, you don't mind it spying on every fucking citizen

    6. Re: Everyone Spies on Everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's like knowing there are spy satellites up in orbit, and being "shocked" when you discover the resolution of their optics.

      Doesn't keep me from watering my plants naked in the backyard.

    7. Re:Everyone Spies on Everyone by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it's scale, scope and above all where the spying is done. They are not equivalent, and nobody expects the NSA/CIA to not spy on diplomats inside the US borders, or even ones in countries with with which the US does not have good diplomatic relations. They are however expected to not spy on US citizens without very good cause, or foreign citizens in friendly countries without similar justifications. Above all, the "gather it all, let hadoop sort it out" mindset is disturbing, unjustified, and of great concern. The brazil incident is nowhere near the same, period.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    8. Re:Everyone Spies on Everyone by CowTipperGore · · Score: 2

      I fail to understand why international espionage comes as a shock to anyone.

      Look at the submitter. He's also one of the most active posters in the thread. This is propaganda from 'cold fjord' - a straw man that he builds, feigning outrage about run-of-the-mill international spying in hopes of distracting you from the massive illegal surveillance of ordinary US citizens practiced by the US government.

    9. Re:Everyone Spies on Everyone by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Because most of the outrage about foreign spying is from the uninformed. "OMG, we spy on our friends????" Last week I heard Peter King, Congressman from NY, relay a story about how a politician in France (?) was opposed to something we were doing to aid the Afghans against the Soviets. It turned out he was vested in some business venture that would have profited from a Soviet pipeline through Afghanistan (which we learned by spying on our "friends").

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    10. Re:Everyone Spies on Everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the whole issue here is that it's NOT on the same level, but the Brazilians did complain loudly about it originally.
      So when it's found out that they've been doing some questionable spying of their own, regardless of the level, there's a bit of schadenfreude evident.

    11. Re:Everyone Spies on Everyone by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Because most of the outrage about foreign spying is from the uninformed.

      Uninformed? Perhaps people are just tired of warmongering governments and people who want safety above all else.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    12. Re:Everyone Spies on Everyone by Ixpath · · Score: 1

      You have this completely backwards. Before Snowden, the NYTimes and people like you were all worked up about the Chinese hacking scandals, now it's all "everybody does it!". Everybody does not do it. Some countries are worse than others, deal with it.

    13. Re:Everyone Spies on Everyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps people are just tired of warmongering governments and people who want safety above all else.

      So I take it then that what you really want is peaceful danger? Good news for you! There is an entire political-religious system devoted to that! You can find details here. Some of the "fringe benefits" are amazing. I would stay away from cruise ships though, taking past experience as a guide you won't want to be forced to hang around.

    14. Re:Everyone Spies on Everyone by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      So I take it then that what you really want is peaceful danger?

      Does not compute.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  13. Everyone spies on everyone.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Politicians grandstanding about it is just part of the weird game that is international politics. Nobody outside some criminals at the NSA who's dirty laundry has been exposed are actually mad at Snowden, but they have to pretend to be because that's part of the game.

  14. come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously? Why woudl this be news? Everything that's happening with spying between countries is the way things are supposed to happen!

    Everyone is supposed to be spy on each other. Whenever the spies screw up and get discovered, the spied-upon party is supposed to feign offence and use it to their political advantage with the country doing spying. Even while both countries continue spying on each other and on everyone else. Now, since Brazil's spies screwed up and made public that they're doing their job, the US is supposed to throw Brazil's words back in their face or otherwise use this to gail leverage against Brazil.

    The problem is when an organization does stuff that is illegal - like the NSA and CIA spying on US citizens. It doesn't matter if the PATRIOT act said they can, because the Constitution says they cannot, and the Constitution always wins (legally speaking, USA only).

    Nothing to see here. Move along. Post real stories.

  15. Hardly the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Following agents of a foreign country inside the territory of your own country is not the same as spying on the entire conencted population of the world. One is targeted and low key, aimed at the potentially nefarious activities of foreign nationals potentially connected to foregin security services, on your own territory, the other is a gross and global invasion of privacy. a total abuse of privileged position, a collosal breach of trust that undermines the safe usage of all forms of modern communication. No modern system that contains American or British electronics or communicates with systems or over connections held on the territory of those nations or their allies, is beyond suspicion. No router, no computer, no modem, no chip, no mobile. In fact those very devices should be considered as compromised and unfit for use.

