
U.S. bugged EU offices, computer networks - 1337biz
http://news.yahoo.com/u-bugged-eu-offices-computer-networks-german-magazine-162017024.html
======
sentenza
I think this one hit home. Judging from what I can see right now, these
revelations have stirred up some unrest among EU politicians[1], most
noticeably among the generally US-friendly right. Probably the most
significant consequence of this is that it will now definitely be a hot issue
for the German election, which is held in autumn. There are three likely
outcomes:

One possibility is that German politicians take a stand against surveillance
while campaigning, making promises, thus causing Germany to become more of a
pro-privacy hardliner. This would be a good outcome.

Another possibility is that mainstream politicians fail to do so, but the
Pirate Party will manage to get the 5% necessary to enter parliament, thus
needling them for years to come. This would also be good.

The third possibility is that mainstream politicians will ignore it and the
Pirate Party will fail, causing the political leadership to see the "privacy
vote" as negligible. This would be bad for both Germany and Europe.

[1]
[http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=...](http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fpolitik%2Fdeutschland%2Freaktionen-
auf-abhoerprogramm-der-nsa-gegen-eu-vertretungen-a-908570.html)

~~~
anologwintermut
Or the fourth possibility: the reason Germany was the target of so many
signal's intelligence requests is because the BND(The Federal Intelligence
Service) outsourced surveillance of islamic extremism (or anything else) to
avoid legal complications arising for whatever prohibitions Germany has on
domestic surveillance. In which case, at least some politicians will keep
quiet because they were likely complicit.

~~~
Tuna-Fish
Quite possible. However, as the German multi-party system has plenty of
opposition parties, at least one of them is clean in this and will try to use
this to gain votes and raise hell.

~~~
mafribe
All mainstream German parties (CDU/CSU, FDP, SPD, Gruene) are strongly
"atlanticist", lack "Zivilcourage" and would rather defer to the US than work
for the privacy interests of their German voters. In the light of this, it's
unlikely that we will see more than luke-warm, fig-leaf protest

------
mtgx
Was it here that I saw people lashing at Falkvinge for accusing US of spying
on EU officials [1]?

Ok, he didn't show any real proof at the time, but was it that hard to believe
it would happen? I don't know about you, but I'd rather be paranoid than naive
this time, especially since we have no idea what else NSA is hiding, and
what's the real extent of their spying operations. It seems to me being naive
would hurt more, at this point.

[1] [http://falkvinge.net/2013/06/24/the-united-states-
wiretapped...](http://falkvinge.net/2013/06/24/the-united-states-wiretapped-
the-mail-of-the-european-parliament/)

------
uvdiv
Isn't this the explicit purpose of the NSA, to spy on the communications of
foreign governments? And aren't EU members' governments doing the same thing
against the US?

~~~
tripzilch
> Isn't this the explicit purpose of the NSA, to spy on the communications of
> foreign governments?

In what deranged world-view does being "the explicit purpose" of something
make it _right_?

(and it's not even their explicit purpose, otherwise they'd be called the
International Spying Agency ...)

> And aren't EU members' governments doing the same thing against the US?

That's a childish argument. Frankly I don't care if Germany or France or
whoever are spying on eachother too. An example from my work with kids, _" but
he's doing it tooooooo!"_ doesn't really fly with me, it doesn't matter, they
shouldn't be doing it either, but I caught _you_ , now clean that up.

While two EU states spying on eachother is an internal EU matter, I do wonder
to what extent EU states are spying on the US. It sounds risky, though. I
mean, if we catch a US spy snooping on our diplomats, we can't really throw
them in Guantanamo, or anything ...

~~~
dsl
> In what deranged world-view does being "the explicit purpose" of something
> make it right?

That is like being shocked and horrified that animal control puts down stray
dogs. People don't like to talk about it, a small number of people might be
upset by it, but it is a necessary part of civilized society.

We give them our tax dollars for this explicit reason. Please go spy on other
countries so that we know what is going on in the world. Congress has been
approving their budget every year to continue doing it for the last 62 years.

Call it childish all you want, but every other country in the world has an
intelligence service. The EU itself has INTCEN, the UN has UNIT, heck even the
Vatican has SRS, that all have the same basic functions as our CIA and NSA.

