Australia Spied On Indonesian President

mask.of.sanity writes "Australia tracked calls by Indonesia's president, documents leaked by defence contractor Edward Snowden reveal. The nation's top spy agency the Australian Signals Directorate tracked phone calls made and received on the mobile phone of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono for 15 days in August 2009, and also tracked his wife and inner political circle. Indonesia was Australia's nearest and most important regional neighbour."

Comments

Who's on first?

[Tablizer]

"I didn't spy, YOU did!"

"No I didn't, YOU did!"

"Well, okay, but I didn't spy on Bob."

Bob: "Oh yes you did!"

"Shit. Okay. we all fucking spied."

"yip"

Re:Who's on first?

[Penguinisto]

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

"Your winnings, Sir..."

Re:Who's on first?

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

"Your winnings, Sir..."

I'd be laughing harder at this if it were not so damn true. And the accusations coming from the rest of the world, as if their hands are clean?!? It's like finding Hitler offended at being called a racist.

The world is full of spies. The US was the one most recently caught, and managed to lose their diary too.

Re:Who's on first?

[Joining Yet Again]

In case you didn't remember what that whole American Revolution was about, the US was supposed to be better. It was supposed to be about not having a bunch of unaccountable rulers and their lackeys monitoring and controlling society.

Snowden's revelations confirm that the Old World is as bad as expected, and that the New World is just as bad as the Old.

Re:Who's on first?

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you didn't remember what that whole American Revolution was about, the US was supposed to be better. It was supposed to be about not having a bunch of unaccountable rulers and their lackeys monitoring and controlling society.

Really? Can you quote the relevant passages from the federalist papers, the declaration of independence or the constitution where
the stated reason and goal was we wanted a country that didn't watch other countries.

Re:Who's on first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah mate, you're close but a little bit wrong. There is no new world, there never was. It's business as usual.

Re:Who's on first?

[Joining Yet Again]

1) Non-interventionism was US foreign policy for most of its life - this means not preemptively collecting data about millions of foreigners to use against them;

2) Reciprocal agreements mean the US is effectively spying on its own people.

Try harder.

Re:Who's on first?

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you didn't remember

I actually don't "remember" since I wasn't alive back then. I was told/taught what the whole American Revolution was about.

Given Snowden's revelation, I think the lesson here is not to accept everything we were told about the American Revolution and other patriotic platitudes.

Re:Who's on first?

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you didn't remember what that whole American Revolution was about, the US was supposed to be better. It was supposed to be about not having a bunch of unaccountable rulers and their lackeys monitoring and controlling society.

Snowden's revelations confirm that the Old World is as bad as expected, and that the New World is just as bad as the Old.

As if the Founding Fathers didn't use spying and intelligence gathering to win the revolution? Move to fantasyland, because that's the only place that will match up to your imagination.

Re:Who's on first?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

You might want to check in with Smedley Butler and say, the Philippines, China, Central America and others on that one. The "pre WW2 non interventionist US" is a myth.

Re:Who's on first?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is precisely why Snowden is a douchebag and a traitor. He seems to think the US is the only one doing it.

Re:Who's on first?

[Penguinisto]

1) Non-interventionism was US foreign policy for most of its life

Err, the Monroe Doctrine sort of began tearing that apart when the United States was barely 40 years old.

I suspect you were thinking of isolationist policies concerning WWI (and the earliest parts of WWII) - but we already owned the Philippines by then due to the Spanish-American War. :/

Re:Who's on first?

[whistlingtony]

Snowden is brave, and a hero. And I don't think, given his job, that he thought the US was the only one doing it. He probably would have leaked the shitty details on any other country too, if they'd have given them to a contractor working for the defense department. :D

Re:Who's on first?

[LordLimecat]

In case you didn't remember what that whole American Revolution was about, the US was supposed to be better.

It was about a lack of representation in parliament, and onerous taxation, not about spying.

Everyone spies, get over it. You and I dont have to like it, but its absurd to single the US out over this. If you want something to be outraged about, be outraged over domestic (not international) spying.

Re:Who's on first?

[Joining Yet Again]

Spying is done without representation (through clandestine reciprocal agreements with foreign services) and definitely contributes toward onerous taxation.

Re:Who's on first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us not forget tax reform: Don't tax you. Don't tax me. Tax that fellow behind the tree!

Re:Who's on first?

[Pseudonym]

And the accusations coming from the rest of the world, as if their hands are clean?!?

I wouldn't expect anything less. These countries have domestic politics to contend with, so they have to act indignant.

I can't really get upset at governments spying on other governments, even though tracking SBY's wife seems like it's going a little bit far. That's all part of the game. It's small fry compared to wholesale spying on all of your own citizens.

Re:Who's on first?

[ahabswhale]

1) We weren't as non-interventionalistic as you think.

2) Even if were were, I don't see how spying on foreigners, in any way, precludes that. One could argue that it could help you remain non-interventionalistic.

3) Your point to is invalidated by my previous points in the same way that your first point was.

Re:Who's on first?

[Joining Yet Again]

1) How non-interventionalistic do you think I think you were? Don't strawman me, bro - I come from England, which has invaded pretty much every country. Before the US became the world's horny young man, sticking its dick in everything, it was us.

2) Let's be 100% clear: the US spying regime is on Americans. It's just done via foreign spying agencies, while the foreign agencies use the NSA to spy on foreign citizens. To pretend otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

Spying is intervention.

3) Nope nope nope.

Re:Who's on first?

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden's actions aren't going to stop anyone from spying on anyone - friend, or foe.

At the expense of foreign relations, all Snowden did was help the NSA see where they need to tighten up security, to keep their future spying secret. This is also forcing other countries to review their security policies, to prevent their spying from being exposed. But rest assured, this isn't going to stop anybody.

Re:Who's on first?

[ahabswhale]

You're the one who came up with this non-interventionalism crap -- not me. So you're straw manning yourself. I've actually read a history book or two so I'm pretty clued in on European imperialism. Don't be a condescending ass like a typical Brit, please.

lol...I'm more aware of the Five Eyes program than you are. And your government does the same fucking thing.

Spying isn't intervention. It's intelligence gathering. It's what you do with that intelligence that determines whether there's any "intervention" involved.

Re:Who's on first?

[adobelis]

Exactly. Governments spying on each other is non-news. People getting upset about it is idiocy-porn. If Snowden and Greenwald had any sense, or ethics, they would have focused on details related to spying on private citizens, and suppressed this kaka. But this kaka has sensational appeal -- and delightfully spikes the news-cycle with international dischord -- hooray! And they are both total whores, self-obsessed pseudo-saviors of no one and nothing.

Re:Who's on first?

[Joining Yet Again]

That's very erudite of you to have read a book or two. You surely stand head and shoulders above the hoi polloi.

You're arguing against what you think I "think", buddy. Stoppit... and tidyup.

And spying isn't intervention in the same way any illegal, damaging action by one state against another isn't intervention: when you're wrong. Let's see how the US defines espionage:

The act of obtaining, delivering, transmitting, communicating, or receiving information about the national defense with an intent, or reason to believe, that the information may be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.

You may be confusing spying with something else.

Anyone surprised?

[enter to exit]

Anyone surprised? That's what intelligence agencies do.

Re:Anyone surprised?

[gandhi_2]

it is what *countries* do.

Re:Anyone surprised?

[feral-troll]

Anyone surprised? That's what intelligence agencies do.

When the Menzies government went looking for a new bomber aircraft in 1963 it was with the requirement that the bomber should have sufficient range to drop a nuclear weapon on Jakarta. So, no, it does not surprise me that the Australians spied on the Indonesian president and it would surprise me even less if later turns out that the Indonesians reciprocated by spying on his Australian counterpart. In fact the only thing that will surprise me is if it later turns out that spying on each others presidents is all these two countries did.

Re:Anyone surprised?

[donscarletti]

In fact the only thing that will surprise me is if it later turns out that spying on each others presidents is all these two countries did.

I'd be even more surprised to find out that Australia had a president. Unless the Indonesians mistook the President of the Australian Senate for an important political leader.

Re:Anyone surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact the only thing that will surprise me is if it later turns out that spying on each others presidents is all these two countries did.

I'd be even more surprised to find out that Australia had a president. Unless the Indonesians mistook the President of the Australian Senate for an important political leader.

It would surprise me even more if Indonesia wasn't Australia's regional neighbour any more. Has the country been beamed in to space? Or has continental drift speeded up dramatically in the region recently?

Re:Anyone surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah spying on important people of other countries like leaders is what any spy agency should be doing.

But if your spy agency spies on your own people at its own whims and fancies, including the people who are in charge of controlling that spy agency, it gives them too much power and leverage.

When it is illegal for them to do so, but they do it, and lie about it; you should start worrying. If they get away with it, you should be really worried on who is controlling who.

I think this story is just a distraction from what the NSA did.

Re:Anyone surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't supposed to get caught and destroy relations they badly need. There is a compromise between getting caught and getting value. The way it stands today idiots are running the business.

Re:Anyone surprised?

[quenda]

Its one thing to spy on their military capacity and movements.
Or to collect open source intelligence.

But to directly bug the phone of civilian leaders of a friendly country for political purposes?
That's not very neighbourly. How can we justify it? Its not the cold war.

Re:Anyone surprised?

[gandhi_2]

civilian leaders? they are the decision makers. they turn the political wheels. you ABSOLUTELY should be spying as high up as your ability will allow.

countries don't have friends, they have interests. you shouldn't be trying to justify anything. it is team A's job to spy on team B. It is team B's job to stop it. There's no crying about it. Pick a side and do work.

Re:Anyone surprised?

[quenda]

you ABSOLUTELY should be spying as high up as your ability will allow.

Does your philosophy apply to corporations? Families? Individuals? Is that the only sensible path for career advancement?
Should gov't departments spy on each other? (They are competing for funding.)
Should the spies stop at bugging phones? You OK with blackmail and assassination, because "that's their job", or do you still draw a line somewhere?