    1. Re:Hardly the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...No modern system that contains American or British electronics or communicates with systems or over connections held on the territory of those nations or their allies, is beyond suspicion. No router, no computer, no modem, no chip, no mobile. In fact those very devices should be considered as compromised and unfit for use.

      The UK agrees though they don't limit it to just American or British electronics or connections.

    2. Re:Hardly the same thing by stiggle · · Score: 2

      All US Embassy ban all civilians from bringing in consumer electronic devices.
      From: http://london.usembassy.gov/ukembmap.html
      "PLEASE DO NOT bring Electronic devices such as mobile phones, Blackberries, iPods, iPads, notebook computers, PDAs, headsets, remote-entry automobile key "fobs" or anything with a power plug or battery, as they are not allowed within the Embassy grounds."

    3. Re:Hardly the same thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they don't want stuff which might interfere with their sensitive listening equipment.

  16. I'm shocked! by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm shocked that there's spying in this casino!

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:I'm shocked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here are the sordid details of everyone in the casino, sir.

  17. They're all scum by Chas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Pretty sure that no country on earth is "clean" at this point.

    Keep this fully in mind when some country is spouting off on their outrage, or thinking about offering services because of their "strong privacy laws".

    None of these bastards, nor their successors, will hesitate for a fraction of a nanosecond if they think they'll gain something by violation of your rights.
    And if you think they will, because of something written down on a piece of paper someplace, you're fucking deluded.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  18. Spying on foreign national in your own country? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The nerve!

    Uh, I don't even think the biggest detractors of the NSA would fault the agency for legally spying on foreign diplomats who are currently on US soil. That fits squarely within any intelligence agency's mandate no matter what country you're talking about. It was the NSA's dragnet spying on Brazilian ordinary citizens and businesses through co-opted national telcos that got the Brazilian government pissed off. Not the same at all.

  19. stop changing the subject, america. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    governments routinely spy on eachother. Governments do not routinely spy wholesale on the citizens of other nations and claim it as their privilege.

    The concern remains as stated: a country that practices rendition, torture, and indefinite detention without trial is now spying on anyone and everyone. this is a country that has operated secret prisons and invaded without cause soverign nations. America bombs indiscriminately anyone it decides through secret process to be an enemy combatant with any unintentional target in the bombing posthumously declared an enemy combatant. This is a country that is perpetually at war, maintains the highest prison population in the world, and its now spying for all intents and purposes on absolutely everything and everyone. In my opinion as an American, concerns from the international community are absolutely valid and reasonable.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:stop changing the subject, america. by Pav · · Score: 1

      You often find what you look for in other people - every child knows this. The old man who shouts angrily at "those hoodlum kids" may find his sentiment confirmed, but if he thinks they're wonderful creatures deserving of a smile they may rise to his expectation. In the 80's America looked for heroes in Afghanistan and found them, and today amongst the same people it looks for terrorists. Now we find America regards the whole world including it's own citizens as potential terrorists, and this is very dangerous. As citizens of the world we must believe there are good people in the US government, and governments everywhere who need outside pressure to counteract this. Why? Because you often find what you look for in other people.

    2. Re:stop changing the subject, america. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. The only reason historically that government (and by that I mean any government) didn't spy on everyone was a lack of resources, not some sort of ethical boundary. (Witness the Soviet surveillance state, with their relatively primitive tech.)

      Now with massive computing power, ubiquitous observation (you know, to protect us from "terrorists") and our digital-online lives, now they can accomplish nearly-universal surveillance, and do. To expect otherwise is grossly naive.

      "As an American" you have a a very particularist, ethnocentric view of the US government: every/any state with a preponderance of power has cheerfully indulged in such behaviors. You expect the US to be different why?

      That doesn't excuse it, instead it justifies every effort to constrain and limit the power of government WHEREVER it tries to grow. I find it ironic that many of the people complaining about government prying into their affairs have simultaneously practically invited government up their ass.touting Obamacare.

