Slashdot Mirror


German Intelligence Spying On Allies, Recorded Kerry, Clinton, and Kofi Annan

cold fjord writes: According to Foreign Policy, "The revelation that Germany spies on Turkey, a NATO member, should dispel any notion that spying on allies violates the unwritten rules of international espionage. ... For nearly a year, the extent of NSA surveillance on German leaders ... has drawn stern rebuke from the German political and media establishment. ... Merkel went so far as to publicly oust the CIA station chief in Berlin. 'Spying among friends is not at all acceptable,' Merkel said. ... [C]alls made by Secretary of State John Kerry and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were accidentally recorded. ... 'It's a kind of delightful revelation given the fact that the Germans have been on their high horse.' Christian Whiton, a former ... State Department senior advisor, added that the report on German spying is a perfect example of why rifts over intelligence among allies should be handled quietly and privately." The Wall Street Journal adds, "Cem Özdemir, the head of the Green party and a leading German politician of Turkish descent, told Spiegel Online it would be 'irresponsible' for German spies not to target Turkey given its location as a transit country for Islamic State militants from Europe." Further details at Spiegel Online and The Wall Street Journal."

170 comments

  1. Bottom line... by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1

    ...nation states are always a bunch of hypocritical jerks.

    Color me incredibly unsurprised here - every nation state is built upon a foundation of distrust. Distrust of other nation states, and distrust of even their own citizens.

    Hell, if people could actually trust each other, we wouldn't *need* nation states in the first place.

    1. Re:Bottom line... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...nation states are always a bunch of hypocritical jerks.

      Oh please, don't be disingenuous. It's been well known by everybody for decades that every state in the world spies on all the other statse, and that to a certain extent, every state spies on every one of its citizens too.

      The real problem comes when a certain state is outed, and flat out lies about its domestic and international spying activities to the representants of its own people.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Bottom line... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Hell, if people could actually trust each other, we wouldn't *need* nation states in the first place.

      Nation states killed 350 million people in the last century alone.

      The onus is on nation states' defenders to show that neighborly spats and other small disputes would do worse than that. It's not like private conflict-resolution services don't already exist (and are always preferred in business contracts). Every lack-of-imagination excuse people have for "needing" nation states must be justified vis-a-vis the demonstrated body count (and that's only taking the utilitarian stance, not even the moral one).

      If somebody showed up today promising peace in exchange for executing a tenth of the world's population, they'd be locked up in the psychopath ward and the religious people would call him an antichrist.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Bottom line... by Old97 · · Score: 1

      Who would enforce the contracts? Contracts of all kind are enforced by government, i.e. the states you think are unnecessary. It's the states that provide the mechanisms to make and enforce laws, contracts, private property, etc. How would you replace that? How does anarchy work exactly?

      --
      Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
    4. Re:Bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found this HBO documentary about it.

    5. Re:Bottom line... by gtall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Spying serves a valuable purpose. It allows a country to ascertain whether another country's pols are lying or telling the truth. It can also help prevent surprise attacks, and it can help explain another country's behavior. We should want countries to spy on each other, then there are fewer secrets.

      Nation states arose not because of mistrust, but from shared language, culture, and so on. Trust has almost nothing to do with it.

    6. Re:Bottom line... by neoritter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's exactly the point. The problem with anarchists is that there is no such as anarchy. Humans naturally create social circles and tribes. Removing "governments" or "nation-states" would only result in tribalism. Hatfields vs McCoys, etc.

    7. Re:Bottom line... by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Nation states are not artifiical constructs and do not need defending. They are naturally forming political entities based primarily in cultural and ethnic ties. For example the Kurds are a nation but they are not a nation state because they do not have political borders dictating the scope of their nation. Humans naturally form nations of like individuals and then seek to dictate their scope of control thus creating a nation state. Essentially, my people live here we control this farm land and river ways for our benefit; then later, my people need more space so I'm going to take this farm land and water for my people's benefit.

    8. Re:Bottom line... by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Much as with credit ratings. All voluntary transactions include a mutually agreeable arbitrator in case of contract dispute. If you fail to fulfill your contract, the arbitrator marks it as such on your contract fulfillment rating. Fail to abide by the arbitrator's corrective directives, and your contract rating falls more severely, to the point you have to accept very bad terms on future contracts until you repair your rating. That's the anarcho-capitalist, totally government-free version of the solution.

    9. Re:Bottom line... by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Also, it's government that often *prevents* contract enforcement. Limited liability is a great example. One saying in anarcho circles is "a free society is a full liability society". There are lots of examples of companies and people getting out of contracts. Thus, this suggests the government is not effective in enforcing contracts.

    10. Re:Bottom line... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      How would you replace that? How does anarchy work exactly?

      There are entire sections of libraries about how this has worked in the past, works now (every unregulated transaction), and what kinds of improvements could be made in the future, but you can YouTube Bob Murphy for some gentle introductions. Just be careful of the "but who would pick the cotton?" arguments.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    11. Re:Bottom line... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's been well known by everybody for decades that every state in the world spies on all the other states

      On balance, that is a GOOD THING. Exactly 100 years ago, the German Army was marching through Belgium, the Russians were preparing to invade East Prussia, and millions of men were being mobilized all over Europe. World War One was a result of a series of diplomatic blunders, secret treaties, and severe misjudgements by many leaders of the intentions of both enemies and allies. It is quite likely that it could have been avoided if better intelligence had been available. Voluntary mutual transparency would be best, but spying is still better than secrecy.

    12. Re:Bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much as with credit ratings.

      I assure you, I have NO voluntary interaction with credit ratings agencies.

    13. Re:Bottom line... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      if nation states killed 350 million people, then how come there are so many people in the world?

    14. Re:Bottom line... by jratcliffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Much as with credit ratings. All voluntary transactions include a mutually agreeable arbitrator in case of contract dispute. If you fail to fulfill your contract, the arbitrator marks it as such on your contract fulfillment rating. Fail to abide by the arbitrator's corrective directives, and your contract rating falls more severely, to the point you have to accept very bad terms on future contracts until you repair your rating. That's the anarcho-capitalist, totally government-free version of the solution.

      This scenario doesn't do much for the party injured, however. If your roofer caused your house to collapse, the fact that it's going to be a black mark in his book, and make it harder to get contracts going forward, doesn't help you keep the rain out of your living room.

    15. Re:Bottom line... by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      loooool look at all the snowden amerians saying nononono spying is good as long as it's not on us!!! loooooooooooooooooool

    16. Re:Bottom line... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Who would enforce the contracts?

      Local courts, backed up by the local police. Courts and police both predate the concept of the modern nation state.

      How does anarchy work exactly?

      This is the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle. Anarchy is NOT the only alternative to sovereign nation states. There are many other alternatives. Anarchy is only the most extreme. World government would be another extreme. Between the two, there could be partial surrendering of sovereignty to international courts, and dispute resolution mechanisms such as the WTO. There are plenty of examples where this has worked: The fifty states of the USA, the European Union, and even the Holy Roman Empire, which worked pretty well when outsiders weren't invading.

    17. Re:Bottom line... by idontgno · · Score: 2

      More to the point, dead former customers can't seek arbitration. So a sufficiently failed roof (i.e., lethally collapsed) is a guaranteed win for the roofer.

      Every system is gamed. The system described by GPP is optimized for the gamer, to the fundamental detriment of anyone "playing fair".