~~~
zxcdw
> That is like being shocked and horrified that animal control puts down stray
> dogs. People don't like to talk about it, a small number of people might be
> upset by it, but it is a necessary part of civilized society.

In Finland we don't have stray dogs. No animal control putting them down
either. I guess we aren't a civilized society by your standards, assuming your
claim is true.

Now that I have shown why your example is not true(or that you are an idiot
for thinking Finland is not civilized society, your choice), I have to admit
that I still can't think why foreign intelligence during peacetime would be _"
a necessary part of civilized society"_. I have never heard any arguments for
this, so feel free to be the first. I'm waiting.

~~~
jodrellblank
_In Finland we don 't have stray dogs. No animal control putting them down
either._

So what do you have?

(I'm assuming 'unsurvivably cold weather' isn't your answer, either).

------
antr
I'd be curious to know how would U.S. citizens' reactions be if it were the EU
spying on U.S. diplomats and citizens.

I can only imagine.

~~~
tkahn6
... do you think the EU _isn 't_ spying on the US?

It would be absurdly naive to think they weren't.

~~~
lispm
The EU has no NSA.

~~~
vidarh
But member states do, although not funded to nearly the same level. E.g. GCHQ
in the UK. It'd be surprising if someone revealed to be as trigger happy and
willing to spy on allies as GCHQ does not also spy on US interests.

~~~
lispm
GCHQ has nothing to do with the EU. It is a British institution and works
closely together with the NSA.

------
gnosis
Sooner or later, the vast treasure-trove of data that has been collected will
be exploited for the purposes of blackmailing, intimidating, harrassing,
stalking, or stealing the identities of powerful individuals.

And sooner or later, news that this has happened will leak to the media, and
there will be widespread fear and outrage among the powerful.

Then, and only then, can we expect anything meaningful to get done.

Until that point, expect a lot of talk, but no walk.

Some years back, it was revealed that the US had bugged the offices of foreign
dignitaries at the United Nations. It was just just a blip in the news. Sure,
there was some grumbling, but nothing was done. And now we can see that the
practice continues.

Besides, all these countries spy on each other. What do you think their spy
agencies are for? Do you really think that their spying is only reserved for
their "enemies"? Do you think they can resist using their sophisticated spying
technologies to spy on their allies? Is anyone really suprised?

I personally would be surprised if they _didn 't_ spy on their allies -- just
as I would be if the US suddenly started using swords on the battlefield
because they were more honorable weapons than guns which kill from a safe
distance.

Welcome to the world of Machiavelli and realpolitik. We don't live in
Disneyland.

~~~
pcrh
I recently thought that one of the most dramatic ways to frame this current
debate would be for all the NSA data for a certain period of time (say one
week) to be leaked. Everyone would be able to see that their email (or
whatever) had been logged, and many would mine the data to show "interesting"
connections between people involved in current political issues.

Just imagine the uproar!

------
dobbsbob
Guardian ran an article how GCHQ/NSA installed keyloggers in all public cafes
during a g8 event hosting in the UK in hopes of capturing diplomat traffic.
They also ran Stingray fake towers galore to capture cell traffic and hacked
every blackberry device they could.

For some reason they were really interested in spying on Turkey and South
Africa of all places.

Surprised these internet cafes still aren't using a disposable VPS for every
customer to prevent easy keyloggers though I would imagine they can probably
smash right through a hypervisor and bug the host and guest.

