Slashdot Mirror


Court Allowed NSA To Spy On All But 4 Countries

mrspoonsi (2955715) writes A court permitted the NSA to collect information about governments in 193 countries and foreign institutions like the World Bank, according to a secret document the Washington Post published Monday. The certification issued by a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2010 shows the NSA has the authority to "intercept through U.S. companies not just the communications of its overseas targets, but any communications about its targets as well," according to the Post's report. Only four countries in the world — Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand — were exempt from the agreement, due to existing no-spying agreements that the Post highlights in this document about the group of countries, known as "Five Eyes" with the U.S.

242 comments

  1. Uh... Yeah? by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, but I'm not going to get my panties in a bind that the NSA is spying on other countries' governments considering:
          1. That's the NSA's freakin' job.
          2. Anybody who thinks that the only country in the world that spies is the U.S. is either an idiot or a liar.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    1. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's part of the game to shout out when they are taken with their hands in the cookie jar. Just because its their job doesn't mean its okay.

      Its expected of them to spy, but the method and the way data is obtained is the issue for a lot of people. And the data taken is used in ways it was not intended on citizen from all over the world.

      Can only hope you are one of the first when they come and take people away.

    2. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but I'm not going to get my panties in a bind that the NSA is spying on other countries' governments

      Except that the relevant rules are worded so broadly that they don't just permit the NSA to spy on foreign governments:

      “If ‘about the target’ collection were limited to genuine national security threats, there would be very little privacy impact,” Wyden told the Post. “In fact, this collection is much broader than that, and it is scooping up huge amounts of Americans’ wholly domestic communications.”

      Besides, what do you think of the fact that this is done "through U.S. companies"? Is it OK for the US government to pressurize private US companies, probably through the kind of National Security Letter "You're doing our dirty work and you're not allowed to tell a soul or else" type tactic, into becoming a conduit for US government foreign policy?

    3. Re:Uh... Yeah? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      You don't suspect that the NSA may have taken advantage of the...creative flexibility... offered by the authorization to collect "not just the communications of its overseas targets, but any communications about its targets as well"?

    4. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or what is worse is the idiots like yourself who do not know the difference between spying and mass warrant-less surveillance.

    5. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. That's the NSA's freakin' job.

      I'm just doing my job! That makes it okay!

      Not everyone believes that we should be spying on allies and non-hostile countries.

      2. Anybody who thinks that the only country in the world that spies is the U.S. is either an idiot or a liar.

      Anyone who thinks that "Everybody else is doing it!" is a valid justification is an idiot or a liar. By the way, that's very likely a straw man, as I've seen no one actually claim no other country is doing it. The thing is... get ready for it... no one cares! It's irrelevant!

    6. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure most countries spy... But not anywhere near the level NSA does it at... I have never heard of other countries that put bugs in UN offices of other countries etc...

      Known incidents of countries spying on the UN:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      Also, using diplomats for regular spying is just evil...

    7. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it also the NSA's job to destroy the American tech industry? Because that's how you destroy the American tech industry.

    8. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Shoten · · Score: 0

      It's part of the game to shout out when they are taken with their hands in the cookie jar. Just because its their job doesn't mean its okay.

      Its expected of them to spy, but the method and the way data is obtained is the issue for a lot of people. And the data taken is used in ways it was not intended on citizen from all over the world.

      Can only hope you are one of the first when they come and take people away.

      "Just because it's their job doesn't mean it's okay."

      Um...WHAT?

      "And the data taken is used in ways it as not intended on citizen from all over the world."

      Citation? I don't know of any reference to this, even in abstract. Can you please define the intended uses of COMINT and SIGINT, and the ways that are forbidden in the context of espionage please?

      "Can only hope you are one of the first when they come and take people away."

      You don't sound any better than the demonized version of the NSA you speak of.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    9. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Full disclosure: I am not a US citizen and live in the UK.

      I think everybody understands that it's the NSA's job, like any intelligence agency's, to spy for certain purposes. Problem is what one accepts as "certain purposes." If the NSA does spying necessary to, let's say, avoid terrorist attacks, fight organised crime, ensure US military secrets, etc., hardly anybody would complain I guess. But the NSA is spying indiscriminately on virtually anybody (unless you're covered by the Five-Eyes-No-Spy-Agreement)! So, high-tech corporations in let's say Japan or private citizens in let's say France might ask themselves, why is the NSA spying on them? I think you will find that very few countries in the world go to that extreme. And the few that might (let's say Russia or China) are generally not considered the "good guys".

    10. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose you're from the US, Canada, Britain, Australia, or New Zealand so you don't care. I do care, not being from one of those "five eyes" ..

      Welcome to Earth. Unlike your planet, we have a blue sky.

      Humans live here.

      We're not very nice to each other. Well, compared to how everything else on this planet treats each other, we do OK. But still, we're not very nice.

      Better get used to it.

    11. Re:Uh... Yeah? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but I would prefer more nuance to the role of government agencies than a moronic bumper sticker. Also, I want te NSA fired anyway. It is most likely the biggest threat to national security by quite a margin.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re: Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know anyone that puts bugs in their friends house? Spying on friends is decidedly fucked up and is a sure way of losing friends.

    13. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Thanshin · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but I'm not going to get my pants in a bind about what a court "allows" the NSA to do. Taking into account that the law hasn't applied to the NSA in the past and I I know of no reason why it would start now.

    14. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but I'm not going to get my panties in a bind that the NSA is spying on other countries' governments considering:

            1. That's the NSA's freakin' job.

            2. Anybody who thinks that the only country in the world that spies is the U.S. is either an idiot or a liar.

      ...and a Hit-man's job is to kill people, you have a very weak point, if one at all...

    15. Re:Uh... Yeah? by jeIlomizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Um...WHAT?

      Yeah, I know. That sentence blew my mind! How can something you do for your job not be okay!? It's impossible!

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    16. Re:Uh... Yeah? by thaylin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is Russia's spy agency's job to spy on us, that does not make it ok for them to do, as I am sure you would not be happy about it spying on you if you found out it actually did.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    17. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, this has ultimately nothing to do about spying for spying's sake. Instead it is the evolutionary battle between justice systems: Common Law based systems versus (mostly) Roman and Napoleonic Law based systems. We as pawns, meme containers and distributors, do not realize our role in this battle of legal memes and meme systems. The unbounded rage of a judiciary guided court examination versus the unlimited menace of the adversary process, such a glorious duel!

    18. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the NSA's freakin' job.

      And it's the mafia's job to fit people with cement shoes.

    19. Re:Uh... Yeah? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have never heard of other countries that put bugs in UN offices of other countries etc

      HAHAHA.

    20. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Forcing Microsoft, Google, et al to spy for the NSA, using secret orders from a secret court, seems rather more problematic.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    21. Re:Uh... Yeah? by ZouPrime · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Just because its their job doesn't mean its okay.

      Just because it's the job of the military to kill people doesn't mean it's okay.

      It's not, but every single country in the world still has a military, and won't disband it just because "killing is wrong".

      Countries have interests. They have a foreign policy aimed at defending these interest.

      War is diplomacy by any other means, and countries will use wars as a tool of their foreign policy.

      Spying is also diplomacy by other means, and countries will use spies as a tool of their foreign policy, which has the nice benefit of not killing people and not destroying everything, like wars do.

      That it is "wrong" in some isolated, ideologically pure version of reality has little impact in practice. Countries continue to spy (since before they were such things as "countries"), and will continue for a long time.

    22. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't waste your time on them my fellow anonymous hero. They're the ""heroes"" - the ones with their asses hanging naked in the wind, awaiting a raping...

    23. Re:Uh... Yeah? by erikkemperman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Your panties aside, the whole problem here is that NSA is using "national security" as reason for a whole bunch of other things. Like economic, diplomatic and industrial espionage. Which is definitely not the NSA's job, no matter how liberally we interpret their mandate. Expand the acronym, there's a bit of a hint in there.

      Explain to me why spying on, say, Angela Merkel or the entire Copenhagen or G20 summits is related to US national security and maybe I'll see your point.

      You are probably correct that other countries do similar things (China and Russia come to mind) but you seem to be clueless to the difference in scale.

      Finally, your sig: you disbelieve AGW arguments because you think Al Gore is a hypocrite? You're right about that last bit, but the conclusion, to put it mildly, does not follow.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
    24. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, but I'm not going to get my panties in a bind that the NSA is spying on other countries' governments considering:

            1. That's the NSA's freakin' job.

            2. Anybody who thinks that the only country in the world that spies is the U.S. is either an idiot or a liar.

      I'm sick of this inane, uninformed argument.
      1. It shouldn't be. That's why we're having this debate. It would be one thing if our government found evidence of something shifty going on... spied to confirm or refute that, and then took action. That's not what they are doing though. They're bugging every world leader, tapping the phones of damned near every citizen, reading our mail... this is Orwellian blanket surveillance which is a far cry from "Spying" This isn't "Spying" it's totalitarianism and it's wrong.

      2. Comparing what the rest of the world does to what the NSA does is a joke. Yes, they spy on us, but they're not intercepting ALL of our phone calls. How many countries do you think have the US presidents phone tapped? I bet it's just one... take a guess who I think that is.

      But lets assume for a second that the rest of the world had the NSA's capability and disregard for human dignity and privacy... I could go on and on about the moral implications and what not but the fact of the matter is this argument was resolved thousands of years ago with the simple line: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" It's not a hard concept to grasp. WE are better than that. We don't need to do this. It's wrong, we all know it. It should stop immediately.

    25. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also their job not to get caught. They got caught, they have no excuse.

    26. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it also the NSA's job to destroy the American tech industry? Because that's how you destroy the American tech industry.

      It all depends on how they do it. They can sit in an embassy, pointing an hypersensitive antenna at "electronic targets", they can dig up cables in foregin countries at night, they can plant their own bugs. No ill effect on american tech industry from this. Quite the opposite, the NSA will need a "tech industry" to purchase bugs and other listening equipment from. If foreigners discover such a bug, they will either have counterintelligence feed it bogus data, or expose it and deliver some sort of official protest. Still no bad effect on american tech industry, unless the "official protest" takes the form of a boycott.