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    18. Re:Bottom line... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      It's been well known by everybody for decades that every state in the world spies on all the other statse, and that to a certain extent, every state spies on every one of its citizens too.

      The real problem comes when a certain state is outed, and flat out lies about its domestic and international spying activities to the representants of its own people.

      But you'd really expect a state to admit to their spying? It's just as well known that covert operations are covered by deniability and secret classifications. At least where Int'l spying is concerned, anyway.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    19. Re:Bottom line... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the point. The problem with anarchists is that there is no such as anarchy. Humans naturally create social circles and tribes. Removing "governments" or "nation-states" would only result in tribalism. Hatfields vs McCoys, etc.

      Absolutely this, spot on. Where are my mod points?

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    20. Re:Bottom line... by cforciea · · Score: 1

      I've got a question for you. How do you think the first nation states came to be? Can you explain why you think that if we somehow managed to demolish them today, it would leave us in a different enough situation that they wouldn't just form again, with or without the consent of those who would be governed? Wouldn't it happen even more quickly, given the much larger wealth and power concentrated among fewer people?

    21. Re:Bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, No?

      All those 'secret treaties'? No.

      AC

    22. Re:Bottom line... by frup · · Score: 1

      In a free market with global trade, the nation state is irrelevant. It is those that profit from war that are fighting to keep power. The world does not need despot politicians competing for their popularity contests like idiots in a talent show. A truly democratic computerised voting system is possible. Democracy should be about policy and people not who the people who rule us are. In democracy they are not meant to rule, they are meant to lead, they are meant represent the voice of the people. This is not happening.

      There is too much anger in the world and it is upsetting me. I have always been taught to turn anger in to something positive. When I come in to conflict I will extend the olive branch. I will offer discourse and dialogue. I will be willing to compromise. I have learnt from the past.

    23. Re:Bottom line... by Old97 · · Score: 2

      Courts and police do not predate the concept of a government. Even the Greek city-states were states. The alternative to states were tribes. Not all state's are nations and not all nations have states. Germany is a nation state, but the USA is not. Nor are most if not all African countries and other countries created by colonial or other imperial powers. The Kurds are a nation that has no state. Israel is an attempt to create a nation state by reassembling the nation into a geographic area and declaring a state. The 50 US states are part of a federal system. We tried a confederacy (in 1783-9) but found it didn't work well so we strengthened the central government. So are you saying that you don't like Germany, but you like the USA? How well are the African states working out? The problem with international institutions is that they are not democratic. Totalitarian and authoritarian governments end up with as much say as those with more representative democracies.

      --
      Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
    24. Re:Bottom line... by frup · · Score: 1

      There should be no secrets in the first place. It is necessary for everyone to know the truth and the truth should not be hidden. The ancient greeks had no concept of sin. Their philosophy was only concerned with Truth. In truth there is little evil. And while the subject of truth is complicated as we all suffer from error and occasionally a white lie must be told to keep the peace, peaceful states would be open, transparent and truthful, for they would have nothing to hide or fear.

      In a truly free market, with truly free peoples, nothing is required to be secret. Openness is peace. Openness is innovation. Openness is a better way.

      And while these men are all flawed in their own ways, their views and beliefs likely to contradict in places, the following list of men are heroes of the 21st century. There are many more and I apologise I have not included any women. No person is perfect.

      Edward Snowden
      Richard Stallman
      Elon Musk
      Bradley (Chelsea) Manning
      Julian Assange
      Linus Torvalds

      And like I said many more. I do not agree with all their views, I am politically dead neutral and centrist.

    25. Re:Bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been well known by everybody for decades that every state in the world spies on all the other states

      On balance, that is a GOOD THING. Exactly 100 years ago, the German Army was marching through Belgium, the Russians were preparing to invade East Prussia, and millions of men were being mobilized all over Europe. World War One was a result of a series of diplomatic blunders, secret treaties, and severe misjudgements by many leaders of the intentions of both enemies and allies. It is quite likely that it could have been avoided if better intelligence had been available. Voluntary mutual transparency would be best, but spying is still better than secrecy.

      I can only agree with the suggestion that allies engaging in moderate spying on allies leads to a degree of transparency. Everybody has been doing that for centuries. The problem with what the NSA is doing is that it is not strategically tapping the telecomunications of selected targets of high intelligence value. They are warehousing the entire telecommunicatinos traffic of allied countries wholesale and then not just using it for security purposes but also to wreck the economies of these countries by providing industrial espionage services to US corporations. People who are trying to use a few micky mouse wiretapping operations by the German Secret Serivce to justify what the NSA is doing might as well be arguing that being bitten by a dachshund will result in injuries comparable to what you suffer when you are bitten by a great white. What bugs me about the NSA's operations is not the spying, it's the size and indiscriminate nature of their operation and the magnitude of the data being gathered. As for hypocrsy, is it not a massive hypocrisy for American political commentators to get on a soap box and criticize the police states of the former Soviet block for spying on their citizens and denying them privacy and then singing the praises of the west and it's supposed freedom from such nefarious activities when all along the USA has been engaged in spying on a level that the KGB and Stasi spymasters could only have achieved in their wet dreams?

    26. Re:Bottom line... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Courts and police do not predate the concept of a government.

      Of course not. But they do predate the nation state. My county has a court, and police. But they are not a nation state, and they do not attack and wage war on other counties. Likewise, California doesn't attack Arizona. Disputes are settled peacefully. The same could work at a higher level, but it would require nation states to surrender part of their sovereignty.

      The alternative to states were tribes.

      That is ONE alternative. But it is not the only one.

    27. Re:Bottom line... by hsthompson69 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In democracy they are not meant to rule, they are meant to lead, they are meant represent the voice of the people.

      It's funny - proponents of democracy seem to believe that the masses cannot possibly be mistaken in their choices of leaders, but once those leaders are chosen, the masses cannot possibly be trusted to their own devices and must have policies and rules and regulations dictated to them by their infallible leaders.

      I guess I've got no problem with the voice of the people as long as it's not imposed on individuals who may dissent.

    28. Re:Bottom line... by hsthompson69 · · Score: 0

      Okay. Doesn't that justify mass surveillance of innocents?

      You can ascertain whether or not your citizens are lying, or telling the truth. You can prevent surprise attacks, and you can use it to explain your citizens' behavior.

      Would you be willing to expose the data of your life, including your real name, address, tax information, and spending information for the past 5 years, so we can tell if you're lying, telling the truth, planning a surprise attack, or help us explain your behavior?

    29. Re:Bottom line... by digsbo · · Score: 1

      This is different in the current system how?

    30. Re:Bottom line... by digsbo · · Score: 1

      This scenario doesn't do much for the party injured, however. If your roofer caused your house to collapse, the fact that it's going to be a black mark in his book, and make it harder to get contracts going forward, doesn't help you keep the rain out of your living room.

      Sure it does. You write damages into the contract, and/or require insurance as part of the contract. You can choose to only engage in contracts with insured parties. This isn't really that complicated, once you figure out the three or four standard clauses and things to check. And you'd use a super Angie's List type company to whitelist insurers and arbitrators for you.

    31. Re:Bottom line... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      On balance, that is a GOOD THING. Exactly 100 years ago, the German Army was marching through Belgium, the Russians were preparing to invade East Prussia, and millions of men were being mobilized all over Europe. World War One was a result of a series of diplomatic blunders, secret treaties, and severe misjudgements by many leaders of the intentions of both enemies and allies. It is quite likely that it could have been avoided if better intelligence had been available. Voluntary mutual transparency would be best, but spying is still better than secrecy.