      --
      -Styopa
    3. Re:stop changing the subject, america. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Heroes? Mercenaries!

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:stop changing the subject, america. by Pav · · Score: 1

      ...and perhaps the American revolutionaries were Frances mercinaries against Britain. It's true enough, should you choose to see things that way.

    5. Re:stop changing the subject, america. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Surely they were. Nobody involved even thinks in terms of heroes. Those are lies for children.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:stop changing the subject, america. by Pav · · Score: 1

      Any belief is a lie... but believing it makes it true. Make one man believe he is a hero and another a mercinary and see how each act.

    7. Re:stop changing the subject, america. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The proper tone of voice is Mercenaries! - with a glad cry."
      — Miles Vorkosigan

    8. Re:stop changing the subject, america. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Believing it makes it true? Seriously?

      The 'Heroes' act worse. SS soldiers thought they were heroes.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  20. Kindergarden politics by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah yes, the "He did it too!" defense. Now, what was it that mom or dad would say when you said that?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Kindergarden politics by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      "But Bush!"

      Or if they're conservative, "But Clinton!"

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Kindergarden politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Everybody faps, don't be a tattle tale'.

    3. Re:Kindergarden politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. But the my-shit-dont-stink, holier-than-thou "revelations" that foreign leaders are boasting is a bit sickening.

    4. Re:Kindergarden politics by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      Well, shit, if we go with what our parents taught us, most government activities go right out the window. I mean "It takes TWO people to fight!" means we'd have to shut down most military spending, then we'd have to spend a lot more on welfare!

    5. Re:Kindergarden politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorta. It is more like "How DARE YOU do xyz" pulls person to the side 'uh you do that too think you better be quite or we will out you too'. *crickets*

      Think about it for a second. If the NSA is spying on everyone (and seems like they are) they would know about all the other spying too...

    6. Re:Kindergarden politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or if they're conservative, "But Clinton!"

      No, if they're conservative, they tend to blame Obama these days. But every once in a while they'll bash Carter. Clinton seems to be sufficiently moderate and likable.

  21. Spying on diplomats ad foreign o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spying on diplomats and foreign officials is to be expected. Mass spying of citizens that have no access to classified documents and live ordinary lives is just a waste of times unless the purpose is to have blackmail material against every human being on the planet. It's unfortunate non US government only cares about the US spying on themselves and don't care one bit about the privacy rights of their law-abiding and peaceful citizens.

  22. Two wrongs don't make it right by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dear NSA,
    The fact that another country spies on the US doesn't make what you did any more legal, acceptable or less egregious.

    Sincerely,
    Most of the US population

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Two wrongs don't make it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Slashdaughter,
      The fact that the NSA, a Spy Agency, conducts espionage shouldn't shock you as much as it does.
      You should be more upset that there are laws that have made what they've done legal.

      Sincerely,
      AC

    2. Re:Two wrongs don't make it right by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      My first thought when hearing about Brazil spying is that some "pro Brazil" patriot would tell some citizen that "at least we don't spy AS MUCH as the NSA does on the USA."

      Because Patriots in the USA compare us to China.

      Are the Chinese patriots going to say all is well because of Brazil, or do they just scrape the bottom of the barrel to say "we are better than North Korea."

      America with justice, liberty and freedom for all!*
      *NOTE: all results graded on a curve.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  23. P.S. by darrellg1 · · Score: 1

    Petrobas

  24. Legal spying by korbulon · · Score: 1

    Well, as long as it's legal, I see no ethical dilemmas. And as long as I can make up laws with no oversight I don't see any practical dilemmas either.

    The distinguishing mark of a true criminal (and not simply a lawbreaker) is an extralegal mentality: "the law applies to others (and with extreme prejudice), but not to me." To these people the law is often mrely a tool to achieve political ends - though sometimes it is an obstacle - but in and of itself is meaningless. Unfortunately, many of these people end up running for democratic office. And winning.

  25. Re:Nobody Seems To Notice and Nobody Seems To Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone is still trying to pretend none of this is an issue or real, but it is.
    Of course, how do you guarantee a system isn't compromised without making the chips yourself?
    You can't really.

