
NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders - qubitsam
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls?CMP=twt_gu
======
sinak
A note to say that the Stop Watching Us coalition rally is now just two days
away. If you're on the east coast, it's not too late to attend. If you're
interested, you can find out more here:

[https://rally.stopwatching.us/](https://rally.stopwatching.us/)

Privacy is one of the hardest things to get folks riled up about. It erodes
slowly, and for "good" reasons, like defending the country against terrorism.
But privacy is critical to a meaningful democracy. Strangely, many of the
members of Congress fail to understand how important it is, and that
compromising our privacy for security is a huge mistake. Particularly since
those compromises are not necessary.

The fact that the NSA is monitoring the calls of world leaders is also
worrying. But it's more of a foreign policy issue, damaging international
relations and making it more difficult for countries to trust the US. I think
it's foolish, and needs to stop, but it doesn't threaten our freedom directly.

~~~
javajosh
Thanks for posting this - it's the most important political topic of this
generation. If I was anywhere close I'd attend.

I started chatting with a guy at a local bar over lunch the other day. The
topic turned to surveillance and Snowden. Turned out my conversational partner
was an off-duty cop. He thought Snowden was a traitor, and that the
surveillance was totally justified because, "It makes protecting the innocent
easier." And I asked him: "well, wouldn't being able to enter any home or car
without a warrant or even probable cause make protecting the innocent?
Basically, wouldn't repealing the 4th amendment make it easier?"

He paused for a moment, looked me straight in the eye, and said, "Yes."

That's when I knew we are all in real danger. People grow up and join law
enforcement, and it _changes_ them, and they don't even see it.

~~~
frank_boyd
I'd say that's the Police having lowered the barrier-to-entry to the lowest
possible point: high school drop-outs with no education and/or thinking skills
whatsoever. Sad and dangerous.

~~~
sbirchall
Psh, it's not the police that are the flashpoint IMO it is the marines. Their
entry requirements are so lax it is beyond scary.

~~~
AaronIG
Interesting. I'm currently stationed at MCRD San Diego (Navy, though), so I
get to see some of how their recruitment and boot process works. Lax in what
ways (assuming you're talking about the U.S., not the Royal Marines)?

~~~
sbirchall
I'm sorry I can't find the article I read (about 2 years ago and it may well
have been from a HN link if anyone recognises it?).

In said article it explains how since the Iraq invasion the entry requirements
for the U.S. Marines have slipped on almost every front. Mental health,
criminal convictions, education and even physical fitness requirements have
all been reduced significantly and the striking thing about the article was
that it made the comparison between the Marines and the SS - most especially
the Dirlewanger Brigade. It was a strained, but apt, comparison that stated
the last time a military unit had so drastically augmented it's entry
requirements was in putting together that infamous squad for the purposes of
punishment and outright terror. Shock and awe indeed.

Now that is a hell of a comparison to make and a direct appeal to Godwin, but
as other people are pointing out the gradual decline of the U.S. into a
totalitarian police surveillance state and it's military deployments overseas
can't help but make this commentator think of the U.S. as being the last
bastion of fascism(c).

Good luck to you, Aaron. My brother is in the Military here in the U.K. so
I've had to man up and put my ideologies to the test. I don't agree with what
the Military Industrial Complex are doing, but I'm acutely aware how one
should judge these things on the correct scale. Each individuals actions must
be judged very differently from those of the unit, and in that way I think I
justify being proud of my brother whilst simultaneously condemning the system
as a whole.

Rainier Maria Rilke may have helped me a bit there.

------
conductor
This is the top comment on the Reddit thread:

"They went after _high ranking military officers_. They went after _members of
congress_. The Senate and the House - especially on the intelligence
committees, and on the armed services committees and judicial. But they went
after other ones too. They went after _lawyers and law firms_. Heaps of
lawyers and law firms. They went after _judges_. One of the judges is now
sitting on the supreme court that I had his wiretap information in my hand.
Two are former FISA court judges. They went after _state department
officials_. They went after people in the executive service that were part of
the White House - their own people! They went after _anti-war groups_. They
went after _US companies_ that do international business around the world.
They went after US banking firms and financial firms that do international
business. They went after _NGOs_ like the red cross and people like that that
go overseas and do humanitarian work. They went after a few anti-war civil
rights groups...

Now here's the big one. I haven't given you any names. This was in summer
2004. One of the papers that I held in my hand was to wiretap a bunch of
numbers associated with a 40-something year old wanna-be Senator from
Illinois. You wouldn't happen to know where that guy lives right now, would
you? It's a big White House in Washington DC. That's who they went after. And
that's the President of the United States now. And I could give you names of a
bunch of different people they went after that I saw! _The names and the phone
numbers of congress_. Not only the names but it looked like staff people too,
and their staff. And not only their Washington office but back home in their
congressional offices that they have in their home state offices and stuff
like that. This thing is incredible what NSA has done. They've basically
turned themselves - in my opinion - into _a rogue agency that has J Edgar
Hoover capabilities on a monstrous scale on steroids._ "

\--former nsa officer Russ Tice...

June 20th interview on Boiling Frogs...
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPyxeqcCjkc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPyxeqcCjkc)
(full 1hr+ radio interview)

or watch 11 minute RT interview
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6m1XbWOfVk)

