The government takes the position that their agents are almost completely unconstrained by law when it comes to actions taken abroad aimed at non-US persons.
Even were a court somewhere to find that this interpretation is incorrect, there are numerous "good faith reliance" doctrines that prevent any prosecution or even civil consequences.
The government outright tortured people for years, and nothing has come of it. No prosecutions. No damages for victims. No cases dismissed for outrageous government conduct. Not even very many harsh words from judges. The only people for whom there were any consequences were the low level regular army people who got in on the torture train without first getting official blessing.
It'll be the same thing here. If some low level employee went out on his own to hack into Google servers, something might come of it. But by all appearances these programs were deliberate, planned, and vetted. In those circumstances the bad actors have long since learned to cover their own asses. There will be no consequences for them.
EDIT: Just to clarify it a bit more, I am not primarily angry because of the spying - read my mails if it makes you happy. What really pisses me of is this sentiment of thinking of non-US citizens as second class humans. We are not spying at US citizens, only at this other guys across the ocean. And sadly this sentiment is also present in part of the media coverage. Especially when the story broke there was a lot of outrage about (accidentally) spying at US citizens, but spying at non-US citizens and breaking foreign law in peacetime is deemed acceptable.
Born and bred.
And, at this point, I can't in good faith say that I would blame you.
I think it's pretty safe to say that getting rid of a President is no longer enough. My sense is that the people who make these policies really are "Beyond Elections". They are constants in our government. And appear unassailable.
I doubt very much that we, the American People, could even IDENTIFY the people setting or implementing these policies, much less rid ourselves of them.
I think in the present environment, it wouldn't be imprudent for other nations to look to their own interests.
If he wants to claim he wasn't aware, OK. But he is now and it's his responsibility to fix it. Again, that's the nature of the job.
If the President wanted to eliminate these programs, they'd get eliminated. It would require the exercise of political will, but it absolutely could be done.
The problem, actually, is right here, when people start making excuses for our leaders.
Stop.
Hold them responsible. Responsibility is why the job even exists.
My assertion is that trust has broken down. And therefore the ability to validate has broken down.
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the President and the Congress eliminate these programs...
How would you or I... or any foreign person validate that?
How would I, in good faith, tell a foreign person, or even another citizen, that their communications are no longer being monitored?
I don't believe we could give such assurances.
So even in the BEST case where the President and the politicians eliminate the programs... we would not be able to assert in good faith that there is no longer any communications monitoring going on.
The flaw in your idea, is that it is predicated on trust in the system.
Obama is complicit with this system and quite happy for it continue.
How would you know? The answer is, essentially, "Trust".
You would trust the politicians when they say that the funding had been cut. The politicians, in their turn, would trust the functionaries when they say no funding was going into communications monitoring.
What if you don't trust the politicians or the functionaries... do you have any method of validating the elimination of the funding not based on "Trust"?
"...you can't redirect that level of funding from other projects without someone noticing..."
These are, at their core, intelligence agencies. "Redirecting that level of funding... without someone noticing..." is their job. It's what they are trained to do, among other things. I think it's a little optimistic to believe that they would not use that skill to accomplish their mission if they found it necessary.
Gov accounts are prepared and audited by civil servants. At a certain point a conspiracy is too large to be controlled, and I'd suggest managing to divert hundreds of millions from other budgets is a conspiracy just too large to hide from an entire people when gov. accounts are public. I'm all for official oversight as well by politicians, but politicians could easily cut funding for this sort of activity if they wanted to.
Obama certainly doesn't want to, for whatever reason, as evidenced by the his disingenuous lies about this topic to the public (no one is reading your email) and the way he left Clapper in power after lying to congress and proposed fig-leaf reform, not real reform.
"Redirecting that level of funding... without someone noticing..." is their job
No, it's not. Their job is spying on enemies of their country, nothing more, nothing less. In peacetime that should be a pretty simple job of spying on a few terrorist networks using targeted attacks.
> How would you or I... or any foreign person validate that?
How would the President validate that?
Just like Guantanamo Bay, right?
If Obama believed these programs (and Guantanamo Bay) were "wrong" with the same conviction Snowden believes – he'd do what it takes to shut them down, with the same career/livelihood risks that Snowden accepted.