  26. Brazil admits to something we already knew by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Espionage of that type has been going on for centuries. The NSA revelations are still surprising, although largely confirming what was long suspected.

    This has "false equivalence" written all over it, especially because this isn't Brazil spying on communication of its own citizens, but foreigners on its own soil.

  27. The truth about Brazil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is clear that a lot of people are dissatisfied with their own country, but the pedestal people were putting brazil was quite insulting even for us Brazilians. You must be totally naive or uninformed to believe that Brazil can provide any better model compared with other countries.

    I am Brazilian and I will be quite honest. Brazil is just a wonderland for people that do not live there. This can be easily seen by the number of immigrants from brazil all over the world. Let Brazil be a super-power, and you will look for today as the good days.

  28. Fine, I won't change the subject. by Xaedalus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We've been doing our damndest to change that, but when close to half the population -knowingly- and -willingly- supports said practices, plus benefits from a military-industrial economy that is geared up to specifically support that, then change is going to be a long time coming. Almost half our populace is tribalistic to the point where they are willing to support all of what you described, simply because it's done to those who aren't members of the tribe. Furthermore, the easy political solutions to this (liberal fascism, abolishment of the Congress and turning the Executive into a true tyrant, etc) come at too high a cost. What you're arguing about is the dark side of human nature... come back to me when you've come up with a cure that doesn't involve tyranny or death.

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    1. Re:Fine, I won't change the subject. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      come back to me when you've come up with a cure that doesn't involve tyranny or death.

      The cure is effective education. Perhaps MOOCs are the way to spread it.

    2. Re:Fine, I won't change the subject. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      close to half the population -knowingly- and -willingly- supports said practices

      I agree in principle with just about everything you said here, except I'm curious about this bit - do you have a supporting link? As an American ex-pat I've been following these leaks very closely, but it's hard to get a feel for general public opinion in the US on the issue. TIA

      (count me as one who most definitely does not willingly support 'said practices'. That's half the reason I left over 5 years ago.)

  29. Not exactly by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Not at all. This isn't about one child claiming that the other child took a cookie, too. This is one child, upon finding out that the sibling took a cookie, says, "oh my, you know you should never, ever take a cookie without permission!" only to have to admit 5 minutes later that they surreptitiously took a cookie too.

    This isn't about whether it's right or wrong, it's about getting caught in a double standard.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Not exactly by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Not at all. This isn't about one child claiming that the other child took a cookie, too. This is one child, upon finding out that the sibling took a cookie, says, "oh my, you know you should never, ever take a cookie without permission!" only to have to admit 5 minutes later that they surreptitiously took a cookie too.

      OK, so now spying on a handful of diplomats (Read: spies by another name) within your own borders is exactly equivalent to gobbling up and storing indefinitely the communications of every single human on the planet? You do realize there's just a bit of a difference in scale and scope, don't you?

      This isn't about whether it's right or wrong, it's about getting caught in a double standard.

      Is it against Brazilian law to spy on diplomats within Brazil? Because if not, then no, there is no double standard - Brazil would be operating within the constraints of their own legal system, whereas the US government is decidedly not following the Constitution.

      Plus, all that stuff I said before about scale and scope; not all sins are equal.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Not exactly by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Well there is the little detail about the one child eating a cookie crumb while the other pretty much emptied the jar, but we won't get caught up in minutiae I guess.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  30. Even chancellors? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Seems that you can spy on anyone, as long as you don't spy on:

    Important people
    Non-important people

    That leaves very little room for spying, don't you think?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  31. Wrong and right don't enter into it. by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The next time you say, "how the fuck did they not see that coming," remember that you were the one who told them to keep their eyes closed and their ears covered.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Wrong and right don't enter into it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The next time you say, "how the fuck did they not see that coming," remember that you were the one who told them to keep their eyes closed and their ears covered.

      Requiring that spying be regulated is not equivalent to closing eyes and ears, (we have caught and prevented 'terrorist' attacks prior to the NSA modern big brother attempts). It is extremely likely that oversight of the NSA would increase their ability to do their job for the same reason accountability tends to improve job performance in any area.