      No it's not a good thing. You're making an elementary mistake of confusing the means to an end with the end itself. While it's on balance a good thing to know more about what is going on in the world rather than less (that's the end), the means to achieve this (secretly spying) is not a good thing.

      Because spying is a secret way of obtaining information, the use of that information by decision makers is necessarily also secret (otherwise the secrecy would be broken and the spying activity would be undermined). But decision makers making decisions using secret information means that their decisions cannot be audited, and cannot be directly argued against in the open, by anyone who isn't privy to the secret information, eg the public. Therefore, such decision makers are all powerful, and unaccountable, ie undemocratic.

      So if you think spying is a good thing, then you implicitly believe that unaccountable government is a good thing. In truth, voluntary mutual transparency would be best, but spying is equivalent to secrecy.

    32. Re:Bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except Finland who has no spy agency and willfully gives out any and all information to who dares to ask for it.

    33. Re:Bottom line... by soccerisgod · · Score: 1

      The EU is working pretty well? Where? When? How? All I see is a means for governments to get laws (or binding directives, same shit different pile) passed on the EU level that they'd never get through their own legislature, at least not without friction. This way, they'll shamelessly deny ever having known about this and blame everything on the EU, the unfathomable hydra of beaurocracy. I guess in that respect, it works. For some.

      --
      If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
    34. Re:Bottom line... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Cops: Well, we're a little puzzled over one of your countries... uh Finland?
      Randy: What? What about it?
      Cops: It appears to have been destroyed.
      Randy: What? Oh my god! Not Finland! Oh no! No! Not Finland! Hey guys, Finland's dead. Somebody better break the news to Norway, they were really close.
      Cops: None of you knew anything about Finland's destruction?
      Randy: No. I mean, odds are they nuked themselves. You know, suicide.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    35. Re:Bottom line... by digsbo · · Score: 1

      You do, unless you have never used a credit account. No one actually puts a gun to your head to take out a loan, apply for a credit card, and so on. That makes it voluntary. The majority of the Mormon community lives without credit, as I understand it.

    36. Re:Bottom line... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      You are the one making an elementary mistake, I am afraid. Your conclusion does not follow, even if we accept your entire argument.

      You have heard the phrase "trust, but verify". It is far too easy to fake transparency and mislead other states. Every state throughout history has done this. At the very least, you need good intelligence sources to verify a state's public pronouncements regarding intentions are sincere. Even if they are sincere, you need to know the intentions/plans/abilities of internal players who may be in opposition.

      Although I guess we could just take Putin at his word that he is just conducting military exercises and has no intentions towards Crimea? I'm sure he'll be giving Crimea back to Ukraine any day now.

      Advocating covert verification of states' intentions and abilities has nothing to do with government accountability. That is an extreme oversimplification and false dichotomy.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    37. Re:Bottom line... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The EU is working pretty well?

      Yes. EU members have some of the highest per capita incomes in the world, high longevity, and low violence. It is one of the best places in the world to live, and is desired destination for millions of potential immigrants. If you compare that to Europe before the EU, especially 1914-1945, it is a profound improvement.

    38. Re:Bottom line... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't remember any secret treaties involved.

      Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy were in a public alliance (which Italy construed as being a defensive alliance, and since the whole thing was started by Austria-Hungary didn't require Italy to go to war). France and Russia were in a public alliance. Britain was not formally part of an alliance, but was a guarantor of Belgian neutrality and had close informal ties with France.

      'There were diplomatic blunders and severe misjudgments, in that leaders frequently overestimated either their opponent's willingness to back down or their ability to defeat their opponent. I don't see how better intelligence was going to help that. There were also several national leaders that, for whatever reason, wanted war. Austria-Hungary feared being broken apart, and wanted a quick victory. Germany was worried about its possible opponents and their recent increase in military capabilities. France wanted to recover the lost Alsace and Lorraine land.

      The German war plan was, in case of war with Russia, to invade Luxemburg and Belgium and attack France from the North. That had some unpleasant consequences, but by the time it was relevant (after mobilization) it would have been awfully difficult to back down from the war

      How do you think better diplomatic intelligence would have averted war? I'm not seeing it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    39. Re:Bottom line... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Not going to work. Sorry.

      If I don't pay my roofer in your suggested situation, I find it harder to buy things. If I walk over and shoot the wife of the first person (presumably a straight male or lesbian) who refuses to sell me goods and services, I may find it easier to buy things. I won't make many friends, but many people will think it safer to cooperate with me.

      Now, suppose I team up with several other gunmen and start running the town. Nobody wants to mess with us, because we're mean and nasty and will kill the families of those who oppose us. People want to move out, but the towns down the road are also being run by people like us, so that's no improvement.

      Basically, we're heartless and willing to use whatever violent options we have to get what we want. The only way to get rid of us is to form a larger force that is responsible to the people; in other words, a government and police force.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    40. Re:Bottom line... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying spying on allies is good, I'm saying that it's expected, everybody who cares knows that it's happening, and bringing it up is a diplomatic faux pas. Snowden's reports on domestic spying were extremely valuable. His reports on foreign spying told few people things they didn't already know, and made Merkel have to take exception to it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:Bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the line between domestic and international spying is quite blurry when you consider the interconnected policies, commerce and benefits.

    42. Re:Bottom line... by digsbo · · Score: 1

      I think you are conflating the concept of criminal and civil legal issues. There is a lot of debate in the libertarian sphere how to deal with the former with either minimal or no goverment, but in what universe do you think people would permit a known murderer (who wasn't a president, or police chief) to walk free, without social and economic consequences?

    43. Re:Bottom line... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In a universe where people get afraid. If I'm the toughest guy in town, and have some friends, I can keep the town under my thumb, with everybody afraid to attract my attention in any way. Cause great anguish to those who oppose me, and few individuals will oppose me. It's worked before on various scales.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    44. Re:Bottom line... by digsbo · · Score: 1

      And some of those scales include doing this within a government agency. There are a LOT of blacks who would say this perfectly well describes their local, publicly-funded police departments. If you don't believe me, look at the indictment and conviction rates, and sentencing averages for blacks vs. whites for nonviolent drug crimes. What you're describing doesn't have *anything* to do with free market vs. government systems.

  2. No surprise here by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone who thought that Germany's protests over surveillance was anything other than hypocritical bullshit is an idiot. All countries spy on all other countries. They always have and they always will.

    1. Re:No surprise here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who thought that Germany's protests over surveillance was anything other than hypocritical bullshit is an idiot.

      As a German I would love to get rid of all the politicians involved, how does that make me a hypocrite?

      Note that the politicians aren't hypocritical either, anyone observing Merkel reactions and just who she send to "resolve" the issue was aware from day one that she didn't care about privacy and was more interested getting into the hot STASI action shes been missing out of for 3 decades.

        Note there are lawsuits over the German government overreaching in its spy program and its Bundestrojaner (which is now fully conform to the law - for reals, we swear - not) every other year. The assholes on top are the same everywhere, that we have them in Germany only means that we hate them more for it.

      Sadly the alternatives are soul less sellouts (FDP - for only x million we will support tourism in your region), stone age espies ( B90 Die Gruenen - we are for renewable energy and would like to get rid of everything else without having a migration plan first), outright communists ( Die Linke ), outright Nazies ( whatever the current NPD ), the party that sold newly planed gas lines to Russia ( SPD - Gerhard Schroeder, a good friend Putins retired to GAZPROM ), the list goes on.