~~~
r00fus
The big question is, who controls this security state? The information is
being collected, but who's the audience?

And what is their agenda?

~~~
frank_boyd
Rule number 1: It's ALWAYS about the money.

The agenda is the protection of excessive money/wealth.

Which tells you where to look for "who's behind it": Rich people, _very_ rich
people. Also: The military-industrial complex.

And I honestly don't know how one can take down such a power structure that's
in such an advanced stage.

I think it's like terminal cancer: it will only die when the host dies.

~~~
adventured
The military industrial complex is the biggest pile of assignable loot in
world history.

$5+ trillion over the last decade alone. Far more if you count everything
connected to it.

They knew the wars couldn't go on perpetually forever, and they'll be damned
if they're going to give up all that money. One way to dictate that is through
control of the political process.

~~~
riffraff
"They knew the wars couldn't go on perpetually forever" is very optimistic.
Europe hadn't had a large scale war for decades before WW1.

------
fein

        Jay Carney issued a statement that said the US 
        "is not monitoring and will not monitor" the 
        German chancellor's communications.
    

This is probably the best tell the US government has for sniffing out the
bullshit. If they don't explicitly deny the event occurring in the past, it
happened.

Reminds me of a Spaceballs scene:

    
    
        Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. 
        Everything that happens now, is happening now.
    
        Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
    
        Colonel Sandurz: We passed then.
    
        Dark Helmet: When?
    
        Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.
    

I imagine this is probably about how the "Cover Your Ass" conversation goes
before official comments are made to the press.

~~~
singold
When I heard the "is not monitoring and will not monitor" I thougth "We
didn't, and we will not do it again"

~~~
sn41
This is a classic non-denial denial:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
denial_denial](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denial_denial)

In these cases, I think what is important is what is _not_ being said. For
example, they aren't saying: we did not monitor the Chancellor's phone calls
in the past. We didn't and won't record _other_ senior EU officials, etc. The
problem is that journalists do not pry enough, because if they are too
curious, they will eventually lose privileged access to these government
sources.

------
ceejayoz
This is the understood and expected function of the NSA, isn't it? Collecting
signals intelligence from foreign sources? Does anyone honestly believe the
Germans aren't regularly trying to figure out ways to listen to American
officials' communications?

I find the NSA's domestic spying to be appalling... but this is the sort of
thing everyone knew the NSA was responsible for since its inception.

~~~
conductor
But we are not at war with everyone, and those countries involved (like
Germany, France and Italy) are our partners, economical and military partners.
I can accept doing SIGINT on non-friendly countries and organizations but is
it correct to spy on your own people and partner countries?

~~~
krapp
>but is it correct to spy on your own people and partner countries?

It's rude, but I think to a degree it is acceptable, and probably expected.
Friendly countries spy on each other all the time. For one thing, friendly
countries might not remain friendly forever.