      That being said, perhaps we should completely dismantle the NSA purely on the basis of our current government being far too corrupt to trust with such power. Another 911 is less a threat to our democracy and our people than the NSA.

    2. Re:Wrong and right don't enter into it. by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      The next time you say, "how the fuck did they not see that coming," remember that you were the one who told them to keep their eyes closed and their ears covered.

      Who is "they," and what are you claiming that they won't see coming? The government? Terrorist attacks?

      Yea, if you honestly believe that no one in the US government saw 9/11 or the Boston bombing coming, you're a sucker with a capital S. Hell, the NSA spy machine was in full swing for the Boston shit, plus the international community had alerted the feds to the two dangerous men who perpetuated it, and "they" still let it happen. Almost as if they wanted it to.

      Nobody with any amount of power is that fucking incompetent, and anyone who would believe that they are is an absolute fucking imbecile who should be sterilized for the good of the species.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:Wrong and right don't enter into it. by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      I promise you that the next military attack on this country will not come from within the government. Based on the history of the last 25 years, I'd say you've got a 50/50 chance of the next big terrorist attack coming from a US citizen or a foreign national. It's more like 80:20 (in favor of the attack coming from a US citizen) for a smaller scale terrorist attack, but only if you discount mass shootings as simple domestic crimes which don't count as terrorism, as that would make a US citizen attacking other citizens in a terrorist/mass shooting event being nearly 100% probability.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  32. My country, my rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 things completely different.
    Brazil situation: You come to my house, I have all rights on knowing what you are doing here.
    NSA situation: You invade my home and stole my things.

    Yes, I'm brazilian.

    1. Re:My country, my rules by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The internet is Americas house. Don't like it? Build your own.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  33. Let's focus on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The issue with the NSA was and is that they are spying on Americans in the US. Which is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

    All of this spying on the Germans or French or Brazilians is just noise. That's what the NSA is suppose to be doing.

    Granted, I hope their spying is a little more targeted than just syphoning up everyone's phone calls.

  34. Standard Operating Procedure by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Direct tapping of communications from a Head of State IS routine counter-intelligence operations for every country with the technical ability to do so. I'm curious - if Al Assad or Ahmadinejad or Putin had/has the ability to tap Obama's (or Hussain or Musharraf's) phone, do you think they would have said, "Oh, no, he's a head of state - make sure the security service doesn't tap his phone - those are privileged conversations and we have no interest or right in listening in"?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Standard Operating Procedure by dave420 · · Score: 2

      So you are saying that the US should be not as bad as Iran and Russia, and then it's all cool. Really? You think that's a good stand to take??

    2. Re:Standard Operating Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are saying that the US should be not as bad as Iran and Russia, and then it's all cool. Really? You think that's a good stand to take??

      Precisely. Reconcile these two statements:

      "The USA is the best country in the world, with freedom of expression protected by our constitution and a capitalist system that corrects financial imbalance."

      and

      "If Russia and Iran could do it, they would -- so why shouldn't we?"

    3. Re:Standard Operating Procedure by Overzeetop · · Score: 0

      This isn't some superhero cartoon, where the "good" guy nabs the "bad" guy and puts him in jail no matter how much the bad guy tries to kill him. The US does not have magical super powers and a team of writers to get us out of every jam.

      Time to grow up.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    4. Re:Standard Operating Procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the absence of any other claim to a moral high ground, it might be as good a deal as we can get! At least we don't have a world beating prison population....oh wait ...

  35. Naive opnions toward brazil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is quite interesting to see that the only people that defend brazil on this affair are the ones who are not from brazil. I am brazilian and I am to see any brazilian shocked with this or following the speech given on the UN.

    A lot of people here are to naive. Brazil works in a very evil way. For this reason, you see a multitude from there emigrating to the US and UK, not the other way around. Get real.