Or are national govt's just a special case where laws, morality and conventions can be broken with trivial justification and impunity?
Because I really don't see any self-defense case here. Its not like SBY might be planning an invasion.

Re:Anyone surprised?

[gandhi_2]

You don't know who is planning or not planning an invasion. You don't know who will or won't help you in a war. You don't know troop composition, disposition, or strength. You don't know how the cookie will crumble due to current political winds. You don't know a goddamn thing unless you spy on them.

You can put two and two together, and fill in the blanks with educated guesses, inferences, and patterns... that is one tool. Other tool is spying. Without either you are a total SHIT craftsman.

"International Law" are nothing but agreements between countries backed up ONLY by what the angry country can do about it. There is no power on earth above the nation-state. At that level, each country does what it can to do what ever is necessary for its own survival in the realpolitik game. And maintaining economic power is just as important as how many tanks you have. More, actually.

Countries don't go to heaven. They don't get any credit for doing what is "right", only for doing what is "necessary". Spying, blackmail, assassination... all of it bad and distasteful, some of it necessary. Like war.

If you yourself live in any kind of comfortably safe society, you have benefited from a strong nation-state somewhere willing to spy and fight where necessary. Even if you don't live in said country. Even if you don't appreciate it.

well that's just redundant

[slashmydots]

I sent a very well written, less wordy version of Snowden's release to major news outlets but none of them ran with that version for some reason. It said:
Everyone spied on everyone all the time.

Re:well that's just redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankfully I am not the only one to repeat this quote "Everyone spied on everyone all the time". Because of the stuff he keeps leaking I really have to wonder if the US and other countries governments are using him as PR to measure where the general public is at with being monitored.

Nothing Snowden has leaked has shown anything that hasn't being going on prior and since WWII.

The FBI and CIA monitored the Black Panthers, MLK Jr, The Kennedy's, Larry Flint, I could go on and on, and those are the outspoken ones let alone the ones that worked behind the scenes of other movements, or politics.. How did they do it, by monitoring the general public, for signs someone is a potential target!

When he exposes how deep the US spying network really is, such as other agencies, private contractors/companies, ect, then we will be getting somewhere.

Re:well that's just redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nothing Snowden has leaked has shown anything that hasn't being going on prior and since WWII."

Most of these programs began in 2011, the internet mass surveillance began in 2002, was stopped in 2005, and restarted in 2007. The technology to mass spy on everyone on the planet didn't exist even in 1995, let alone 1945, GCHQ's 'Tempora' only began in 2011 and is still waiting a law to make it legal. New Zealands mass surveillance officially only began in June this year.

These programs weren't even running during the cold war on the democratic side of the wall. Stasi and KGB had a go at it, but the technology wasn't there for true remote mass surveillance.

So no, it's new.

Re:well that's just redundant

[wonkey_monkey]

It was rejected for incorrectly (sort of) using the past tense.

Re:well that's just redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

its not new, in the fact that it would have been going on since, had the technology been available. every advance brings about more spying. that's not new at all.

Re:well that's just redundant

[Anonymous Coward]

So no, it's new.

I wouldnt place any large bets on that sort of thing

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/how-a-30-year-old-lawyer-exposed-nsa-mass-surveillance-of-americans-in-1975/

This has been going on a *long* time. The scale is just bigger because everyone uses a network now.

Re:well that's just redundant

[NicBenjamin]

What is the Great Firewall if not a mass surveillance tool? And a mass surveillance tool the government actually uses -- Weibo has a "Reincarnation Party" of users who got deleted for violating various government standards. Last time I checked precisely nobody had claimed they got screwed because some NSA algorithm decided they voted Romney. Plenty said they got screwed by IRS Algorithms, but the IRS is not the NSA.

I will agree lots of aspects of this are new tech, and that among the world's democracies the US has by far the most troubling program, but that doesn't mean it's particularly unusual.

Re:well that's just redundant

[ahabswhale]

News flash: ECHELON

Since the 60's it's been going on. The only thing that's changed is the technology to improve on what they had already been doing.

they're still neighbors

[jsepeta]

is, not was

Re:they're still neighbors

[PixetaledPikachu]

is, not was

Still nearest neighbor? Of course. Still most important regional neighbor? Hmmm... maybe?

Re:they're still neighbors

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm not sure where that comment came from either...

Consider the fact sheets put out by the governments department of foreign affairs and trade:
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/indo.pdf

Compared to, for example:
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/chin.pdf or
http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/fs/usa.pdf

Re:they're still neighbors

[Opportunist]

Unless Indonesia moves in a huff, of course.

Re:they're still neighbors

[Duckimus Prime]

Or Australia goes on a drinking binge again...

Re:they're still neighbors

[Zontar The Mindless]

Linky for those who missed it, last time this happened.

Re:they're still neighbors

[gl4ss]

well they have about 30-40x the population of say new zealand don't they?

Re:they're still neighbors

[nedlohs]

No. It's more like 60x.

Approved by GCHQ?

[jrumney]

The delay in publishing this story is excessive, even by slashdot standards. Was GCHQ reluctant to release it on their tech news site while the Democracy Forum conference in Bali and CHOGM in Sri Lanka were still ongoing?

Re:Approved by GCHQ?

[simonbp]

Thanks Obama!

Re:Approved by GCHQ?

[bunkymag]

While there were hints of news around this topic previously, the details that came to light are new (if unsurprising), and the story is front page news in Australia today - see for example ABC News.

Re:Approved by GCHQ?

[c0lo]

The delay in publishing this story is excessive, even by slashdot standards. Was GCHQ reluctant to release it on their tech news site while the Democracy Forum conference in Bali and CHOGM in Sri Lanka were still ongoing?

No, there was the necessary approval CGHQ needed to get from NSA to further approve the submission on /.

Re:Approved by GCHQ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This was widely and prominently published in the Australian media weeks ago, both in the Fairfax and News Ltd media, and we were publically reprimanded by the Indonesian government for it. It happened at a very inconvenient time for our new goverment, as they were half way through negotiating with Indonesia over asylum seeker boats at that time. It led to a major humiliation for the government, as the Indonesians were so pissed off with the spying allegations that they refused to accept an asylum seeker boat the Australians were trying to return. It led to a stand off and we eventually had to back down to Indonesia, which let me tell you is not a good look in Australia.

I would put the delay down to the simple fact that news from foreign countries necessarily arrives in the US (or anywhere) in a delayed and distorted form, rather than some kind of conspiracy to assist the Australian government .

Are we surprised?

[Harlequin80]

I would be far more surprised if Australia wasn't doing this. What's more there would be a real problem if they weren't.

In terms of potential conflict with another sovereign state Indonesia simply has to rank highly for Australia. It is close by, has a large military, and has a history of conflicts with Australia. The risk may be very very low, but like house insurance, the risks of your house burning to the ground are low but you still take out insurance.

Re:Are we surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

The interesting thing here is that Australia spied on behalf of NSA. Essentially this is the US spying by proxy. I hope that Australia got something good out of the deal because pissing of your neighbors can be pretty expensive.

Re: Are we surprised?

[Harlequin80]

Yes australia did. Its called Anzus. Perhaps one of the biggest treaty coupes in Australias history.

Despite what people may think australia cannot defend itself without support. America is the ONLY logical source of that support.

Re: Are we surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite what people may think australia cannot defend itself against China without support.

Fixed.

Re: Are we surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

... It's called ANZUS.

That deal was done 75 years ago and every year the price goes up.

... biggest treaty coups in Australia's history.

HaHaHaHaHaHa, seriously when do I stop. Leaving aside the massive non-military economic cost of this treaty, since the US royally reams Aussie interests, the US does well from the original deal. A country that is unlikely to be invaded provides an obedient government, compliant media, sea-port, spying post, satellite reception, military R&D facilities, plus the SAS and infantry for every US-led occupation. (See: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq.)

At least New Zealand said "no nukes" to the USA, not that they've said much since then.

Re: Are we surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Aussies weren't pussies they would have partnered with SA and Israel and own quite a few nukes by now.

Re:Are we surprised?

[Dodgy G33za]

What I want to know is HOW, and why the intelligence agencies of Brazil, Germany etc are so incompetent that they can't discover or stop it.

I would also be very interested to know how much US tech firms are in bed with the intelligence gathering. No-one seems to be asking the important questions.

Re: Are we surprised?

[Dodgy G33za]

Despite what people may think australia cannot defend itself without support. America is the ONLY logical source of that support.

It could if it had kept a few of the nuclear weapons that the UK tested on its soil. There are rumours that this was the deal after all...

And the US will only provide support if it is in its own interests. Not something I would want to rely on.

Re:Are we surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are surprised that Australia hasn't started it's policy to incite conflict with its neighbors without a very good reason sooner. War and conflict with a northern neighbours are funtastic lifeblood of every NT Drought drinker and a election win guarantee for the Zierholz drinkers. Instead of using the normal attaché routes of various kinds, combined with satellites and traditional signals intelligence it's always better to personally insult political leaders of other countries.

Re:Are we surprised?

[LWATCDR]

Because no one has ever stopped spying. People are greedy, feel cheated, or feel they know better than there government what is right and wrong. Once you compromise someone then you have control.
The US is more into technical means. AKA sigint, comint, and photoint. Why do Germany and Brazil not stop it? They really do not want to. They get intel from the US when we see fit to share with them. If they get too nasty we shut off the tap. People need to just understand that this is just business as usual. Even back to the 1900s if you sent a cable overseas it would be tapped by the government. Back in the day even companies used code to send cables because you never knew who else the operator was working for.
Does no one in the world read history? Do you really think that the UK only started to try and decode German messages after the war started? Or that the US only started to decode Japanese messages after Pearl Harbor? Do you not think that the UK listened in on US, French, Italian, and Spanish communications whenever it could?
What gets me is that people somehow thought that things had changed.

