
NSA hacked into encrypted UN communications, leaked documents show - electic
http://gigaom.com/2013/08/25/nsa-hacked-into-un-communications-leaked-documents-show/
======
scott_w
The major news is stalking love interests, not the UN. It's news like this
that gets people riled up, as it's more easy to relate.

I want to know if anyone was sacked, or went to prison, over this. I refuse to
believe that nobody abused this power for revenge against an ex or someone who
didn't return their affections. UK police officers have been in court for
similar things e.g. looking up new partners on the criminal database

~~~
coldtea
> _The major news is stalking love interests, not the UN. It 's news like this
> that gets people riled up, as it's more easy to relate._

Yes, because god forbid an inane and infantilized population can understand
the significance of actual politics without human interest stories in them...

~~~
michaelt
After the revelations about spying on other G8 attendees, a portion of posters
on HN and elsewhere proved their worldly, jaded cynicism and acceptance of the
status quo with posts saying "of course they do" and "everyone knows that" and
"no news here". In this very discussion there's a poster saying "The real
surprise is everyone is shocked".

These people won't care about the UN story - but the stalking love interests
they might care about.

~~~
venomsnake
I would make an argument that giving Mr Obama every morning a brief what is
going in secret in UN, Kremlin and Beijing is NSA mandate. They were created
to collect that kind.

It is intelligence agencies work to collect intelligence.

So basically - trying to open Merkel inbox from NSA or GRU = totally fine and
vice versa. NSA collecting data on millions of people that are disconnected
from the politics is not fine. So is checking out what is your loved one doing
on facebook with tools inaccessible to the normal people.

~~~
coldtea
> _I would make an argument that giving Mr Obama every morning a brief what is
> going in secret in UN, Kremlin and Beijing is NSA mandate. They were created
> to collect that kind. It is intelligence agencies work to collect
> intelligence._

Some people seem to think that collecting intelligence means breaking 24/7
into sovereign countries (and allies) leaders' communications...

How about they fucking do it the old fashioned way: talking to people,
gathering diplomatic sources, analysing press and political statements,
checking budget uses, the odd snitch here and there, getting some leaks, etc
etc?

------
devnetfx
Replace "NSA" by "China" and the whole world would have gone into frenzy.

~~~
alan_cx
I don't think so.

The US is supposed to be an ally of many, if not the majority, of UN members.
China is not. So from, say a Spanish POV, China, not regarded as an ally,
spying is expected, but an ally industrially spying is more difficult to
accept. In fact, something like this may well destabilize the UN. How can such
an institution be trusted if its major player and funder is using it as its
own conduit for spying? Yeah "we" all "knew", not now we really do know. Its
fact.

What this proves is that the US is an ally of no one. The US has abused it's
self entitled presumed position of trust. Now when there is some international
jolly, or what ever, US requests for insane amounts of comic book, sunglasses
wearing, gun toting SS to be allowed free armed reign may well be met with a
lot more skepticism. The usual suspects will continue to suck up (the UK for
example has no where else to turn to, given its attitude to the EU), but over
all I see a lot more difficulty for the US behind the scenes and
diplomatically.

In short, there is a huge difference between an enemy spying and a so called
ally.

~~~
hugnificent
Allies spy on each other all the time. Alliances are simple two dimension
structures, counties align themselves will all sorts of interests that
sometimes seem contradictory. Look at the Israelis for example, they spy on
the US. But they clearly benefit from the US's support. nevertheless, it makes
sense for them to spy on the US, first they need to know what the US really
thinks to protect their interests (the US isnt always publicly stating its
true ntetions) and sometimes the US may have intel the Israelis do not). thats
just one example of allies spying.

In general terms, any intelligent government is going to want to know what's
happening in the world to its interests because people, and countries, lie and
withhold information. So in general terms, everyone spies on everyone.

Who is your ally in one matter may not be in another. For example, China is
neither an ally nor an enemy to the US. US Sino relations are complicated,
sometimes the two agree and work together, sometimes they do not. If two
countries cooperate on some things, but not others should they blindly trust
each other? Of course not. What if they mostly agree? Should they still
blindly trust each other? I would hope not. Again, consider how allies
sometimes to lie to each other to get them to support their cherished
positions. Nations have a duty to their citizens, and shouldn't blindly follow
their allies statements of so-called fact. How else does a nation meet this
duty if it doesn't cast a wary eye on its allies? It spies on them.

Equally, sometimes traditional allies are opposed on certain things, or may be
lying as the Greeks were about their national finances. Im sure the EU wishes
it knew that earlier.

The word ally isn't the same thing as "always on my side". These are nations
we're talking about, that operate in their own interests, lie to each other
and dont always operate in their friends interests. It seems reasonable for
allies to be a bit wary of each other and to not assume allies will just
always act in their allies best interests. And alas, spy on each other find
out what's really going on.

