

Report: NSA spied on Brazilian, Mexican presidents - pvnick
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57600928/report-nsa-spied-on-brazilian-mexican-presidents/

======
bane
At the risk of being "not HN".

no duh

These revelations, that "The NSA spied on <insert>" are unimportant beyond
"The NSA spied on Americans". _Every_ country spies on _every_ other country.
Welcome to being a grown up. I'd be sad if the NSA _wasn 't_ spying on the
Brazilian and Mexican presidents.

~~~
cyphax
What? It'd be sad if the US DIDN'T spy on other, friendly nations? And, am I
not a grown up for seriously being angry about all this then?

~~~
shin_lao
Being angry is a normal reaction, but that doesn't mean spying on "friends"
isn't the thing to do.

It's not black and white. You don't just have "friends" on one side and
"enemies" on the others.

It can also be understood as "Trust but verify" \-
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6y5eI01XE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6y5eI01XE)

~~~
Xylakant
So you'd be fine if your partner breaks into your email account on the basis
of "trust but verify"? [1] I'm not. The NSA/GCHQ are breaking into secured
computer systems of other countries and the UN despite having signed treaties
that forbid this practice. They use the information gained to undermine the
negotiation position of their partners. Now, that this information gets
published, it's "what everybody does", but back when american systems were
hacked, it was "evil chinese hackers".

I'm not willing to accept that "what everybody does" is always a good
practice. The USA is currently loosing a lot of goodwill and trust with other
countries due to the NSAs actions. Those actions might have provided a short-
term benefit in some negotiation, but now that they're exposed do a tremendous
damage. I might be a bit of a dreamer, but I always hoped that governments
should be in for the long-term benefit and fostering reciprocal trust between
allies is certainly better than spying on them.

[1] trust but verify can be baked into treaties, as was done in the START
treaties for example.

~~~
shin_lao
If you wrongly entrust your partner, you might be cheated.

If you wrongly entrust another country, millions of persons might die.

Different consequences, different rules.

~~~
Xylakant
If you wrongly spy on your partner, you might loose him.

If you wrongly spy on an ally, millions of persons might die.

Different consequences, different rules.

Your argument is a straw man. I never called for blind trust into all actions,
but for trust in the countries you call your allies. Brasil is unlikely to
start the next major war, as is Germany, France or the UN. Spying on those is
all about leverage and financial benefits. Is that worth the loss of trust
you're risking?

------
nohuck13
"a document dated June 2012 shows that Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto's
emails were being read."

I have serious issues with the NSA spying on civilians, the lack of oversight,
the notion that the NSA can use terrorism to justify whatever they want to do
regardless of due process, just because they think it's really, really
important, but... this particular thing doesn't really feel like news.
Governments spy on other governments. They always have. I don't feel that
threatens my civil liberties.

I think the danger of stories like this is that they muddy the waters. The
fact that the NSA spies on foreign heads of state is _not the issue_. This
kind of spying is what they were set up to do. If we all have knee-jerk
reactions to this just because of the anti-NSA zeitgeist, we distract from the
things the NSA is doing that actually pose serious threats to our civil
liberties.

~~~
rdtsc
Would you be upset if you found out Mexican secret services have been
listening on Obamas calls? What about your calls? Do you like to be spied on?

Isn't it a bit egoistical to assume this affects or is interesting only for
American citizens? "Well my Constitution says they can spy on everyone as well
as they are not US citizens". Well a lot of other citizens are not US citizens
and they don't really give a crap what is written in the US Constitution. They
care that they are spied one. And it doesn't even matter if their own
government turns around and spies right back on US citizens. They don't like
it. They didn't like what NSA did before this either. NSA is in the news now
and know more of what and how they do it. That is why there is talk about it.
.

~~~
growupkids
That's just it though, countries spy on each other. If that upsets you, then
you're going to be disappointed forever. It's a bit like being upset that rain
makes you wet, no kidding its rain. Countries spy on each other, friendly
countries spy on each other because people lie all the time and do the
opposite of what they say all the time. The lie to get their allies to do
something for them (Iraq WMDs anyone?), they lie because they are covering
something up, they lie to protect their own interests, and sometimes they just
lie for pride.

It doesn't surprise or upset me one bit, because I know it's happening, I know
it needs to happen, because why should I blindly trust any governments
leaderships? And because lying and statesmanship seem to go hand in it will
always happen. No country should ever trust another country blindly. As no
citizen should trust its government blindly. Any government that does that is
abdicating its responsibility to serve its citizens interests first, and any
person that blindly trusts a government is going to be disappointed.

Think of spying like whistle blowing. We all want to know the truth.