Re: Are we surprised?

[DMJC]

Considering we control 1/3rd of the world's Uranium supply I'm actually quite pissed off that Australia does not have nuclear weapons. It would grant us a much larger voice in global affairs and we could effectively ignore the laws and rantings of the USA and Great Britain.

Re: Are we surprised?

[Harlequin80]

Australia was very careful when it came to the non-proliferation treaty. No Australia doesn't have an active nuclear arsenal. However by testing a nuclear weapon we are allowed by the treaty to build them and we have maintained the capability. It is the reason (not the only one) why there is a nuclear power plant in Sydney.

Also nukes suck for anything other than sabre rattling and as for giving you a bigger voice on the world stage? I don't think so. I really don't see Pakistan leading the way and they have nukes.

The FA-18 super hornet that has been purchased to replace the f111s are inferior to the Migs that are being purchased by Indonesia (let alone China's airforce). This means that there is no way we could strike Indonesia or anyone else threatening via aircraft. So we would have had to had a ballistic missile program. This costs money and has basically no benefits outside of the strike capability. Much better off to have a carrier group paid for by the US somewhere near by and a piece of military infrastructure that the US would make sure didn't fall into enemy hands. The only reason the argue for nukes without the additional delivery mechanism is to say we would be willing to use them over our own soil if you invaded.

Re: Are we surprised?

[Dodgy G33za]

Also nukes suck for anything other than sabre rattling and as for giving you a bigger voice on the world stage? I don't think so. I really don't see Pakistan leading the way and they have nukes.

I am not an expert but I would have thought that Australia is one of the few countries that has the geography to be able to use nukes defensively. An attack would have to come from the north, and might only be to capture the resources there. That part of the country is relatively unpopulated, giving a good opportunity for a tactical nuke strike on home territory.

Not saying it would be a good idea, but one hell of a way to put off an invasion.

Re:Are we surprised?

[ahabswhale]

Um no...where does the source say anything about them doing it for the USA? Let me help you...NOWHERE.

Re: Are we surprised?

[Harlequin80]

Much better off just destroying the infrastructure and mounting a guerilla campaign operated from the major cities in the south. Nuking your own country is pretty much saying you don't want to go back any time soon. Make an invader stretch their supply lines from Darwin where you have destroyed the port and mined the harbour. Limited water, limited food, no supply dumps.

On top of that the invasion would have to come in the winter as most of the north becomes un-passable during the monsoon season. So you would really only need to keep them penned for 6 months before the weather did it for you. Trying to get from Darwin down to Brisbane, with a highly trained conventional army harrying you every step of the way, transport infrastructure gone, and in a 6 month time window would be extremely hard. If you don't make it you won't be able to feed your army because the US will be pounding the crap out of your seaborne supplies and Brisbane would represent the closest location you could hope to get decent levels of supplies.

We don't need to nuke our own territory to stop an invasion. Knowing that the US will be destroying your supply lines alone, irrespective of what damage the Australian Army is causing is more than enough.

Re: Are we surprised?

[shutdown -p now]

Despite what people may think australia cannot defend itself without support. America is the ONLY logical source of that support.

As I recall, New Zealand had a bit of a row with US over nukes, and the latter ended up suspending its ANZUS treaty obligations... and guess what, New Zealand is still around.

Re: Are we surprised?

[Harlequin80]

And NZ has a mutual defence treaty with Australia........ So NZ gets the benefits on Anzus. Also the "no nukes in our ports" comments look like they are being reversed.

Please shoot this man.

[girlintraining]

Dear America,

Why, with the biggest arsenal in the world, with terrorists shitting bricks in Guantanamo, with several dictators sabre rattling and then sitting down and suddenly behaving when three aircraft carriers and a full entourage show up off their coast, can we not manage to deal with this one, simple, irritation? Just give him what he wants -- he wants to be a martyr. He leaks, and he leaks, and at this point he's probably inventing new documents to leak. Snowden might as well be a brand name; it's got household recognition. So please tell me... what's the hold up on pulling the trigger?

This is an honest question; I simply do not understand why we're holding out on this one guy, when we've sent in Seal Team Six to give people who have done less in economic damage severe and sudden lead poisoning and then dumped their body uncermoniously in the ocean where it'll never be found. I'm not asking for arguments for/against Snowden or what he's doing. I honestly don't care at this point. Maybe he's telling the truth. Maybe he's lying through his teeth. Maybe he's right and maybe he's wrong... but American policy since pre-WWI has been pretty straightforward regarding spies and espionage: We execute them, as a matter of public policy. So why the change now?

And again, no pro or anti-snowden here. The facts are the facts; he's a threat to national security, right or wrong. And we've dealt with those types of threats pretty consistently from a policy standpoint. Until now. What about making him a martyr is so unappealing that we're reversing on nearly 100 years of public policy on this issue? Really, truly, I'd like to know what the reasoning is here; And yet again -- this isn't a moral judgement on whether he's right or wrong. It is, in the final analysis, immaterial. When a hungry bear takes a run at you, you don't ask whether or not he was treated well, or if he was previously in captivity, or whether he's defending his cubs or not. It's you, or the bear. End of story.

I honestly cannot fathom why they don't just end Snowden. We do worse to people who peddle drugs in this country; he's done more damage economically than they have. Soooo... where's the hailstorm of bullets I've come to expect from America? Right or wrong, it's what we're known for. So, why aren't we doing our signature move on this guy?

Re: Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

Please shoot the man that wrote this comment. Now, I don't claim to agree or disagree with him, but he very clearly needs to die. Again I claim no pro or con to his argument, but he has done considerable damage to this website and needs to be shot

Re:Please shoot this man.

[enter to exit]

You're not particularly thoughtful are you?

Killing him won't destroy his documents. It's certain he's got multiple backups with multiple people.

Why would the US government risk egg on their faces and a further highlight the degradation of American Ideals for nothing?

Re:Please shoot this man.

[girlintraining]

Killing him won't destroy his documents. It's certain he's got multiple backups with multiple people.

We took a stand; we don't negotiate with terrorists. That's the policy. We got a guy out there who has made demands, and when his demands weren't met, started leaking classified documents. That's what terrorism is: He tried to goad the government into a specific course of action by inspiring fear.

Whether he has backups or not is immaterial. Osama Bin Laden had backups -- how many of his number two guys did we ice before we finally got to him? A lot. But we did. We sent a message.

Why would the US government risk egg on their faces and a further highlight the degradation of American Ideals for nothing?

American ideals? Please, elaborate. Tell me, specifically, which ones you think matter here. Because right now all you're doing is making a vague handwave towards flags and patriotism, and isn't that what we've been accusing the government of doing? Isn't that what we're campaigning to stop? To get some honest to god transparency?

So please, be specific. I insist.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing him won't hide the evidence, and it'd make people who don't care finally notice that their government is evil. It only works for the mafia because the way they must deal with public opinion is different. A government can't openly kill all dissidents like that, not unless it's looking for trouble. There's a reason people smarter than you make important decisions.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Opportunist]

There are quite a few reasons not to kill Snowden.

First and foremost: It's pointless. The cat's out of the bag and unless he's REALLY stupid, he's got some kind of dead man switch going. Like "if I vanish, publish that crap". Possibly he even informed the relevant places that this is the case. Or maybe he informed them and is just bluffing. And even if not, the damage is already done, there is precious little he could add to it anyway. At any rate, killing him won't accomplish anything beneficial for the US government. But there are some decisive drawbacks to it.

First, he's not in some insignificant backwater -stan country, he's in Russia. Remember that speck on the map? If not, ask your daddy, he'll tell you about them Russkies and how they used to be the other side of the nuke equilibrium. Also their special forces ain't what you're used to fighting. They're not some half trained religious nutjobs with outdated guns, they're top trained completely insane nutjobs with modern equipment who don't even ponder whether "collateral damage" could possibly have some kind of political impact. The kind of insane nuts that flood a theater full of hostages with nerve gas 'cause some terrorists might be inside. Not quite the kind of enemy you really want to fight over an insignificant nuisance.

And then of course there's the other reason: Public opinion. The US government already has a pretty bad rep, both with its citizens and with people abroad, but even with various governments that got pissed by having their cells and other forms of communication tapped and sniffed into. And then the US goes and kills the person who exposed it. Not only will it instantly raise the question why, and whether he had something even more dangerous to say, it also destroys the last form of goodwill the US still have. Technically, the US, and especially its government, would lose the last bit of credibility and trust it might have with some parts of the world.

In other words, the best thing the US can do right now is to simply wait for it to blow over and possibly start a war or two to distract the world.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[phayes]

Yeah, loosing credibility was the reason Stalin refused to have Trotsky killed once he killed off all his sons & chased him from Russia. It's also the reason that Putin refused to have Litvinenko poisoned with Polonium. Because, you know if either of these had occurred (but especially the second) that would have precluded anyone supposedly working for freedom to request asylum there...

I'm not calling for snowden's assassination but "loosing credibility" is a farcical reason for not doing it.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Opportunist]

Stalin didn't have to keep up the illusion of a democracy. Everyone already knew that the elections are a farce, something that isn't out yet in the US it seems.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[tragedy]

The kind of insane nuts that flood a theater full of hostages with nerve gas 'cause some terrorists might be inside.

Now now, you don't know that it was nerve gas. It's still officially a mystery gas. The authorities refused to release information about its makeup, even to the doctors who were desperately trying to save the poisoned hostages. In any case, the hostages were just lucky only about a quarter of them were killed. They could have all ended up summarily executed like the majority of the terrorists (most of whom were unconscious). Interestingly, even the terrorists who were captured alive turned out to have actually died in the theater afterwards, which has fueled speculation that the whole thing was set up by FSB agent provocateurs in the first place.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Kell Bengal]

Enlighten me: exactly what demands did Snowden make? The man is an idealist - nobody will disagree - but it is ridiculous to label him a terrorist for whistle-blowing things the government is doing. If what your government is doing terrifies you, I'd argue the problem is with your government, not the whistle-blower.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[_merlin]

You and that cold fjord guy should totally hook up. You've got so much in common, I'm sure you'd hit it off straight away.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[_merlin]

Wut? They later came out and said it was xenon - displace air, lower partial pressure of oxygen, make people pass out.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

You and that cold fjord guy should totally hook up. You've got so much in common, I'm sure you'd hit it off straight away.