It's precisely the sort of moral compromises that Obama has made to allow Guantanamo Bay to stay operating, that have allowed the NSA to grab so much extraordinary power amd avoid any sort of reasonable oversight.
I understand that "just closing Guantanamo" isn't as simple as it sounds - but letting things like that slide because they're complicated, and doing so for 40 odd years, has allowed a situation where people like Clipper think lying to congress is his job. Where intelligent people somehow perform the sort of mental gymnastics that allow them to claim collecting and storing personal communication isn't "collection" unless a person listens to the collected information.
If the president wanted it to stop - he'd stop it. If he's not stopping it, it's because there's something he considers more important.
He _might_ even be right. There might be a real and provable public interest reason why Guantanamo and the NSA have to be the way they are. There's no obvious or easy explanation along those lines – and it's super easy to cynically attribute it all to personal(and corporate) wealth and power motives which _are_ pretty obvious.
Right now, it's continued operation relies entirely on state secrecy laws. If Obama or some future president realizes that it is that one provision that is protecting illegal actions, he can promise to pardon anyone of the laws they have to break to expose those illegal actions.
One of the biggest problems with our whistleblowing laws is that if you have to break laws to make things right, you may be seen as righteous, but you'll still be prosecuted for the laws you had to break to accomplish that. We're still a nation of laws and the only laws that can overturn that is the constitutional power to pardon. The only crime the president cannot pardon is impeachment. Any individual that isn't in an impeachable position could expose wrongdoing if the president had their back.
I mean you can be cynical or you can be realist. The cynical explanation would probably be that the president/congress don't really control a few organisations like the NSA.
The realist reason would be that the NSA can point to a couple dozen cases where their surveillance saved thousands of lives, American or otherwise. That they have very, very convincing arguments that these policies are worth it.
Also I am a bit fatalist about privacy expectations. Have you seen how "working class" people live in Hong Kong and how much privacy they effectively have ?
That's the future for the vast majority of humans on this planet, unless growth stops. If growth does stop, death and famine is the future for the majority of humans.
Enjoy it while it lasts, or collect enough money that you can realistically enjoy privacy and space until you die. For the next generation, it's a lost cause.
Government intrusion of privacy is (should be) the least of anyone's worries.
At the end of the day, the presidency is the only position that is beyond the reproach of anyone behind the scenes that may be using their powers to pull strings. If he has ever been coerced by hidden powers, he alone could unveil them and be believed by all the non-believers. Alternatively, he could choose to promise exercise his pardon rights for people who want to expose wrongdoing but are afraid. He had the power to protect people from jail. That's the power to allow people to expose wrongdoing without fear of retaliation (unless we've gone so far down the rabbit hole that someone can make the whistleblower just disappear.)
If there were such hidden powers as to pull strings or coerce the president, I am not sure why we should believe that they didn't have a hand in his rise to power.
(1) the political work of defining the word "enemy". If you spend your time in your first 100 days of office trying to get the country to rally behind defining the "enemy" as actors within the US who are actively undermining the US Constitution and actors who are acting corruptly.
and
(2) the commander in chief work of defining the goals of the US military. The president is the commander in chief. If he decides that the primary goal of the US armed forces is to root out corruption and problems in the armed forces that are undermining the US Constitution in the interest of private interests.
By doing exactly both of those things and getting support for it, he has absolved himself of liability under the Espionage Act AFAICT. The reasoning here is that he's now defining the operation and success of the armed forces to be in line in a way that any information conveyed is no longer going to interfere with the armed forces of the United States. Furthermore, redefining the enemy means that he has also made sure that the information does not promote the success of the enemies of the US.
An American president with a moral backbone?
Give me a break.
That's like expecting it to rain candyfloss.
The presidency is a hollow man, a figurehead - it's all just a show to make you think you have a democracy. The tail wags the dog, and entrenched non-elected interests run the show, through corruption, lobbying (corruption), and special interests (corruption).
Just so we're clear - how exactly does the average citizen "hold them responsible", other than our legal right to simply not vote for them next time?
It's so easy to say we should "hold them responsible" - but so incredibly vague to do.
So when a President comes into office, they probably make it known that they have these N pieces of information, and well, they are going to do what they want unless said President wants those N pieces of information public.