    2. Re:No surprise here by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anyone who thought that Germany's protests over surveillance was anything other than hypocritical bullshit is an idiot. All countries spy on all other countries. They always have and they always will.

      True, and in general it was dealt with in a low key manner with the occasional low level diplomat getting expelled and then a bit of tit for tat. Both sides knew the game and had no desire to escalate the situation.

      With the germans, I'd guess domestic political considerations necessitated a stronger response, spiced with a bit of schadenfreude, while at the same time the very same politicians were thinking, "Mein Gott I hope we don't get caught as well."

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    3. Re:No surprise here by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Exactly,
      There is a lot of internet tout that Europeans somehow do things that much better then the US, is actually a lot of BS. They just have a different set of problems that the US does.

      Germany probably just made the biggest fuss about it, just because they could, and distract their public from their own problems. We do the same in the US.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:No surprise here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they were not targeting the US...

    5. Re:No surprise here by Frobnicator · · Score: 1

      Yes, countries spy on other countries. All of their hands are dirty to some extent.

      The difference is the method and extent of targeting. As a wartime example, it is the difference between a sniper rifle vs Agent Orange.

      There are various 'socially acceptable' levels of international espionage. Military groups are going to spy on other military groups, sure. Installing listening devices inside embassies, I understand that. Under international law it is well regarded that those INDIVIDUALS who engage in an activity against another party can be subject to similar activities by other nations. That is, government spying on government is okay. Government spying on citizenry is NOT okay.

      The Geneva Convention implemented and now all nations are bound to treat non-combatant civilians as 'protected persons'. While they might be affected by actions, they are unlawful targets and violators are considered international war criminals. Those same protections should apply even during times of peace and apply to espionage, but unfortunately they don't.

      "Ethical espionage" is not a contradiction in terms. Just as in traditional warfare the common citizenry are protected and are illegal targets, so to should they be off limits to espionage. The "Just War" doctrine, which currently includes details like only attacking war-related targets, ethical treatment of prisoners, post-war reconstruction and recovery for the citizens, should apply just as well to espionage.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    6. Re:No surprise here by gtall · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, you are assuming the parts of Germany's gov. that were "shocked" by U.S. spying even knew about their own. They may not have been hypocritical at all. Similar things happen to the U.S. government. Some agency does something and immediately the other side assumes a conspiracy. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of it. It is sort ingrained in human nature to "connect the dots". The same silliness occurs with the WTC "truthers".

    7. Re:No surprise here by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      what are espies? in the US they are an awards show for sports tv.

    8. Re:No surprise here by frup · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with seeking the truth, but spying also involves deception, it involves stealing and it is done to gain influence and power, in the current climate of the world, it is done to harm people not protect them. The truth should be out there. Nothing should be censored. Everything should be recorded but privacy should be maintained. Those who commit crimes against their fellow men should then be tried in court and the evidence shown. Those who have done nothing wrong have nothing to fear.

      If you try to imagine how scrutinised a politician must feel in the public eye, he is spied on daily, nothing he does is private, how then does he view spying on his people when they all spy on him. I can see why they do it, we are partly to blame, dirty politics and media sensationalism too.

      Who cares who sleeps with who. Who cares what they did in the past (if they didn't steal, lie or kill) judge them by their actions, the rest can be judged at death. The focus should be on truth.

    9. Re:No surprise here by frup · · Score: 1

      If someone invades and harms your people (those who are your neighbours and most similar to you) then there is nothing wrong with seeking information to protect them. However it is wrong to invade others. Killing is wrong, there is no justification for military action. It is barbaric animal behaviour. Compare Chimpanzees to Bonobos.

      It is time for a generation of neutrality. A generation of peace. Let the actions of the past be healed by time and forgiven. But never forget for history guides us to the future. We will never get off this planet and ensure the long term survival of humanity while we fight with each other, and if my miraculous achievement we do, you can bet that while we are warlike it will eventually mean the destruction of earth at our own hands.

      Our particular form of consciousness is unique as far as we know. It is something to be cherished and preserved. No life should be taken by the hand of a man.

    10. Re:No surprise here by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      The whole reason they made noise was the leak. It was public, so they had to Do Something(tm), There was no real surprise at spying allegations, just a public show.

    11. Re:No surprise here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, because ACCIDENTELY (we know this to be true because the actual orders from the government who to spy on were also leaked and they didn't include any western nations) intercepting 2 (two!) calls from US politicians is the same as targeted spying on the whole government 24/7 plus the entire nation -highly important intelligence targets that those 80 million are- the latter of which should really be the more annoying one anyway.

      The only stupid thing the BND did was transcribing and reading it before destroying.

    12. Re:No surprise here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, you can bet your ass they were, and are targetting the US. They just haven't been caught. German is a large enough nation to spy on everyone. And they do. Anyone who is big enough to have the resources needed do. Smaller nation don't have the resources to spy on everyone, but they do spy on their neighbours, and the big players. And anyone worth the interest. The means might not be direct spy games, but more refined personal contacts and information gathering.

  3. NSA Tag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the NSA Tag?

    1. Re:NSA Tag? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      ob. Joker:

      "Spy on entire nations and nobody bats an eye - spy on a few government officials, and suddenly everybody loses their shit."

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  4. Germany not responsible for call recordings by timrod · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Speigel article states that the person responsible for making the call recordings of Clinton/Kerry and Kofi Annan was the same person the BND now believes to be a double-agent working for the US. The headline here makes it seem like the German government ordered the BND to do it, but it doesn't seem to be the case here.

    1. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Speigel article states that the person responsible for making the call recordings of Clinton/Kerry and Kofi Annan was the same person the BND now believes to be a double-agent working for the US. The headline here makes it seem like the German government ordered the BND to do it, but it doesn't seem to be the case here.

      That's some pretty tortured logical contortions you're putting us all through.

      Why WOULDN'T Germany target Turkey? Hell, Turkey openly supports "we've never seen a cease fire we can't break in 90 minutes" Hamas in their quest to eradicate Israel AND overthrow the Palestinian Authority.

    2. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, take the spooks' word for it.

    3. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by Yokaze · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also the same article states that
      * they were not targeting either officials, but the party they were happening to call.
      * and were ordered to delete the records, as soon as the involved parties were identified.

      Sounds not quite like hiring a double-agent from an allied secret service.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    4. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Throwing their guy under the bus ("US double agent") seems fishy as well. A little too convenient.

      But yeah, mod up the shit out of Joe Gillian's uncorroborated Speigel stuff because everything in the universe is less evil than USA!!!1

    5. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite. If you RTFA, the BND made the recordings and dutifully transcribed the calls. They got passed along to higher-ups, who once they realized who was talking ordered the transcripts be destroyed. The person believed to be a double-agent for the U.S. was responsible for destroying the transcripts, and didn't. So no, he's not responsible for making the call recording - that falls squarely in the BND's lap. He just didn't follow through on the BND's good faith effort not to spy on the U.S. (or to cover up their spying on the U.S. depending on how you want to spin it).

      It does raise questions about the allegations that he's a U.S. agent though. Why would he be so keen to keep a transcript of a call between Clinton and Kofi Anon to send back to the U.S., knowing full well that the U.S. would already know everything about that call? The only explanations I can think of are that he wasn't a double-agent as Germany is claiming (or at least not a double-agent for the U.S.), or that he was a U.S. double-agent and included that transcript to implicate Germany in case the story ever blew (which would've been remarkably far-sighted).