      But put just one backdoor into american equipment during export, and your reputation is ruined for a long time. Those that care about such things, will take the covers off and use disassemblers these days. Or simply order from other countries. Sure, the chinese can put backdoors into huawei products - in theory. But are they doing it at the moment? The paranoid can check no matter who the vendor is. The rest will either go by reputation, as in "who has not yet been caught delivering bugged products", or ask questions like "which producing country is least likely to spy on us.

      Tip: stay away from countries big enough to have aircraft carriers. The rest can't project power all over the world, and will neither have the budgets for - or the interest in - a large-scale spying operation.

    27. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, your sig: you disbelieve AGW arguments because you think Al Gore is a hypocrite? You're right about that last bit, but the conclusion, to put it mildly, does not follow.

      there's apparently an entire group of people who disbelieve in AGW because, in their minds, anybody who claims to want to stop it or even slow it down is only advocating "making Al Gore richer". i've heard the whole argument, and its basically "carbon credits are a scam and won't solve anything!" well no shit, thats why we aren't advocating for carbon credits or any stupid shit like that, we're advocating for stopping or at least slowing down global warming.

      sadly they're just as unmovable by fact as creationists, flat-earthers, and geocentrists.

    28. Re:Uh... Yeah? by spacepimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We are spying on civilians irrespective of who they are, what they think and how they act. Indiscriminate spying on the citizens of another nation is not the sort of thing the US should be engaged in. It will only piss them off and turn them to hate us along with losing the favor of the rest of the national leaders of the world. We have become complete and utter assholes of a nation and people like you saying it is fine have no idea how rude and arrogant you are to the people of the world who have done nothing wrong.

    29. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never heard of other countries that put bugs in UN offices of other countries etc...

      How is it that you're able to type, fresh out of the womb?

    30. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just doing my job! That makes it okay!

      Nuremberg called, they want their defense back.

    31. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny thing, though, there's a country that's conspicuously absent from that list.

      Remember, comrade, an American committing an act of war such as espionage against these United States is the Constitutional definition of treason. You wouldn't want to have two people observe you doing that.

    32. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could buy that, if you at the very least had the decency to stop accusing the Chinese and Russians for acts of agression when they do exactly the same.

    33. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

      You have much to learn about spying - thousands of lives were lost, on both sides, during the Cold-War. Just because it wasn't an overt military conflict does not mean that it was a peaceful endeavor.

      Today, we know that spies from many nations live within our borders. Some are after national secrets, some are after industrial secrets. But, any way you cut it, it goes counter to our National interests even if it's a dirty business.

    34. Re:Uh... Yeah? by snarfies · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A government spying on another government = okay

      A government spying on another country's people = not okay

      A government spying on its own people = OMGWTFBBQ

    35. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Soo... we should race towards the bottom.

      What's next? Revive torture?

    36. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm a patent lawyer. My job is it to patent ridiculous stuff, and afterwards sue people doing the same thing. It's my job, but certainly most people would agree it not being OK.

      Or maybe I'm a designer, creating ads. Ads that are lying about the product being advertised. It's fun, you learn a lot about how to deceive people. It's my job, but does that make it OK?

    37. Re:Uh... Yeah? by master_kaos · · Score: 1

      Um...WHAT?

      So a hitman is fine to kill people since it is their job???

    38. Re:Uh... Yeah? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Laugh all you want. But can you provide a proof?

    39. Re:Uh... Yeah? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      ...every single country in the world still has a military, and won't disband it just because "killing is wrong".

      Countries have interests. They have a foreign policy aimed at defending these interest.

      I hope we can all keep this in mind the next time our leaders tell us we are going to war to free an oppressed people or to stop some evil dictator form doing stuff evil dictators do. Foreign policy isn't about that. Ever.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    40. Re:Uh... Yeah? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      Why is the USA not on the 'can't spy on' list?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    41. Re:Uh... Yeah? by NatasRevol · · Score: 2

      OMGWTFBBQ when the government is supposed to abide by the laws that do not allow unreasonable search.

      But don't.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    42. Re:Uh... Yeah? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 0

      And it's not really in our interest to do as much spying as we do or engage in as many wars as we do. If we want to act in the interest of the US public, we would destroy the NSA and not leave a single brick standing.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    43. Re:Uh... Yeah? by umghhh · · Score: 1
      any policy can be judged on its costs and benefits. Direct costs and indirect costs of this policy are dire. Damage to US reputation and to Western citizens relationship with their states and their agencies that so creatively together with NSA misinterpreted laws and regulations is huge. There is also this little item of lost business due to NSA machinations.

      The question is: was it worth it?

    44. Re:Uh... Yeah? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Arguing that its not "OK" for russia to spy on us is very strange.

      What do you mean by "OK"-- that you dont approve? Thats both obvious, and irrelevant. That its morally wrong? I fail to see how intelligence gathering is amoral. That it violates some implicit agreement between the nations? Thats naieve-- everyone knows this stuff is going on.

    45. Re:Uh... Yeah? by bluewhale · · Score: 1

      Good thing, the government is not paying you to do this..

    46. Re:Uh... Yeah? by ZouPrime · · Score: 1

      Just because spying has caused death doesn't mean it has the same general impact as war (for Christ sake!)

      I like how you claim that spying goes against countries "national interest" when every single country does it. I guess it means that every single country is wrong in your view? Or maybe you're just wrong and has no idea what you are talking about.

    47. Re:Uh... Yeah? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Thats true, and its not what this is about. A US court cant force a foreign company to do jack.

    48. Re:Uh... Yeah? by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Didn't you DO that already ?
      Or have you forgotten Abu Ghraib already...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    49. Re:Uh... Yeah? by ZouPrime · · Score: 1

      The trust (or legitimate lack of trust) that people have toward their country has little to do with how countries act among each others.

      If you don't trust your country foreign policy (and you are right in saying that it isn't always very legitimate), then act on changing that. Hoping your country to sabotage itself won't work.

      The US (and every single other countries) won't abandon the tools at its disposition to enforce its foreign policy just because you feel they should. Countries - especially powerful ones - don't sabotage themselves for no reason.

    50. Re:Uh... Yeah? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      Your panties aside, the whole problem here is that NSA is using "national security" as reason for a whole bunch of other things.

      Unfortunately, it's been that way since the State Secrets doctrine was created.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    51. Re:Uh... Yeah? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      I could go on and on about the moral implications and what not but the fact of the matter is this argument was resolved thousands of years ago with the simple line: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" It's not a hard concept to grasp. WE are better than that. We don't need to do this. It's wrong, we all know it. It should stop immediately.

      Wouldn't it be nice if our leaders considered what kind of world they're contributing to rather than just what they need to do to advance their "interests"?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    52. Re:Uh... Yeah? by robbyb20 · · Score: 1

      If every persons reaction to being spied on was "Oh My God, What The Fuck, Bar-B-Que" I might be ok with it. I could go for some ribs...or grilled hotdogs OR a Hamburger. Fuck it, give me it all! Mmmmm, BBQ

    53. Re:Uh... Yeah? by ZouPrime · · Score: 1

      Of course! The US should destroy its electronic espionage capabilities, right as the world enters the information golden age! Makes perfect sense. Why think long term when you can just react to the last news-fueled scandal!

      Every industrialized country is racing to adopt strong electronic espionage (and defense capabilities), it's been growing fast for the last decade, as the importance and impact of telecommunication technology has been growing. It is THE hot field right now. Clearly, the most rational move for the US right now is to simply abandon it altogether.

    54. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2

      That's absolutely right. In a very real way, our collective spy networks both US/Nato and Soviet/Warsaw allowed us to see what the other was doing and have some confidence about their immediate intentions. Spying kept the cold war from being a hot war.

      In a perfect world would spying exist? No.
      Should spying continue to exist in this un-perfect world? Absolutely.
      Should there be restrictions to spying? Absolutely.

      Like much in this world, the right answer is not an absolute answer. The world lives in complicated shades of grey.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    55. Re:Uh... Yeah? by aepervius · · Score: 1

      It is their frigging job yes.... But one has to wonder on the scope and breadth. Plus they got caught/whistleblowed. Both taken together make it for very difficult foreign relationship for the US for decade to come. But far more important for you, it might have an economical impact.

      --
      C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
      visit randi.org
    56. Re:Uh... Yeah? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Just because it's the job of the military to kill people doesn't mean it's okay.

      That depends, I'd say. Killing an enemy who is attacking or invading your country, or poses a clear and present danger to your country's security is OK, IMO.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    57. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Lacroman69 · · Score: 1

      One point: It's only Orwellian IF it affects our lives.

      The NSA's aim is to have zero detection, universal metadata mining, and eventual action items for law enforcement to follow up on, as the FBI has the most broad authority to act within the US, on such information, as opposed to NSA, DIA, CIA, etc.. This takes the argument past the "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" level. If you aren't acting in a pattern with a certain correlation to patterns of known and suspected terrorist/foreign-militants, then you have nothing to fear. Frankly, it might be a step in the right direction to further narrow focus away from random individuals who just have casual relationships with any dangerous-foreignly-motivated-entity: lived next door to, went to high-school with, played on a team with, worked with, had children at the same childcare facility as, etc.

      SO... as they use data mining to shrink the "drag-net", we may all have more freedom.(?)

      That is one position.

    58. Re:Uh... Yeah? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      The NSA is an enormous liability with horrible internal security. It yields virtually nothing useful to the general citizens, and it's actions have jeopardized secure encryption globally. So, yes, I would suggest getting rid of an enormous liability that provides us with nothing useful.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    59. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally got flashbacks of MGS2&4, GW, and the Sons of the Patriots reading this. All hail our AI overlords!

    60. Re:Uh... Yeah? by ZouPrime · · Score: 2

      > The NSA is an enormous liability with horrible internal security.

      The US should remove its electronic spying capabilities because they are internally insecure? I'm not sure to follow you here. It doesn't make any sense, and looks more like a half-assessed excuse to support your conclusion (The NSA should be destroyed no matter what) than anything else.