Thats the really really scary realization here. Shadow government obtained through perfect intelligence with no checks and bounds.
Congress, perhaps.
Yes, these people are our fellow citizens. There is no conspiracy, merely functioning democracy.
That last phrase really spooks me. "Look to their own interests". Saddens me a bit, too.
Also, while I think this sort of spying is terrible I'm even more sickened by things like the fact that we keep killing innocent people with drones and such and justifying it as acceptable collateral damage when nobody will tell us who the real targets were, why they had to be killed, and why that was so important that accidentally killing a few hundreds or thousands of innocents while pursuing them is reasonable.
At this point we're so far down the slippery slope that the rest of you might as well cut us off if you can. I'm unconvinced we are going to right this ship anytime soon, we as the group of citizens whose net worth isn't in the billions have lost control of the bus.
The problem is when the medias, the public and politicians are reassuring and reassured by that "But it's only for non-citizens".
To a foreigner like me, what I see is that US citizens, medias and politicians are just fine with my fundamental rights being violated. That is as long as I'm not a US citizen... a clear statement that to those eyes, the problem is of less magnitude because I'm not as important a being as US citizens are.
Do I have less a right to privacy because I am not a US citizen? Is it more ethical or moral?
I'm not talking of my legal rights on a US soil; because legality has not much to do with morality. Really, in this argument I don't care about the NSA's goal, or all the spy agencies' goals. I care about how the public reacts; nobody cared as long as it was only about violating the privacy of those without US citizenship. Second class humans.
That's incredibly insulting. It makes me angry.
And worst of all, I feel like I can't even express myself on that topic without fearing repercussion. When one day at the airport, I'll cross the custom lanes and some automated filter will have flagged me as a national security threat because I once posted outrage about how they treat non-citizens.
Now two countries may enter into an agreement not to surveil each other or their citizens. That is completely a different issue. But if you are not a US citizen or don't have a visa than the Constitution affords you no protections.
Yeah right.
In general, these are laws against things like war crimes. The UK (Brit here) also extends some child protection, fraud and bribery laws to cover acts worldwide, the former intended to be used to prosecute sex tourists who are unlikely to be prosecuted where they committed the offences.
I'm unsure whether any of these laws have actually specifically protected you, but the reason for their introduction is to afford people in other countries similar protection from UK-based criminals to the protections people enjoy in the UK.
It seems that Universal Jurisdiction allows people to prosecute me, but doesn't specifically protect me.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [1] contains privacy right in article 12 [3]. The UDHR is not legally binding but the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) [4] is and contains the privacy rights, too. The USA signed and ratified the ICCPR. Maybe someone should just sue all the spying nations.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6643253
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...
[3] http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil...
Do you really believe that this is the modus operandi only of the United States?
Since, say, France has _at least_ the same position with regard to the rest of the world vs. French citizens, are you angry at France too? Will you cut all french, german, russian, and bahranian cables as well, so as to maintain a consistent position?
Your fallacy is: Tu quoque http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
But the US is doing something unique. No other country has the global reach and the sheer military budget that the US has. It's debatable that other countries are "above" it in moral terms, but the US certainly has taken it to a whole new level.
Edit: I also don't see where "But he's building his whole argument on ... US was deserving of special disdain". Despite the larger scope of the US's transgressions, you are saying "but they do it too". I think that the Tu Quoque fallacy absolutely applies. Nowhere is it said that other countries would not be worthy of equal disdain under equal circumstances. And if it were to be said, it would be wrong.
It's really not, since many of the releases of information about what the US is doing -- including the current one -- have other countries also neck deep in it. I mean, the actual spying in the article that this comment thread is attached to is done by the UK's GCHQ, NSA is just a consumer of the data.
Besides that the US are doing (almost) unique things among to most developed countries, for example I can not even imagine any EU country doing something like Guantanamo or having the death penalty. To make it clear again, I am not primarily angry because of the spying on its own but the sentiment as to human rights beyond it.
By the information that has publicly come out about the "black sites" operated by the US and its allies -- from which prisoners were later transferred to the not-secret facility at Guatanamo where at least a show of adhering to international humanitarian law was made, several EU countries were actively involved in the system, and the UK was not only involved but actually operated prisons in the system.