    6. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Speigel article states that the person responsible for making the call recordings of Clinton/Kerry and Kofi Annan was the same person the BND

      Can we please type out the proper name for the Bundesnachrichtendienst? Is that so hard??

    7. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Speigel article states that the person responsible for making the call recordings of Clinton/Kerry and Kofi Annan was the same person the BND now believes to be a double-agent working for the US. The headline here makes it seem like the German government ordered the BND to do it, but it doesn't seem to be the case here.

      False. Mod parent down:

      "Following protocol, staff at BND headquarters prepared a several-page-long transcript of the conversation and passed it along to senior agency officials. They in turn ordered that the transcript be destroyed. Sources say that the document was not forwarded to Merkel's Chancellery.

      But the person tasked with destroying the transcript was Markus R., an employee in the agency's Areas of Operations/Foreign Relations department, who also turns out to be the same man recently accused of serving as an agent for the Americans."

    8. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by dave562 · · Score: 2

      Or that the United States leverages multiple sources for the same information. Redundant systems and all of that.

    9. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      Budsinabongandchristisadentist....that wasn't too hard...

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    10. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by neoritter · · Score: 1

      If he was a double-agent, in the vein of your latter option, it could simply be he was informing the US that the Germans were tapping US officials' calls. I'm more of the vein that he wasn't a double-agent and was more a leaker upset over the hypocrisy of Germany's actions.

    11. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Gesundheit.

    12. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The transcript could have provided clues on how they were tapped which might have led to ways to detect or block it in the future.

    13. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      maybe one US agency hired a double agent in a foreign country to report back on activities of another US agency!!! it's not that farfetched.

    14. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did indeed intentionally spy on Turkey, for the exact reasons you mentioned and probably more.
      They did not intentionally spy on Kerry, Clinton and Kofi Annan - that happened accidentally when they happened to be in Turkey, and the calls were immediately deleted. That's the difference between German spying and US spying - Germany spies on specific targets in countries they deem "dangerous" and deletes anything else they pick up along the way, the US spies on everyone, everywhere.

    15. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by hey! · · Score: 1

      Or he may have spent years building up a tolerance to iocaine powder...

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    16. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The ability to pass back that US calls where not at all secure or where collectable at times, places would have been a good task for any German working for the US with wider German security access.
      The spin can be seen as to try and not ask why US communications where not secure...
      The spin can be seen as to try and not mention too much about German issues with German staff working for the US.
      Beyond that its just Germany collecting all as they where tasked to by the the UK and US gov since the end of ww2.
      The only mystery is how many Germans work for the USA and at what levels within the wider German gov and mil.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    17. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by forand · · Score: 1

      Redundant system for what exactly are you referring to? If the US isn't recording important calls made by their Secretary of State's then there is something wrong.

    18. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by dan_musashi · · Score: 0

      I think it would be faulty to assume as much. Redundancy is rarely planned in the federal government, as information is most often replicated by independent agencies wtihout even realizing someone else is doing the same. While gathering information is certainly widespread, it is rarely as calculated as that would imply.

    19. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. I can maybe get you a good deal on a bridge in Brooklyn as well.

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    20. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't believe for a millisecond that there was any actual intention to destroy the transcripts. There conceivably could have been, but it would take a whole lot of evidence to get me to believe it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:Germany not responsible for call recordings by matfud · · Score: 1

      The US is not legally allowed to record the secretary of state talking to anyone (snigger). So why do you think that someone would think that they are recording it? An why do you think that the person with the recording would necessarilly know that the recording was recorded by another agency anyway?

      So who knows who is recording who and who has access to those recordings and who needs access to the recording and why they need to know who is talking to who and whether you should notify your chain of control that someone is talking to someone about something and which agency is interested in that something.

      Secrecy is fun as nobody knows what anyone else is doing or should be doing :P

  5. as usual... by swschrad · · Score: 2

    the guy who screams loudest about (insert issue here) is hiding their own little sin pad of the same.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:as usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they did it by accident, and as soon as they realised who they were spying on, deleted the calls.

      As opposed to a deliberate and targeted surveillance effort by US intelligence to spy on the German Chancellor.

    2. Re:as usual... by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      "yes, yes, we did it on Accident, yes sir! And, believe you me, once we knew what we'd recorded, we recoiled in horror, deleted the calls,and burned the devices they were recorded on! Plus, we vow NEVER to do it again!".

      You're a glutton for punishment, aren't you?

  6. Big problem is in-game spying... by downright · · Score: 2, Funny

    The germans keep coming into World of Warcraft as your allies only to look at your gear then they suddenly stop aiding in the battle... They switch sides and use the intel against you... Worst of all they only play gnomes for maximum humiliation. Damn you German Gnomes! Damn You!

  7. Oblig. Madison quote: by daemonhunter · · Score: 2

    " If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison, Federalist Papers #51

    1. Re:Oblig. Madison quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I respect Mr. Madison, a basic grasp of Rabbinic lore or even a detailed study of Isaiah's writings will provide examples of angels whose actions were explicit violations of their purpose for existence*.

      *Imagine if your text editor one day decided that it hated taking your orders, conspired with the midi synthesizer, and together declared themselves the true rulers of your PC.

    2. Re:Oblig. Madison quote: by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Well there's a kind of circular logic. Angels that are acting nonangelicly are no longer angels but fallen angels. I may be mistaken, but angels that went against God's will tend to receive swift justice.

    3. Re:Oblig. Madison quote: by aevan · · Score: 1

      Is angels a species or position then? Is falling a bureaucratic thing, a holy impeaching? Some biological response to ethical violation?

      "No True Angel would rebel against God" =P

    4. Re:Oblig. Madison quote: by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Both? Presumably of the same genus as humans since there was some bumpin uglies goin on back in the day. It's a free will thing. Angels were created with the sole purpose of being conduits of God's will, ie messengers. If they're no longer serving God they can't really be called angels anymore, because that's their sole purpose. Metatron was Enoch son of Noah transformed to an angel. So I guess in that sense you could kind of call it a position.

    5. Re:Oblig. Madison quote: by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Both.. God is the creator and can change his creations. But angels are defined as a messenger from God or as a guardian of human beings. So it is like a title and a species. A fallen angel is a former angel who sinned and was cast into into hell and committed to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment.

      Oh, and we are talking about angels so there is a presumption of a real God assuming the angels are also real- at least for the sake of conversation.

    6. Re:Oblig. Madison quote: by Noah+Haders · · Score: 2

      so you're saying there is no governance system in heaven? that makes no sense.

    7. Re:Oblig. Madison quote: by hsthompson69 · · Score: 0

      Nice :)

      Although, since men (and women) aren't angels, and government is made up of men (and women), it seems that you could also write it this way:

      "If (x) were angels, no (entity to control x) would be necessary"

      Eventually, you need a government for the government for the government for the government...etc, etc, etc.

    8. Re:Oblig. Madison quote: by mjwx · · Score: 1

      so you're saying there is no governance system in heaven? that makes no sense.

      Obviously the Kingdom of Heaven is an absolute monarchy.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    9. Re:Oblig. Madison quote: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a True Scotsman fallacy then :)

    10. Re:Oblig. Madison quote: by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      The real question you need to be asking is how does an angel disobey god when humans were the only beings created with any freewill. If it has do freewill it has no choice but to follow orders.