      > It yields virtually nothing useful to the general citizens,

      I think the general citizen benefits from the US global hegemony of the last 50 years. I'm sure they don't "feel" like it, but that's the problem of living in a rich country and feeling entitled about it. You end up forgetting the true source of the success to rely so much on.

      > and it's actions have jeopardized secure encryption globally

      Oh yeah, no exaggeration here!

      Well, what can I say? You have the username of your ideas.

    61. Re:Uh... Yeah? by fredrated · · Score: 1

      2. Anybody who thinks that the only country in the world that spies is the U.S. is either an idiot or a liar.

      Ah yes, the 'everybody does it' defense. Thst's always good for a laugh.

    62. Re:Uh... Yeah? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2
      Your argument is that Big Brother isn't a bother if you don't go against it. That's not much of a consolation. They can and will use those same techniques against political opponents, and with enough dirt on everybody and a legal system in which everyone regularly commits serious crimes in their daily life, political opponents can be silenced.

      SO... as they use data mining to shrink the "drag-net", we may all have more freedom.

      Yes, WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    63. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      It depends on what they were looking at, and why. Their surveillance and investigation of our military was not a bad thing during the cold war. I'd argue that even during the recent Ukraine crisis, its not a bad thing.

      If I were a defense contractor (I'm not), I'd kind of expect to be a target. I'd do my best to prevent them, but I'd understand that they'd try anyways.

      Now, if they have a camera in my shower ( regardless of my Job)... That sucks, and I'd kind of be pissed. If they were using my financial data to ruin me, I'd be pissed.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    64. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >It's not, but every single country in the world still has a military

      Iceland doesn't.

      Japan doesn't. (They do have a self-defense force, though.)

    65. Re:Uh... Yeah? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The US should remove its electronic spying capabilities because they are internally insecure? I'm not sure to follow you here. It doesn't make any sense, and looks more like a half-assessed excuse to support your conclusion (The NSA should be destroyed no matter what) than anything else.

      We spy on absolutely everything. Three are, without a doubt, agents acting on behalf of Russia, China, Al-Quaeda, and most crime syndicates withing the organization with access to at least as much as Snowden was able to get. That is a far bigger threat than any of these parties possess on their own.

      I think the general citizen benefits from the US global hegemony of the last 50 years. I'm sure they don't "feel" like it, but that's the problem of living in a rich country and feeling entitled about it. You end up forgetting the true source of the success to rely so much on.

      Our spy agencies have created the majority of the threats we face today. If we could stop enforcing the whims of the cronies at any cost, the general public would probably be in a better economic state without so much state backed corporate espionage and politically motivated coups. Perhaps we'd be less dominant, but I strongly prefer simply having a higher standard of living and being safer over being AMERICA NUMBER 1!

      Oh yeah, no exaggeration here!

      There isn't. We know of at least one attempt to undermine security standards, and that they have allowed US systems to remain unpatched for vulnerabilities in order to use against unnamed adversaries.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    66. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhh, bullshit. It's one of the very few things our federal government does that is constitutionally acceptable. Their job is to defend the nation; you have to have good spycraft to do that. Having been very successful, every country presents or harbors some level of threat.

    67. Re: Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So edgywever

    68. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to argue that it's bad because thousands of lives were lost. I'd argue it was very good, that only thousands of lives were lost, instead of the millions if spycraft had failed.

    69. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your government is for and by the people, then it's logical to spy on it's people as well. So, spying on americans = okay.

    70. Re:Uh... Yeah? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      1. It shouldn't be. That's why we're having this debate. It would be one thing if our government found evidence of something shifty going on... spied to confirm or refute that, and then took action.

      I'm curious. How, exactly, are we supposed to "find evidence of something shifty going on" without, well, SPYING on people??

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    71. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Just because it's their job doesn't mean it's okay."

      Um...WHAT?

      I know, right? Just the other day I heard they were arresting a hitman, just for doing his job. Isn't that ridiculous? And what about all those prostitutes being hauled off? They should arrest only the prostitutes who don't get paid for sex (who do they think they are?).

    72. Re: Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoooosh.

    73. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Megol · · Score: 2

      Ever heard of water boarding? Continuously playing music at high volumes? Continuously having strong light and/or switching the light on/off on random intervals? Locking people in small completely dark environments? Waking people as soon as they fall asleep? Mentally abusing people including forcing them to do things against their morals and/or religion? And a lot more...

      Which country doesn't consider such things torture?

    74. Re:Uh... Yeah? by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      It is in our best interest for Russia to spy on the USA. That way they know that the US isn't planning to invade them, they know the US isn't bluffing on their threats, and they know what will happen if they invade the Ukraine. Wars happen because those in charge don't know what is happening (not spying).

    75. Re: Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you'll feel the same way when I goon all over you and steal your stuff? You know, human nature and all.

    76. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      I'm curious. How, exactly, are we supposed to "find evidence of something shifty going on" without, well, SPYING on people??

      That is irrelevant.
      argumentum ad consequentiam

      It's the same as asking: How are the police supposed to get "probable cause" for a warrant if they don't search your car first?!?

    77. Re:Uh... Yeah? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      I seem to remember the spies in the CIA almost ending the world because of incompetent meddling in Cuba. It's a pretty tall order to claim that spies have lowered the body count, especially since they tend to be run by warmongers.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    78. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but I'm not going to get my panties in a bind that the NSA is spying on other countries' governments considering:
            1. That's the NSA's freakin' job.
            2. Anybody who thinks that the only country in the world that spies is the U.S. is either an idiot or a liar.

      That's completely fine as long as you don't get your panties in a bind when other nations consider visiting Americans to be spies/terrorists and puts them in jail/executes them.

    79. Re:Uh... Yeah? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy for a reason.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    80. Re:Uh... Yeah? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      That way they know that the US isn't planning to invade them

      Oh, but I am pretty sure there are plans for invading Russia. In fact, USA has sort of tried to invade Russia once, about a century ago.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    81. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're on the inside, you don't know wtf you're talking about. Please pull your head out of your anus.

    82. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't ask themselves that question, though, because they're spying on us.

    83. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Idbar · · Score: 1

      t's not, but every single country in the world still has a military,

      For your stats... no, not every single country.

    84. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      I would even be willing to give up the BBQ portion if everyone's reaction to being spied upon by their own government was OMGWTF, but instead we get a bunch of if "you have nothing to hide" bullshit.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    85. Re:Uh... Yeah? by CaptnZilog · · Score: 1

      Only four countries in the world — Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand — were exempt from the agreement, due to existing no-spying agreements

      That needs to be corrected... only four countries in the world think they are exempt due to existing no-spying agreements, which the NSA is most certainly, in reality, paying no attention to.

    86. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Idbar · · Score: 2

      Argh.. I need to use preview to check if my links are going to disappear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

    87. Re:Uh... Yeah? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The other big problem is that the NSA is destroying US company's credibility. No-one wants to buy Cisco networking gear because the NSA systematically infects their products with malware and even physically modifies them before they leave the country. No-one wants to store their data in Microsoft's cloud because the NSA has their grubby little fingers all over it. The entire US infosec industry is basically a joke now.

      Would you even want to buy or fly on a Dreamliner now? Maybe that sounds paranoid, but if the Snowden revelations have taught us anything it's that we were not paranoid enough and there are almost no limits to what the US considers acceptable.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    88. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      Ever heard of water boarding? Continuously playing music at high volumes? Continuously having strong light and/or switching the light on/off on random intervals? Locking people in small completely dark environments? Waking people as soon as they fall asleep? Mentally abusing people including forcing them to do things against their morals and/or religion? And a lot more...

      Are you sure you're not talking about a a pretty fucking awesome rave?

      Now that I have that out of the way I just assume that my government is just as bad as most when it comes to shady dealings but is just better at hiding it or convincing its citizens that it is needed (see Palin's baptism comment). I wish it were better and I try to make it better but too many of my fellow citizens think these things are perfectly A-OK.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    89. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly! Of course that's totally fine. Remember, the Nazi's job was to round up Jewish people and execute them in mass, and doing it was their job so that was totally cool. I mean, that's the verdict of the Nuremburg trials, right? That it was fine?

      Oh, right, hmm...

    90. Re:Uh... Yeah? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Um...WHAT?

      Yeah, I know. That sentence blew my mind! How can something you do for your job not be okay!? It's impossible!

      It's not that hard. Many people didn't think they were part of the the game. They understood that governments used their taxes in part to keep order, by enforcing laws and dealing with terrorists. Then they found that they themselves were being spied on even though they were neither criminal no terrorist.

      Some actions are indefensible even though you could crowbar them into the job definition that was formed decades earlier.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    91. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spying kept the cold war from being a hot war.

      That's misleading at best. Spying is what started the whole thing to begin with. That's kind of like saying throwing more fire onto a burning building is what prevented it from being burned to the ground.

    92. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Alarash · · Score: 1

      I like that a bit north of 300 years after their Independence the Americans decide not to spy on Commonwealth countries. Nice irony.

    93. Re:Uh... Yeah? by houghi · · Score: 1

      You forgot the REAL issue here. Were and are they spying on the Belgian football team? If the US wins, I guess we will know the answer.

      If they loose, it means the NSA have read this and try to hide what they were doing.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    94. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stupid examples. Military strength guarantees sovereignity; Iceland substitutes that by being a member of NATO. By being a NATO member, they essentially have the might of the US military to defend them if they ever got into a scrape; in return they provide funds and services supporting NATO engagements.

      Japan you are just flat wrong.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces

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

      Comparing to the British Armed forces, the Japanese have 210,000 active personnel; the British have 205,000. Their Air Forces each have around 200 modern fighters; the British with the Eurofighter and the Tornadoes and the Japanese with F-15s. The Royal Navy has 95 ships, 23 of which are major surface combatants and 10 are subs and a total displacement of 358,000 tonnes; the Japanese Self defense Navy has 114 ships 41 of which are major surface combatants and 16 of which are subs and a total displacement in excess of 400,000 tonnes.

      When your Navy is stronger than the British Navy, it's hard to argue that your Navy is for "self-defense".