~~~
dictum
2023:

"Countries spy on their citizens. If that upsets you, then you're going to be
disappointed forever. Countries spy on their citizens because people lie all
the time and do the opposite of what they say all the time."

------
cpa
The title is a bit misleading: NSA spied on Enrique Pena Nieto before he was
elected, and explicitly states that "it's not clear if the spying continues".

------
yen223
Doesn't it bother anyone else that the only source for the recent "NSA spied
on <x>"-type news seems to be Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden? Has their
claims ever been independently verified?

~~~
tjr
The most recent edition of this book came out a few years ago, so it doesn't
verify this year's claims specifically:

[http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/privacy-
line](http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/privacy-line)

...but what it does explain (and backs up with a plethora of sources) makes
this summer's NSA news sound like business as usual.

------
ck2
If we are so good at spying on other country presidents that means we knew
every step of the way what Syria was doing to its people and we did nothing.

And congress is about to give that a seal of approval.

That's what you get for not having oil.

------
powertower
Has anyone changed their opinion on Edward Snowden?

There is a difference between this, and exposing potential crimes toward the
American people by the NSA.

Now he seems to be attempting to embarrass and weaken US-interests as much as
possible.

The funny thing about all this is these leaked "revelations" are pretty much
_standard operating procedures_ for any country and their native NSA
counterparts.

All this is doing is allowing those other countries to mobilize public hate
towards America and Americans, and use that to potentially give them the upper
hand in future dealing with or against the US.

~~~
Xylakant
> Has anyone changed their opinion on Edward Snowden?

No

> There is a difference between this, and exposing potential crimes toward the
> American people by the NSA.

Yes, sure, but only marginally: The NSA is spying on other nations and the UN,
violating treaties the US government voluntarily signed. IMHO, that's a pretty
clear sign of a secret service out of control - unless it's the administration
that is signing treaties left and ordering the secret service to break them on
the right. I'm not certain which idea appeals less to me.

If that's standard SOP for every country I think it deserves a public debate
and that's what's happening. It's the spectre of the NSAs actions that comes
back to haunt the government. Same as the whole WMD story in Iraq: Now the
"undeniable proof" that Assad used chemical weapons is questioned. Nobody
trusts you if you treat your friends like shit - and everybody on the
receiving end is entitled to be pissed off. Sure, they'll use that in future
dealings, but well, that's the price you pay. SOP, you could say.

------
devx
This is starting to become a trend, which was to be expected. When you spy on
your allies, and they find out, they won't trust you or your companies
anymore, and they will isolate themselves from you as much as possible.

Maybe this will lead to the _decentralization of power_ in the world, and EU
and Latin America will start challenging US in services and economy - which
would be good for everyone in the world.

Brazil Wants National 'Antisnoop' Email

[http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2013/09/...](http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2013/09/1335563-brazil-
wants-national-antisnoop-email.shtml)

~~~
raverbashing
"Brazil Wants National 'Antisnoop' Email"

Translation: Brazil wants an email they can snoop without regards to
unimportant things such as "due process" and "privacy"

~~~
Zigurd
Are all people, everywhere, so under the thumb of their intelligence agencies
that they have no hope of privacy? Or are you willing to admit that some
people, somewhere, have actual freedom and self-determination?

~~~
anxiousest
Brazil wants the servers within its borders (officially) to snoop on drug
traffickers and other suspected law breakers without having to ask for
permission:
[http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/08/11/act...](http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/08/11/actualidad/1376172139_847597.html)

Calls to mind a high profile case of China imprisoning an activist who used
Yahoo mail which then was hosted within China.