I am still not convinced that girlintraining and cold fjord are different people. Cold fjord seems to have a style of being 'lucid with possible poor citation' while girlintraining is longwinded, pulls reasonable sounding things straight out of her ass and tends to be far more eloquent.

Both push this similar mishmash of ideas, and just like the shill accounts are quickly modded up to +5 only to be modded back into oblivion the next day.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[khallow]

Why, with the biggest arsenal in the world, with terrorists shitting bricks in Guantanamo, with several dictators sabre rattling and then sitting down and suddenly behaving when three aircraft carriers and a full entourage show up off their coast, can we not manage to deal with this one, simple, irritation? Just give him what he wants -- he wants to be a martyr. He leaks, and he leaks, and at this point he's probably inventing new documents to leak. Snowden might as well be a brand name; it's got household recognition. So please tell me... what's the hold up on pulling the trigger?

Point 1: It's Russia with nukes. You shouldn't be going around advocating the execution of people when you can't be bothered to understand that there are consequences to that.

Point 2: Snowden's leaks aren't damaging national security, but rather strengthening it by revealing US federal government abuses.

Point 3: Assassination is not a signature US move. In fact, we're rather bad at it.

Point 4: If you meant satire, you're going about it in a rather bone-headed way.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[nospam007]

"The facts are the facts; he's a threat to national security, right or wrong. "

You got that wrong. He's a threat to the National Security _Agency_!
National security is quite OK.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[tragedy]

Who said that? The prevailing opinion is that it was some variant of fentanyl. I strongly suspect you're joking, but I'll humor you. Xenon wouldn't make any sense for a number of reasons. Some of the hostage-takers used gas masks, but they weren't self contained breathing systems with their own oxygen supply from any report I've seen. If anything had been used that lowered the oxygen content of the air, the gas masks would have been ineffective. Also, reports are that hostages smelled the gas. Xenon is odorless. Also, Xenon is very dense compared to regular air, it could displace oxygen, sure, but you would have to fill the theater from the bottom up with a massive amount of it. Symptoms of the affected after the event are also not consistent with simple oxygen deprivation.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you kill Snowden, you can kiss goodbye everything American, and not just economy. You would be as alone as North-korea now. and you wouldn't be better.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[phayes]

So, Putin's assassination of Litvinenko (& Russia's subsequent loss of credibility) explains why Snowden couldn't possibly be hiding in Moscow? Oh, wait...

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Snowden steps outside Russia, you can bet that Obama will, despite what he said, scramble some jets and either take him in or take him out.

And if the USA does have Snowden assassinated, what exactly is Putin going to do? Bar them from the Sochi Olympics?
A lot of the rightwing already think Obama is a pussy compared to dear old Vlad so what exactly does he have to lose?

And whose goodwill is America in danger of losing? That of the allies whose secrets are ALSO being exposed and have no recourse?
I'm betting one of them may act before Obama does.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gives a fuck about "Russia with nukes"? It's not just American secrets that are being leaked and most of those allies who are also being affected have their OWN
nukes.
If Obama has Snowden killed, there would be a lot of posturing from the Kremlin and fuck-all else.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[khallow]

If Obama has Snowden killed, there would be a lot of posturing from the Kremlin and fuck-all else.

Yea right. How about for starters, escalation of the Syrian civil war?

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

Point 3: Assassination is not a signature US move. In fact, we're rather bad at it.

I'm pretty sure that there are a large number of people in Pakistan and Afghanistan who would disagree with that statement. The US has created a whole technology to remotely assassinate people using drones.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Type44Q]

Why would the US government risk egg on their faces and a further highlight the degradation of American Ideals for nothing?

Good question. I assume, however, that's it's purely rhetorical in nature since those pulling the puppet strings of [those running the government] sure seem to believe they've got an adequate reason... :)

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they kill Snowden, the guy who ordered the murder will have to die, too.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's that whining ? America+Saudi-Arabia have been sponsoring Islamic (Sunni !) terror around the globe, including Chechny Thank god a Christian nation stopped your corrupt Americans and Islamic lunatics.

YOUR daughter will one day thank Russia for showing these scumbags what their ShiteGod is worth. Look up the rights of girls in the Wahabist Tyranny the U.S. protects.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Putin weren't as docile as Russkies currently are, he would use a couple of An225s to airlift a squadron of Iskander nucler missiles into Syria and make it clear what any outside intervention will cause.

Then lob a dud Iskander at Mecca.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, your point 3 is ridiculous, there are more than 600 documented assassination attempts against Castro and countless political assassination around the globe directly attributed to CIA, not to mention all the drone kills and the other crap that goes on in war theaters. For that matter, even Bin Laden execution was an assassination (due process? whats that?).

So yes, assassination is in fact a signature US tool is just that they try to keep it low profile to avert the public opinion backslash. .

As for being rather bad at it, thats an understatement, US governments sucks at it unless is covered by the chaos of war. Just take a look at the Castro must die saga for some lols:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/aug/03/cuba.duncancampbell2

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever it was, they should use it in Saud-Arabia, too.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[whistlingtony]

Ever heard of presuming innocent before guilty? Ever heard of this strange process whereby we have a trial, present evidence, sort through the facts, THEN decide innocent or guilty? Ever heard of the sixth amendment to the US constitution?

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

That's why. We're supposed to be better than that. (we're NOT, but we're supposed to be damnit!)

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden did economic damage? What a load of bull. You have a extreme case of shoot the messenger syndrome.
The reason there is economic damage is because the NSA broke the laws of the USA.
You see, as one of them evil no good foreigner types just waiting for my chance (strategically positioned on your northern border), and who's only purpose in life is to see Americans suffer (...not sure why exactly... but whatever... it must be true - I saw it on your news), I had always assumed that my data was safe in your companies due to the laws you have. You see, I was naive. I believed you when you said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I was foolish, and I thought my data would be safe in your hands.
Well, you proved me wrong. You lied. So I'm taking my business elsewhere.
So, you can blame Snowden for telling me the truth, but personally, I ascribe the blame to Bush, Obama, and the rest of that evil Cabal that is using your founding documents as toilet paper.
By all means though - feel free to correct the problem by making a mockery of your due process laws too. Revenge for putting egg on the face of dear leader must be had.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that "loosing" is "setting free" don't you? That little fact changes the entire meaning of your sentence. If you're going to write in English, learn the language first.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[NicBenjamin]

I'll agree he shouldn't be shot, but that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

But your last sentence got my creative juices flowing. Why are you assuming EITHER the government or the whistle-blower actually has to be right?

Snowden seems to have meant well, but just look at this result of his leak: now everyone knows that Australia spied on Indonesia. That's probably isn't a surprise to anyone whose thought about it. After Ausrtralia has spies, and all countries within thousands of miles of it are a) strong allies of Australia (NZ, US/French bits of the South Pacific), b) tiny countries with no military capabilities to speak of (Tonga, Nauru, etc.), c) both (Tonga and Nauru are both quite close to the Aussies), or d) Indonesia. Why the fuck would they spy on anyone but Indonesia?

In other words this scoop's major result won't be protecting the Indonesians from Aussie skullduggery, it will be preventing the Aussies from using these specific tactics again. Given that their tactics are shared by all Five Eyes, and that the biggest target of Five Eyes spying is probably China; this particular leak hurts Snowden's agenda of increasing information freedom, because it's fucking China.

What it doesn't hurt are Greenwald's twin goals of a) humiliating the Fiver Eyes for daring to detain his boyfriend, and b) selling lots of freelance news stories in Australia.

Snowden was really naive if he thought Greenwald was on his side, and when you're playing on this level that's a very wrong thing to be.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Opportunist]

Putin doesn't have to keep up an illusion of Democracy either.

The main difference is that for some reason the US still wants to be seen as the "good guy" and tries hard to maintain that image. Russia never tried to be anything like that.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[phayes]

Putin, most Russian citizens & apparently Snowden maintain that he is the nec plus ultra in Democracy. See, he respects their constitution by not being President more than twice in a row & by continuing to follow all the parts of their constitution (that didn't bother him enough to have them removed by the rubber stamp Duma). Putin works hard to be seen as the "Good Guy", see? he even shelters that tireless worker for Democracy, Snowden.

Your original assertion re losing credibility is still bunk.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[crimson tsunami]

This is an honest question; I simply do not understand why we're holding out on this one guy

Then you simply haven't been paying enough attention.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

To get some honest to god transparency?

You want honesty and transparency, yet your advocating killing the one man who has done more to further your goals of transparency than anyone else in your whole country?

Maybe if your voters made some demands, and when those demands aren't met vote for someone else (A functioning democracy, you should try it sometime). You wouldn't need heroes like Snowden to rally behind.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Anonymous Coward]

We took a stand; we don't negotiate with terrorists. That's the policy.

If you believe this, you more naive than I thought.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[Opportunist]

The problem here is that Putin is exactly NOT seen as the "good guy", internationally. But he is smart enough to never have been there when someone was with his hand in the cookie jar. Someone killing a dissident abroad? Putin didn't know. Some journalist dying in an "accident"? Putin was on vacation. It was always "the system". But of course everyone who can rub two brain cells together knows what's going on.

Putin, though, was smart enough to never have anyone killed who was standing right in the limelight. But he's far from being the "good guy" by any stretch. Ironically that makes the matter worse, because if someone is hiding with such a "bad guy", just how bad do those he is hiding from have to be?