    95. Re:Uh... Yeah? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      That old defense. Only those in the know the real truth, and we just need to trust them. If that's the case, they should provide some evidence of that fact. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that spying hasn't changed in the last few decades, and most of the secrecy for their operations are to hide their gross incompetence.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    96. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like economic, diplomatic and industrial espionage. Which is definitely not the NSA's job, no matter how liberally we interpret their mandate.

      How in the nine levels of robot hell does economic, diplomatic and industrial espionage not fall within the purview of national security?

    97. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    98. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFS, "according to a secret document the Washington Post published." Why hasn't the SCOTUS issued a warrant for the arrest of the journalist who obtained this secret document and then released it to the public via the newspaper where said reporter works?

    99. Re:Uh... Yeah? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      There are actually plenty of ways to get information outside of spying, and that's where practically all of the useful information comes from. It's called open source intelligence.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    100. Re:Uh... Yeah? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      PREVENTING such actions would be within the purview of national security, but COMMITTING those actions certainly isn't.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    101. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now that I have that out of the way I just assume that my government is just as bad as most when it comes to shady dealings but is just better at hiding it or convincing its citizens that it is needed (see Palin's baptism comment). I wish it were better and I try to make it better but too many of my fellow citizens think these things are perfectly A-OK.

      I feel even more justified in automated kill zones outside my home for any "government agent." One day we'll wake-up to hear and read that The Government has deemed it necessary to suspend the Constitution for our own protection.

    102. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Explain to me why spying on, say, Angela Merkel or the entire Copenhagen or G20 summits is related to US national security and maybe I'll see your point.

      Because when your only aim is "winning", whatever the fuck that means, there are no friends; everyone is a potential enemy. When you have decided to maintain global dominance, everyone is an enemy, including you own citizens.

    103. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um...WHAT?

      So a hitman is fine to kill people since it is their job???

      According to Revenue Canada you will not be prosecuted for any income derived from criminal activity if you declare the income on your annual income taxation forms. So yes being a hitman/hitwoman for-hire is legal in Canada at least according to the tax collector. The local police agency might disagree and you'd have to shoot it out with them or try your luck in the Courts of Law.

    104. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2. Anybody who thinks that the only country in the world that spies is the U.S. is either an idiot or a liar.

      Why would anyone lie about that? Chances are they are just an idiot....

    105. Re:Uh... Yeah? by StankeyoSmith · · Score: 0

      But lets assume for a second that the rest of the world had the NSA's capability and disregard for human dignity and privacy... I could go on and on about the moral implications and what not but the fact of the matter is this argument was resolved thousands of years ago with the simple line: "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" It's not a hard concept to grasp. WE are better than that. We don't need to do this. It's wrong, we all know it. It should stop immediately.

      Im sorry, but the whole 'we are better than that' stuff would be all perfectly fine and dandy in some alternate ideologically pure rainbow unicorn reality, which (unfortunately) we do not live in.

      People need to get real about this stuff. Complaining on the internet is *not* going to change the way things are done in the US govt and all its departments. There are too many fingers in too many pies, too much money and power is at stake. At the end of the day, nothing is really going to change.

      Spys will keep on spying, military will keep on blowing people into small peices and putting freedom bullets into heads, the corrupt will keep on....um, corrupting...you get my drift.

      The past ten odd years Ive been reading on /. week in and week out all the evil, corruption and other nasty shit that goes on in Govt and in business, and ten odd years of cries, wailing and gnashing of teeth ( god I love that phrase) in the comments. Nothing changes. It doesnt seem like it ever will change for the better...maybe in tiny ways, but overall, nothing changes.

      Humanity doesnt change. Atrocities, brutality, oppression, religious evil...it never changes. It never stops.

      I dont have much hope for the future, the future looks dark and fearful.

    106. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way to stop spying is to merge the entire world into a single country with a single religion (or none) with no patents on ideas/inventions and no crime. Until then it is an unfortunate necessity whether or not we think it evil or not. People complain very quickly about having their information collected and never read but these are usually the same people that cry foul about how no one new about or stopped a terrorist attack or other such atrocity. Yes it is not fair that the NSA spies on us (just like EVERY other intelligence agency) but at the end of the day if you have nothing to hide why give a damn who hears about you taking your mother in law to the supermarket...

    107. Re:Uh... Yeah? by mpe · · Score: 1

      1. It shouldn't be. That's why we're having this debate. It would be one thing if our government found evidence of something shifty going on... spied to confirm or refute that, and then took action. That's not what they are doing though. They're bugging every world leader, tapping the phones of damned near every citizen, reading our mail... this is Orwellian blanket surveillance which is a far cry from "Spying" This isn't "Spying" it's totalitarianism and it's wrong.

      Yet appear to have completly missed ISIS (or whatever they are calling themselves today). About as effective as the DDR knowing about the fall of the Berlin wall.

      2. Comparing what the rest of the world does to what the NSA does is a joke. Yes, they spy on us, but they're not intercepting ALL of our phone calls. How many countries do you think have the US presidents phone tapped? I bet it's just one... take a guess who I think that is.

      It's been fairly well documented which the beginning of this century.

    108. Re:Uh... Yeah? by StankeyoSmith · · Score: 0

      Since when has the US ever cared if other people in other countries hate them?

      "You are either with us or against us". - quote from a US President.

      You either love the US, or you are against the US. They see no middle ground.

    109. Re:Uh... Yeah? by oreaq · · Score: 1

      I'd argue it was very good, that only thousands of lives were lost, instead of the millions if spycraft had failed.

      John Stockwell, former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, working for then Director of the CIA, George Bush estimated in 1987, 27 years ago, that over 6 million people have died in CIA covert actions. See http://www.informationclearing.... What do you think? Have they doubled their number by now?

    110. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Roachie · · Score: 1

      Look buddy, this is Slashdot ok? This is no place for common sense.

      --
      This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
    111. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spying kept the cold war from being a hot war.

      And spying is so important to national security that USSR lost the cold war despite the KGB overwhelming victory against the CIA.

    112. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Try spying on the US communications systems for the Russians, and see what happens when they catch you. Apparently, not OK with Americans.

      It's OK If We Do It. America is the Shining City on the Hill, chosen by Providence to spread God's word and God's electronic eavesdropping to all the nations of the earth.

      It's NOT OK with everyone else. And yes, they count.

    113. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but they're paying other people that also don't have any ethical concerns as long as they're making money. There will always be someone available to sell out any principles for an amount of money. That's the price we pay for knowing the difference between right and wrong: We are encumbered by knowing that we are making it harder for ourselves.

    114. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We *EXPECT* a Socialist or Dictatorship government to be unethical and immoral. That's how it's been sold to the American Public for 200 years.

      We do NOT expect our own Government to play dirty pool (even though we'd be retarded to believe that they don't). We are supposed to be Americans, you know, Freedom lovers...people that don't take away other people's rights to be free because, you know, hypocrisy.

      It's quite a shock for most Americans to really truly learn that their own Government is the corrupt cherry on the corrupt top. And for a Government that is more or less in the clear - hey, it's FOR the People, BY the People, that' means the PEOPLE must be the ones that made it happen, right? - we really don't have any obvious excuse for this being the case except, well, our Government is so corrupt that we really *haven't* had choices. We haven't had real ones, at any rate. We've been given the shitty option from the shitty angle for so long that we can't recognize decency when we see it. That is the true travesty of this whole affair.

    115. Re:Uh... Yeah? by gargleblast · · Score: 1

      Spying kept the cold war from being a hot war.

      Nup. Mutual Assured Destruction kept the cold war from being a hot war.

    116. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...but if the Snowden revelations have taught us anything it's that we were not paranoid enough and there are almost no limits to what the US considers acceptable.

      Anything is acceptable for Freedom.

    117. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain to me why spying on, say, Angela Merkel or the entire Copenhagen or G20 summits is related to US national security and maybe I'll see your point.

      I thought the Snowden papers explained that quite well, it was to gather blackmail evidence so the US governments rich corporate owners could squeeze out more favorable terms in all future dealings.

    118. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's *spying*. The spies would be doing a pretty poor job if they left evidence around...

    119. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Heh. All that the "only four other countries exempt" means is that those four countries already have agreements with the US to share stuff their own spies learn.

      Me? Spies are going to spy. What matters is the oversight, the checks and balances - or lack thereof.

    120. Re:Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that line was used at Nuremberg

    121. Re:Uh... Yeah? by greenbird · · Score: 1

      Countries have interests. They have a foreign policy aimed at defending these interest.

      Collecting all and storing all communications between everyone including US citizens who happen to communicate with someone overseas has absolute nothing to do with "foreign policy aimed at defending these interest" or using "spies as a tool of their foreign policy". If anything it's a detriment to that since resources are being wasted on on irrelevancies rather than being focused on schwerpunkt. It's exclusively a means to control the people. The whole point of the government in the US is that the people are supposed to control the government. What the NSA is doing isn't in their charter. You're argument is what is called a straw man. You're defended a premise that wasn't at issue. At issue is the NSA's actions that have nothing to do with the foreign policy interests of the US.

      --
      Who is John Galt?
    122. Re:Uh... Yeah? by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you got my hope for my country to sabotage itself. That was not my intent. My point was that the reasons given publicly for our foreign policy actions are almost never the actual reasons. They are feel-good reasons that are designed to get the population to support the mission, even though they are lies.

      I would love to have some influence on my country's foreign policy. However, foreign policy is deliberately insulated from the democratic process; always has been. So I can protest or write my congressman, but that's about it. And I would not expect much in the way of results from either action. The alternative would be to move to Washington DC and try to get directly involved. But I don't have the motivation to reorient my life like that. So I am left with trying to warn people on the Internet to not believe the reasons given the next time we go to war to liberate some population from some dictator that we supported up until he started doing things we didn't like.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    123. Re:Uh... Yeah? by 0xG · · Score: 1

      HAHAHA

      OK, the only country dumb enough to be caught?