    1. Re:Naive opnions toward brazil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, I am Brazilian and I defend Brazil in this affair (since I am one of the people being violated by the American agency). People emigrate because of better living conditions, not because they think the government or justice system in US is great. "Brazil works in a very evil way", and prof of that is that there is emigration, and I'm talking in behalf of my whole country. How naive you think people here are to swallow this BS? People know Brazil is under a democracy, so there is no way everybody in Brazil is against human rights and against Dilma's speech. What else is Brazil wrong of doing? Defending human rights in the UN and at the same time spying domestically on American individuals actually involved in crimes against our national security?

      But the comment is very informative by showing how bad the education is. Believe guys, this is not an uncommon line of thought down here, and it became more common after Obama sent the new ambassador, you know, the coup specialist.

  36. From within the law against actually good targets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think one of the main differences here is that: The Brazilians spying Americans were against individuals actually involved in crimes against their national security and their national laws (appropriate). While the Americans spying Brazilians were against: 1. the citizens of the whole nation; 2. big companies who are not a threat but have the top tech in their areas and important economic secrets; 3. President, diplomats and offices of a country that is against wars, holds no terrorist groups, represents no threat to American national security.
    .
    That besides the fact that the Brazilians did their job inside their country, not inside the UN or other countries (or their embassies), without disrespecting international laws, AND are not threatening to arrest the journalists who reports the leaks.

  37. Actual outrage at State vs. State spying... by swb · · Score: 1

    ...or just spillover from outrage at domestic surveillance?

    It strikes me that at first we had the outrage about NSA collecting information on Americans and conducting espionage that infringes on the privacy of Americans.

    Then we had revelations of intensive surveillance of friendly governments with outrage at that. I get (but don't totally agree with) the outrage this may have had in Germany, but it seems a little bit misplaced domestically in the US and I don't completely understand why Americans would be particularly bothered with foreign surveillance, unless they're just bothered by surveillance generally.

    Germany (as one example) as a state has a national agenda of their own and their diplomatic goals might be divergent from US interests in sensitive areas, whether it's relations with Russia or Middle East policy or even domestic political agendas. It's certainly possible to see Merkel cutting diplomatic deals with Russia which might undercut US diplomatic goals with Russia, for example. Knowing what deals Germany has made can very much aid US diplomacy.

    States may voice moral or ideological aims, but in reality are far more Realpolitik oriented, and that means pursuing your goals without regard to ideology or morality within the limits of pragmatism. If you can spy to gain advantage, you will, and I think all states do within the limits of their resources. The US just has far greater leverage and capability.

  38. Can we all quit it with the pearl clutching? by sirwired · · Score: 1

    NSA spying on foreign governments (even allies) is one of the most basic functions of pretty much any state intelligence operation. We spy on them, they spy on us, and this is the way it's always been.

    This has been why, other than pearl clutching, there have been precisely zero real consequences for our relations with other countries... once you start punishing allies for spying on you, soon enough you won't have any allies left.

    None of this excuses the NSA's domestic activities, but acting like there's something uniquely horrible about this particular incident of international espionage is pretty silly.

  39. Technical capability? Irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Every agency which is getting paid for it will grab as much as they can. That's not the question.

    The limit, however, is not what they technically can do, but what they are allowed to do. That does not just concern secret services, but any government service: they have to act within their constitutional frame. Secret services are problematic in that they are, well, secret, and so the oversight is sort of paradoxical. Secretly acting entities are most in danger of turning into their own autocratic endeavor trying to subjugate the regular government like Hoover's FBI did (after Hoover who was emperor of the FBI for life died, the Senate established laws to restrict the emperorship of the FBI to 10years to avoid a repetition of this sort of person-bound powerplay. The current emperor is in place for 12+ years already and nobody dared to notice).

    NSA/FBI are currently the modern-day version of Gestapo/SS and pretty much shit on Congress. The question is whether the elected officials have a chance to wrest the power back from the autocratic structures and put them back under democratic control.

    Good luck with that. The most important part is that the Americans have to get their priorities regarding liberty and security right again.

  40. See. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are all doing it! They just got butthurt when the NSA stuff came up because they didn't think others were doing it to them too.

  41. Spying on foreign diplomats in your own country... by Max+Threshold · · Score: 2

    ...is hardly comparable to spying on foreign heads of state in their own countries, or even spying on your own citizens.

  42. Wow, you have a lot of foreign diplomats! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is Brazil spying on US embassy staff or associates in Brazil.