So, yeah, EU countries have, contemporarily with Guantanamo, done things as much like the worst aspects of the Guantanamo detention as is possible.
Skimming Wikipedia's most definitely totally truthy article on the subject [1] (actually, it has a lot of citations, so it should be easy to verify), the UK's only alleged black site was the US base on Diego Garcia, which is "UK", but not "basement in London".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site#Suspected_black_sit...
Edit (T+18 minutes): Wikipedia lists numerous other European countries as possibly being involved. Information is really sketchy -- they are called "black" sites. Another question is which officials in the lucky host countries even knew about it.
On the other hand, USA had earlier openly claimed in essence something like 'why we'd never, we don't spy on americans (Clapper), we don't record all communications, we're for the open net and transparency, we need to safeguard the internet from China and censorship, and we have 4th/1st amendment, so we're different'.
Everybody else who did that, didn't do it while hypocritically claiming that they're different - so I believe that US really did something unique in this particular instance and deserves special extra disdain for that.
The position of others is that doing all those things is okay, so they do it without moral problems. However, USA had claimed (and apparently still claims, at least for US-citizens) that it's not okay.... and do it anyway.
Some countries would love to spy on the U.S. It's true. But how many actually successfully do? And at what scale?
I have been to France once and while the overall experience was very good there was one bad experience. We had a problem with the motorway toll and stopped to ask a woman working at a toll station. She was obviously able to understand my English question but did not even try to answer in English and I did not understand a single word. This was not bad enough to make me angry but it was very impolite and I have no understanding for this, not even given the history of the relationship between France and Germany. I knew that I had to expect things like this, but it was a single exception and I am happy about this.
So no doubt that there are many people in many countries thinking of their own people as superior, but this is not acceptable in any case.
I think it's entirely justifiable to give the NSA more latitude abroad than domestically. To turn reverse the scenario, as an American, I would far rather have the French or the Germans conducting surveillance on the United States than the US government. People keep comparisons to the Stasi, too often they forget what the Stasi's purpose was: to suppress political opposition. Here in the US, surveillance was used for the same purpose, on a much smaller scale, during the J. Edgar Hoover era. Political opponents of the government were spied on with the intent of blackmail or embarassment.
That's the whole reason why government surveillance is so scary. It puts so much information in the hands of an organization with such far-reaching powers in law enforcement and otherwise that the combination is prone to abuse. When the US spies on foreign citizens or vice versa, the potential for abuse is much less. The NSA has neither the interest nor the ability to harass political opponents in Germany and France, and the same goes in the other direction.
That's however not how the Stasi thought of itself though, or how it was presented in propaganda.
http://andberlin.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/propaganda-in-t...
"For our security"
US intelligence agencies do keep tabs on stuff like Occupy, and of course it's officially "to prevent terrorism".. I for one don't buy it.
Omniscience without omnipotence is tolerable, as is omnipotence without omniscience. The real trouble happens when you've got both.
It would generally be a dereliction of duty for the NSA/CIA to not spy on non-Americans. The same holds true, modulo agency name and country, for any other country.
Now, if you want to make the argument that national borders should dissolve and that spying on foreigners should become history - or something like that - that's up to you. But spy agency gonna spy.
You're on the public Internet, you're not "within national borders", and everybody can hear what you just said. Say it to my face. Tell me how you feel that it's just fine to violate my privacy, that it's apparently perfectly fine to pry into my life, hack my phone networks, to gather any possible information there is to know about me and all those around me, just because I'm not a US citizen, and you are. You are better and are entitled to these protections, I don't.
> The same holds true, modulo agency name and country, for any other country.
Not every country believes that their citizens are somehow exceptional and non-citizens can be treated however they please.
For example, if I was doing important security research, I would fully expect to have the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, etc, looking into my work.
I don't believe the US is exceptional. I expect other countries to have interests in US citizens and to carry out their interests to advance their national interest.
This expectation is entirely separate from my opinion of the morality of said act.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Otherwise, how would you define "liberty" or "security of person"? You're free to do what you want as long as it doesn't encroach on the freedom of others, and if being spied on makes you not want to do some things you ought to be able to do, then that's just tough luck, but not a restriction on liberty or your security? I'd say freedom of action is worthless without freedom of thought and speech, and that you can't pick and choose human rights, or rank them.