      --
      A pox on web designers who feel that window.innerWidth == screen.availWidth
    124. Re:Uh... Yeah? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I'm sick of this inane, uninformed argument. 1. It shouldn't be. That's why we're having this debate. It would be one thing if our government found evidence of something shifty going on... spied to confirm or refute that, and then took action. That's not what they are doing though. They're bugging every world leader, tapping the phones of damned near every citizen, reading our mail... this is Orwellian blanket surveillance which is a far cry from "Spying" This isn't "Spying" it's totalitarianism and it's wrong.

      You may be conflating two issues here, it is hard to tell with your grammar. Specifically the part about citizens.

      The NSA is supposed to be doing everything it can to see everything it can outside of the USA. One would, and should, assume other countries have similar agencies doing similar things.

      Should a country find itself spying on its own citizens, then yes, it is totalitarianism.

      Should a country find itself using the "fruits" of such espionage for economic gain then, well, it is the law of the jungle at the national level. At the citizen's level, we are more civilized than that and the law of the jungle only applies at the social level... and to some extent, the business level, which is why so many people think the law of the jungle is "wrong". At the national level, it applies in every way. The law of the jungle is what exists. Deal with it.

      2. Comparing what the rest of the world does to what the NSA does is a joke. Yes, they spy on us, but they're not intercepting ALL of our phone calls. How many countries do you think have the US presidents phone tapped? I bet it's just one... take a guess who I think that is.

      Hm. Who cares what the rest of the world can do when trying to make moral judgements? The only thing that needs to be known is that every single one of them would be doing it if they could. And they should. There is no telling what another country will do. I hate to bring up Hitler but I can not seem to get that fucker out of my mind. If we had SIGINT showing us that he was implementing the Final Solution, perhaps the war would have happened differently...

      In relation to the President's phone, well, the NSA is also responsible for defense. Considering how good they are at signals offense, I am willing to be that there are very very few countries who have the President's phone tapped. There is no reason to believe that more than about 4 countries could possibly pull off some limited signals intelligence from the President's phone.

      WE are better than that. We don't need to do this. It's wrong, we all know it. It should stop immediately.

      Erm... the only reason that you have the luxury to even think of this idea is because governments are doing things that at a societal level are considered "immoral". I am sure you cry like a little girl every time a wolf catches a baby dear and eats it, just like you cry when governments do things that would be immoral for an individual to do.

      No. The real problem is when governments turn such tools on to their masters, the citizens. This is not a problem for the UK since the masters of the UK and many other European nations are Royalty, not the citizens; however, in the United States, the citizen is the explicit owner and master of the government. The administration is explicitly declaring independence from the United States of America when it continuously and knowingly goes against the Constitution.

      These are very interesting times indeed.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  2. Agreement?? by scsirob · · Score: 1, Troll

    "Only four countries in the world — Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand — were exempt from the agreement"

    So, did the 193 sovereign countries all agree to be spied upon? Or did one American tell another American that they had every right to do so.

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:Agreement?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, did the 193 sovereign countries all agree to be spied upon? Or did one American...

      Governments of 194 countries (not just 193) had no treaty to stop spying on each other, yes.

    2. Re:Agreement?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    3. Re:Agreement?? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, they did not send an X-Do-Not-Spy HTTP header, so they obviously agreed.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    4. Re:Agreement?? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Ummm..... Just what do you think nations do? There is not a single nation that does not spy on some other nation.
      Sweden, Germany, France, and the UK all have special SIGINT aircraft. The US, China, Russia, Israel, the EU, Pakistan, and India all have spysats.
      What are you 12 or have you never read any history?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Agreement?? by louic · · Score: 1

      This agreement just means they have to spy even more secretly.

    6. Re:Agreement?? by prezkennedy.org · · Score: 1

      Well... yeah, pretty much.

      --
      It started back in Team Fortress Classic
    7. Re:Agreement?? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      In all seriousness, Britain had an intelligence-sharing agreement with the US whereby GCHQ would hand over its own extensive snooping results, so the NSA didn't need to spy on the UK anyway.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:Agreement?? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      "Only four countries in the world — Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand — were exempt from the agreement"

      So, did the 193 sovereign countries all agree to be spied upon? Or did one American tell another American that they had every right to do so.

      This guy can answer that question:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    9. Re:Agreement?? by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      It's a freaking clandestine service, yea it's their job to spy on other nations. How else do you insure that Iran is not making icbm's? ask them nicly?

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    10. Re:Agreement?? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      It's a freaking clandestine service, yea it's their job to spy on other nations. How else do you insure that Iran is not making icbm's? ask them nicly?

      But we're not talking about Iran are we? Iran's shown themselves to be a direct and obvious threat to the united states. I've no problem with tapping the phones of Irans leaders. The NSA is recording the private phone calls of the citizens of Canada... Mexico, England, Germany... That's not spying, that's a very insulting invasion of privacy... and whats worse, this horrible invasion of privacy that alienates our alies has absolutely no value to the NSA at all.

    11. Re:Agreement?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For every spy technique, there are countermeasures.

      wiretapping : encryption
      old fashioned bugs : sweep the room, use faraday cage shielding
      secret agents sneaking in : locked bunkers, armed guards, scary prisons
      planes/satellites : build underground
      NSA planting backdoors in american products : don't buy american products then! Consider who is least likely to pull this sort of trick to spy on you, germans, chinese, russians, japanese, ...

      Every spy technique gets exposed from time to time. People mess up and get caught. Even something perfectly untraceable can fail, when someone defects or the other sides also succeed in spying. Usually, the consequence is that someone get expelled (or possibly executed). This backdoor stuff is new, but now we have governmental "don't buy" lists.

    12. Re:Agreement?? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      The article specifically says that there's four countries the NSA hasn't spied on, and you included two of them in your comment.

    13. Re:Agreement?? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the reason that we aren't spying on them is because they are co-conspirators in our spying (five eyes). Our combined spying apparatus are thus spying on the whole world.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    14. Re:Agreement?? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      If you want to know if someone who's spying on you is a Canadian, just ask him. If he replies "Yes I am, but I'm sorry about it, eh?", you'll know he's Canadian.

    15. Re:Agreement?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And those 4 countries probably don't need to be spied on by the NSA because the domestic intelligence services are quite happy to do the job for them and supply whatever is needed.

    16. Re:Agreement?? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      The article specifically says that there's four countries the NSA hasn't spied on, and you included two of them in your comment.

      No, it didn't The article said very specifically "A court permitted the NSA to..." yada yada...

      That means the NSA has blanket jurisdiction to spy on those countries. It does not mean the NSA isn't spying on the remaining 4. They would either need other justification (another ruling or legal opinion) or they could just be doing it and ignoring the law. Something they've clearly demonstrated they have no problem doing. I included them intentionally. I believe in basket ball it's called "Drawing the foul" :-)

    17. Re:Agreement?? by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The USA, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all members of ECHELON and so already share mutual intercepted data, i.e. the NSA does not need to spy on these ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    18. Re:Agreement?? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "NSA planting backdoors in american products : don't buy american products then! Consider who is least likely to pull this sort of trick to spy on you, germans, chinese, russians, japanese, ..."
      None of the above.
      hard to hide the building of underground complexes. "planes/satellites : build underground"
      Hard to do that with a large factory or lab and you can buy the guards off in some cases."secret agents sneaking in : locked bunkers, armed guards, scary prisons"
      Not a perfect solution one could use free optics "old fashioned bugs : sweep the room, use faraday cage shielding"
        backdoors, man in the middle attacks, and codebreaking."wiretapping : encryption"

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    19. Re:Agreement?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's gentlemanly behaviour, isn't it? Am I then right in my assumption that the US reciprocated this fine gesture on part of the British? That they handed over their own collection of titbits to good old Blighty?

  3. Axis of Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Potato, potato. Axis of Evil, Five Eyes.

    1. Re:Axis of Evil by Revek · · Score: 2

      That's us, the potato of evil.

    2. Re:Axis of Evil by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      That's us, the potato of evil.

      The potato of evil eyes

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  4. It's a scandal! by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    It's a scandal that there are countries the NSA isn't allowed to spy on. What if the terrorists are hiding there?

    1. Re: It's a scandal! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But those are our terrorists and they're not hiding at all. In fact most of them want you to remember their name and vote for them every few years!

    2. Re:It's a scandal! by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      It's a scandal that there are countries the NSA isn't allowed to spy on. What if the terrorists are hiding there?

      "What if"! That's exactly what a terrorist would say! Terrorists are OBVIOUSLY hiding there:

      A - Terrorists are hiding everywhere.
      B - Countries are a place.
      Ergo, by A and B, terrorists are hiding there!

      This is so obvious that the only explanation that makes any sense is that the terrorists that are hiding inside the Court have make a terrorist modification of the sentence to allow this terrorist plot to go on.

    3. Re:It's a scandal! by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      It's a scandal that there are countries the NSA isn't allowed to spy on. What if the terrorists are hiding there?

      "intercept through U.S. companies not just the communications of its overseas targets, but any communications about its targets as well,"

      i.e. They're even spying on the countries we have anti-spy agreements with. Nothing to worry about.

    4. Re:It's a scandal! by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      It's not that they don't spy on them (USA, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) it's that they have agreed not to spy directly on them, just to spy on their links to other countries and terrorism ...

      So they will not spy on you if :
      you live in one of these countries,
      and you have no links to any of the other countries
      and you have no links to terrorism
      and you have no links to anyone who has any links to terrorism
      and you have no links to anyone who has any links to any one with links to terrorism
      and you have no links to anyone who has any links to any one with links to any one with links to terrorism.....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
  5. Well...I know that's a lie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They spy on Britain and Australia, I can confirm that.

    1. Re: Well...I know that's a lie... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you say so then obviously I must believe you...

    2. Re:Well...I know that's a lie... by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 1

      ‘Britain’ is not a country.

  6. The only country that matters... by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The real question is, did they spy on Djibouti?

  7. Uh... Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose you're from the US, Canada, Britain, Australia, or New Zealand so you don't care. I do care, not being from one of those "five eyes" ..

  8. A national spy agency spying on other countries by danielobvt · · Score: 2

    Color me suprised. Not. In all fairness I want all the other countries spy agencies to release a list of countries they spy in (in particular the national intelligence services of China, Russia, France, England, Germany and Israel). I bet you it would be a pretty similiar list.....