    11. Re:Oblig. Madison quote: by neoritter · · Score: 1

      You don't have free will if your actions are subject to the will of another. You can kill someone but you'll spend the rest of your existence in a lake of fire, isn't really free will. It's free will until someone with more power can exert themselves on you. So, man can sin, but by genuinely asking for forgiveness he can avert the ultimate consequences of their actions. Angels don't have absolution of sins.

      Now you may not call that free will, but assuming that God exists, an omnipotent being giving you the proverbial get out of jail free card in their cosmic justice system is pretty much free will.

  8. Oligarchy logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So... rather than entertain the notion that such spying is simply wrong, the "right" solution is for all the bad actors to keep the issue amongst themselves, and thereby avoid accountability to or even awareness by their citizens.

    In general are people so personally hypocritical that they don't completely reject this pseudo-ethics immediately, due to a perverse perceived "common cause" with this stance?

  9. High Horse by fsterman · · Score: 1

    ... 'It's a kind of delightful revelation given the fact that the Germans have been on their high horse.' Christian Whiton, a former ... State Department senior advisor

    Yup, Germany stepped off their high-horse and dived right into our cesspool. But just because everyone is violating our fundamental civil liberties en-mass doesn't make it any less evil.

    The only thing this tells us is what our threat model should have been from the start.

    --
    Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
    1. Re:High Horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but spying on the government officials of a foreign nation is not a violation of whatever civil liberties you are imagining.

      Why they get caught spying on allies, the Germans call it an "accident". When they spy on you, it really is an accident.

      Here's a hint: They don't WANT to spy on you. You don't matter. You are so utterly insignificant you are considered a HINDRANCE when they get any information about you, because they could have been intercepting data on people that matter.

    2. Re:High Horse by Jiro · · Score: 1

      They don't WANT to spy on you. You don't matter.

      Spoken like a man who has never heard of the term "false positive".

      If you don't matter, but they think you matter, they can make life hell for you.

    3. Re:High Horse by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Here's a hint: They don't WANT to spy on you. You don't matter.

      On the other hand, we have FBI infiltration of peaceful groups and idiots who vaguely want to do something jihady but couldn't come up with a plan until the FBI suggested one. "They" are looking at an awful lot of people, and seem to have a considerable ability to get people in trouble. As long as I don't rock the boat, they don't care about me, unless they get a false positive result in surveillance. Once I start being politically active in an inconvenient way, I am explicitly a target of surveillance.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:High Horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Here's a hint: They don't WANT to spy on you. You don't matter."

      Well some people in society sure do matter and those are of interest. If that happens to be me or some other random guy - that really does not matter from a societal point of view. The damage is done if they can spy on and undermine the people who actually could make a difference.

      Intelligent charismatic young people who could make a difference - maybe outsmart and outcompete established companies or start a political party to overthrow a monopoly.

      That's where the money really is - in protecting the old way money flows throughout society. Terrorists or pedophiles are just made up threats to motivate the spying laws to protect established interests.

  10. Trust, but verify by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    doveryai no proveryai

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Trust, but verify by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I love that phrase. "Say you trust, but don't trust."

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Trust, but verify by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I dont' like this proverb. I don't understand the different from this to "don't trust"

    3. Re:Trust, but verify by hey! · · Score: 1

      I disagree. It means trust but don't rely entirely on trust when you have other means at your disposal.

      Consider a business deal. You take the contract to your lawyer and he puts all kinds of CYA stuff that supposedly protects you against bad faith. But let me tell you: if the other guy is dealing in bad faith you're going to regret getting mixed up with him, even if you've got the best lawyer in the world working on the contract. So you should only do critical deals with parties you trust.

      But if the deal is critical, you should still bring the lawyer in. Why? Because situtations change. Ownership and management change. Stuff can look different when stuff doesn't go the way everyone hoped. People can act differently under pressure. Other people working at the other company might not be as trustworthy as the folks sitting across the table from you. All kinds of reasons.

      So you trust, but verify that the other party can't stab you in the back, because neither method is 100% effective. It's common sense in business, and people usually don't take it personally. When they *do*, then that's kind of fishy in my opinion.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. Source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you can bet the info on that came from some agency in the States that is sick and tired of Germany playing the victim. A little bit of screaming and political ballyhooing over something like this is expected, but they've ridden it for way too long... time wean them with a little sour milk.

  12. Ground rule misunderstanding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The fundamental rule of spying is not that gentlemen do not read other gentlemen's mail.

    It's that you are not supposed to get caught doing it.

    It's a sad state of affairs when two supposedly first rate intel agencies get caught.

  13. Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Interesting

    'Spying among friends is not at all acceptable,' Merkel said

    And I doubt very much Turkey is a true friend of Germany: it's a economical, immigration and to a certain extent, religious threat to Germany - or at least perceived as such by a sizeable part of the German population. It's also a liability, as it's capable of singlehandedly dragging Germany into the huge Iraqi and middle-eastern quagmire if it starts to get involved and calls on NATO members to provide help.

    Turkey just happens to be a member of NATO like Germany, is all. That doesn't make the two friends.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      By that logic, Germany is probably not a true friend of the US

      Hardly any state is a true friend of the US these days - apart perhaps the UK, and even that is far from certain.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK has never been our ally, and certainly isn't now.

    3. Re:Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet that doesn't work for the US by her standards.

      Germany and the US are not friends either. They are allies when their interests align, and they are not when they do not. Currently our interests align.

      There are no friends in geo-politics. Only national interests.

    4. Re:Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by gtall · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yep, after Western sanctions on Putin's Russia, Turkey recently announced they were going to make trade deals with Russia to make up for what the sanctions were stopping.

      I think in the past, Turkey was a real member of NATO. Now, they are not really and Erdogan is creating another theocracy. In 10 years, there will be no democracy left in Turkey and no reason to keep Turkey in NATO.

    5. Re:Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by neoritter · · Score: 1

      Eh the US, France, and UK have always had this kind of circle jerk friendly rivalry.

      US revolts against the UK, France helps. US helps France and UK economically during Napoleonic wars. UK steals our ships, US declares war. US has a civil war, France and UK help the seccessionists, France even tries to get Mexico to invade. It's all good fun!

    6. Re:Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by mbkennel · · Score: 2


      Did Ergodan suddently think "Oh maybe Russia was right about Assad & Syria after all?"?

      Yes, Turkey was a very reliable ally until Ergodan's Islamism. Ataturk was right all along.

    7. Re:Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."

      as made famous by Kissinger.

    8. Re:Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by schlachter · · Score: 2

      For years the Turkish military saved the Turks from themselves. Now they are not. Erdogan got re-elected (!!) by the people. They are bringing ruin on themselves like every other Muslim/Arab country that wants violence over peace, religious intolerance over progress, etc.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    9. Re:Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Economical threat? The only big turkish economy that comes to mind is tourism.

    10. Re:Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many dictatorships in the Middle East are still good friends with the U.S. But otherwise, they have indeed done quite some efforts to alienate their traditional friends.

    11. Re:Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turkey has coast towards Black Sea. No chance in hell USA would voluntarily give up that.

    12. Re:Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by MiSaunaSnob · · Score: 1

      Japan?

    13. Re:Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No not Always. In the 19th century there was quite some rivalry between France and UK about colonizing Africa and well colonization at large. And 18th century and before that... wow did they fight each other every chance they got.

      Well WW I and afterwards maybe France and UK and US have been on same side in most conflicts. Thats just about 100 years.

