
GCHQ and NSA Targeted Private German Companies - svangel
http://spiegel.de/international/germany/gchq-and-nsa-targeted-private-german-companies-a-961444.html
======
fidotron
It's worth pointing out the companies in question were communications
companies, and if anyone in the world has foreign signals intelligence
agencies that is exactly what they're going to be targeting, not for economic
reasons but to maintain future capability.

The CEO that was surprised by this revelation is simply incompetent or lying.
(Or both). If you work on satellite ground stations you're in the game and
need to act appropriately.

~~~
poulson
What makes satellite communication special? Is it okay to monitor the CEO of
every communication company? If so, is it any different for non-US governments
to monitor the CEO's of US tech companies?

~~~
fidotron
I would bet that foreign countries (at least China, Russia, Israel and France)
are at least trying to, and any competent CEO of an international
communications company should be taking reasonable measures to protect their
own and their clients confidentiality.

Arguing the rights or wrongs of the agency action misses the point: it's
inevitable that someone is going to try it, so take counter measures.

This is why in the fuss over the NSA we shouldn't ignore the fact that Google,
Facebook etc. are encouraging bad security practices by creating giant
repositories of everyone's information. It just happens, this time, to be the
NSA, but it could be any government, or even organised crime, and the only
ways to stop all of them are by acting prudently in the first instance.

------
res0nat0r
In other news: Spy agencies spy on foreign countries, friend or foe.

~~~
coldtea
In 1840 news: blacks are bought and sold to work as slaves in Southern
plantations.

Cynical aknowledgement of the world as it is never changed anything for the
better.

~~~
res0nat0r
Fortunately I don't see a problem with spying on foreign companies or
countries. Also you shouldn't downvote a perfectly valid comment. Thanks.

~~~
rakoo
Because borders are a perfectly valid and relevant criteria over which you can
tell who is potentially dangerous.

Because we are all humans but we are not all the same, even though we all want
to live in a democracy and want to accept everyone.

Right ?

~~~
res0nat0r
> Because borders are a perfectly valid and relevant criteria over which you
> can tell who is potentially dangerous.

Sure.

------
javajosh
Oddly, I'm not outraged by this. Countries spy on each other, including
private organizations of other countries. And they do so in secret, and to
whatever extent they can get away with. We can argue all day long about
whether it's the right thing to do, but the behavior has, at the very least, a
long history behind it. It seems that the expected behavior is to just get
angry and roll some heads when it's found out, and then get right back to it.

And yet, I'm outraged by the exact same NSA behavior when applied to the USA.
What's the difference? The difference is that Germans don't vote in the USA,
and therefore the NSA isn't protecting itself in the context of our country,
but (presumably) protecting our country in the context of the world. There's a
lack of incest, recursion, self-reenforcement...however you want to put it.
Sure, the opportunity for abuse exists, but it's not a systemic risk, unlike
the systemic risk caused by any intelligence agency doing blanket surveillance
on it's own citizens.

~~~
josephlord
That it an acceptance of a world in constant information war without friends
and allies. It implies a massive global expenditure on both attack and
defence. Now some is definitely going to happen on critical issues but I would
expect them to be at least embarrassed when caught to act as a deterrent
prevent it being done too casually.

I'm British and GCHQ have been eager partners with the NSA and equally
invasive in the UK (although possibly without breaking rules because there
largely aren't any).

~~~
javajosh
I think we agree then: embarrassed, yes. But outraged, no. My point is that
there is a qualitative difference between untargeted domestic mass
surveillance and targeted foreign surveillance. The former is a known threat
to democracy; the latter is distasteful and it would be better not to exist,
but it's part of the international landscape since forever.

~~~
josephlord
I believe outrage is appropriate and that the NSA and the USA should be pretty
deeply embarassed (and GCHQ and the UK).

Foreign surveillance can be a threat (blackmail) to foreign democracies.
Breaking into computer systems is also criminal in most jurisdictions. A
government caught committing crimes in another country without very good
reason should expect severe diplomatic and even economic sanctions, involved
staff and those giving the orders should expect arrest if they visit the
country spied on (those computer hacking in EU could expect arrest anywhere in
Europe under the European arrest warrant). I'm not sure it would be wise for
NSA bosses to holiday in Europe (without the protection of diplomatic
immunity).