~~~
jsmcgd
A great way to expedite that transition is to disrespect them, treating them
like your enemy when they're still your ally.

~~~
XorNot
You know what has millions of people and is entirely unlike an individual
human being? _A country_.

The convenient narratives spun to explain international politics seem entirely
lost on people and are being treated as literal relations of how countries
behave rather then shorthand.

"China" doesn't act like a person. It doesn't have emotions, moods or opinions
like a person does. When we talk about "China thinks this" or "China feels
that" we are not describing the moods of a human being, we're not even
describing necessarily the aggregate mood of it's government except in so far
as we're using a shorthand because we want to talk about trends in policy
making or the types of people being appointed as advisers/policy-makers on
_whichever issue we are actually talking about specifically_.

~~~
grey-area
Countries and the people who make them up also form alliances, hate betrayal,
and hold grudges. If your country thinks it is acceptable to betray allies,
you will soon have no allies. If you say one thing and do another and the gap
is wide enough, eventually no other country will believe a word you say, even
when you tell the truth.

Alliances between countries are not formed in a rational way just on a
specific issue normally, but based on previous actions and previous issues,
and old loyalties. To betray those loyalties just means no-one will feel any
loyalty to you - that may work in the short-term if you are big enough but
long-term it's a terrible strategy.

So in that sense countries are like people, though I agree in many senses they
are not.

~~~
XorNot
Alliances are not formed on a specific issue, which is also why they're not
broken on intangible issues. This is theatre by Merkel because it plays well
with her public. I don't imagine US diplomats are losing any sleep over this.

------
grey-area
This has some interesting implications:

What would this information be useful for? Why was the NSA collecting this
information and at whose request? Is the same being done to US politicians?

The most useful applications of this I can think of are betraying allies,
manipulating negotiations with rival trade blocs, economic espionage, and of
course protecting the power of the agencies who perform this surveillance and
the lucky few who are given strictly limited access to it.

If the POTUS is given this intelligence and makes most of his decisions based
on it, how does he know that he is being given the truth, rather than a
carefully edited version of it?

It seems surveillance is no longer focussed on terrorism, if it ever was
(indeed a few terrorist attacks have gone on the US without detection in spite
of all this surveillance). It's telling that even the NSA have given up using
that excuse as it becomes more and more clear where the focus of their
intelligence gathering is directed.

Is the NSA (and the US by proxy) using the information it collects as a way of
protecting and expanding its power? Is this inevitable if you give an
organisation that much power over our lives and very little oversight?

Are all allies of the US mistrusted so much that they must be spied on? Should
they in return shut down trust of the US and repudiate treaties they have with
it like the one sharing SWIFT data or details of people visiting the US? Can
the EU trust the products of American internet companies, or should they set
up rivals?

It seems information has become more and more synonymous with power as our
economies in the west become information economies, and the greatest power of
all has been handed to an agency without significant legal limits and without
any sort of public accountability, led by a member of the military.

~~~
sfjailbird
In the 1970s it was well known that the CIA worked to pave the way for
American business interests overseas, through everything from espionage to
blackmail, murder and military interventions. I assume the NSA works much the
same way today (but God knows what all the domestic spying is used for).

~~~
grey-area
_In the 1970s it was well known that the CIA worked to pave the way for
American business interests overseas, through everything from espionage to
blackmail, murder and military interventions._

I don't think this is the way countries should conduct themselves,
particularly not ones which trumpet their freedom and liberty. Either the US
can employ cynical realpolitik while making hypocritical statements about
fighting for civilisation and freedom and live with the consequences, or it
can aspire to live up to the ideals it claims to stand for. There's only so
much hypocrisy you can employ as an empire before the hollow nature of your
statements undermines your authority with allies and citizens alike, and
exposure like this is inevitable when the lie becomes big enough.

 _but God knows what all the domestic spying is used for_

I imagine for exactly the same ends, minus the military aspect, which is
reserved for overseas at present (though also employed on US citizens abroad).
If a politician wants to dismantle the extremely useful and effective spy
apparatus, they are likely to find it turned against them first.

~~~
Zigurd
That's what I found remarkable about the Wikileaks embassy cables: Just how
much of "diplomacy" amounts to leaning on our supposed friends in the world to
accept our screwed up intellectual property laws and to otherwise compromise
their standards for some pretty low, non-strategic commercial interests. At
best it seems like diplomacy amounts to MPAA "spam" influence and at worst it
is the spear-point of economic espionage.

------
todayiamme
I quite frankly don't understand why anyone would condemn such acts of
espionage. They are not only essential for a nation state to function
successfully, but they are also a far superior way for the US to maintain its
hegemony as compared to using acts of brute force.