And that's where the credibility bit comes in. Let's face it, we don't expect much "good" from the Russkies, do we? We've been taught in the past that they're teh evilz. But we, the good guys wit the white hats, we have to be "good" and play fair. Yes, people still believe that. They still believe we're the "good" ones in the whole game. Go to some random country in the former East Europe and ask what they fear more, that the US-American NSA invades their life or that the impossible happens, i.e. that the communists come back to take control again. The answer would absolutely surprise you.

The US is still the "good guy" in most people's hearts. And that means paradoxically at the same time that they're allowed a lot of leeway when it comes to certain things that aren't perceived as so bad (like spying "for liberty"), but at the same time means that they can't simply kill people because that would be "evil".

This has little to do with what Putin does. Putin is the Russian. Historically, the one that would do anything evil anyway, and hence we don't trust him, but we want to trust the US because they're "good". That sentiment is still deeply rooted in the minds of many people in Europe. And the US would be very ill advised to uproot it over someone like Snowden.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[shutdown -p now]

cold fjord is kinda conservative, and girlintraining is transgender male-to-female. I think there might be some personal issues there.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[shutdown -p now]

Most Russian citizens do not think that Putin is a beacon of democracy. In fact, the plurality (at this point it's no longer a majority, just the single biggest voting block) that keeps voting for him is doing so precisely because he is anti-democracy - for them, "democracy" is a swear word, it's that poisonous Western political ideology that was planted to destroy the country from within.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[phayes]

You so insular that you do not see that your viewpoint is not universal. Seriously, go travel around the world. Spend some time in Russia (with an open mind & not just in the international hotels). You'll discover that for most russians honestly do see Putin as "the good guy" & the US as the bad guy internationally. I could take your post, replace all the US references with Russian ones & vice-versa and it would be exactly what I've heard from many in Russia.

Now this doesn't mean that I hold their viewpoint, only that they do.

Argue all you want about how much an elephant resembles a tree trunk, you clearly haven't seen enough of it to notice that other parts are different.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[phayes]

There is truth in what you say but part of Putin's success is that among those who have abandoned socialism as the one true faith, he has convinced enough of them that only voting for him & eliminating all opposition is democracy.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[shutdown -p now]

Not really. He has convinced them that it is good, which is a different thing. They don't like democracy, and don't want it. They want an authoritarian populist government.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[phayes]

I'm more convinced by my conversations with Russians, in Russia, than I am by what you think they think.

Re:Please shoot this man.

[shutdown -p now]

I am a Russian from Russia. Understand that any conversations you have with people are going to be anecdotal.

But, yes, you are actually more accurate than I was - according to the poll, most people do want democracy, they just want a "special kind" of democracy: http://www.levada.ru/25-09-2013/rossiyane-o-svobode-demokratii-gosudarstve

TWO WEEKS OLD

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot, where the fastest people on the net read the slowest news.

Nearest neighbour

[SirAdelaide]

Australia's nearest neighbour was and is Papua New Guinea. You can almost walk from Papua to Australia at low tide (if you have very long legs).

Second nearest is Tasmania, followed by Indonesia.

Re: Nearest neighbour

[Anonymous Coward]

not sure if troll

Re:Nearest neighbour

[Chuck Chunder]

You can almost walk from Papua to Australia at low tide (if you have very long legs).

Or a kangaroo to ride, of course.

Re:Nearest neighbour

[c0lo]

Australia's nearest neighbour was and is Papua New Guinea. You can almost walk from Papua to Australia at low tide (if you have very long legs).

Second nearest is Tasmania, followed by Indonesia.

FYI, Tasmania is still an Australian state (part of Australia as a country, not a neighbour of Australia).

Re:Nearest neighbour

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha - nice backhanded Tasmania slur... it's not like they are a part of Australia or anything... :)

Re:Nearest neighbour

[grouchomarxist]

You're both right and wrong.

Right about Papua, wrong about Tasmania. Tasmania is part of Australia. (Or perhaps this is some Australian joke?)

Re:Nearest neighbour

[grcumb]

Australia's nearest neighbour was and is Papua New Guinea. You can almost walk from Papua to Australia at low tide (if you have very long legs).

Second nearest is Tasmania, followed by Indonesia.

You fail at geography, but you will never go thirsty at any Tasmanian pub. :-)

...And you might want to remember Timor Leste, which is about as close as Papua New Guinea.

Re:Nearest neighbour

[torsmo]

Tasmania - The Deepest South.

Re:Nearest neighbour

[SirAdelaide]

That far north the kangaroos don't work properly. They tend to climb trees and then fall out instead of the usual behaviour of offering bouncy rides.

Re:Nearest neighbour

[SirAdelaide]

Yes, it is worth remembering East Timor, they get forgotten fairly often, like Papua New Guinea.

But they are a bit further away. From closest point on mainland Australia to nearest point of other places, distances are:

Papua New Guinea: 170 km
Tasmania: 220 km
Indonesia (Timor): 440 km
East Timor: 513 km

Re:Nearest neighbour

[SirAdelaide]

I heard New Zealand had claimed Tasmania, and Australia didn't bother to object.

Re:Nearest neighbour

[c0lo]

Tasmania - The Deepest South.

Why, what do you know! Formally, you are right: Bishop and Clerk Islets are Tasmanian territories!

Re:Nearest neighbour

[mjwx]

Australia's nearest neighbour was and is Papua New Guinea. You can almost walk from Papua to Australia at low tide (if you have very long legs).

Second nearest is Tasmania, followed by Indonesia.

As much as we dont like the situation, Tasmania is still part of Australia and technically, not a neighbour.

Re:Nearest neighbour

[MrBigInThePants]

You think your comment is an intelligent retort. But it is not.

In fact it is so stupid as to boggle the mind.

Currently AUS and Indonesia are in a semi-turf war over PPNG. Indonesia are spreading their special brand of cruelty (which includes genocide Ref: 3 East Timor) there also and have shown that war crimes and other atrocities are not below them.

Re:Nearest neighbour

[Anonymous Coward]

How far is Christmas Island from Indonesia? Pretty sure it's further than Thursday Island is from PNG (you can see PNG from Australian land), but it's a lot closer than Timor Leste is from Oz.

Re:Nearest neighbour

[mathew42]

There are not enough sheep in Tasmania for there to be a synergy with New Zealand.

Re:Nearest neighbour

[isorox]

Australia's nearest neighbour was and is Papua New Guinea. You can almost walk from Papua to Australia at low tide (if you have very long legs).

Wow, I hadn't looked into it before, but there's a lot of islands in the Torres Strait, and Austrailia gets to about 2 miles from Papua New Guinea!

Re:Nearest neighbour

[FunkDup]

offering bouncy rides.

When Australia was first settled a few people did indeed try it. I remember a school teacher showing us some drawings of special saddles and other stuff that people had made for the purpose. The problem is that a roo large enough to carry a human is a powerful and aggressive animal, it puts up a hell of a fight. There were at least a couple of people that somehow managed to saddle the roo and then mount the saddle, but in both cases the roo just bashed them into a tree tree or something. The first seven people to try it were all killed. I've never heard of anyone trying it since.

Re:Nearest neighbour

[FunkDup]

And just for kicks, here is a Kangaroo giving himself a bouncy ride http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6VKtk1FesY

Re:Nearest neighbour

[tumutbound]

As much as we dont like the situation, Tasmania is still part of Australia and technically, not a neighbour.

Imagine my surprise when I moved down to Tasmania from Sydney. I thought I was emigrating.

Re:Nearest neighbour

[chihowa]

...the roo just bashed them into a tree tree or something.

By a little-known variation of Poe's Law, it's hard to tell if anything an Australian writes is a typo or not (especially if you read it with an accent)!

Re: Nearest neighbour

[SleazyRidr]

It's factual information, so I don't understand your confusion about the potential trolling. (Unless you're talking about including Tasmania in the list, but I think he's just highlighting exactly how close Papua is.)

Re:Nearest neighbour

[SirAdelaide]

Christmas Island is 1600 km from the Australian mainland, and 351 km from Indonesia (Java).

It is because of its proximity to Indonesia that people smugglers take their boats there, plus Jakarta is on Java so there are a lot of people there.

Papua New Guinea: 170 km
Tasmania: 220 km
Indonesia (Java to Christmas Island): 351 km
Indonesia (Timor to mainland Australia): 440 km
East Timor: 513 km

Re:Nearest neighbour

[jrumney]

Is Timor the nearest part of Indonesia to mainland Australia? What about Papua?

Was I spied upon, by my phone cam?

[Anonymous Coward]

A few days ago I was browsing some Middle East news on a Middle East news site. Suddenly my phones camera flash goes off, which I don't recall having seen before and I get the suspicion someone took a photo of me using my phone camera... Yes, I use Android but that is really not the point. Is this a known 'trick' on phones? I think I have read about a similar style, abusing peoples laptop webcams.

(no didn't wan't to login today...)

Re:Was I spied upon, by my phone cam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a current or former leader of a South East Asian country rich in natural resources ripe for exploitation by Australian companies?

If not, then it is likely you are just suffering from paranoid delusions. At least until Snowden releases his next set of documents exposing more of our ... damn did I just say our ... backspace backspace delete damn this voice recognition software ... don't

Re:Was I spied upon, by my phone cam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Had it not been dark cloudy weather I wouldn't have noticed it. The flash that was set off was really weak.

Re:Was I spied upon, by my phone cam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Had it not been dark cloudy weather I wouldn't have noticed it. The flash that was set off was really weak.

At least you know it's not the government spying on you. If it had been they wouldn't have used the flash and instead would have just enhanced the image until they could see what they needed to. It was probably just some terrorist hoping to steal your credit cards.

Re:Was I spied upon, by my phone cam?

[tragedy]

Zoom in! Enhance! Zoom in some more here! Enhance! Zoom in on that reflection! Enhance! Zoom in! Ehance! Rotate around so we can see his face in the reflection instead of the back of his head! Enhance! We've got him!