A person has liberty if he or she is free to do anything lawful within a just framework of laws that is fairly enforced. Everything you do has consequences, however. Your freedom is thus freedom from having government stopping you from doing things that are within the law, but not freedom from consequences. (Note that article 12, as written, is qualified by the term "arbitrary". According to the right as written, you or I can be interfered with if the reasons for doing so are non-arbitrary.) Absolute privacy rights increase freedom from non-legal consequences -- this is a good thing when your social context is horrible (shun him! he's smoking mj!), but more often than not, removing social consequences is a net loss.
Privacy has a nice "liberty narrative" which makes it easy to defend (as you are doing) in the abstract, because it bears a close relationship to freedom (you are, without a doubt, "more free" if you have more control over what you choose to disclose). In practice, people behave best (on balance) when transparency is maximized, and they behave worst when they have absolute privacy and anonymity (see Tor, 4chan, freenet, etc.). In many game-theoretic contexts, "private information" is what leads to sub-optimal overall outcomes that tend to strongly preference the already advantaged.
Privacy rights, therefore, have much to do with the tension between the goals of the many and the goals of the few. The real problems lie not with privacy per se, but with asymmetries in its distribution.
Certain rights certainly can. But not human rights. That's the whole point.
(btw "liberty to shoot GP" and "ability to buy guns" are not in fact human rights. GP's "right to life", however, is.)
No, the purpose of intelligence agencies is to gather and analyze information that might be of use to the nations leaders. Spying -- whether on citizens or foreigners, and whether on people located within the country or abroad -- is often a mechanism used to gather information (though collection from public sources is also a common mechanism.)
And there's nothing really special about the foreign vs. domestic (whether by location or citizenship) axis for "intelligence agencies", generally -- while sometimes the agencies that do domestic and foreign intelligence gathering are separate, that's not always the case, and certainly not a defining feature of "intelligence agencies."
First let me say that I agree with your sentiment -- it's hypocritical for people in the US to be upset about the US government's spying on its own citizens, but not upset when the people are in other countries.
Now for a dose of realism -- every single country out there that has a foreign policy and interests abroad behaves in this way to one extent or another. The question is not whether but how much. I'm receptive to ideas for something to replace this general approach to intelligence gathering. But let's not apply a double-standard in the opposite direction and say that only when the US does the spying is it a problem.
I'm German, and I can't remember ever having heard such a distinction - that some things are okay when done to foreigners, but not when done to Germans - apart from neo-nazis.
Sure, who knows what the BND is up to. But "behaving this way" also includes rhetoric that is not just considered acceptable in polite company, but even uttered by state officials... and as I said, I can't recall a single example, so maybe enlighten me? Or are you just assuming?
Just a reminder:
"In an interview with Der Spiegel , Snowden claimed that the NSA provided German intelligence, with analysis tools to help the organisation monitor data flowing through Germany. “The NSA people are in bed together with the Germans,"” he told the magazine.
He added that the NSA’s foreign affairs directorate, which is responsible for relations with other countries, had set up a system whereby political leaders “could be insulated” from the backlash if spying became public and helped to play down how grievously they were “violating global privacy.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nsa-in-bed-wi...
Also, scale still matters. Killing a person or slapping them in the face are both violence, but there is still a difference, otherwise we could just reduce all to "physical and chemical processess going on" and completely stop thinking. I don't believe for a second that Germany, or even France, Italy or Russia (which I consider rather right wing) have programs to scoop up traffic from Google's internal network in place. Maybe they would like to, but they can't pull it off. And while I wouldn't bet on it, I wouldn't be surprised if China doesn't either.