Now I do not condone Orwellian spying on the citizens of your own republic,
but this really is their job and it's quite impressive that they're this good
at it. Especially given the fact that historically the US has not been
completely invested in espionage and has favoured building up capacity after
key events and quickly dismantling the apparatus once the emergency has
passed. What these scandals are offering is a glimpse into a dramatic shift in
the way the US conducts its affairs and that in of itself is quite noteworthy.

~~~
bobwaycott
In which you assume far too much:

\- that espionage is required for a state to function successfully

\- that maintaining US hegemony is both a national good and good for the world

\- that brute force is the only other viable option to rampant surveillance

It is specifically because none of those things ought to be assumed, none of
them are a given, and none are inherently good or desirable or required, that
one ought to condemn these acts.

------
bandushrew
When ability is no longer a bottleneck on the actions of an individual or
group, that is the time that the character of that individual or group is
discovered.

The character of the US government in general, and the NSA in particular, is
apparently that of a rotten, sneaking, dishonest liar.

I cannot say that I am surprised, human nature being what it is, but I am very
disappointed.

On the bright side, it is in good international company.

------
spurgu
I don't understand the bulk of comments being about this not being important.
Or... well yeah, I understand the perspective that any intelligence agency
should be collecting intelligence, so this shouldn't be a surprise per se. But
this certainly levels out the playing field in that now the world knows at
which lengths the NSA has been keeping tabs on people, and at least the
majority of world leaders (and a lot of more "insignificant" people) will
start using encrypted communications and networks like Tor. Which they
should've been doing from the start. So, in this light, I think this is an
important Snowden revelation.

------
gambiting
After the crash of the Polish president's plane in Smolensk, it was widely
known that the Americans have recordings of all conversations made with his
satellite phone aboard the plane. I don't remember that sparking much
controversy at the time, everyone was more like "yup, that's what Americans
do" and there was pretty much no outrage over that.

------
ethana
US Foreign Policy: How to turn friends into enemies and isolate yourself from
the world

~~~
clubhi
Well to be fair, the Germans did try to kill us all.

~~~
jlgreco
Yeah, and the Mongolians once sacked the world. Should we be afraid of them
too?

~~~
davidw
Definitely. If it weren't for the Chinese and Russians having them effectively
surrounded, Europe would be knee deep in blood and the wreckage of their
onslaught.

------
jessaustin
I can understand why "world leaders" would be frustrated by this, but much
better them than us. This activity is at least plausibly within NSA's purview.
Also, _most_ of these leaders have less at risk to the NSA threat than do USA
residents. It isn't as though NSA will sic the Drug Warriors, the IP Mafia,
BATF, ICE, or EPA on leaders of other sovereign nations based on its
observation of their communications. Whereas we're definitely in those
crosshairs.

There are exceptions! If your nation could plausibly be on deck for the next
military-industrial complex fundraising activity, you might want your leaders
to secure their communications against NSA. Of course, if they're not doing
anything wrong, they might want that fact to be observed, on the off chance it
might make a difference.

------
krapp
Yes. And the US is the only country whose intelligence service has ever done
anything like this.

And newsflash ... we probably bug your embassies too.

~~~
bobwaycott
I seem to have missed the part where it was suggested that only the US is
guilty.

If there existed a solid body of evidence to disclose to the world that
Germany, France, or Russia was carrying out such actions on a wide scale, that
would dominate the press in under a minute.

This is the US receiving equal treatment given a preponderance of evidence.

This is how the press should be.

~~~
krapp
I'm not suggesting this isn't news, it certainly is. Just that it's not out of
the ordinary for either the NSA or governments in general. It's news in that
we got caught.

~~~
bobwaycott
Not caught, exactly. Espionage is well understood and expected in
international relations.

The news is the _depth_ and _breadth_ of the NSA's activities, and that it is
being shown with _hard evidence_ , instead of the typical former-agent-speaks-
vaguely-about-capabilities that typically show up in this area.

------
jmilloy
I feel we are taking our eyes off the ball.

Domestic spying violates constitutional rights. More to the point, I don't
want to support an institution with programs that violate my privacy, no
matter what benefits such programs provide.

But isn't international spying is different? Honestly, I don't mind supporting
an institution with an external espionage programs. Isn't in my best interest?
Does it harm me? What are the concrete repercussions of spying on foreign
officials? Are these officials really going to renege on international
alliances because they have a chip on their shoulder? If they have anything to
hide, it's by definition counter to US interests; if our allies are making
plans behind our backs, I _want_ our government to find out. (And to be
totally honest, if _our_ government is making secret plans behind our allies
backs, I would want our allies to find out, as well.)

I'll repeat this, because it is a real question, and the answer could have a
real effect on my opinion: _What are the concrete repercussions of spying on
foreign officials?_

