
British intelligence hacked Belgacom then sabotaged investigation - kostaddin
http://www.brusselstimes.com/business/technology/12931/british-intelligence-hacked-belgacom-then-sabotaged-investigation
======
Someone1234
The real mystery is this:

> However the Belgian government and security services were kept in the dark,
> something which the federal prosecutor’s report described as “exceptional
> between EU states, and something that could lead to a diplomatic incident.”

If this operation was ONLY meant to target a subsidiary working mostly inside
the middle-east with legitimate terrorist ties, I'd imagine they would have
included the Belgians.

One could speculate that GCHQ decided to go it alone, just to see "what else
we can get" in terms of potentially spying within Belgian/on Belgian's
citizens.

It isn't even the first time GCHQ has been caught spying on other European
countries[0]. But I guess the City of London needs to get their financial
"tips" somehow...

[0] [http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/gchq-and-nsa-
tar...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/gchq-and-nsa-targeted-
private-german-companies-a-961444.html)

~~~
Kalium
> It isn't even the first time GCHQ has been caught spying on other European
> countries

The polite open secret of espionage is that spying on your allies isn't just
normal, it's part and parcel of basic modern statecraft. Being able to
anticipate the moves of your allies, understand their thought processes, and
watch them for compromises are all incredibly useful things, and the first two
very important for working closely with an ally. This is, quite frankly,
normal stuff.

What generally _doesn 't_ happen is public discussion of it. The public tends
to think of espionage as something that would only ever be directed against
enemies or threats. That's at odds with the information that enables diplomacy
to function well. Every world leader knows their allies are spying on them,
and tries to do the same in return. The only weird thing is being publicly
exposed, at which point every leader postures against the thing they all rely
on.

There's really no need to suspect a commercial conspiracy when normal
diplomacy is sufficient to explain this kind of thing. But I guess this _is_
boring by comparison to imagining that a historical financial center only
functions through ill-gotten commercial intelligence.

~~~
Someone1234
I was with you until:

> But I guess this is boring by comparison to imagining that a historical
> financial center only functions through ill-gotten commercial intelligence.

Nobody said anything about "only functioning because..."

The entire basis for your position seems to be that an intelligence apparatus
can only do exactly one thing at a time. It can either be for diplomatic
reasons OR commercial spying, not both...

In reality governments extract as much value out of the intelligence networks
and collected information as they can. If the collected information is going
to help a domestic business interest against a foreign one (e.g. contract
negotiations, mergers, sales, etc) you can bet your butt that tips will be
supplied.

You really think that the US government doesn't routinely "tip" off Boeing and
several European countries Airbus?

Countries look out for their own self interests beyond anything else.
Expecting that they'll only do so some of the time rather than all of the
time, seems like an opinion based more around how you'd wish a country to act
morally, rather than the reality on the ground.

~~~
strictnein
The US doesn't tip off American companies with data gathered by its
intelligence agencies.

This was a decision made back during the Clinton years.

You're welcome to share your evidence to the contrary.

~~~
Someone1234
NSA spying on Petrobras[0].

NSA spying on EADS (Airbus)[1].

NSA spying on Eurocopter[2].

NSA spying on Siemens[3].

[0] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-snowden-
petr...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-snowden-
petrobras/nsa-spying-on-petrobras-if-proven-is-industrial-espionage-rousseff-
idUSBRE98817N20130909)

[1] [https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/bnd-und-nsa-die-
chronolo...](https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/bnd-und-nsa-die-chronologie-
des-spionageskandals/11722810.html)

[2] [https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/geheimdienst-affaere-
nsa...](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/geheimdienst-affaere-nsa-jubelte-
bnd-deutsche-spaehziele-unter-1.2715253)

[3] [https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/edward-snowden-says-nsa-
engage...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/edward-snowden-says-nsa-engages-in-
industrial-espionage-1.2511635)

~~~
strictnein
You're welcome to point out where I said "the US doesn't spy on foreign
companies".

~~~
meowface
The point is that these are clear examples of the NSA engaging in economic
espionage, including tipping off US corporations with intelligence. Many
countries do it. China is a worse and likely a much more frequent offender
than the US, but the US still does it.

~~~
Kalium
It may be worth considering that the examples may not be as clear as their
presenter might believe them to be. There may be a difference between spying
on a given target and spying on a given target for a particular reason.

In general, there are two claims being made here. Claim one is that the US has
spied on a series of corporations. Claim two is that this has been done for
the purposes of economic gain. The truth of claim one makes it _possible_ for
claim two to be true, but a cautious reader might note that what is possible
and what is certainly true can at times be different.

Not to wax cynical, but Ms. Rousseff's claim that there's no possible other
reason to spy on Petrobras is not credible. Not because she was clearly lying
(I cannot begin to evaluate that), but because there's no reasonable world in
which she understood all possible aspects of the decision-making process that
produced that spying.

Given the type of corruption that Petrobras has been involved in, spies could
have been pursuing a financial trail. This is not a certainty, of course, but
it is sufficiently plausible that it's impossible to be certain that the NSA
could only have been active there for purposes of industrial espionage.