Re:Was I spied upon, by my phone cam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever it was - you bought the phone but it belongs to NSA-GCHQ. Or maybe the North Korean Long-Range Recon Forces, they seem to be quite proficient.

Remove the battery whenever you do something important.

Governments have always spied on each other

[grantspassalan]

Since ancient times, governments have always spied on one another with varying effectiveness. It's just in our modern times, with the advent of the Internet, governments not only spy on each other but on as many others as they possibly can. Unlike governments of course most people don't have such deep dark secrets and their communications with one another are almost always quite boring. Would it not be nice if all the spies got bored to death by all the mundane things we have to say to one another?

Do unto thy neighbour

[Anonymous Coward]

Indonesia 'was' Australia's nearest and most important regional neighbour

He, he.

"Was"?

[macraig]

Indonesia was Australia's nearest and most important regional neighbour.

So has Australia swallowed it whole like a fratboy scarfing a goldfish and I just missed the news?

Re:"Was"?

[jrumney]

So has Australia swallowed it whole like a fratboy scarfing a goldfish and I just missed the news?

The other way around. Indonesia sent an army of boat people to take over from the inside. It's been widely reported in the news over the last 10 years or so, especially around election time.

Re:"Was"?

[hairyfish]

Tony Abbott (Aussie PM) is the Australian George W Bush, so standby for 3 more years of of fratboy level leadership.

Re:"Was"?

[macraig]

And John Howard was the Bush Mini-Me, so... more of the same!

Re:"Was"?

[phayes]

Give it a week or two & it'll show up on /.

Re:"Was"?

[Guppy06]

Someone in New Zealand did something and reminded everyone the country still exists.

Re:"Was"?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've had two Prime Minister's between those two...

Re:"Was"?

[macraig]

But wasn't Gillard just more of the same, too? *ducks*

Re:"Was"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot about Rudd, the egotistical narcisist who, everytime he had an important announcement to make, burst out crying like a baby

Re:"Was"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take a cry baby over a war criminal every time, thank you very much.

Re:"Was"?

[jrumney]

Except New Zealand is about 10 times the distance from Australia that Indonesia is. The only countries closer than Indonesia are Papua New Guinea, and maybe East Timor (though I think from the tip of Queensland to the border between PNG and Indonesia might be closer than East Timor to Bathurst Island)

Cut out the action movies

[Anonymous Coward]

...and get off the sauce. No one is going to risk starting World War III over this guy by sending troops onto Russian soil.

Here comes the downmods

[girlintraining]

Here's the thing guys. This isn't a troll. It's a politically unpopular thing to say, but we're all thinking it. This is America. Good, bad, this is how democracy works. We ask the hard questions. The uncomfortable ones. You people ask and beg and bitch and plead with and about our government regarding surveillance, and how your free speech is being oppressed... but when someone pops the question everyone wants to talk about, you're gonna shut them down. I posted this knowing it would go straight to the depths of this website.

And the real kicker is; no government man in a black helicopter made any of you push the downmod button. You did that. So pro or anti snowden alike... you all got one thing in common: You're afraid to stand up and ask the hard questions. You'd rather let the government take care of things for you, and then bitch about the result. Well, you don't get that privilege if you can't sit down and reason out an argument for why, or why not, to do a hard thing. You don't get to complain about government officials riding roughshod over our rights, because if you're not gonna excercise them to begin with, then why do you even care?

We need to ask this question. This is how we've done business for a very long time. If the policy has changed, shouldn't we, the public, the people, be asking why it was done without our input? Whichever side of the issue you're on, or even no side at all, it should bother you just a bit that nobody anymore can ask the hard questions without being thought of as a "troll" or that it's "flamebait". Because it's neither. And to Godwin this whole thing, yeah, I'm gonna drop a Nazi reference now -- how do you think all those Jews got exterminated? They voted for Hitler. And then they stopped talking. They let the government do whatever it wanted, and as long as they got economic security and comfort, they didn't ask publicly what the cost was. But they knew. Yeah, they knew something was wrong. But they weren't gonna be the ones to talk.

Talking, people, is what democracy is about. If you don't talk, you don't have a democracy, except on paper. So talk people. Snowden lives. Snowden dies. Some other option. Step up to the microphone and say something. Or... or you can sit there and sneer, just like the german people did. But think about where it got them. Decisions need to be made. If you believe in democracy, you should make your opinion known -- because otherwise, the decision will be made without any of our input, and I promise you.. it'll be even worse than what I've put on the table.

Re:Here comes the downmods

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your input here, I personally enjoy & come here for a variety of opinion. I don't always agree but I'm grateful you've spent the time to think and express.

I find it shocking that those who fear Orwell most are the first to censor to exact party guidelines, I have modern social movement as effect not cause.

I don't yet have an opinion on Snowden other than that he seems remarkably free of the personality I, anecdotally, associate with the analyst type, he's possibly coincidentally conventionally attractive with a 'snow' white-friendly sounding name. His story is broadly compatible with christian mythology and middle class male hero stereotype.

Though implementation details have been updated, this is not news. Were I in his position I would have prioritised technical documentation, facilitating tool building by others. The published documentation fits almost exactly a cognitive behavioural strategy to create fear with no solution.

Should information be leaked which allows technical people to combat the perceived threat I will be more convinced.

Thanks again.

Re:Here comes the downmods

[crimson tsunami]

I dont know why you think the powers that be in your country would care in the slightest what you or any random member of the public thinks.

It's quite easy for you to talk shit on the Internet, but people who have thought about this for half as long as it took you to write your post realise its a completely stupid thing to do. Killing Snowden now would only have bad consequences and gain you no benefit. It wouldn't even meet you objective of stopping the leaks as the cat is already out of the bag.

You don't ask any hard questions, your too busy hiding the real discussions and deflecting the attention onto the celebrity of the moment, Snowden in this case.

Mod this troll too

[girlintraining]

You guys just don't get it. You're the very thing you claim to despise: The government comes and squishes free speech because it's unpopular... but then here you are, doing the same damn thing. The government isn't suppressing us: WE are suppressing us. We're plugging our ears and singing "Glory Glory Hallelujah."

And then you people wonder why we get shit like behavioral profiling, full body scanners, and police claiming they can do whatever they want. Well, look in the mirrors guys. You're staring at the reason: It's your steadfast refusal to get involved in the democratic process.

You think I'm wrong? You think this discussion hasn't been had in the oval office? By all means, come out and say so. Or you can sit on the sidelines and watch everything go to shit because you were too cowardly to even offer an opinion.

Re:Mod this troll too

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys just don't get it. You're the very thing you claim to despise: The government comes and squishes free speech because it's unpopular... but then here you are, doing the same damn thing. The government isn't suppressing us: WE are suppressing us. We're plugging our ears and singing "Glory Glory Hallelujah."

You have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to force anyone to listen to it. You got downmoded, this isn't jackbooted thugs stepping on your throat. This is the collective public saying they think you're a moron and have no interest in listening to the drivel coming out of you. The paranoid schizophrenic hobo shouting on the street corner about the CIA using woodpeckers to control the russians has the right to say his nonsense. That doesn't mean I have to listen to it.

Re:Mod this troll too

[Anonymous Coward]

You think I'm wrong?

Not only wrong, you're clearly stupid.

Re:Mod this troll too

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the thing. You're a well known troll and all-around stupid bitch who often talks out of her ass. Remember "Autoland"? The only reason you get modded up sometimes is because you play to the croud on some issues and other times you're simply modded up by neck-beards that haven't gotten laid in the past decade who see "girl" in a username and get all horny, not realizing of course that you are a butch lesbian. Go fuck yourself and leave Slashdot. You troll and contribute nothing interesting, insightful, or meaningful.

Re:Mod this troll too

[jma05]

Well. I don't think you are a troll. I think you are just way off. So I will respond.

> can we not manage to deal with this one, simple, irritation?

Nope.

> This is an honest question; I simply do not understand why we're holding out on this one guy, when we've sent in Seal Team Six to give people who have done less in economic damage severe and sudden lead poisoning and then dumped their body uncermoniously in the ocean where it'll never be found.

The world cheers if Seal Team Six caps pirate kidnappers or OBL. However, the world has already decided who the good guy is in Snowden vs. NSA. I suggest you read some publications and polls outside US for a change. It's not hard. You have Internet access.

Even the pressure on Hong Kong and Russia to extradite him cost US reputation, let alone your hare-brained ideas of assassination. Even US cannot wipe away globally popular icons. Not to mention the fact that the Russians have better radars (can't drop in ST6) than Pakistan :-).

I know the economy is tough. You aren't applying for a job at the offices of Peter King or Michelle Bachmann, are you?

> he wants to be a martyr

Whatever gave you that idea? He never said that. Don't let your imagination run wild to support your fevered fantasies. He asked for a pardon.

> What about making him a martyr is so unappealing

The international backlash. A few years ago, I would have also said: The Fifth Amendment.

> this isn't a moral judgment on whether he's right or wrong

Oh, I think you are well past making moral judgments.

> When a hungry bear takes a run at you

On what planet is he a hungry bear? He is not even deciding what articles get published now. The journalists are doing that. Next, you will be calling on capping them too, I guess.

Do you think that if a dissident fled a third world country to US and exposed secret service overreach of his country to NY Times, would you say that the said country ought to cap him too?

> he's done more damage economically than they have

He did? I thought that the "Ha Ha. We can do whatever we want because no one is ever going to find out" attitude that is damaging the economy.

If we find out tomorrow from a Chinese dissident that Beijing has commandeered Huawei gear for espionage, would that be the dissident's fault or Beijing's, for lost sales?

> why aren't we doing our signature move on this guy?

Wow. Just wow.

> but we're all thinking it.

No. I'd say, just a few people like you, at least over here.

> how do you think all those Jews got exterminated? They voted for Hitler. And then they stopped talking. They let the government do whatever it wanted

Who is the Hitler here again? You mean if only Germans rabidly demanded for more assassinations like you, Nazis would not be in power?