------
Smrchy
What could you do with all this money the US is spending on making the rest of
the world (its targets?) hate them more with every new revelation? Like
throwing your garbage over to your neighbors lawn every day and building
higher and higher fences because you sense that they might be starting to hate
you. Obama wake up already!

~~~
adventured
The rest of the world likes to spy on the rest of the world.

At the government level, intelligence agency jealousy is about the only thing
being generated by US spy programs (particularly since the US is substantially
cutting in its allies, most of them have known about this for a long time).

------
UVB-76
Earlier today US national security adviser Susan Rice claimed the diplomatic
consequences of the Snowden revelations were not that significant [1]

She was wrong. This is a diplomatic disaster for the US.

[1] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/29/edward-
snowden-p...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/29/edward-snowden-
president-susan-rice)

------
ck2
The crazy thing is - what are they doing with all this "intel" anyway?

It's not like the US can make unilateral decisions (except for a president
declaring war). Congress has to make decisions and that's like herding cats.

Somehow before they were taping everyone's phone calls and internet traffic
they produced the report "Bin Laden determined to strike" [1] yet nothing was
done with that intel.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US)

~~~
Zigurd
The US federal constitution allocates the power to declare war to Congress.

Some say this has become completely inverted but brilliant legal minds like
John Yoo obviously know better.

~~~
mpyne
Congress itself was the one who has authorized the current 'War on Terror'.

They didn't declare that the nation itself is in a state of war, which is
itself accurate if you look around in the U.S., where the war (and wars) have
had minimal effect at home.

~~~
Zigurd
What nation needs to capitulate to end the "war?"

~~~
mpyne
What nation needed to capitulate for the previous military force
authorizations against pirates on the high seas? Non-state actors are not a
new development.

Personally I would say the AUMF should go away after the withdrawal from
Afghanistan but let's not act like there's some magical international legal
shield over AQ because they haven't taken over any other national governments.

~~~
Zigurd
Is the AUMF a declaration of war? Did the executive have special wartime
powers? When do these powers expire?

~~~
mpyne
Yes and no.

You seem to be assuming that a declaration of war plays only into military
terminology, but that's not the case. The AUMF gives the President Congress's
blessing to use the military to defeat terrorist groups and their supporters
(especially those responsible for 9/11), without giving the President the keys
to the other aspects of national government which might rightly be involved in
a war effort. So the executive has special wartime powers relating to the
prosecution of the military effort within the constraints of current military
capabilities (e.g. he can now mobilize some types of Reservists), but not
other special wartime powers (e.g. no authority to call a draft, impose food
rationing, etc.).

> When do these powers expire?

Ask Congress.

~~~
Zigurd
You think this fits within the bounds of legitimacy?

~~~
mpyne
The Congress can implement their obligation to declare states of war however
they see fit. The concept of the AUMF dates back essentially to 1798 so I
can't see why we'd declare it illegitimate only now.

~~~
Zigurd
Let's see, an inconclusive pseudo war that ended with basically a negotiated
discount to the original tribute demanded, but that probably cost a lot more
than that tribute to actually fight.

You're right. We did set some kind of precedent and pattern there, though, of
course, modern military power is capable of wasting ever so much more life and
money on the way to an awkward inconclusive end.

But I don't think just because it was an old bad pseudo war that adds to
legitimacy.

------
alan_cx
MI5 spends a lot of its time and energy keeping an eye on US officials in the
UK. Presumably the opposite happens too.

This is the "legit" spy game that mostly I find acceptable. Again, its merely
about understanding intention. Each side has to verify good intention to
proceed with confidence.

------
3327
This is embarrassing...This is no different than Soviet behavior, and a huge
break in trust for the Obama administration. How can a nation host the UN if
it is abused and bugged. Just disgusting.

------
fiatmoney
There is a continuum between "keep track of what you happen to see", to
"penetrate networks and install bugs", to "recruiting human agents in their
government" and beyond. It's in general the job of agencies like the NSA to
keep track of all foreign governments, but the degree of escalation and
hostility is a political decision and not a technical one.