------
tehwalrus
Umm, so this is a concrete breach of international law. When do we see US
officials being arrested and tried?

Oh that's right, they don't believe in the rule of law (which is why they've
exempted themselves and their entire military from the ICC.)

This makes me furious for the same reason as when criminals are given lenient
sentences. I don't understand why it doesn't for other people.

~~~
hugnificent
Spying on other countries is against international law? Since when? That's
what countries, all countries, do.

~~~
frostmatthew
It doesn't say spying on other countries is against international law, it says
spying on the UN is. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the
United Nations[1] says "UN premises shall be inviolable, and UN property shall
be immune from search, requisition, confiscation etc."

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Privileges_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Privileges_and_Immunities_of_the_United_Nations)

------
njuyhbgtrfvcdew
See also, Der Spiegel article:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6271222](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6271222)

------
brokenmagnet
The article mentions cracked encryption and how the NSA likes to bug. Does
anyone know what the details on the cracked encryption are: key size,
algorithm, VPN type? Or whether they obtained through one of the less-scary
methods: trojan, stolen credentials, a brute-forced weak credentials, etc? Or
perhaps it was just a touch of ignorance of Google Translate or the
journalist(s)?

------
skidoo
I wonder- was this during or after Obama's stint as chairman of the United
Nations Security Council?

------
DanielBMarkham
Er, isn't the NSA supposed to be doing this exact thing? Signals interception
to assist in the intelligence efforts of the U.S.?

Did I miss out on something? This is what they're paid for. If they're
monitoring diplomatic, political, and military information worldwide, I'm
happy about that. Might keep us out of another war. Helps us make better
decisions. And so on.

Once again, there's nothing wrong with nations having intelligence agencies.
Overall they help keep the peace. It's the monitoring of the civilian
population -- which in a democracy is where the real political power is
supposed to be -- that's insane.

~~~
jacquesm
> Did I miss out on something?

Yes. The United Nations seat is where it is because it is agreed that this is
extraterritorial and inviolate. Think of it as bombing a church or a hospital.
(not that those things aren't done, but they're considered more than just bad
form).

The United Nations headquarters relies on the host country to play nice and to
be trustworthy otherwise the United Nations will lose its ability to operate
and that is worth more than the secret services of any one country, even the
US.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
That's amazingly naive, Jacques. The same argument could be used for embassies
worldwide: they are considered part of another country and so on. Yet
embassies are routinely tapped by everyone. Been that way for decades.

The UN is a treaty organization, not a world government. It has as much
sanctity as any other treaty organization -- not much. If folks want to
construe this as being something to do with them being hosted in the US, then
I'm at a loss as to how to continue the conversation. The Chinese would be
okay tapping the communications but the U.S. not? Doesn't make any sense.

A little bit of context here is all I ask. Intelligence agencies are supposed
to find out things about diplomatic, political, and military matters. They
break and bend all kinds of rules doing so. This will continue whether or not
you or I agree to it, whether it's the US or the Russians, and whether the UN
is in New York or Botswana. I'm fine with that, mainly because the more each
country knows about the inner workings of the others, the better they can
predict reactions to political moves. That makes the world safer.

I think we've just reached the point where somebody says "NSA" and the mob all
gets out the pitchforks and torches. That's a shame, because there is a very
serious problem here, and it has nothing to do with the U.S. or the NSA. It
has to do with technology making the entire life of the civilian population
available to anybody with the appropriate political power. Not limited to NSA.
Not limited to the U.S.. It's a worldwide problem based on the tech we create
everyday.

We should really get off the NSA jag and on to actually solving problems
instead of this emotional overreaction to any story with NSA in the title
business the MSM is pushing us into.

~~~
jacquesm
Yes, I got it. The US can not be trusted under any circumstances and treaties
are meaningless.

Call me naive but I expected better, I'd be just as surprised if the Swiss
were caught bugging the Geneva assembly or if the Belgians were caught bugging
the EU Headquarters. Note the 'caught'.

Who knows, they might even do it. But for now we only have proof about the US
and the UN mission in New York and if you can't see why that's a bad thing
(even if it was to be expected by all but the naive people in the world) then
I can't help that. Trust is fragile.

It's like cheating on your wife: you can do it, plenty of people do. But don't
get found out or there will be consequences that you might not be willing to
pay.

~~~
gruseom
_treaties are meaningless_

Are there actual treaties that have been broken through any of this? While it
does seem naive to expect nations to be "trustworthy" or not to spy, breaking
a formal treaty is surely another matter.