~~~
meowface
Sure, that's certainly plausible. There are many reasons why an intelligence
agency might want to spy on a large nation's state-owned energy conglomerate.
The US government has indeed denied that the Petrobras spying was for economic
gain [1]:

>"The department does not engage in economic espionage in any domain,
including cyber," the agency said in an emailed response to a Washington Post
story on the subject last month.

>In a statement issued on Sunday night after the latest revelations aired in
Brazil, the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said: "It is
not a secret that the intelligence community collects information about
economic and financial matters, and terrorist financing.

>"We collect this information for many important reasons: for one, it could
provide the United States and our allies early warning of international
financial crises which could negatively impact the global economy. It also
could provide insight into other countries' economic policy or behavior which
could affect global markets."

>But he again denied this amounted to industrial espionage. "What we do not
do, as we have said many times, is use our foreign intelligence capabilities
to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of – or give
intelligence we collect to – US companies to enhance their international
competitiveness or increase their bottom line."

Maybe they're right. But how can we possibly know they're actually telling the
truth? Especially when the intelligence agencies' job is essentially to lie?

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-
bra...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-spying-brazil-oil-
petrobras)

------
antpls
All the nasty/embarrassing stories for UK will be resurfaced to weight in
Brexit negotiations. Russia already warned the international community that UK
didn't cooperate well about all the accusations of nerve agents (not that
Russia cooperates massively either).

Personal opinion : UK gov thinks they are the only people on Earth, they think
they can ignore their neighbors, they overestimate themselves and I hope a bad
Brexit will give them a good lesson. If UK were a passive country and actually
self-sufficient, we wouldn't care much. But they actively try to influence
international relations, and they want to do it without EU, which is obviously
egoist and short-sighted, since they don't get to chose their geographical
neighbors.

~~~
Voloskaya
> Russia already warned the international community that UK didn't cooperate
> well about all the accusations of nerve agents

Why would UK cooperate at all with the principal suspect in this case? How can
this be controversial or inform us in any way on how UK cooperate with allied
nations?

~~~
echevil
Well, if the competing theory (that UK is behind the nerve agents) is true,
they also have good reasons not to cooperate.

~~~
jen20
The only people to whom that is a "competing theory" have an exceptionally
high probability of being viewers of whatever the local equivalent to Fox News
is.

~~~
echevil
You forgot there are people outside US? Outside its media bubble

~~~
int_19h
Every place has its own media bubble. And, in many cases, those bubbles share
the same conspiracy theories, especially when outside hostile actors
deliberately stoke them. I assume that's why OP wrote "whatever the local
_equivalent_ to Fox News is".

~~~
echevil
You get out of media bubble by reading news from very different sources.
Otherwise you're inside it no matter what you read.

------
tango24
By "sabotage" they meant "did not cooperate". Title is more click-baity then
accurate.

------
dev_dull
> _However the Belgian government and security services were kept in the dark,
> something which the federal prosecutor’s report described as “exceptional
> between EU states, and something that could lead to a diplomatic incident.”_

Seems a lot missing from this story. Do they usually engage their partners? If
so, why not this time? We’re they afraid of being tipped off? Who were the
targets, terrorists or perhaps other government officials in the Middle East?

~~~
shubb
Seem to recall belgium is on a list of countries security cleared brits are
not supposed to go to. Presumably the relationship between UK and Belgian
inteligence is really bad for some reason.

Unreliably, there is a post with a list here, but it is famously true.
[https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/countries-that-
req...](https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/countries-that-require-
permission-to-visit.167123/)

------
number_six
And...it's gone

------
donedealomg
Here is the full story

[https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-
insid...](https://theintercept.com/2014/12/13/belgacom-hack-gchq-inside-
story/)

Great article from 2014 ... Apparently todays news is a follow up on it.

~~~
simpleAdam
"The suspicious files had been enabling a highly sophisticated hacker to
circumvent automatic Microsoft software updates..."

I knew it. Those auto updates are a curse.