    The spying the NSA does in the USA is not just "Foreighn embassy staff or associates in USA" but EVERYONE in the USA.

    Still a whole lot of false equivalence going on here.

    Unless the civilian population of naturalised Americans in the USA is, what, 100?

  43. Re:The need to Spy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The really sad thing to report here is that this spying is for the most part hopelessly worthless and expensive. This is true of the whole issue with the NSA. It has been a hopeless sucking hole in the budget without any realistic result of value. Even if you take every public claim (which proved by their own admission to be lies) as fact and multiply by a 1000 for value, the NSA has been a hopeless waste of money.

    <cynical_bastard_mode>
    How do you figure that? The U.S. Congress holds the purse-strings of a budget of US$ 2 450 000 000 000, and the NSA has a brown envelope with embarrasing details on every single U.S. Congressperson (a puppet string, if you like). That's a lot of power and control for relatively small investment.
    Oh yes, they spied on Washington DC by accident, typing in the wrong area code where they wanted to select Bahrain or something instead.
    </cynical_bastard_mode>

  44. reread - Brazil says they'll prosecute the leakers by raymorris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TFA says:

          The administration added that publishing classified documents is a crime in Brazil,
            and that those responsible "will be prosecuted according to the law."

  45. Re:Nobody Seems To Notice and Nobody Seems To Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are the commercial or free anti-malware organizations and individual's products which hash and compare in the cloud and scan for malware for these vectors?

    Off-topic (slightly), but I'll bite:

    Where would this software be installed? If your BIOS/(U)EFI is infected, then anything downstream from it is suspect -- and all products which could hash and compare would be downstream. What you'll see most anti-malware organisations saying right now is "The attack is theoretically possible, but we don't have a way to prove/disprove the claims." This is because in order to check for tampering, you need to examine the data from outside the system -- which generally means using an electron microscope or other device not being controlled by the firmware you are examining. Otherwise, the firmware can just report back the information that was supposed to be there when queried -- even as far as making a dump of the data.

    There are already products out there by many vendors that detect and block attempts to infect firmware, so that it doesn't happen in the first place. But this only detects against known attack vectors on uncompromised hardware.

    You say that information is readily available, and yet you say that those people studying such things don't want people to know -- so who's making the information readily available?

    This "article" sounds like someone only has half the information, and is attempting to apply a HUGE amount of spin. Bootkits/BIOS attacks are definitely out there, but you're not going to ever get a dependable "desktop scanner" that will detect them, if they're written well. The best you'll get is scanners that detect when the BIOS does something it shouldn't to the filesystem or memory, and the BIOS hasn't been tweaked to hide from that detection.

    While this text may raise awareness about an issue, it is also highly misleading in its assumptions. We'll likely see some better thought-out papers and articles (as well as many snake-oil "solutions" coming out after the PacSec conference on Nov 13-14, which will be dealing directly with this topic (the organiser of the event claims to have been battling such malware on his systems). Oh yes, he's also the person who started #BADBIOS.

  46. Can we get this back down to "spy vs spy"? by davecb · · Score: 1

    There's a degree to which one watches each other, that used to be unspoken. IMHO, it needs to be publicized widely as "we will spy on your spies". Canada's RCMP, and the U.S. FBI are supposed to be counter-spies and spy on enemy spies.

    They not only should do so, but they should be seen to do so. Brazil's ABIN, if they're the FBI-equivalent, should do so too.

    Then we can go back to looking for regular evil spies and shooting them (:-))

    --dave

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
  47. How naive by onyxruby · · Score: 1

    How many times did I state that every country on earth does this kind of thing only to get labelled a troll by the naive tin foil hat crowd? I've said before and I'll say again that every country on earth spies to the greatest extent that their resources allows. This has been true since pre-history times. The naive acted outraged and pretended only a single party was responsible for such things.

  48. It's not comparable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spying some diplomats from known untrusted counties as Irak, Iraq or Cuba, operating in your own country is not at all comparable with spying on the hacked cell phone of a "friendly and trusted" head of state, on her own country. The first one is a given, the second one is an aberration, amd an insult just because technically can, it's really a terrible idea unless you are on war.