~~~
grey-area
Possible concrete repercussions include:

Refusal of the EU bloc to cooperate over sharing banking and passenger data,
and potentially other treaties down the line

Refusal of large South American nations to do trade deals or negotiate with
the US, and a decline in US influence in the region

A move away from American dominance of the internet, and a reluctance to use
companies with servers based in based in the US

The decline of the American empire, which is based on the tacit consent of the
nations within their alliances like NATO (this one is more a long term
potential outcome).

~~~
jmilloy
Okay. Thanks.

>Refusal of the EU bloc to cooperate...

Sharing of banking and passenger data is not something I know a lot about. Why
do countries share this data now, and why would they stop because their prime
minister is being spied upon? How the spying affect the pros and cons of
sharing the data?

> Refusal of large South American nations to do trade deals...

Can you explain why a South American nation would not make a trade deal that
made sense economically because of foreign espionage? How do the economics
change as a result of the espionage?

> A move away from American dominance of the internet...

Who would avoid using servers based in the US as a result of espionage of 35
specific foreign officials? We're not talking about normal EU citizens in this
particular article.

>The decline of the American empire...

Again, what decisions will countries make differently? Are countries going to
make decisions that are not in their best interests in order to spite the US?
Or are they already making decisions that are not in their best interests in
order to be nice to the US, but won't anymore? Neither of these seems likely.

~~~
grey-area
Well clearly these are partly predictions and speculation, but I do expect to
see, and we have already seen, concrete repercussions from the exposure of
spying on allies, because the actions of the US state have put its interests
in clear conflict with those of its allies.

The excuse given for sharing banking and passenger data was fighting
terrorism; as that's been shown to be far from the truth by these latest
revelations, the EU parliament recently voted against sharing SWIFT data:

[http://www.dw.de/european-parliament-rejects-swift-deal-
for-...](http://www.dw.de/european-parliament-rejects-swift-deal-for-sharing-
bank-data-with-us/a-5239595-1)

 _Can you explain why a South American nation would not make a trade deal that
made sense economically because of foreign espionage? How do the economics
change as a result of the espionage?_

These decisions are not made on a purely economic basis. Rousseff cancelled a
trade visit as a result of US spying:

[http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/17/brazilian...](http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/17/brazilian_president_snubs_white_house)

From the article: _Brazil is one of the wealthiest and most powerful countries
in Latin America, so Rousseff 's decision to postpone her visit - and her
obvious anger at the U.S. -- has potentially far-reaching implications for
Washington's standing and influence in the region. It is extremely rare for a
head of state to call off an already-scheduled state visit, so the move is
also a profound embarrassment for the administration._

The administration tried to spin this in the US as a joint decision, but this
was a significant snub (along with her damning UN speech) from the largest
country in the region and a huge setback for US influence in SA.

 _Who would avoid using servers based in the US as a result of espionage of 35
specific foreign officials?_

The officials certainly have an incentive to move (in a way they didn't when
they believed US gov assurances and thought only the little people were being
spied on), and they may move the massive EU gov market away from any
dependence on American owned servers. South American government have discussed
doing the same (including Brazil, the biggest country). This will impact US
internet companies long term, and I suspect just encourage an already emerging
globalisation of the internet.

 _Are countries going to make decisions that are not in their best interests
in order to spite the US?_

It has been fully exposed just how little respect and rewards being a US ally
earns you, and therefore a lot of countries will rethink the relationship.
This has nothing to do with spiting the US and everything to do with
protecting their own interests, which are less and less seen as congruent with
the US due to its bullying behaviour.