~~~
jacquesm
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Headquarters](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Headquarters)

~~~
gruseom
That's not nearly precise enough to answer my question. The article refers in
passing to a treaty granting UN headquarters extraterritorial status.
Obviously, extraterritoriality as such doesn't preclude spying.

The question is whether a specific treaty was specifically broken. That's an
interesting question for two reasons: it presumably has an exact answer, and
it would have consequences beyond just the media, general outrage, etc.

Edit: But this looks like it might count:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272729](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272729)

~~~
jacquesm
You're further along than I am. I read that the UN headquarters were declared
'inviolate', but don't recall where. Searching.

Edit: found it:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_the_United_Nations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_the_United_Nations)

Edit2: and I see you have an even better reference now.

Anyway, I think that the 'inviolate' from my original comment stands and that
- at least according to the UN - this is not just a breach of decorum but
illegal.

~~~
gruseom
Yes, that's got to be the most relevant Wikipedia article. Since it starts
with two examples of spying on the UN that appear to have had zero
consequences, I guess I was wrong.

~~~
jacquesm
I don't think there will be consequences but that does not mean it isn't
illegal. Technically this is the same kind of breach that is against article
22 of the Geneva Convention on Diplomatic Relations (a pretty long document).
That everybody does it all the time and that it should be expected is one
thing, that the _host_ country does it makes it something a bit more serious
imo.

After all if the most powerful country in the world uses the fact that UN has
a residence inside its own borders (but legally speaking outside of them) to
achieve home-court advantage then it might be time to relocate.

But that will likely not happen.

~~~
gruseom
Does "illegal" really mean anything in the international system? Certainly
governments cite "international law" to score propaganda points, but to show
that it really means something, it's not enough to show cases where weak
nations were punished for violating it—one would need an example of a strong
nation being punished for violating it. Without that, it isn't the rule of
law, only the rule of the strong. Has there been any such case? (Certainly
there are many examples of strong nations violating so-called international
law with impunity.)

~~~
jacquesm
I think we'll know the answer to that question when oil finally really does
run out.

There is too much uncertainty past that point to make any predictions at all
but I figure as soon as the ability to project power short of ICBMs goes out
the window and the geopolitical map drawn up around one particular resource
gets redrawn there will be a big push for something more stable in the longer
term. And trade embargoes are a lot easier to maintain when it isn't as easy
to move around. Until then it will be status quo with bigger countries
ignoring the treaties they've signed and ratified whenever they feel like.

------
cenhyperion
How exactly do they plan to tell us that this is legal to protect us from
"terrorists"? It's in direct violation of international law.

------
greenyoda
The NSA's attacks may have been facilitated by earlier spying on the UN that
was carried out by the State Department. I posted the reference in another
thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6274158](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6274158)

------
bayesianhorse
The NSA is having a really bad year...

~~~
jacquesm
From 'No Such Agency' to having a searchlight aimed at your every move is a
bit of a wake up call I guess.

I was toying with the idea of a bounty site for leakers but that would
definitely be right across the line. The idea here was that if foreign secret
services recruit moles for cash rather than for some kind of political
leanings the general public should be able to do the same. Sort of wikileaks
meets kickstarter. Items like: "$largefigure for the person that leaks all of
congress' emails to and from industry professionals for the last decade". I'm
pretty sure that that sort of transparency would clean up a lot of filth in
short order. What's good for the goose...

~~~
adestefan
That completely crosses the line from whistleblower to espionage. There would
be serious jail time involved for anyone involved in that scheme from both the
person providing the money and the person selling the information.

~~~
dragonwriter
> That completely crosses the line from whistleblower to espionage.

I thought that recent events had demonstrated that that "line" doesn't exist
-- if it is unwelcome by those in power, its espionage _especially_ if it is
whistleblowing.

------
bengrunfeld
Wow, the NSA has just become the whipping boy of the media. Well, they
deserved it. They reached too far, and now their ability for worldwide
surveillance has taken a massive hit. They should have read the tale of Icarus
before going flying.

~~~
cstross
There is a spurious 'f' at the beginning of the last word in your comment.

Hope this helps!

~~~
bengrunfeld
hahahahha!!

------
Questioneer
Something I believe that needs to be delineated is if the NSA is doing this
work or if one of their contractors is. For an example of a contractor doing
such services, Endgame Systems[1].

"Endgame executives will bring up maps of airports, parliament buildings, and
corporate offices. The executives then create a list of the computers running
inside the facilities, including what software the computers run, and a menu
of attacks that could work against those particular systems. Endgame weaponry
comes customized by region—the Middle East, Russia, Latin America, and
China—with manuals, testing software, and “demo instructions.” There are even
target packs for democratic countries in Europe and other U.S. allies."

With news of payments rendered to companies complicit in handing over data
under dubious laws, I believe much more attention should be put on the
'plumbers' themselves. [1]
[http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems](http://wiki.echelon2.org/wiki/Endgame_Systems)

------
stefantalpalaru
Is the US trying to start a new cold war, this time with the rest of the
world?