    I wonder what would the US people would think if it was Obama's phone that was hacked. I imagine the US doesn't like to play on places where it isn't in total control of the situation.

  49. We did overthrow Brazil's government in the 60s by FallenTabris · · Score: 1

    so I could see why they'd be wary of us. Also, their spying does not reach into our internet traffic--but the reverse certainly isn't true. This sort of information is always absent from Cold Fjord's servile presentation of his overlords, wherein the US government is always the victim, acting only in retaliation to the unjust actions of other countries. Time to get a new account or just post anonymously, cold fjord.

  50. A simple note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it would help to contextualize: In Latin America, US Embassy= Coup d'etat Headquarters.
    The US delegations routinely meet with opposition forces, funds """"human rights organizations""""", and meddles in internal political affairs of every country they are in.
    Brazil has "probable cause" to be on the defensive regarding US sabot... er.. diplomats

  51. quid pro quo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what it sounds like to me... In any case, just because all nations spy on others, doesn't make it right. And spying on their citizens is unconscionable! On the left, we have the pot. On the right, the kettle. They are both showing signs of overheating...

  52. Title correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brazil admits to spying on US 'diplomats'

  53. Sorry, but incompetence trumps malice by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    If you are an adult and you deal with other adults you'd witness incompetence on a daily basis.

    1. Re:Sorry, but incompetence trumps malice by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      If you are an adult capable of cogent thought you should know that not all incompetence is created equal.

      Besides, in reference to the US government, they operate the largest military force the world has ever known, a legal code that's so huge and convoluted even the people who are tasked with tracking it admit they don't know what all they've made illegal, a global communications interception network capable of not only monitoring and logging, but of searching the communications of almost every single human on the planet, etc., etc., etc.

      Sometimes I wonder if that whole "never attribute to malice that which is explained by incompetence" was thought up by some US government agency, to trick ignorant, gullible suckers into thinking the largest, richest, most powerful government in the history of mankind is run by retarded monkeys.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  54. Everybody's doing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine what most nations fear is not the revelation of their diplomatic spying, but the revelation of the networks of cooperation. NSA and British clearly cooperate and it seems plausible that the Spanish phone records were obtained with knowledge by Spanish officials either officially of through (corporate) spying, but what everyone wants to know and no one wants to tell is who is cooperating with whom.

  55. americans are so cinycal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol ABIN has strong ties to US espionage, like many Brazillian federal agencies (Policia Federal - our FBI - for instance, is directly funded by american money on drug wars). Who were the main targets of that espionage? IRAN and RUSSIA. Probably as an indirect request of america, which also would explain why they knew it. Lol I love the way americans have the habbit of, how do you say?, adding insult to injury ;)

  56. Corporate Superiority by DarthVain · · Score: 2

    Technology yes, but I think it is more about Corporate affiliation. The NSA are basically using corporate infrastructure to spy on the cheap, They demand these companies do so. These are *supposedly* global international companies. If Brazil went to Apple and said I demand all the information you have on Obama, what do you think the response would be? Vice Versa? Should nations be scared of using technology produced by america? Yes. This is why since the Patriot Act came into being, I would never ever use any cloud based system, particularly should the servers be physically located in the US (which most are).

    It isn't so much a technological advantage, it is more that the most of the companies that do, are american, and are beholden to the government. Which is actually pretty funny to say considering how sold out the government is to corporate masters, I guess it goes both ways. Makes me think of those dystopian futures where the world is controlled not by national countries, but blocks of affiliated corporations. GO Capitol Corporation!

    Truly I think it is ironic that it was the US not that long ago, making grave accusations of the PRC and the production of hardware and software that might be used for spying with built in backdoors etc... When really the whole time doing it themselves. American Policy on Everything: Do as I say, not as I do! :)

  57. Economic Hitmen by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

    After watching "Apologies of an Economic Hitman", any country in the world better be watching all US personnel in foreign countries really closely. Not doing so, would a treason.

    1. Re:Economic Hitmen by TheRealLifeboy · · Score: 1

      ... "not doing so, would be treason", is what I meant to say!