------
fidotron
I genuinely fail to be outraged by this. The NSA has a job, which is the
monitoring of the signals of foreign militaries and governments. That they
were doing that is not surprising or necessarily bad since those entities
should be more than capable of operating in such an environment.

The problem is the mass slurping of the data of everyone else.

~~~
judk
That's like saying the DoD has a job, which is to go to war with foreign
countries.

------
isaacdl
This is honestly the revelation that I worry about least in these NSA leaks.
Isn't foreign surveillance basically the raison d'etre for the NSA?

~~~
lallysingh
It may be one of the largest motivating factors in changing NSA practices,
however. Pissed partners can lead to loss of trade, and the NSA suddenly
becomes a campaign issue for the next round.

~~~
isaacdl
Hmm. That's a really good point, hadn't occurred to me. Good for us I guess,
although I still don't think we can really lambaste them for doing something
that's directly in their "charter". (As opposed to all the domestic
surveillance, etc!)

------
jnardiello
Quite expected. My disappointment with the US gov and its general attitude is
reaching new levels. Really BAD.

------
cateye
I really can't believe that there are so many comments that try to trivialize
the actions.

It seems that the United States loses the reality and lapses in an egocentric
/ ethnocentric disease.

How would the U.S. react if they found out such a thing the other way around?

------
ACow_Adonis
Presumably this will soon be followed up by other ground-breaking journalism
pieces such as "Army kills people", "Surgeons perform surgery", and "Garbage
collectors stun world by collecting garbage".

Irrespective of what one thinks of it (and I do not think favourably of it),
how is it surprising that an organisation that is established specifically to
spy on people is in fact spying on people?

~~~
bobwaycott
Perhaps because foreign leaders do not consider tapping the phone lines of our
allies to be within the scope of NSA's stated mission "to gain a decision
advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."[1]

Or maybe because SigInt is supposed to be working "for intelligence and
counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations."[1] They
might not get why tapping their phones supports America's military operations,
or why the US wouldn't just schedule a meeting/call to for "intelligence and
counterintelligence purposes".

Might be that some fail to see how this qualifies as "operations to defeat
terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S.
laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties."

There are wide-open channels for gaining intelligence from the leaders of
allied countries. We've been using them for a while. They work pretty well.

The NSA is causing the US to look like it's the distrustful mate who is
sneakily combing through his partner's texts, emails, messages, and other
media to assure himself he can trust his partner.

The world is, perhaps, not liking the feeling of being spied on.

[1]: [http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/](http://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/)

~~~
ceejayoz
How on earth is knowing the internal dealings of foreign governments __not __
"gaining a decision advantage for the Nation"?!

~~~
bobwaycott
Why on earth is it acceptable for the NSA--or any other foreign state's
intelligence services--to know the _internal_ dealings of foreign governments?

You're acting as if that isn't something that should be questioned, and should
just be accepted as a general good in both domestic and international policy.

Many of us do not think that such a position is tenable or acceptable, much
less a proven and legitimate point of view.

The mission statement does not end with "the Nation". It ends " _and our
allies under all circumstances_." America's allies have a legitimate reason to
complain their interests are not being served, and might actually be
undermined and trespassed by the NSA's actions--just as America would claim
the same thing whenever news reports proliferated with a preponderance of
evidence detailing how Germany's intelligence services were tapping the White
House phones and slurping up all congressional emails, text messages, and
voicemails.

All sovereign states--be they allies or rogues--have a legitimate claim to and
expectation of privacy where their _internal_ dealings are concerned. This
claim and expectation is even higher among allied nations, among whom it is
expected that internal dealings concern other nations will be shared via
_standard diplomatic channels_. And the determinations are left to the
sovereign state itself regarding what, _if any_ , internal dealings are shared
with allies. But the allies do not possess some automatic _right_ or
_privilege_ to spy as widely and deeply as they technologically are able to.

That espionage occurs, that states spy on one another in accordance with their
relative positions of power to achieve their own self-interests is not up for
debate. Nobody in any of these revelations is suggesting it does not happen.
Hell, in the purely functional domain of international relations, there are
plenty of net positives that result from espionage being neither endorsed nor
prohibited by international law, and mutually allowed and expected among
foreign states--such as verifying compliance with international obligations,
and confirming the veracity of and commitment behind assurances given by
foreign states.