~~~
devcpp
Not even the entire US, just its government, against everyone else, including
its citizens. Too much power in too few hands.

~~~
pavs
I think if the citizens stays complacent of its government actions than they
should be equally liable. I have always tried to distinguish difference
between not liking or disagreeing with the government of USA and having the
same attitude towards the citizens of USA. But you can only drag it for so
long.

What will it take for you go to the street against your government?
Governments of other countries have fallen for much less crime, yet the
american government gets away with killing thousands of people and violating
national and international laws under false pretence. And the USA citizens
gets to wash their hands from any responsibility by simply arguing that the
government did it.

~~~
hyperventilator
Yes and German citizens are responsible for the US military bases there as
well as intelligence sharing deals their gov made.

~~~
pavs
Having military base itself is nothing wrong, nor is sharing intelligence in
itself.

But the german citizen would be responsible if their government is engaged in
so called pre-emptive war, under the pretense of terrorism and engaged in
multi-year war with thousands of deaths and the citizens didn't even lift a
finger.

Similarly if the german government is engaged in country-wide surveillance
program under the pretense of security to control and possibly suppress its
citizen, then yes the citizen is absolutely responsible if they sit on their
ass for years and do nothing about it.

~~~
hyperventilator
If Darth Vader has bases in your country that he is fighting wars from you
can't say you're with the rebels.

------
gojomo
Hard to get worked up over this one. Of course governments try to spy on other
governments.

~~~
vidarh
It's not surprising, but that doesn't mean that it's not worth getting worked
up over, especially given that it is explicitly violating agreements to the
contrary. In other words: Everyone else have now learned that when the US
government enters into agreements like that, the agreement is worthless and
they can't be trusted.

~~~
gojomo
A world where governments covertly spy on each other (even in violation of
promises/treaties) is likely a nicer, safer, more peaceful world than the
alternative.

It's a form state-to-state transparency, helping states independently confirm
either that another state's other statements and commitments are trustworthy,
or not. State-vs-state spying makes bluffs, threats, and deception in
international relations relatively harder, and helps prevent destabilizing
surprises or betrayals.

And I suspect all the major states understand this, and know any surface
agreement not to covertly seek extra information (especially signals
information) really just means, "we'll all just be really sneaky about it".

------
res0nat0r
So, it sounds like the NSA is doing the job it was chartered for back in 52.
Temporary internet outrage at the NSA will die off soon....

~~~
jacquesm
The UN is in the United States because of a complex arrangement and builds on
substantial mutual trust and respect.

From the wikipedia article on the same:

"Although it is situated in New York City, the land occupied by the United
Nations Headquarters and the spaces of buildings that it rents are under the
sole administration of the United Nations. They are technically
extraterritorial through a treaty agreement with the U.S. government. However,
in exchange for local police and fire protection and other services, the U.N.
agrees to acknowledge most local, state, and federal laws."

This finding is a violation of trust and could result in the UN moving its
seat from New York to some other place, for instance Bruxelles or Geneva.

~~~
cenhyperion
>This finding is a violation of trust and could result in the UN moving its
seat from New York

Which is unfortunately the most that will possibly be done for this, if
anything is done. It will be a slap on the wrist when the US is going to need
its economy threatened to actually do anything about the NSA.

~~~
hyperventilator
How do you think you are going to damage the US economy without damaging your
own?

------
mpchlets
The real surprise is everyone is shocked an agency designed to spy is doing
just that. And successfully for a long time. I don't like it, but it is not
really news - they compare spying on the UN and loved ones in this article ...
is it really related?

~~~
simonw
Read the Guardian's editorial from a few days ago, which directly argues
against the "Spy's spy, so what?" line of argument.

[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/surveil...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/surveillance-
state-debate-goes-on)

~~~
jacquesm
There is this in there:

"Some weeks later the tone of these and other discussions changed. There was,
by mid-July, an explicit threat that the government would, after all, seek to
stop the Guardian's work and prevent publication of further material by legal
means. To have resisted such action would have involved handing over ultimate
control of the material to a judge and could have meant that no stories could
have been published for many months, if at all. The first amendment of the
American constitution guarantees its press protections of which British
editors can only dream. For more than 40 years − since the publication of the
so-called Pentagon papers in 1971 − it has been accepted that the state will
not succeed in trying to obtain prior restraint of the press. So we will in
future report this story from New York. We have shared some material with, and
will collaborate with, the New York Times."

So that was the reason why the Guardian moved the reporting on the story out
of the UK.

