
N.S.A. Dragnet Included Allies, Aid Groups and Business Elite - weu
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/world/nsa-dragnet-included-allies-aid-groups-and-business-elite.html?smid=tw-bna
======
fidotron
The best bit here is right in the first paragraph: "and a European Union
official involved in antitrust battles with American technology businesses."

Spying on foreign governments because you think they might present a threat to
you in terms of war/foreign policy is generally defensible (although many on
here would disagree with that), while using the apparatus of the state to
support select private enterprise through espionage is not.

The US government has still not appreciated the full impact of the leaks or
they would be far more concerned about cleaning things up fast as the economic
consequences threaten to be huge.

~~~
flexie
In the last 20 years several American tech companies have grown huge with very
little challenge from European antitrust or tax authorities.

Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Apple, Amazon, Intel, Microsoft...

Rules regarding abuse of dominant position could have been applied much
stricter. Some of these companies have 90-something percent market share on
several of the geographic and product markets they operate in. But not one of
them has been forced to split up. MS was forced not to include IE in Windows
and MS and Intel were fined (fined!), but not one of them have been forced to
open access to (or just make it possible to export) their social graph. Apple
is still allowed to block other content providers from selling movies and
music iPhone and iPad. The iphone costs more or less the same all over Europe
as does the music and movies on it. Amazon has been allowed to apply predatory
pricing for more than a decade.

Tax laws could have been designed so that companies were taxed on their
European profits, just like the European companies they compete against.

These companies barely employ Europeans, barely pay any European tax, but they
hold thousands of European patents and make hundreds of billions of euro in
Europe and operate in markets where there is curiously enough still not/no
longer serious competition from European companies.

I don't believe for a second that NSA hasn't used their spying to improve
American competitiveness.

~~~
4354325425
What did all of that have to do with the NSA?

How would US espionage force the EU from prosecuting or legislating against
these companies?

~~~
alan_cx
By allowing these companies to be one step ahead of any EU action.

~~~
bananacurve
Of course their is no way that Europe's tech failings are because of their
foolish regulatory nonsense, it has to be that America's cheating. That is a
great way to ensure irrelevance.

~~~
vidarh
That's a rather funny comment to make in response to speculation (that I do
think sound a bit far fetched) that the NSA has used its influence to _reduce_
the amount of EU anti-trust action, supported by pointing out how easy near-
monopolist US companies have had it in Europe.

~~~
bananacurve
So you think America made the EU have foolish regulation?

~~~
jbooth
Not everything is about your libertarian hobby horse. California and NYC are 2
of the "least economically free" areas of the US. Shouldn't they be getting
outcompeted by Idaho or something? Or maybe the world exists on more than one
axis.

~~~
Shivetya
Well there, you've hit the nail on the head. The companies come about where
people, innovators, and entrepreneurs, want to live and do business. Taking
your comment to the next step implies that European countries do not hold all
these qualities or not in sufficient amount. Yet I do read about technology,
financial, and energy concerns, in Europe. Hell many energy concerns there own
their US counterparts.

It all comes down to perception, the other guy is not the right

------
Zigurd
There are some curious things about the response to these revelations:

1\. Zero "friendly" nations have gone beyond carping. If the NSA still thinks
they can put the toothpaste back in the tube it's because nobody who matters
has told them otherwise, much less acted on such a declaration.

2\. Even more surprising is that zero small nations who are far down the
"Eyes" hierarchy, have concluded they can't win, so they should not play the
game. That is, nobody has said: "It's unacceptable for our citizens, industry,
and government to be an open book to the NSA, therefore we will take action to
make communication secure." You would think some nation would seize the
opportunity to become the "Switzerland of data."

~~~
abalashov
Given the inherently interconnected and international character of the
Internet, as well as the fact that many of its key network peering and
exchange points are in countries fairly high on the "Eyes" hierarchy, I would
be deeply sceptical of the viability of any effort to become "the Switzerland
of data".

So, you build a data centre in a "Switzerland of data" and throw something
like national government-level resources into its physical security, and
buttress it with legislation highly supportive of nondisclosure and customer
privacy. So what? To get any utility out of such a place, outside users need
to send traffic to and from it. Unlike, say, copyright enforcement takedowns
or what have you, the NSA's surveillance isn't highly reliant on physical
proximity to that kind of facility, or nearby listening posts. Much of the
Sigint took place at vulnerable transoceanic Internet traffic convergence
points in countries like the UK and Germany.

How would a Switzerland of Data stop that? :-)

------
cryoshon
I guess this revelation should permanently put to death the canard that the
NSA surveillance is strictly "for our safety" and only against suspected or
potential terrorists.

Of course, there will be hordes of people claiming that this piece of the
puzzle is "nothing new", but it is-- this reveal is another very meaty piece
of evidence for the thesis that the NSA's goal is universal control and that
the terrorism justification is merely a pretense. There is literally no room
to argue that eavesdropping on UNICEF is making Americans even an iota more
safe.