------
sbhn
‘But when the Belgian investigators approached their British counterparts with
a request for help in identifying who was behind the three companies, GCHQ
declined to cooperate, claiming that cooperation would “bring the sovereignty,
security and public order [of the UK] into jeopardy”.’

OMG we’re doomed

~~~
mmjaa
When "the sovereignty, security and public order" is defined by people whose
entire lives are based on the ability to keep secrets, use knowledge gained
illegally, secretly, and ensure that nobody else has the ability to usurp
their position .. yes, we are indeed doomed.

Its long since past the point where the 5-eyes nations should suffer
repercussions for their heinous imperialist actions. One can only hope that
Brexit will bring the UK into sufficiently subservient stance that these
crimes will no longer be accepted by the EU.

~~~
tssva
Your belief that the other EU countries don't engage in similar activities
against their allies within and outside the EU is naive at best.

Germany and France in particular have large intelligence organizations which
are known to have been used against allies as well as enemies.

~~~
mmjaa
Whining that "all the other kids are doing it" is only relevant when there is
actually evidence on the table that it is at the same level of magnitude as
when 'your team' does it.

So far, there is nothing like the heinous 5-eyes super-surveillance state,
anywhere else in the world. The 5-eyes have granted themselves mastery over
the rest of the world - and this fact only serves as further justification
that other states _should_ be doing it now.

This is the slippery slope: why is it okay for the UK to do it, but not
Germany, Italy and France? The answer: its not okay for anyone to do it. Stop
justifying it.

~~~
tssva
I didn't express any sentiment that it was ok for the UK to do it or in anyway
justify it. I just pointed out the naivety of thinking the other EU states
don't do it.

------
ElBarto
China at it again... No, wait.

------
qwerty456127
Seems like they've also hacked brusselstimes.com, the page won't open...

------
vectorEQ
Edward Snowdon :')

------
pleasecalllater
In normal world this should be equal to declaring a war, right?

~~~
Someone1234
Na. Allies have always spied on each other. You just rarely hear about it
because the Russian/Chinese/NK/etc spies go on the news/get prosecuted, and
the allie's spies get quietly asked to leave and the home country gets a
nasty-gram.

For example many embassies routinely batch collect all cell phone
conversations within range[0], which is quite useful since they're often
located in another country's capital city.

There's a reason why high level government officials have what are essentially
VPN-ed cellphones now.

[0] [http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-
how-...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-nsa-
spied-on-merkel-cell-phone-from-berlin-embassy-a-930205.html)

~~~
blancheneige
>Allies have always spied on each other.

It's thanks to that kind of complacent commentary that we're shrugging off
intelligence agencies hacking into the computers of senators investigating
said agencies. What a time to be alive.

~~~
Someone1234
You either get called "complacent" or "naive."

This stuff is going to happen regardless of how upset people get, nation
states have too much to gain by having more information and very little to
lose when they're caught by an allie.

And it isn't like this is new to the information revolution either. Countries
were spying on each other using the postal service and telegrams, or even
eyeballs and fast horses.

As an aside your example isn't relevant, the CIA spied on their own government
in that example, that is what makes it especially egregious and dangerous,
since it impacts the state's own sovereignty. The actual topic at hand was
nation-states spying on one another, apples and oranges.

~~~
blancheneige
> You either get called "complacent" or "naive."

Your original comment is certainly not naive, with the current state of
affairs being undeniably ripe for spying operations.

> This stuff is going to happen regardless of how upset people get

Statists will only go as far as their people allow them to.

> The actual topic at hand was nation-states spying on one another, apples and
> oranges.

Believing there is any effective distinction, on the other hand, is not merely
complacent but incredibly naive indeed.

~~~
Someone1234
> Statists will only go as far as their people allow them to.

We're talking about inter-governmental spying, a state's own political system
has nothing to do with the topic. So your point about Statists isn't relevant
here.

> Believing there is any effective distinction, on the other hand, is not
> merely complacent but incredibly naive indeed.

You think it is "naive" to believe there's a distinction between two states
spying on each other and a state's own security services spying on their own
oversight organisation? What?

~~~
blancheneige
> a state's own political system has nothing to do with the topic

that sounds very contradictory. unless you are implicitly admitting that
intelligence agencies are above government oversight. in which case you might
have a point.

naive to believe this theoretical distinction holds in practice. how many more
whistleblowers' careers need to be destroyed for you to realize this? the
highly sophisticated machinery developed for "international spying" in light
of all evidence appears to be a convenient justification for domestic spying,
sometimes outsourced to your own allies to keep it legal [1].

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-
secret-d...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-
surveillance-personal-data)