But that still misses the more subtle point--foreign states are well within
their rights (and, it might be argued, their sovereign responsibilities) to
loudly grandstand and object to details that leak out regarding another
state's espionage activities. Why would we expect anything less? That's simply
not sensible. There can be legitimate outrage expressed over leaks of
espionage because _it could actually come as a surprise the depths to which a
nation goes when spying on its allies_. There could be other cultural and
sociopolitical shifts among allied countries in one area, such as the EU, who
have in various other ways been engaged in a long process of protecting
civilian privacies and, in such a setting, to not engage political theater by
expressing contempt for the actions of a state such as America--who shows such
blatant disregard for personal privacies and who is caught within their spy's
nets--violate the publicly proclaimed principles that the citizens of foreign
states hold dear. If the leaders do not object, they could face political
backlash.

Nobody doubts that all states engage in espionage against their neighbors,
friendly or not. But that does not mean that the release of details showing a
much heavier spying apparatus is deployed by the power with the greatest
hegemony and strongest power position isn't going to make its allies feel very
uncomfortable.

Beyond that, what's most alarming is that Americans truly do not give a fuck.
Citizens of other nations, however, do not think like Americans. They've been
working on the alliance and diplomacy thing for centuries. They approach
things differently, having long learned many lessons through the rise and fall
of empires.

~~~
shrughes
> All sovereign states--be they allies or rogues--have a legitimate claim to
> and expectation of privacy where their internal dealings are concerned.

They're _governments_. They don't have any rights and as local monopolists of
violence certainly don't have any expectation of laxity in others' vigilance.

~~~
w_t_payne
There really aren't that many laws governing how nation-states should behave
towards one another; and there certainly isn't any notion of rights to fall
back on. The international arena is effectively a lawless "wild west" world,
and it shows; particularly in the attitude and demeanour of those who have
been exposed to its' vicissitudes for any significant length of time.

------
Theodores
We have ended up with the same conversations on this spying lark far too
often.

I appreciate the sentiment of those that want to protest against this and I
can understand the spoon-fed arguments about how the NSA must go after the
kiddie fiddlers, terrorists that want to blow up innocent kiddies (as in the
ones that haven't been fiddled with, yet) and do all that mysterious national
security stuff.

However, instead of same-old, same-old, can we work on a technological
solution? Something that will work for you and I as well as Mrs Merkel?

We can let go the network analysis stuff, who is in contact with whom as right
now there is no easy way to prevent the NSA slurping that stuff up. But, as
for the content, can't that be encrypted properly, without the NSA having the
key and without there being secret courts where keys get handed over in
secret? It is just code we need, and with it we can get a reasonable
compromise where our conversations are secure.

------
a3n
No non-US government official can feel secure in giving just a business card
to his US counterpart, because he has to assume his contact info will be given
to the NSA.

Hell, _no one_ , regardless of nationality, in or out of government, can fell
secure in any communication of _any_ kind with a US government person.

------
coldcode
It used to be spying on other people's governments would get people killed or
start wars. In some way it will again. Maybe not so obvious this time.

------
omonra
I think we need a bit of context here. US is the hegemon.

Therefore it's not reasonable to apply same expectations of how it acts as we
do pleasant little countries like Norway or Netherlands (who are probably only
independent because US defended them against Germans & Soviets).

~~~
bobwaycott
And hegemony is a dangerous thing that must be watched closely.

It is entirely reasonable to apply expectations to all countries that they not
operate in ways that encroach upon the sovereignty and privacy of other
nations, especially their allies or even less friendly nations with whom a
declared state of war does not exist.

The hegemon ought answer to a _much_ stricter standard than the "pleasant
little countries" who do not wield such power.

Hegemony does not implicitly grant universal assent to be a total asshole.

~~~
XorNot
You realize the first thing you do if you're going to attack someone is tell
them one thing and then do another, right?

And that a country's leaders are replaceable components - the country doesn't
have a personality, it has a government of thousands of individuals, all who
subtly bias its aggregate behaviour in different ways, and whom the
replacement of various members can fundamentally alter the country's goals,
agenda and long-term interests against other countries?