Anyway, you parade around with a "Cap Snowden" banner in the real world and lets see how people will speak up... to you anyway.

> The government comes and squishes free speech because it's unpopular... but then here you are, doing the same damn thing.

Ah, the irony. The fascistic lady who calls for extra legal assassination of a non-violent dissident who leaked information to respected journalistic institutions thinks her free speech is in question because she got... oh! the horror... down-modded. Do you even know what free speech is?

Calm down lady. NSA overreached. This is not a subjective opinion. The guy who wrote the patriot act authorizing NSA thinks so. The guy who invented the WWW also thinks so. There are enough US Senators and Congressman who voiced support for him, even though everyone wishes it never needed to come to this in the first place.

Now, as a civilian, I could not care less if US wiretaps diplomats and presidents of other countries. But the point of these leaks is to puncture holes in the argument that the reason we need to tolerate global electronic surveillance apparatus and a domestic Soviet style surveillance state, is to defend us against terrorism. Greenwald and others are demonstrating that it is not the case.

Re:Mod this troll too

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no lady, btw... :)

Re:Mod this troll too

[girlintraining]

Well. I don't think you are a troll. I think you are just way off. So I will respond.

Okay, first, thanks for responding. But, I didn't take a position as you're implying. I just asked a question, to start a dialog. I personally agree with most of what you're saying; But the only way to get a better handle on why these policy decisions are being made, and to give the public a voice in them. Because somewhere, someone in our government had this conversation. It was then tabled. We need to know why, and since we can be reasonably sure the government isn't going to reveal this, the best we can do is lay the facts on the table and try to draw conclusions as best we can. Which is what you did, and which I thank you for.

I only wish more people were willing and able to do so.

Re:Mod this troll too

[girlintraining]

This is the collective public saying they think you're a moron and have no interest in listening to the drivel coming out of you.

No, it isn't. This is a specialty website catering to a small fraction of the population, and whether you want to admit it or not, it catrs to a very specific political orientation within that fraction of the population.

I am challenging that worldview, and I knew doing that would catch hell, but it needs done. People occasionally need to be shaken up and forced to answer uncomfortable questions. The question of what to do with Snowden is an uncomfortable one -- because something does need to be done. He broke the law, and that demands a response. Maybe the response is to abolish the law. Maybe it's to draft a new law. Maybe it's to hold a trial. All I asked was for people to engage in a discussion of the available options. Now the government has been pretty consistent with which one it chooses in these kinds of situations -- that inconsistency here is noteworthy.

And this is what people don't want to listen to: They don't want to hear the call of personal responsibility. But that's what democracy demands, if it is to have any value. The downmods represent a strong bias against taking responsibility as a citizen to participate in the government. They only want the pre-formed and pre-digested opinions handed to them by popular media. And nobody likes having a mirror held up to them. That's why the downmods happened. It has nothing to do with the "collective public" thinking I'm a moron.

Nine times out of ten, when someone calls another person stupid, it's not because they are, it's because they disagree but are unable to form a cohesive argument against what is said. Plato remarked on this aspect of human reasoning when he talked about his cave. How you can learn more than your peers, and yet seem stupider than before... because intelligence is commonly held as synonymous with agreement when the two couldn't be more different.

Re:Mod this troll too

[swillden]

I think the Whistleblower Protection Act covers Snowden, particularly in light of Obama's Presidential Policy Directive 19. If WPA doesn't cover Snowden it should be extended so it does, but I think it already does, and the inconsistency isn't in the law it's in the administration's obedience to the law.

Re:Mod this troll too

[Anonymous Coward]

You get all these things because you no longer have a functioning democracy.
You don't have free speech anymore, your politicians have no interest of asking and answering the tough questions. Your media is too cowardly to hold anyone to account for blatant lies. Your politicians spend more time making money than making decisions.
Start with campaign financing laws, redraw districts, get some media will balls again.
After that you could try educating you voters so you don't have a bunch of brainwashed fools voting for a bunch of bought and paid for politicians.

Basicly you get the government you deserve, and noone cares enough to change it.

Tit for tat is brewing

[cold fjord]

Indonesian hackers deface Australian websites over spying
Hacking group claims to have infiltrated Australian websites

Re:Tit for tat is brewing

[Anonymous Coward]

Many wrong conclusions here. First they had PowerPoint slides which indicates someone wanted to impress or want to , but most likely can't do. Just because its on a slide, most likely means that objective or thing/message will almost certainly never be achieved.

Contacts. That can be observed, shaking hands, talking to etc. More likely some excuse to justify travel expenses. Its a lot of money to find out which leader uses what phone model, that anyone can see anyway. One is to sell shares in blackberry, and amazing none of them used Samsung's or Apple iPhones.

The only sound conclusion - every Indian/Low cost call center phone plan salesperson will target these leaders with new phone plans harder than ever after this leak. Certainly many will be red faced after being outed for using 'obsolete and untrendy' models. Phones are a fashion accessory, and it is uncool to be seen with those models.

 

Surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone spied on everyone else! Can we move on now?

False

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone spy agency would *LIKE* to spy on everyone all the time. But various factors stop that.

Budget, you don't have a $10 billion a year budget.
Technical ability, you don't get access to zero day exploits
Route, the comms doesn't traverse routes you can access.
Political reasons, your own democracy can't be spied on, because you'll chose your politicians.
Protection, the people you want to spy on are protected by a foreign spy agency
Motive, you just can't justify spying on people of no importance.
Balance, the damage the spying does far outweighs the information you would obtain.

Likewise every country would secretly like to control all other politicians, even their allies, but the same factors that stop you spying on them prevent that.

When it comes to the NSA though, all of these seem to have been removed. They have the budget, the zero day exploits, the comms crosses the USA. the democracy doesn't know, and there are enough traitors in power to prevent it being stopped, protection is gone, British GCHQ works for the CIA not British Parliament, you put a general 'collect it all' in charge, and the people doing the spying are getting budget increases so they don't feel any balance.

So no, everyone doesn't spy on everyone else. It's largely the NSA spying on the world mostly UK, Aus, Can, NZ, and in turn these 4 tools spying on the rest for the NSA.

Re:False

[Anonymous Coward]

So no, everyone doesn't spy on everyone else. It's largely the NSA spying on the world mostly UK, Aus, Can, NZ, and in turn these 4 tools spying on the rest for the NSA.

The GCHQ was/is just as heavily involved as the NSA. And if you think China and Russia don't have similar programs and capabilities then you're either an idiot or a racist, or both.

What cracks me up is even here, in a story about Australia doing the exact same shit, we get some mouth-breather doing a bunch of hand-waving and trying to downplay the events, and then circling back around to talk smack about the NSA.
You dickheads just can't stand not bitching about the US in some fashion or another, can you? I bet you're all kinds of pissed off that maybe, just maybe, the US isn't the sole bastion of conniving and trickery in the world, because that might ruin your righteous indignation and hatred of all things American.

Re:False

[Anonymous Coward]

GCHQ work for the NSA. They follow the surveillance commands of the NSA, hand data on their own citizens to the NSA, and keep those acts secret from Parliament and the Cabinet.

All the 5 eyes countries are in the same shape. New Zealand PM even had to pass a law legalizing surveillance, right in the middle of the PRISM scandal FFS, he's so under CIA control!

Do you think US is in control or NSA? Because that's a coin toss right now, but the others, they're firmly under CIA/NSA control.

"the US isn't the sole bastion of conniving and trickery in the world, because that might ruin your righteous indignation and hatred of all things American"

Try the jingoism all you like, the US democracy didn't do this spying, it's a faction of the military that did this surveillance. "All things American" means nothing when 80% of Americans think the NSA is out of control and the elected leaders are covering for them.

Re:False

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest i don't think many people care that a political figure got spied upon. They disliked the fact that they were getting spied on by their own government (meaning they get to pay for it as well), or one that's meant to be an ally, or one they already hate for other reasons.

Re:False

[NicBenjamin]

This is post is why Snowden will never be accepted as a non-traitor by just about anyone who has ever worked in government service.

The simple fact is the Chinese spy on more people, with more invasive software, 100% of the time; then the worst allegations against the NSA. The Russians are Russian. Belarus still calls it the KGB. Numerous other countries have surveillance apparatuses much worse then the US, even if the worst nightmares of the EFF are true.

And yet Snowden's partisans are on the internet claiming spying is "mostly the US" because if Wikileaks is too chicken to accuse the Chinese of spying clearly the Chinese never do it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying PRISM etc. is right, but if you can't acknowledge that the Chinese are way better at oppressing people with electronic surveillance tactics then the US something is wrong with you.

Grow up, children.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every major power spies on every other major power.
We humans have good reason not to trust each other.

Wrong reaction.

[Anonymous Coward]

While the most frequent reaction here is "Well, duh!" (and I must admit it was my first reaction too) that's not the point.

The point is that my government is doing that, and I strongly disapprove of it. Your government is doing that and you (perhaps) strongly disapprove of it. If we have the luck to live in democracies, it's our fucking duty to do something about it.

Re:Wrong reaction.

[mathew42]

The point is that my government is doing that, and I strongly disapprove of it. Your government is doing that and you (perhaps) strongly disapprove of it. If we have the luck to live in democracies, it's our fucking duty to do something about it.

Actually, I'm not sure I disapprove of the Australian government spying on Indonesia. There are a number of issues in Indonesia that impact on Australia directly including: government stability, fundamentalist Islam, asylum seekers, human rights abuses (e.g Aceh, East Timor and West Papua). Having inside knowledge of the government's thoughts could prevent misteps and assist Australia in working with Indonesia using soft power.

History (Balibo Five, live cattle exports, suggests that Australia is not as skilled as we would like.

Re:Wrong reaction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'm not sure I disapprove of the Australian government spying on Indonesia

I'm sure I do. Not that I like what Indonesia is doing -- but this secrecy nonsense nobody is accountable for doesn't help.