    1. Re:A national spy agency spying on other countries by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think any of those countries have secret courts that force local businesses to do the spying for them, though. Maybe Russia and China, and probably (to pick one not on your list) Iran.

      Seems like a club the US should join, right?

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:A national spy agency spying on other countries by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      In most of other countries in the world there generally is an even tighter association between companies from those countries and their spy agencies(FIS's). The US (and maybe the FVEY countries, I am not sure there) is somewhat unique in that there is basically no real provisions for economic espionage (defined as spying aimed to obtain trade secrets (generally not of military application) and passing those on to the local companies (saving massive amounts in R&D money/time)). And because of that relationship there is often services offered back from those companies to those FIS's. Who needs a court when you are just helping out an organization that has saved you millions of dollars over time (and patriotism is also a factor in that decision as well)? I think you are very naive if you think that this is a uniquely American (or a RUS, CHN, IRN) issue. It is very nuanced and occurs behind closed doors that you will almost never get a glipse of.

    3. Re:A national spy agency spying on other countries by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Secret courts? If you know about them how are they secret? FISA courts have not been secret since it's inception. And why should the US surrender it's capabilities just to give Russia or China an advantage of any type? All this hyperventilating about foreign intelligence gathering is being done without putting the entire matter in it's proper context. Without context all the arguments against the US are hypocritical and meaningless.

    4. Re:A national spy agency spying on other countries by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Let's say we can the NSA and China and Russia get those 'advantages.' Will that affect average citizens in a meaningful way? Probably not.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:A national spy agency spying on other countries by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Let's say we can the NSA and China and Russia get those 'advantages.' Will that affect average citizens in a meaningful way? Probably not.

      They might the whole internet.

    6. Re:A national spy agency spying on other countries by Keyboard+Rage · · Score: 1

      They could call it...the Axis of Evil!

    7. Re:A national spy agency spying on other countries by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      And I assume the only proper context is one in which this sort of behaviour is normalised? From where I'm standing, the context makes it looks like both an abhorrent abuse of power against both our ostensible allies and our own citizens and a depressingly widespread one.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    8. Re:A national spy agency spying on other countries by CBravo · · Score: 1

      You have such good arguments... Not. The fact that we know the NSA's name does not make it activities public.

      --
      nosig today
    9. Re:A national spy agency spying on other countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, secret courts, as in their proceedings always are kept secret.

    10. Re:A national spy agency spying on other countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has no allies it only has mutual interests and they change by the day. The NSA domestic intelligence programs need to be reviewed and scaled back but the foreign programs are an entirely different animal. None of the information on the domestic programs was secret. The leaked documents did not reveal any secrets, they only highlighted and drew attention to information already in the public domain. And so far there is no accusations that the NSA has used and abused any of the domestic data collected against any US citizen. All of the arguments have been about what they "could" do with the information not about what they have actually "done". If a review results in some of the programs being prohibited then everyone can be happy that a potential problem has been adverted and move on with their lives. Our laws are still behind the curve in regards to the digital world we live in today. I don't think people realize that the US government transparency is at it's highest level since it's inception. And the foreign programs context would include acknowledging that every country in the world does the exact same thing. Some just do it better than others. I also do not believe the US is even the best in this area. The FSB, MSS (China), and Mossad are just as good if not better when it comes to collecting foreign intelligence but for some reason nobody will even acknowledge these foreign agencies exist when criticizing the US agencies. To read and hear all the criticisms directed at the US you would think the entire world is just standing around with their hands in their pockets being victimized by the dastardly NSA or CIA. When countries started complaining about US spying you will notice that the subject quickly died out. Every self righteous head of state complaining about US spying where quickly pulled aside by their internal security services and told to shut the fuck up because they do the exact same thing and even collaborate with the US intelligence agencies. If the US really wanted to abuse power and be vindictive, which I would have supported whole heartily, they could have released all the information they have collected on other countries espionage efforts. When the phone call recordings of the US diplomats in the Ukraine were leaked nobody even questioned who recorded and leaked these taped conversations. I am pretty sure it was not the CIA or NSA.

  9. When will the outrage start? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you have one secret organization with no oversight telling another secret organization with no oversight that it's "OKay" to break the law (Constitution). I find the lack of public outrage disturbing.

  10. Courts vs NSA by Thanshin · · Score: 0

    In other news, a court disallows crime and corruption. The US becomes a crime free country.

  11. The Special Relationship by stevencbrown · · Score: 0

    As a Briton, I'm just glad my country made the list. Finally the special relationship counts for something - God Bless America!

    1. Re:The Special Relationship by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      It's all good chum.. Besides GCHQ gives us all the information we need aboutyou and your family. But I am certain you spy on US citizens and feed us the info as to not violate those pesky rights.

    2. Re:The Special Relationship by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      It does seem that the biggest reason that there's a no spying agreement is because the UK already gives the US access to everything it wants.

    3. Re:The Special Relationship by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      They're called "five eyes" because they've been sharing intelligence on each other's enemies since after the second world war. It's probably a given that they're also sharing information on each other's citizens.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:The Special Relationship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be too happy. As resident of another of the countries on that short list, I'm pretty sure it only means our domestic surveillance is already up to "NSA standards".

  12. Yea but fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Only four countries in the world — Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand — were exempt from the agreement"

    Yeah.. and let's spy on them as well anyway, because fuck it.
    We just say we don't.

    1. Re:Yea but fuck it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, there is a reason why Five Eyes are exempted. They also have personnel at Ft Meade and have full access to NSA's intel. Perhaps people are not as informed as to how close the English speaking countries are in the world of intelligence? The Americans might not care about what the Germans think nearly as much as the British.

  13. The cost by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I submitted this as a story a while back but it never got picked up:
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/93f6...

    Germany dropped a US carrier (Verizon) over the NSA issue.
    The worst part about this whole thing is the spying is worthless. The NSA is alienating our allies, driving away customers from US businesses all so the NSA can record the phone calls of little old ladies talking about bridge.

    1. Re:The cost by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Worthless is right. It's supposedly to prevent terrorism (at least that's how the proponents of wholesale data capture usually justify it), which would typically be a small cell of individuals looking to strike a handful of small high value targets. Yet despite having access to every single phone call in Iraq plus, no doubt, a whole array of other sources of intelligence the NSA appears to have been caught completely unaware by a major military offensive involving thousands that has effectively overrun about a third of the major towns and cities in the country. Missing the odd needle in the haystack would perhaps be excusable, but they pretty much overlooked the entire hayfield on that one.

      Even so, I'm betting they'll use that as an excuse to justify collecting more than just metadata, which is now demonstrably not up to the job, rather than scrapping the whole expensive business and working out what sources of methods might actually give tangible results and using those instead.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    2. Re:The cost by GungaDan · · Score: 2

      Oh my god! The little old ladies are going to blow up a bridge!

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    3. Re:The cost by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      Out of mod points right now, so I'm giving you a virtual Score: +1, Funny.

    4. Re:The cost by strikethree · · Score: 1

      I can not speak for the NSA (and if I could, I would have to kill you after I tell you) but my understanding is they collect the data. They only analyze what they are told to analyze. The world wanted Washington out of Iraq so Washington got out of Iraq; therefore, no analysis even though the data was collected.

      I am sure they are going through all of that collected data now though. We shall soon see how disciplined ISIL's signals practices are.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  14. But not the USA? by Nyder · · Score: 1

    So I noticed they didn't say the USA was one of the countries the NSA can't spy on, so I guess nothing is changing?

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:But not the USA? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

      So I noticed they didn't say the USA was one of the countries the NSA can't spy on, so I guess nothing is changing?

      Sorry to drag out the UID, but this all goes back to the Echelon stories we were discussing here in the 90's. The same group of countries has agreements to spy on each others' citizens for the sake of circumventing their local laws. One presumes this is why GCHQ figures so prominently in the Snowden revelations.

      Even that the NSA is not legally allowed to spy on US citizens does not matter, nor do any of the current Congressional posturings about stopping them from doing so.

      We're back to the beginning again, but this time the enemies of liberty are two orders of magnitude more well-equipped. The slope is not a good one.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  15. 50c agents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it only me or there is a lots of US gov shills around here lately? There are lost of people working for NSA and some such criminal gangs so that would not be difficult especially with current level of traffic on /. All those heroes would do it for free probably.

  16. just get rid of it... by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 1

    NSA is a fucking cancer...just get rid of it... the people should go to all extents possible to remove all espionage agencies, these entities are undermining the trust that the population and the foreign countries citizens have left in the USA. Fuck secret stuff.

  17. Re:A spy agency is spying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 Insightful. Good job , great post.

  18. "any communications about its targets as well" by bigpat · · Score: 1

    The summary sounds more broad than just spying on foreign governments in foreign lands if it involves US companies and any communications "about" its "targets". That language would allow keyword interception of all communications about a particular government or about the "IMF" or talking about the "World Bank". Literally those are the types of keywords they would enter in to the program to return all the results. What it allows is actually very useful... like gauging the sentiment of a population for its government or for international institutions by analyzing the context of the communications and coming up with some Big Data analysis. People could then use that data to exploit underlying divisions or to target factions and exploit individuals.

    As I have said before, I don't believe the US constitution applies outside the borders of this country for non-citizens... so it isn't the same level of constitutional crisis that we have here at home with a widespread, ongoing and wholesale violation of the fourth amendment threatening the very fabric of our society.

    However, our leaders should be working towards bilateral international treaties with friendly, democratic republic and free countries around the world to not engage in or at least limit this type of spying.

    1. Re:"any communications about its targets as well" by penix1 · · Score: 1

      As I have said before, I don't believe the US constitution applies outside the borders of this country for non-citizens... so it isn't the same level of constitutional crisis that we have here at home with a widespread, ongoing and wholesale violation of the fourth amendment threatening the very fabric of our society.,

      Yet we have a whole war going on in Afghanistan by applying American laws on foreign citizens.

      By your definition the US has no need of its extradition treaties since American laws don't apply to "non-citizens".