  14. Yea, So what? by bobbied · · Score: 1

    The Germans spy on the United States and other NATO countries?

    Yea, so?

    If Kerry is dumb enough to have sensitive conversations in ways others can monitor, then the Germans need to listen. Even as a USA citizen, it matters not to me. Please, listen in. Just don't cry crocodile tears when we listen to you.

    What bothers me about all this is that it's being talked about in public. Everybody used to just accept this and quietly go about their business. Now it's policy to rake your friends over the PR coals for something you already knew was going on? That is seriously troubling to me. Just go encrypted if you don't want the other guy to know what you are "really" thinking. Why all the complaining?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  15. Turkey, ha! by schlachter · · Score: 1

    Turkey is a terrorist country...supporting Hamas and other violent Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, preaching a hatred against Jews and others not seen by most other "westernized" countries. Not to mention they have been bombing their own people as well as northern Iraq for years now. They are Europe and the USA's enemy in sheep's clothing.

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    1. Re:Turkey, ha! by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your explanation is extreme, but Turkey is very much a wild card in the current scheme of things.

      Erdogan's Islamist politics alone make Western powers nervous after years of dependable pro-Western/anti-Islamist governments, enforced as needed by the Turkish military.

      Throw in Turkey's desire to play a leadership role in the Middle East coupled with the fact that what we call "the Middle East" was basically territory of the Ottoman Empire through about the end of the 19th century and it's not hard to see the guys who move around chess pieces on maps get a little curious as to what's happening there.

    2. Re:Turkey, ha! by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      if I recall, the ottoman empire was named such after Neil Ottoman, who was the emir of Constantinople.

    3. Re:Turkey, ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Turkey is a terrorist country, then how woul you describe the United States?

  16. tables turned by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Do Germans eat crow with bratwurst?

  17. Murica the ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which, of course, negates the impact of the story. Oh, wait... it doesn't.

    When America needs to save face, we don't need interweb preteens to explain to us what's going on. This is a simple, stately, clearing of the air. Each side can now shut the hell up and get back to serious business.

  18. Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No true Scotsman? That's convenient. By that logic, Germany is probably not a true friend of the US, given its history of dragging us and others into wars, its recent Soviet connections, and the fact that they were just caught spying on us. So, hey, let's all be frenemies, right?

  19. Re:Murica the ugly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Achievement Unlockled: Jimmies Rustled.

    *zoidberg dance*

  20. Explains how Merkel was very calm by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    ...when it became known that the US were bugging her phone. Probably her reaction was "What's the hubbub, it's not like we don't...".

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Explains how Merkel was very calm by slew · · Score: 1

      ...when it became known that the US were bugging her phone. Probably her reaction was "What's the hubbub, it's not like we don't...".

      Of course when things like this become public, you have to make a good show, though...
      Feigning outrage and going viral. Isn't that what the modern internet is all about?

    2. Re:Explains how Merkel was very calm by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      True, but what does a politician know about the internet?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Ambrose Bierce said it best: by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Alliance, n.:
    In international politics, the union of two thieves who have
    their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that
    they cannot separately plunder a third.
    -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Ambrose Bierce said it best: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok good one, but i think it could have been said better, something like "...that they cannot separately plunder a third without coordinating their efforts"

  22. Transparent government is needed. by frup · · Score: 1

    Government is for the people, not to control. Transparent government is needed and then spying would be unnecessary. Only murderers have secrets. Nothing about the administration of a country should be hidden.

  23. Everyone spies on everyone... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    ... and always has.

    What makes the NSA revelations unacceptable is not what they're doing but how well they're doing it and how insidious they are at it.

    THAT is the issue. Not that they're doing it. EVERYONE IS DOING IT.

    The NSA is just really good at it.

    Which actually means that what we should be doing is upgrading network security and generally being a good deal more paranoid about how we connect things. I have no interest in telling the NSA what they can and cannot do. For one thing they'll just lie to me if they find my restrictions inconvenient. They see that as their job in fact.

    What we need to do is upgrade security. Then the NSA can do whatever they want and it simply won't be worth their time to collect data on people that are not actually threats.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Everyone spies on everyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THAT is the issue. Not that they're doing it. EVERYONE IS DOING IT.

      And also that they are doing it. Just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it OK.

      What we need to do is upgrade security. Then the NSA can do whatever they want and it simply won't be worth their time to collect data on people that are not actually threats.

      I agree with you that we should focus more time and effort on security, but disagree with your other statement. What we need to do is actually hold the NSA (and the government as a whole) to the law and they simply won't be able to do it to begin with.

    2. Re:Everyone spies on everyone... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes it does make it okay. Your aphorism refers to situations where people might not do it if it were not seen as acceptable.

      This is not the case. Spying will happen. Nations will do it. They always have. They always will. Just as they will always make war. They will always play political games. There will always be taxes. And I am sorry to say we will all die.

      Now, that doesn't mean I am accepting the status quo. This spying typically doesn't involve normal people like you. That is new. I would suggest we find ways to make it impractical for the spies to involve us in their games so they must instead focus on their actual job.

      That is as good as it is going to get in this world.

      As to holding the NSA to the law... you have no means to actually do that sans some sort of auditing agency which will either have to be as good at knowing what the NSA is is actually doing as the NSA is at hiding what it is doing.That is unlikely. What is more, your best method of actually doing that would be crippling the NSA so badly that they're incompetent. And that then endangers the US and the free world as a whole because the Chinese, Russians, etc will not stop spying simply because you've knee capped the NSA.

      This is where these discussions become unproductive. You have some civil rights points which I agree with but you have to acknowledge the security, military, political, economic, and geo political realities here your argument has no place in this discussion. I do not mean that as a slight or as an attempt to invalidate your opinion. I am saying your argument must encompass these issues as well or we are not talking about the same thing.

      Your civil rights point isn't big enough. Take a couple steps back and incorporate the other issues into the whole. I am not your enemy here. I just am highly dubious of claims we don't need to guard the city walls when we have a long history of barbarians climbing over them.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:Everyone spies on everyone... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There are two things about the NSA I find unacceptable.

      The first is their mass surveillance in the US. This can't be stopped by security. I can encrypt my email, and the NSA still knows that I sent email, to whom, and when, and the rough length. If I had a phone scrambler that would actually stop the NSA, they'd still know who I was calling. This can only be stopped politically.

      The second in their disregard for our security. The NSA has been trying to put NSA-specific holes in encryption. This not only hinders me from protecting myself against the NSA, but is a security risk for me if the NSA's corresponding key information gets out. Good thing the NSA never has any leaks, right? And we all know that Snowden's the only person who's gotten secret information out of the NSA this century, right?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:Everyone spies on everyone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but there is a balance between protecting against "barbarians climbing over walls" and not scaring away your own population to other places by extreme surveillance laws. In some of the most "secure" countries in history the walls were built to stop people from getting out rather than from crawling in. Of course in the propaganda it was to protect against those "barbarians", but in reality...

    5. Re:Everyone spies on everyone... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      You're assuming they are able to put taps on the email servers. We can lock down or decentralize our email systems enough that putting taps on our email is not practical.

      For example, lets say rather then putting all our email in big ISP servers or gmail we instead put all the email in small private hosts. Tiny operations that might have only a couple thousand clients. Or possibly better yet you just self host your email.

      Technically there is no reason email cannot be self hosted. The biggest problem with this idea now is that email spammers use self hosting to spam so big email servers reject small email servers. But there are other ways to either authenticate your server so it is accepted and keep spammers out.