If the US government has decided to treat the EU as an adversary, it doesn't
exactly bode well for, eg, NATO cooperation, or access to the EU market for
trade (particularly in computer services). If the NSA is doing this simply
because they have the ability, then they're usurping decisions that properly
belong to the democratically elected civil government, such as it is.

~~~
Arwill
I'm pretty sure we'll know in time that the US and Britain were behind some
Euro manipulation too. The EU is right now like a big blob of countries. Some
of the sovereignty was handed over to it, but its a lame duck when needs
protecting itself. But then, when it does act, it acts against its members
countries, and not to protect it form outside.

------
at-fates-hands
After I keep reading all of these stories, I remembered reading the book: "The
Watchman: The Twisted Life and Crimes of Serial Hacker Kevin Poulsen" where
the book talked about the illegal wiretaps he found the FBI involved in.

[http://www.nndb.com/people/453/000022387/](http://www.nndb.com/people/453/000022387/)

"As a fugitive, Poulsen needled the FBI by hacking federal computers and
revealing details of wiretaps on foreign consulates, suspected mobsters, and
the American Civil Liberties Union. He also hacked into the details on FBI
front companies. At the highest levels of U.S. law enforcement"

I'm wondering what he knows or thinks about all the stuff coming out now. . .

------
a3n
That's a very unfriendly act.

I would love to see Obama have a town hall with European citizens and explain
to them why this is a good thing.

------
kalms
Should have been ousted just before Obama's rather tame speech in Berlin -
That would have made his speech a bit more interesting.

------
gerhardi
If the documents reveal who are behind this, would USA be willing to extradite
the suspects to Europe for trial and punishment?

------
auctiontheory
Perhaps Snowden will not have to make the long flight to Ecuador after all. In
light of these revelations, perhaps London or Paris or Berlin would provide
(and will provide) a more agreeable sanctuary.

~~~
vidarh
The Ecuadorian embassy in London, maybe. Certainly not the UK government,
which is intent on remaining the lapdog of the US no matter how much spanking
it gets.

------
stephengillie
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer?

 _The document explicitly called the EU a "target"._

~~~
simmons
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on such wording, as various fields use common
words in uncommon ways. For instance, cryptographers refer to those they seek
privacy from as "adversaries," which may sound excessively agressive to a
layperson.

(I'm only playing devil's advocate here -- tapping EU networks is damning
enough.)

------
rwmj
Maybe Belgium can offer Snowden asylum now.

More seriously, _who_ uses public internet terminals for _anything_? I would
never log in from one.

I would (and admittedly not very carefully) use a public internet connection
with my own laptop. If I was carrying state secrets, I'd hope that my state
would have given me a very well-configured laptop which would just use the
public internet for a VPN, and would allow no DNS or anything else to be
consumed from the public resource.

~~~
Ives
That's funny. If the USA asks the Belgian government to jump, they only ask
"how high?".

A small example: all international bank transfers within Europe (through
SWIFT, located in Brussels), are all sent to the USA. Because they need that
stuff to catch terrorists. Apparently the US can (and have) even interceped
money.

~~~
jeltz
This used to be true but I do not think it still is. SWIFT opened a data
center in Switzerland for the express purpose of not having to send internal
European transactions to the US. They could be lying of course and still be
doing it.

------
leke
Finally, EU citizens might get some justice now that our leaders have been
spied on.

------
popee
You non-americans are hypocrites! Why, the hell, should americans think about
your problems, you only think about yourselves, bla, bla, bla >:-)

------
brown9-2
Does anyone want to speculate what Snowden's motive is for leaking these
particular documents?

~~~
trotsky
Validation of the claims of documents of substantial value having been held
back, in hopes of resolving whatever issue is preventing him from traveling.

------
Uchikoma
The NSA argues to fight terrorism, bugs EU offices, EU officials are
terrorists?

------
rdtsc
Pretty soon I expect stuff like "US _doesn't_ monitor <X>'s communication" to
become the news. The fact that US is monitoring everything will become the
default state.

------
AlexeiSadeski
Shocking. Absolutely shocking.

------
chmike
So what ? This is to for the terrorist thing, as they claim.

------
twodayslate
How is this news and why are people surprised at this?

------
woah
How can Yahoo's mobile layout be so broken?? This is a major internet company!