      And in this case the US FISA court is telling the NSA it is OK to tell American corporations, on American soil, to violate the fourth amendment on their behalf and since it is in a secret National Security Letter, keep your mouth shut about it OR ELSE!

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    2. Re:"any communications about its targets as well" by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      The US Constitution is what charters the US Government, and so binds it for everything it does. What part of "make no law" do we not understand? And if Congress has no law authorizing the action, the executive branch can't act, except take the census which the Constitution authorizes without any act of Congress.

      Otherwise, look what happens: The US can't spy on its own citizens, but Britain can spy on US citizens, so let's go ask the British government for what data they have on our target citizen!

    3. Re:"any communications about its targets as well" by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Yet we have a whole war going on in Afghanistan by applying American laws on foreign citizens.

      By your definition the US has no need of its extradition treaties since American laws don't apply to "non-citizens".

      That is a stretch argument. I didn't say that US Laws don't apply to non-citizens when they commit certain crimes, I was talking about Constitutional protections which restrain government action here in the US, but should only restrain US action if there is a treaty or other law restraining US action abroad.

    4. Re:"any communications about its targets as well" by bigpat · · Score: 1

      On the cynical use of intelligence reciprocity with the UK to obtain sigint within the US I agree that is a clear violation of the constitution. A violation of the constitution by proxy is still a violation. But I think there has to be a legal ability for the US to monitor actual foreign communications, especially when there are active conflicts or real military and terrorist threats abroad. And I believe that the Federal Courts have usually upheld the ability of the US to ease drop on communications abroad... and I am not talking about just the secret and completely unaccountable FISA court which should be abolished... I am talking about real Federal Courts which have non-secret trials.

    5. Re:"any communications about its targets as well" by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      A distinction has to be made between passive intercepting and decoding of transmissions - which arguably could go under military - and forcing companies to install wiretapping devices against their will, under threat of force.

      The former is something that any old person could legally do, given enough money.

      The latter, no. Or at least not without a warrant.

  19. So wait... by Marsala · · Score: 1

    Are you saying that there's at least one law that the NSA isn't too big to obey?

  20. Funny by HussamAl-Tayeb · · Score: 1

    It is funny how a US court thinks it has the authority to allow spying on another country when the US government would probably cry if another country made it legal to spy on US citizens.

  21. Good news and bad news by jeffasselin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a Canadian, the good news is that the NSA doesn't spy on us.

    The bad news is that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) spies on us and shares everything with the NSA anyway.

    --
    If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    1. Re:Good news and bad news by sjbe · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian, the good news is that the NSA doesn't spy on us.

      Yes they do. Probably not very intensely but I don't have any doubt that the NSA handles some amount of SigInt that comes from Canada. We're not very worried about Canada attacking the US. Mostly folks in the US are worried about individuals with ill intent and drug traffickers transiting into the US through Canada.

      The bad news is that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) spies on us and shares everything with the NSA anyway.

      There is that too... Sigh...

    2. Re:Good news and bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh they absolutely do, they just do it from outside of Canada. Remember, as soon as your communications pass that border of yours, the NSA is all over it like white on rice. Once it becomes "international" communications (which it will almost certainly do, even if you're communicating with another Canadian entity), it is no longer considered spying on Canada.

    3. Re:Good news and bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian, the good news is that the NSA doesn't spy on us.

      The bad news is that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) spies on us and shares everything with the NSA anyway.

      Don't forget the Communication Security establishment Canada (CSEC) contributes their "intelligence data" as well. In Canada we have two federal agencies spying on Canadians. The Government recently erected a castle for CSEC to further intensify its mission. You need not apply unless you essentially have only moved from your parent's house to attend university and graduated in the top 2.5% of your class as well as can pass a probing background investigation taking as long as 3 years to complete. I wish I could turn back the clock.

    4. Re:Good news and bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they do. Probably not very intensely but I don't have any doubt that the NSA handles some amount of SigInt that comes from Canada. We're not very worried about Canada attacking the US. Mostly folks in the US are worried about individuals with ill intent and drug traffickers transiting into the US through Canada.

      Well tell your countrymen and countrywomen to stop using drugs. Didn't Nancy Regan teach you to "Just say no."

    5. Re:Good news and bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does it matter? Do you have something to hide?

  22. That's not quite how the agreement reads by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Domestic spying on local nationals was forbidden in the agreement, but intelligence gathering on each other was permitted and also intelligence sharing. The agreement was formally called UKUSA, but also known as SIGINT and Echelon. It had been going on for a long time when I read came across it in the '90's. Finally it's common knowledge and people are as apethetic as ever.

    It makes a mockery of our "freedom and democracy" in these 5 countries and I weep for what we used to be and have incrementally lost for our temporary security as the frog boils. Countries so insular and xenaphobic that we don't even remember what made us great in the first place. Deep values like freedom of speech, political freedom to gather and protest to change things replaced with vapid symbols, shiney toys in what resembles a secret police state.

    Exactly what the nutbag extremists wanted us to do to ourselves.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  23. The cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but...but it makes the praetorians feel useful! It shores up their fragile little self esteem.

    Surely you can't take that from them?.../s

  24. He's the friend of a friend ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    ... but is he your friend?

  25. Does the end justify the means? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Telling me that the government should be allowed to ignore parts (or all) of the constitution when fighting a war is like letting a rabid dog lose because he might bite a bad-guy.

    Serviam Libertas

    Dare to Defend your Rights!

  26. Yes they can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NSA routinely just compromises foreign companies' computer systems in order to engage in espionage, industrial/corporate or otherwise.

  27. I live in the UK by Roxoff · · Score: 1

    It's the first time that living in one of the Five Eyes countries appears to have been beneficial.

    It's a hollow victory.

    --
    "Is the Chief Priest an Offlian? Do dragons explode in the wood?"
  28. So it's ok to kill US soldiers? by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Killing an enemy who is attacking or invading your country, or poses a clear and present danger to your country's security is OK, IMO.

    So it is OK for Iraqi members of terrorist groups to kill US soldiers because we invaded Iraq? Just want to be sure you aren't being a hypocrite here.

    1. Re:So it's ok to kill US soldiers? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "invaded" is not the same as "invading". Moreover, there are legal limits on what they can do.

      IIRC, civilians are only legally authorized to fight until their army shows up, and which point they can either enlist and wear a uniform or lay down arms.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:So it's ok to kill US soldiers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US soldiers were / are the terrorists in this scenario

    3. Re:So it's ok to kill US soldiers? by sjbe · · Score: 1

      "invaded" is not the same as "invading". Moreover, there are legal limits on what they can do.

      "Legal limits"? Hah! You've never been anywhere near a war zone have you. You go ahead and try to preach legal niceties to someone with a gun pointed at you. Let me know how that works out for you.

      IIRC, civilians are only legally authorized to fight until their army shows up, and which point they can either enlist and wear a uniform or lay down arms.

      You go ahead an keep believing such naive nonsense. In the real world people go ahead and fight or flee. Nobody gives a shit about what is "authorized" during a war.

    4. Re:So it's ok to kill US soldiers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have said that the US soldiers are/were the aggressors in this scenario, and either their commanders (assuming they don't hold the troops to their legal responsibilities) or their government were the terrorists, depending on how you view their motivations for the attack.

    5. Re:So it's ok to kill US soldiers? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Never been near a war zone, no. I do know that there are international laws of warfare, and that I'd be astounded to find a significantly sized battle where one side obeyed them all. (For example, you're supposed to be able to surrender at will, provided you lay down your weapons, and there's a whole lot of situations where this will just get you shot in practice. That applies to all armies.)

      "Authorized", in this case, mostly refers to what can be legally done to the guys who were shooting after the battle has ended. Some countries have done a fairly good job of reining in off-the-battlefield war crimes, so this can matter.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:So it's ok to kill US soldiers? by smithmc · · Score: 1

      I wasn't referring to any side. But to answer your question... well, I'm not sure I can. Certainly it was understandable for the Iraqi military to fight back against the US invasion. But as for terrorists/insurgents... are they necessarily acting on behalf of or under the orders of their country? Are they legitimate war combatants? Hard to say. There is a government in Iraq, for whatever it's worth, and any attacks on an invading or occupying force should, it seems to me, occur at their behest.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  29. Japan does have a military. by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Japan doesn't. (They do have a self-defense force, though.)

    Japan does have a military and a rather capable one at that. They just pretend that they can't/won't attack anyone due to the constitution they put in place after WWII.

    There are a few insignificant countries that don't have armed forces but every country with a substantial population has one.

  30. Britain isn't a country thank youl very much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So ner :P

  31. Only English-speaking countries can join the club by John+Seifarth · · Score: 1

    After checking all the comments, I didn't see anyone pointing out what seemed very obvious to me when I read the summary: all the countries, USA, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, are offshoots of the old British empire, and all speak English only (well, Canada does have some francophones). It's like a club of like-minded countries, with the same base culture and language.

    There's an interesting article on the New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06... which contends that moral judgements depend on what language we're speaking. Within this 5-country native English language club, the emotional strength of their own shared language totally overrides any moral qualms they might have for spying on those foreigners speaking strange languages in primitive countries.

  32. Realpolitic by sjbe · · Score: 1

    It would be one thing if our government found evidence of something shifty going on... spied to confirm or refute that, and then took action.

    They do that all the time. Some of it isn't even a secret. It's not just the NSA either. We have a huge intelligence system with many players and our foreign policy depends heavily on what it reports.

    They're bugging every world leader, tapping the phones of damned near every citizen, reading our mail... this is Orwellian blanket surveillance which is a far cry from "Spying" This isn't "Spying" it's totalitarianism and it's wrong.

    Here we agree though I think that most other countries would do the same if given the opportunity. Power corrupts and all that.

    Comparing what the rest of the world does to what the NSA does is a joke. Yes, they spy on us, but they're not intercepting ALL of our phone calls

    Only because they can not, not because they would not. I have no faith that most of the 95% of the world's population outside the US is really any different when handed such powerful tools. I would find it very surprising if other major economic powers were not heavily investing in activities similar to what the NSA does. Not saying I think that is a good or right thing, just that I think it is inevitable.