      My objective here is not to make it impossible for the NSA to snoop on me... just impractical enough that they wouldn't bother unless they really wanted to snoop on me specifically. That alone is going to protect 99 percent of the population from spying.

        For the remaining 1 percent... some of them we want to be spied upon because they might actually be bad people. And for the small portion that is both of interest to the NSA and not at fault... they can encrypt and use other security precautions.

      The politics are fucked sir... I won't waste my time on them. Find a technological solution.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  24. Now the waiting is .... by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    ...on the revelation that Turkey spies on Germany and others.
    And --particularly-- the precious toned-down reaction. Such as is displayed now, all of a sudden.
    Go Turks -- GO!

  25. um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they say it was not intentional then we must accept that, right? A small reminder from Senate Hearing, March 2013:

    Senator Wyden: "And this is for you, Director Clapper ... Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

    Director Clapper: "No, sir."

    Wyden: "It does not?"

    Clapper: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly."

    Big government is ALWAYS dangerous to individuals and their liberty because it is a huge concentration of power in the hands of a relative few people who are just as imperfect, temptable, and corruptable as the people they seek to rule. When big government seems safe, it is generally because the population is unaware of what it is up to. That same total power, in the hands of the citizens themselves, is less dangerous because it is more diffuse.

  26. Don't be naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be naive. Everyone spies on everyone else, to the extent possible.

  27. Don't know why, but... by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

    ...I find the concept of "German intelligence" an oxymoron.

    1. Re:Don't know why, but... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      They where looked after well by the USA and UK as far as hardware and software went. Lots of nice equipment and top quality West/German staff that got to go on work related trips to the USA to learn more about new US methods.
      The problem for real German intelligence is how many of their own staff now work for the US and UK and have done so for decades.
      Who did they promote, how far did they get into vital German bureaucracies and the wider German mil.
      Germany cannot trust its own staff, the German tested, passed text and voice crypto has issues as used, telco infrastructure or equipment they buy from via the tame USA brands.
      Lots of nice overtime for skilled domestic German intelligence watching German staff for long term contacts with other wealthy nations.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Don't know why, but... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      ...I find the concept of "German intelligence" an oxymoron.

      What's contradictory about it? It's German Intelligence, not German Humour.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  28. and Kofi Annan by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    One for me too, thanks Annan.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  29. The Greens by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Cem Özdemir, the head of the Green party and a leading German politician of Turkish descent, told Spiegel Online it would be 'irresponsible' for German spies not to target Turkey given its location as a transit country for Islamic State militants from Europe."

    My, my, that is interesting on so many levels.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  30. Ummmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wyden knew what was going on, he sat in on the closed secret briefings and read the secret reports. He was simply grandstanding to try to create a leak in an embarassing way.

  31. America not responsible for NSA. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

    The Speigel article states that the person responsible for making the call recordings of Clinton/Kerry and Kofi Annan was the same person the BND now believes to be a double-agent working for the US. The headline here makes it seem like the German government ordered the BND to do it, but it doesn't seem to be the case here.

    Oh come on! That's like saying: "The Germans made it seem like the Americans are excited about the NSA's actions. In reality, the NSA is really a triple agent for Germany through Russia, so it really isn't America's fault that the NSA was spying on other countries, right?"

    Germany, despite all their protestations about spying, had the infrastructure in place to record calls by other political officials. If they did it accidentally (which sounds like BS), they they are automatically collecting ALL calls and they are hypocrites. If they did it intentionally, they are also hypocrites for targeting allies.

    It isn't surprising that they are doing it despite their prior protestations. What is satisfying, however, is that the US will now get to rub their noses in it.

  32. Spying club = conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would say that if spying on other countries is to be subject to musings of there being "unwritten rules" about the vague notion of espionage, then I think the notion of conspiracy might as well be invoked if member states cooperate in spying on each other. So espionage wouldn't be this simple normal and harmless thing some people make it up to be.

  33. German levels of spying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...are nowhere near insanely high threshold deployed by U.S. counterparts.

  34. No surprise here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hypocritical? Hypocrisy has a certain connotation of "sincerity in insincerity", that is hypocrites tend to have a certain amount of belief in their falsenesses. They don't necessarily think they are outright lying.

    The German 'government' bullshit you are talking about is only just very basic public relations and damage control for the populace only.

    And most people saying the bullshit may be very much uninformed or misinformed about the truth, even at what is considered by the general public as the "highest levels of states". It is supposed to make them look more sincere, although most of them being already so obviously corrupted and stupid, I don't suppose people oblivious to this, would see a difference with that.

  35. You mean tribes like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NSA, CIA, DHS, TSA, local law enforcement, various ethnic groups when one of their own is killed, etc?

    Government hasn't stopped tribalism and in fact has created a few more. Unlike normal tribalism however these ones haven't been recieving equal treatment in regards to their tribal misdeeds.

  36. WoW sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EVE online now :)

  37. Merkel wasn't two-faced about spying on friends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    States are not people. States can't be friends with eacother any more two cars can be friends with eachothers.

  38. Conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All governments should stop all spying on anyone who is not a direct suspect of severe criminal activities.

  39. Did the US also destroy the recordings of Merkel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon the BND realized whom the recorded, higher officials ordered the recording to be destroyed. So it's really the same???

  40. Bottom line... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why it got to be like that? - If nation states cannot trust each other then we *need* also something else, wouldn't we?

    Your statement sounds like it was, is, and will be forever just exactly that way.

  41. German Intel Spying on Allies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I had to sune it up, I have great empathy for the poor German linguist that had to lsiten to hours and hours of John Kerry droning and droning and droning. That has to be in the realm of waterboarding. Whoever you are sir or m'am: das tut mir leid!

  42. No surprise here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, if you look closely, you'll find that the germans protesting loudest are also protesting against domestic surveillance.

    See, amongst others:

          http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2013/

          http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/
    etc.

    We're not hypocrites, we're complaining about both our own government and yours ;-)

  43. concepts... liberty and freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose everyone, corporate, nation state, whatever... spies on everyone in this brave new world... whatever really matters comes down to civil liberties.

    What nation state lets me do what I desire? Clearly not the one I'm in now anyway.

  44. Who is the real end-user here? by Mathinker · · Score: 1

    What with all kinds of inter-country intelligence sharing deals being reality, it could very well be that whatever information the Germans dug up was actually wanted by, for example, the NSA, but obviously couldn't be directly obtained by them legally.

  45. Your comment adds nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it is well-known (and I certainly knew it) that Wyden is a grandstanding jerk who already knew in advance the correct answers (EVERY competent lawyer knows to always know the answer to any question you lob at a witness in court to avoid being surprised). This fact, however, has no bearing at all on the fact that Clapper directly lied under oath about the matter to decieve the American people. This displays an attirude and a default behavior toward the people of the country.

    There was NO need for Clapper to lie. Had I been in the "hot seat" I would have said something along the lines of "Senator, this entire line of questions involves classified matters of sources and methods of intelligence matters which I will happily discuss with you in a closed hearing but which it is inappropriate to discuss here" - that's the sort of answer the pros used to use in public forums when grandstanding politicians tried to "out" classified matters in public hearings. The fact that Clapper's automatic response was to lie under oath to the Senate and the public is ... disturbing and unprofessional. Even "Clapper-apologists should at least be alarmed that Clapper's staff appear to have completey failed him in whatever briefings and prep work they did with him pre-hearing.