~~~
dobbsbob
Intel agencies fill these charities with spies so they can identify targets
families who show up for medical care in middle of nowhere Somalia. Despicable
practice that lead to lot's of shootings and kidnappings of aid workers

~~~
PavlovsCat
Another example (of using humanitarians organizations or pretense for their
own ends, and not giving two fucks about the fallout, I mean):

[http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/chomsky-boston-
bom...](http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/chomsky-boston-bombings-
gave-americans-taste-terrorism-us-inflicts-abroad-every?paging=off)

 _To locate bin Laden, the CIA launched a fraudulent vaccination campaign in a
poor neighborhood, then switched it, uncompleted, to a richer area where the
suspect was thought to be.

The CIA operation violated fundamental principles as old as the Hippocratic
oath. It also endangered health workers associated with a polio vaccination
program in Pakistan, several of whom were abducted and killed, prompting the
UN to withdraw its anti-polio team.

The CIA ruse also will lead to the deaths of unknown numbers of Pakistanis who
have been deprived of protection from polio because they fear that foreign
killers may still be exploiting vaccination programs._

------
adventured
I wonder what this is all going to look like when it comes out that the NSA
spying has at times helped companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon,
Cisco and Oracle compete with domestic and foreign competition, as well as
deal with foreign government regulators.

~~~
mhurron
No one seemed to care when the French did it.

~~~
adventured
I agree that industrial spying by national agencies is rather common across
the globe. The only difference here is the perception and magnifying glass /
media spotlight.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Magnitude isn't a meaningful difference?

Sounds like saying "everybody has an army. there is no difference" in response
to
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

~~~
Zigurd
It's a good bet that intelligence/surveillance spending is roughly
proportional to military spending.

~~~
PavlovsCat
Also, the combination with having a military mestastazing like mad all over
the world is what makes the spying kinda extra creepy. I guess there were
times when France was declaring itself as the beacon of freedom and democracy
while waging war on the poor and non-aligned (internationally, that is), but
that was before I was born.

That the spying itself is out of control, too, doesn't help. Then there is the
amount of international communications that go through the US, versus the
amount that goes through France.

There's not even a comparison -- a far cry from "the only difference is media
spotlight". (reminds me of Bush voters talking about liberal media btw... if
that offends anyone, _good_ , because it takes real energy or natural talent
to dismiss differences of orders of magnitude that easily)

------
ganeumann
They spied on UNICEF? Really? Why?

~~~
mhurron
If it hasn't become clear yet, they spy on everyone.

~~~
angersock
We prefer the term "indiscriminate wideband metadata and source data
aggregation".

------
alan_cx
I cant believe people aren't shocked that they even spy on Israel's PM. To me
that is stunning. I, clearly wrongly, assumed that where it counts the US and
Israel are glued to the same page. So, why spy on them? Its almost like the
NSA treating some US states as enemies to spy on. Does the US consider any
nation a trusted ally? Well, clearly the US and Israel are not quite as chummy
as I had previously thought.

BTW, is Snowden done yet? Is there a chance that we'll find out that the NSA
spies on the US President and the UK Queen? (I'll take as a given that they
spy on London Mayor Boris Johnson for pure entertainment value. Hell, even I'd
do that.)

All we need now is the head line "NSA spies on NSA", and the whole thing will
implode.

Sorry HN. Its just that it is getting so absurd, it has to be funny.

------
codex
Every organization generates information of some kind; nation states
especially, but even aid groups and corporations. Spying on the heads of these
organizations is a very efficient way to get at the most important, post-
filtered information these groups have uncovered or generated.

If you assume NSA spying net benefits the United States, then a U.S. citizen
should count it beneficial that the extent of the surveillance is so
comprehensive. If you don't, or have interests not aligned with the U.S.,
these revelations are pretty horrible.

------
j_baker
I don't get it. Why Unicef and other aid groups? I mean, foreign leaders I can
somewhat understand. But what do we have to gain from spying on aid groups?

~~~
tobltobs
For example to know what is the best offer for a Unicef call for bids. There
are lots of american companies who depend on this kind of informations.

------
w_t_payne
Hmmm... although this article does not suggest it, I wonder if the
surveillance of EU antitrust officials indicates a willingness to subvert the
rule of law in overseas jurisdictions?

~~~
alan_cx
Well, yes. Otherwise, why bother?

Put it this way, if you or I hacked say, I dunno... NASA, looking for proof of
, oh random subject... aliens... Would it be a defence to say, "I was just
looking, I did no harm. I didn't use any data I saw"? Or would the US try to
prosecute such a person? Hmmmmm

------
vondur
I'm not surprised, they apparently capture everything that they possible can
and search it later for items of "interest", whatever that may be.

------
robomartin
To me all of this: NSA, Wars, Obamacare, IRS, Iran-fail, etc. just screams
"Enough big government!".

Do you guys understand just how much all your efforts in tech could be for
naught when you have government acting against you every step of the way? I
would think that eventually it's got to sink in just how damaging all of this
is to you. You could be an oncredible engineer or scientist and have a guy (or
gal) you supported politically destroy your efforts through action or
inaction. Time to really pay attention folks.

~~~
icelancer
Yeah, but, who will build the roads and stuff? Most people would rather
sacrifice their civil liberties so they can continue to get free ponies.

------
thrillgore
And it just keeps on getting better.

------
lio32
Gentle reminder: Google willingly co-operated with the NSA and provided direct
access to their systems: [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-
tech-giants-...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-
nsa-data)

We can affect change by boycotting the services of Google and other tech
giants. We all know that the Senate only listens to rich Corporate lobbyists
rather than citizens.

~~~
joelcollinsdc
i thought it was determined that the access was obtained by tapping
unencrypted interlinks between datacenters? can you provide citations of the
'willingness' part of this?

~~~
declan
No, because the allegation is untrue.

In fact Google was challenging the legality of FedGov national security
letters in two different courts (my article in May was the first to disclose
this) even before the Snowden documents began to appear.

edit: here's the link:
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587005-38/](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587005-38/)

~~~
bobbydavid
and did you see the transparency report Google released with the censored bar
on the secret us gov requests? I loved how you could see bits of the graph
peeking through :)