    1. Re:Realpolitic by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      They do that all the time. Some of it isn't even a secret. It's not just the NSA either. We have a huge intelligence system with many players and our foreign policy depends heavily on what it reports.

      None of that is in this court decision and is therefor irrelevant to this discussion. They gave them blanket authorization without any reason what-so-ever. Do you think Japan is plotting against us? Because we're intercepting their telecoms... Why? Just in case they decide to go evil? This isn't about justified research of an identified threat. This is about capturing ALL data ALL the time. It's not even spying and we should stop calling it that. This is something different. Something evil.

      Here we agree though I think that most other countries would do the same if given the opportunity. Power corrupts and all that.

      That's not, even remotely, what I said. But whatever.

      Only because they can not, not because they would not. I have no faith that most of the 95% of the world's population outside the US is really any different when handed such powerful tools. I would find it very surprising if other major economic powers were not heavily investing in activities similar to what the NSA does. Not saying I think that is a good or right thing, just that I think it is inevitable.

      No they wouldn't. You're making generalizations about the entire population of other countries. Given the option, I bet the majority of those populations would be just as opposed to this sort of thing as the US population is. There are a few, in the governments of other countries that would prefer to violate the rights of the people rather than risk their physical safety. We have the same kind of people here. It's up to us to stand up and say "No!" You're letting apathy get in the way of your sense of right and wrong. This is wrong, so say it. Do not stand for it. Our children or grand children could very well be herded into camps in the future due to your apathy here today. Stand, be Strong, Fight! The easiest fight to win is the first. The further you let this go, the heavier the chains will be in the future. We can stop this, but not with your attitude. You can not make distinctions between "us" and "them" because you're always a "them" to someone. Any right you take away from someone else can be taken away from you.

      I assume you think I'm being overly dramatic. But this really is the issue of our time. 20yrs from now we could look back on this time as when Charliemopps got all fired up over that NSA thing that died... what a dork. Or we could remember it as "When we could have stopped the NSA but didn't" I sure hope its the former.

    2. Re:Realpolitic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of that is in this court decision and is therefor irrelevant to this discussion. They gave them blanket authorization without any reason what-so-ever. Do you think Japan is plotting against us? Because we're intercepting their telecoms... Why? Just in case they decide to go evil? This isn't about justified research of an identified threat. This is about capturing ALL data ALL the time. It's not even spying and we should stop calling it that. This is something different. Something evil.

      Your knowledge of geo-politics and diplomacy is clearly lacking. The Japanese have the 4th most powerful Navy in the world, and are currently in an escalating arms race with the 3rd most powerful Navy (China). Their economy is so significantly large that if they are headed towards a serious problem, the repercussions would be global, evidenced in the fact that the Kobe earthquake in 1995 essentially tanked the entire East Asian market for years, and subsequently gave room for the rapid expansion of the Chinese, Korean, and Taiwanese economies and changing the balance of power in the region.

      They are our ally, but like all nations are self-interested and have zero altruism towards the interests of other nations; if they claim the Chinese did something and go to war over it, potentially drawing the US into a war with them, then we had damned well be certain that they were telling the truth and not manipulating the situation to draw us in and ensure their victory. The Japanese, as a culture heavily influenced by Confucian ideals mixed with a tradition of bushido, have every reason to hide any issues they are facing to "save face", even from their allies, so without some level of espionage we have no way of knowing if what they're telling us is true.

      Reagan was clearly a smarter geo-politician than you were. He negotiated and signed the INF Treaty, but defined the terms of the treaty in a simple phrase: "Trust but Verify". It's one thing to trust your friends and allies, but you can't always be certain they're telling the truth. Considering the implications of trusting faulty intelligence (see Iraq, 2003) when you are in charge of the most powerful economy and military in human history, I think it's a small sin to read your buddy's mail to ensure he's telling you the truth before you commit resources that can alter an entire geopolitical landscape.

    3. Re:Realpolitic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have an actual point besides, "The ends justify the means."? Because if not, you should leave the "land of the free" and go to North Korea. I really don't want you government cheerleaders in my country. I would rather risk annihilation than allow what the NSA is doing to go on.

  33. Nation states don't have friends by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The NSA is recording the private phone calls of the citizens of Canada... Mexico, England, Germany... That's not spying, that's a very insulting invasion of privacy... and whats worse, this horrible invasion of privacy that alienates our alies has absolutely no value to the NSA at all.

    Let me preface what I'm about to say by stating that the NSA has shown itself to be clumsy and irresponsible in their surveillance tactics especially towards our allies. I seriously doubt that much of their actions in cases like spying on Angela Merkel etc have any tangible value to our nation. That said:

    You think that there is no one in any of those countries that wishes to do the US harm? Remember that prior to 9/11 the biggest terrorist incident on US soil was planned and executed by a US citizen. You do have a valid point to some extent but pretending that just because someone is a citizen of those counties that they are friendly to us is very naive. Ostensibly we are allies with Saudi Arabia and yet all of the hijackers on 9/11 were from that country. Just because the citizens are decent people doesn't mean the government is trustworthy and vice-versa. Nation states don't ever completely trust other nation states or their citizens and given human nature they would be foolish to do so. I don't think our intelligence services worry much about Great Britain causing problems but that doesn't mean they trust them or everyone that lives there completely either.

    Furthermore sometimes those you think are your friends turn out not to be as close as you thought. The US and Canada have the largest (mostly) unguarded border in the world but I guarantee you that both countries have military plans for invasion/defense just in case. I also guarantee you that both countries have intelligence services that keep at least a casual eye out for worrisome activity.

  34. No spying neccessary by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    But the NSA is spying indiscriminately on virtually anybody (unless you're covered by the Five-Eyes-No-Spy-Agreement)!

    True but the only reason for that is because we are stupid enough to spy on ourselves and then hand the data over to the NSA.

  35. free world? fuck you, usa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you voted for this shit, you are responsible. preventing crime and terror? how come that nsa didn't see the isis army coming? or corrupt politicans, the mafia or war lords etc.? because they're busy committing crime and steal data, money and life from the masses.

  36. funny... by SuperDre · · Score: 1

    that's funny, as that court doesn't have any jurisdiction over other countries....

    1. Re:funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's funny, as that court doesn't have any jurisdiction over other countries....

      American education system at work ^

      They don't need to have jurisdiction over the other countries, to impose law on an american agency they need jurisdiction over said american agency.

  37. Collect it all by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    The head prick was quoted as saying: "Collect it all." Setting aside the obvious immorality and illegality of their actions (and ignoring all the apologists and their fig leafs), just focus on the stupidity of this approach. What good is having the worlds' best spooks looking for wheat if they are buried under metric tons of chaff?

    Unless, of course, the real reason was to golden parachute into cushy, six-figure per month consulting gigs to supplement their Federal retirement packages.

  38. We're back to Desert Storm thinking. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

    "You're either with us or against us."

    If that's still official policy, then let the chips fall where they may when I say (yet again) -- I am against the government that claims to represent me.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  39. This seems like bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to help pacify allies who no longer have any love the USA.

    I know here in Canada, the view towards America has shifted from "basically like us" to "fat, lazy war monger control freaks who treat us like disposable garbage and only care about them selves"

    and as always
    fuck you America(ns)

  40. Those four countries by opine · · Score: 1

    They're partner countries to the US on the Echelon program, aren't they?

  41. Japan probably needs a large navy for self defense by buybuydandavis · · Score: 1

    When your Navy is stronger than the British Navy, it's hard to argue that your Navy is for "self-defense".

    That depends on who you might be trying to defend yourself from. China and Russia are the primary threats to Japan, across 500 miles of ocean, and they're in a naval arms race with each other, and China is testing Japan.

    I found a detailed US report to Congress on the huge ramp up of the Chinese navy from 2000-present.

    http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL3...

  42. Re:What about Israel? by StankeyoSmith · · Score: 0

    Let's not play dumb.

    We know the NSA isn't going to spy on "our greatest ally" at all.

    If there is one thing in life I have learned, its that you should *never* fuck with Israel.
    Just dont. It doesnt matter who you are, where you live, or what you do. You will regret it.

    Also ensure you never say anything critical of Israel, no matter what your complaint is. Its automatically anti-Semitism, which makes you "fair game" for "justice".
    For example ( please note this is a hypothetical statement, *please* dont kill or torture me):
    "I do not like drinking the tap water in Israel, it tastes like a swimming pool with all the chlorine" ---Anti-Semitism right there guys.

    Learn from the mistakes of others.

  43. Well, at least they are not forcing a beta... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have I told you how I have beta?

  44. Surely the real story here is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that when we find they have been spying on Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand - what are the consequences?

  45. Complain Complain Complain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What has Special Ed done that's "wrong"?:

    1) Theft 2) False credentials 3) Tampering with national security 4) Placing all Americans at risk 5) International flight 6) Traveling on a voided passport 7) Bartering with items/information he doesn't legally own nor has personally created 8) Terroristic threats 9) Unethical treatment toward his employer 10) Misrepresentation 11) Perjury/breach of oath 12) Dereliction of duty 13) Failure to follow orders. 14) Impersonation of known government officials/identity theft. He's also flirting with, in fact, trying to set up the two main offenses: A) Assisting foreign powers B) Aiding the enemy.

    Sure, the Constitution guarantees our freedom to share more information with the public, and the right to free speech is great... but NOT when it will cause a danger to National Security. The info Snowjob likely possesses is probably EXACTLY the kind of stuff al Qaeda wants leaked out so they can learn better of how to successfully find ways to kill Americans at will. Not to mention, maybe names and locations of counter-terrorism spies that the U.S. has out in the field infiltrating the ranks of those would-be murderers.

    People want to complain about the NSA and alleged "spying", but then they'll also complain about not feeling the government is doing enough to protect them from al Qaeda!
    The NSA is not "hiding" anything, but they'll be truly ineffective if EVERYONE knows what they're working on.
    Has NOBODY stopped for a moment and asked "why" the NSA has been doing what they're doing? Did people think the authorities use magic to uncover terrorist plots? Which would you prefer, spying on you or terrorism on you?