How then, do you intend to maintain your own security if you've decided to
simply take the word of one country's government - again, a shifting gestalt
of thousands of individuals and millions of citizens goals - as naively true,
when there is absolutely no reason or even motivation for that country not to
simply lie to you - likely in many cases without even realizing it, as the
messengers don't have the situational-awareness to understand the context of
the message.

------
npalli
What is the strategy here? Of releasing information about NSA activities with
foreign nations? Seems like it is mixing a potentially illegal activity
(domestic spying) with their designated job. Doesn't every country try to do
this. The NSA personnel could very well have undergone considerable risk to
get this sort of thing going on. On the other hand, Joe public sees Snowden
fleeing and chilling out in Russia/China and other "despotic" regimes.

Definitely Snowden:0 and NSA:1 in this case.

~~~
spdy
You are wrong its a 1:0 for Snowden. Now it`s not only the "common" people and
how Merkel reacted is atypical for her.

Lets hope we see some actions out of this event at least the EU parliament set
the first sign with voting against SWIFT.

~~~
XorNot
Merkel is reacting this way because it plays well with a group of people who
don't realize that they're actually wildly outside of their field of expertise
on an issue.

------
adeptus
On the "is not monitoring and will not monitor"... If they took the time to
deny present and future monitoring, the obvious question then becomes why
haven't they denied past/recent past monitoring? Oh that's right, because they
can't in fact deny it as they WERE monitoring.

~~~
vidarh
Personally, I think it is misdirection. Why should we assume they are not
willing to lie? More likely, in my opinion, is that they deny the present and
future to make us think it used to happen, but just maybe might have stopped.
Is there really _any_ reason to assume they've stopped?

I mean, if they're not capable of lying convincingly, they'd make pretty
shitty spies.

------
KMag
I thought that the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement))
were the only nations the NSA was even pretending to not spy on.

It's my understanding that the British were thought to have stolen submarine
detection technology from the French, and the French were widely accused of
industrial espionage against US companies in the 1990s. I also vaguely
remember a 60 Minutes piece in the 1990s about Germans fulfilling their
military service obligations by committing industrial espionage against US
companies.

It seems to me that politicians are playing to public opinion, while knowing
full well that this is how the international relations game has been played
for decades, if not forever.

------
pvnick
Watch as the flag-all-NSA-stories brigade pushes this relevant story off the
front page...

~~~
Zigurd
The suppression of NSA stories on HN is an act of monumental stupidity. If we
find 10-15 years from now that US technology, infrastructure, and services are
shunned around the world it will come down to them cooperating with the NSA.

~~~
krylonkid
Australia and Canada have info sharing deals with the NSA but their citizens
are not mad at their governments. Germans howl when a US military base might
close. Serious cognitive dissonance does not deserve endless vapid repetition
and HN users rightly flag such nonsense.

~~~
Zigurd
Each one of these stories brings new revelations, most of which have some
impact on the trustworthiness of US technology businesses. So, while you may
be right that countries that appear so far to be vassals with limited
independence won't boycott US products, that's not most of the world.

~~~
krylonkid
Do you not see the hypocrisy of Australians and Canadians? Virtually all of
the west? Is Europe going to side with Russia or China? They certainly aren't
going to defend themselves.

------
malandrew
If I were the leader of a major world power right now, I would push for a law
in my country that decriminalizes the hacking of any government systems of
countries that have proven hostile to my countries government. The only
exception would be the hacking of public infrastructure like transportation
systems and public utilities. Everything else would be fair game. Seems like
this approach would introduce and element of M.A.D. into the mix that would
mitigate the current hostile actions we are seeing from the US via the NSA and
China via the PLA.

------
chunkyslink
One way to tell if they are still doing it. Give them honeypots, hook them and
wheel them in.

------
wyclif
'After Merkel's allegations became public, White House press secretary Jay
Carney issued a statement that said the US "is not monitoring and will not
monitor" the German chancellor's communications.'

Which, of course, was a blatant lie.

------
njharman
Gee, I thought the government shutdown had succeeded in getting everyone to
forget this whole spy hullabaloo. Well at least it worked in the good old USA.

------
ethanazir
I might think everyone should have access to all communications of all
politicians. If you want to be a leader of millions you should be transparent.

------
sheikhimran01
I believe NSA is as much important as Android is to Google.