We'd rather spend our energies in (trying to) agree to some form of international law. It's a much more difficult and involved process, but the rewards are higher.

Re:Wrong reaction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cos I'm sure that Indonesia doesn't spy on us........
Its rubbish to get excited by these 'revelations'....its just a mechanism that the Indo PM will use as a scary stick for awhile, but we all know they spy on us anyway. Political games.

Re:Wrong reaction.

[Solandri]

The point is that my government is doing that, and I strongly disapprove of it. Your government is doing that and you (perhaps) strongly disapprove of it. If we have the luck to live in democracies, it's our fucking duty to do something about it.

As distasteful as I find all this spying, I suspect it's necessary. The reason everyone does it is probably simple evolution. Those who don't spy on their neighbors, end up losing negotiations and being relegated to political-economic irrelevance best case, being invaded and taken over worst case. In other words, those who don't spy cease to exist, leaving only those who do spy.

More like wrong focus

[Jakosa]

The fact that modern democracies have these grey-shaded institutions and make use of them to spy on each other is something that we probably will have to live with, and maybe even appreciate. As long as the targets for the espionage is large centralized power centres, like government, the military or organized, violent groups. In some way I think that we need, as in Iain Banks culrure-books, someone to step in in "special circumstances." Assassination, revolt or similar should of course rather NOT be the job of our intelligence services. Think if MI6 and CIA hadn't instigated a coup in Iran in 1953 against one of the regions first democratic government? How would the middle east have looked today?

But the really big wrong that Snowden has revealed is mass-surveillance of the entire population. This kind of technological spying can only be used for one thing: anti-democratic, cost-heavy practises, targeted against the press, grass-root and the very population that the system was intended to protect.

Re:More like wrong focus

[Anonymous Coward]

What if CIA told the truth that a serious number of Jews live in Iran, while it is BY LAW PROHIBITED for jews to live in the U.S. protectorate Saudi-Arabia ? What if they told America that the Sunni Extremists of Saudi-Arabia sponsor Terror around the globe, while Iran focuses on the Zionist injustice ? What if America forced justice onto the Zionists and stopped them from continuing to abuse the Arabs in the occupied zones ?

Yeah, what if CIA were honorable American patriots instead of Scumbags ? Yeah, what IF ?

Sources and Facts:

A) Wahabist sponsoring of the Chechny war
B) Wahabist sponsoring of the Yugoslav war
C) Wahabist sponsoring of 9/11
D) Wahabist sponsoring of Boston Bombing
D) Wahabist sponsoring of Terror in South East Asia

Re:More like wrong focus

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree... somewhat.

The fact that modern democracies have these grey-shaded institutions and make use of them to spy on each other is something that we probably will have to live with, and maybe even appreciate

Secrets are sometimes necessary, I'd agree with that. But this should be always kept to a minimum, and always opened up eventually. Otherwise a democracy is incapable of taking the right decisions.

And the necessary protection provided by this secrecy shouldn't be misused to hide all the shenanigans committed by those agencies running out of control.

*shakes fist*

[DrPBacon]

Hear hear!

What was the point of that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it matter "Who spied first"?

Is mass murder and torture OK as long as someone, somewhere did it first?

No?

THEN WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE IT SO HERE?

Re:What was the point of that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is mass murder and torture OK as long as someone, somewhere did it first?

No

Well, yes, actually - I believe they are called wars.

Burned Out

[Anonymous Coward]

and tired of reading about it. Why is anyone surprised....EVERY state does this. That horse has about turned to dust by now.
Windmill, anyone?

My road to Damascus

[benjfowler]

I have been wrong the whole time. After being modded down into a smoking hole in the ground on slashdot, I have seen the light. Snowden and his fellow travellers actually DO know better than everyone else about diplomatic and foreign policy than all the people who spend their entire lives keeping us safe from the hordes of criminals, Islamists and angry poor people out there. I have seen the errors of my ways. Obviously, any kind of government secrecy is the thin end of the wedge to Stalinism and tyranny.

Re:My road to Damascus

[benjfowler]

Exhibit A:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/indonesia-recalls-ambassador-to-australia-over-spying-claim-20131118-2xr5x.html

I must be retarded, because if this is an act of political genius by Snowden and his contemptible band of homosexual compulsive Judases, I fail to see it.

Re:My road to Damascus

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been wrong the whole time. After being modded down into a smoking hole in the ground on slashdot, I have seen the light. Snowden and his fellow travellers actually DO know better than everyone else about diplomatic and foreign policy than all the people who spend their entire lives keeping us safe from the hordes of criminals, Islamists and angry poor people out there. I have seen the errors of my ways. Obviously, any kind of government secrecy is the thin end of the wedge to Stalinism and tyranny.

Why the secrecy? Why not just be open about the fact that everyone is spying on everyone? Generally it's a bad thing in a democracy to have the government do things the public has no clue is happening, even worse is purposefully keeping the public in the dark.

How much is all the spying actually helping? I mean someone flew a plain into some of the most important buildings in the U.S... If the government can't even handle that then i think they should just pack up.

Maybe the rest of the world would stop plotting to hurt the U.S if they stopped acting like the world police too.

One last point that never gets taken into consideration: Why be affraid of terrorism? I live in Denmark, and we've had some threats in relation to the muhammed drawings, but noone i knew gave a flying f***. I bet in the U.S taking a single stroll in one of the major cities is 100X more likely to get you killed than you are to ever be affected by terrorists in your lifetime.

Re:My road to Damascus

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man. I hope you enjoy the Sharia Law your muslim friends bring over you and your fellow Americans as soon as they have outbred you.

Long live the Rodina so that Christians have a place to run as soon as you dumb Americans have let the muslims overrun+outbreed the west !

Snowden merely exposes the corruption the MIC have brought over all of us. They have used Sunni terrorism to keep the pork flowing towards them. We now have a Sunni-style security apparatus because the MIC makes tons of money from suppressing Sunni terror. BinLaden and Lockheed Martin have actually won.

If we had gone the rational route and locked out the Sunnis completely, we would not need Sunni-style security forces. But yeah, capitalist scumbags deserve the Moneyed Plague, after bringing so much misery over other places.

Any kind of government secrecy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, any kind of government secrecy is the thin end of the wedge to Stalinism and tyranny

Wow, man. Given the all-out carpet-surveillancing NSA, GCHQ and their disgusting buddies have been involved in, this "thin end" turns out uncomfortably thick, I'd say.

Can we can it.

[Anonymous Coward]

When the next claim of China or Russia spying on you or being bad people trying to control the actions of the rest of the world comes up, everyone here saying "Everyone does it!" can please shut the fuck up?

China trying to break into US systems?

EVERYONE DOES IT.

Russia buying contracts abroad and excluding your bidders?

EVERYONE DOES IT.

China using practically slave labour to produce cheap junk?

EVERYONE DOES IT.

North Korea trying to develop nuclear weapons on the sly?

EVERYONE DOES IT.

So please, every little shithead who is blase about the Snowden revelations and thinks them run-of-the-mill ordinary tales of what "everyone expects their intelligence services to do", do the same when China is being discussed.

Tit for Tat

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia only did this because Australia wants Indonesia to spy on them! It's only logical that the prime minister of Australia expects that Indonesia return the favour.

Not everybody spies

[thetagger]

Rich countries spy, the poor get spied on. It's just colonialism.

We are a macrocosm of Game of Thrones

[rmdingler]

I remember the outrage in 1987 when Jonathon Pollard was caught spying on the US for Israel. A simpler, more naive time perhaps, but the harsh reality of the World is that information is power. Nations are willing to forego an occasional bit of moral outrage in their Machiavellian quest to retain and grow their influence.

Way to find a nonexistent claim, bub!

[Anonymous Coward]

The claim wasn't that they wouldn;'t spy on others but that, variously

They would be "of the people, by the people, for the people"
They would have government by the fit to lead, not inheritance of power
They would not be like the Old Word, they would be a Land of the Free

None of which means "Spy on everyone, including your own people, raising as much in tax as is necessary to keep this train going".

Yup, even Putin's Russia is better than the USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?

Oh, well, not YOU, obviously.

Re:Yup, even Putin's Russia is better than the USA

[phayes]

So-called freedom fighter Snowden goes willingly a country where reporters and others are assassinated for questioning president/prime minister/president/... Putin? This in a country where the there cannot be a scandal on how the government spies on its citizens/neighbors/allies because it's legal & considered normal?

You need a really perverted definition of liberty to be able to hold that opinion, coward.

dafuq

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems lately we've been inundated with stories of governments spying on each other... as if... to distract us from the fact that they are spying on us. Oh you sneaky government, you.

Solution coming soon

[Anonymous Coward]

It's okay, girlintraining, the Obama government has taken action to review possible misdeeds by the NSA pointed out by Snowden:

I read, that Obama has appointed a committee to study if the NSA is out of the government's control.
The committee is led by a very experienced, extremely tough and mean looking guy, who looks like he's going to turn over every stone to find out what's wrong in the NSA.
His name is mr. James Clapper.

So, no worries, eh? :-)

Is Snowden using the right strategy ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm wondering if Snowden is using the right strategy in leaking information every once in a while so people could digest it and wait for the next leak, digesting it again. Would not the appropriate strategy be to release everything at the same time so people could not digest it and go crazy about it, maybe creating a revolt ? A leak every month just seems to make it like your daily coffee.

Diplomatic shifts

[Anonymous Coward]

"Indonesia was Australia's nearest"...

Curse you tectonic plates!

OpSec?

[godel_56]

What I want to know is why did Australia NAME the country and the individual surveillance targets, then put that in a document given to a foreign country, which had their name and organization written all over it? Haven't they heard of code names?

They could have referred to target1, target 2 etc in the country of Elbonia on paper and made it clear in conversation who was being referred to. Even if the intended targets could have been easily guessed, it would have provided some level of deniability.

Never put it in writing.