German soldiers abroad (say, in Afghanistan). Do they respect foreign law ? Of course not. Non-EU residents on German soil are subject to summary arrest and deportation (it's more complex than this, I know, but as summaries go you could do worse) German social security treats citizens, residents and illegal aliens vastly differently German domestic wiretapping laws are basically that the executive gets to spy on anyone on German soil without judicial oversight AND outside of Germany. While it's of course true that this is not a distinction, it's actually worse than US law. German wiretapping laws do not let companies evaluate the legality of a wiretapping order before complying, unlike US law. Telecom companies operating in Germany are forced to provide the government with an automated system that can wiretap anyone on their networks without even their technicians knowing about who/what is being wiretapped. Needless to say, these systems are in constant use, and have been expanded. Small detail : in the US, the government will at least pay companies appropriately (handsomely even) for costs related to wiretapping. In Germany (like most of the EU) companies have to comply, fund it themselves, and can't even look at the orders. Non-compliance with this is punishable under criminal law (meaning the CEO, techies, field techs, or anyone in the telco can be arrested if the company refuses to comply) The BND does not just have the right to spy on anyone, but it can summarily arrest anyone, intervene in any investigation without question (so they could, for example, kill someone, then take over the investigation, no questions asked). They can confiscate any goods, on German soil and outside of it, without so much as an explanation. They aren't even the only government department in Germany that has this power, the tax office has the same power.
As an EU citizen myself, I find the EU's "anger" at US spying somewhere between moronic and hypocritical. Especially France's is beyond all comparison, knowing that they just physically arrested someone for refusing to store all records of his customer's transmissions for a full year, entirely on his own dime. Furthermore, both France and Germany have used the information they force ISPs to spy for them to enforce copyrights. Neither country has any qualms about sending all citizen's internet traffic to a private organisation that is not answerable to the government at all, and is not even attempting to enforce criminal law (the NSA is at least doing this to prevent real crime, like 9/11. Germany and France are transmitting everyone's internet usage to an organisation so it could sue them for copyright infringement in an automated fashion. There's just no comparison)
Note that furthermore, in the EU, these practices have been voted in by a non-democratically elected government (the EU commission). So the EU can't even claim that parliament approved these measures, because they didn't (barring a few exceptions). This has been imposed by people negotiating "international treaties".
Can anyone please explain to me why, if there's outrage about the NSA, why isn't there 10x the outrage about EU practices ? The way it is makes absolutely no sense.
And where are the statements saying other countries shouldn't deport illegal aliens? My post asked about exceptionalism, openly stated, did it not?
> German domestic wiretapping laws are basically that the executive gets to spy on anyone on German soil without judicial oversight AND outside of Germany [..] The BND does not just have the right to spy on anyone, but it can summarily arrest anyone, intervene in any investigation without question (so they could, for example, kill someone, then take over the investigation, no questions asked). [..] Germany and France are transmitting everyone's internet usage to an organisation so it could sue them for copyright infringement in an automated fashion.
Uhhhh.... sources for all that please.
> Can anyone please explain to me why, if there's outrage about the NSA, why isn't there 10x the outrage about EU practices ?
Maybe the lack of abducting people and torturing them, or killing them with drones has something to do with it? And still, there isn't a month without demonstrations against some of the stuff you mentioned, like Vorratsdatenspeicherung. Other stuff is either flat out wrong or widely unknown, your posting of sources will decide that..
http://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/07/06/389/
Given this article, I think it's safe to say that people get tortured to varying degrees by the German police on a weekly basis at least. Like the US, in the vast majority of cases the police do this for very good reasons.
As for a basic introduction to German wiretapping law:
https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/germany/ii-surv...
Also you act surprised ? Why ? These laws are the "roughly" same across the EU. Generally a certain degree of violence, even what might be considered torture (but not outright "real" torture. Violence against an arrested person, ie. hitting them or so, even things like denying food/drink when it's not life threatening) is allowed in the EU to protect the institutions (parliament, government, ...) (but only for "existential" threats that threaten the institution itself, not just, say, the building), and to protect the lives of others.
- "the executive gets to spy on anyone on German soil without judicial oversight"
- "The BND does not just have the right to spy on anyone, but it can summarily arrest anyone, intervene in any investigation without question"
- "Germany and France are transmitting everyone's internet usage to an organisation so it could sue them for copyright infringement in an automated fashion"
?
from the link you posted, emphasis mine:
> "According to a 2003 survey, 75 percent of conducted telephone wiretapping actions violated the law. In most instances of wiretapping, law enforcement agencies did not inform the subjects after the eavesdropping took place, contrary to what is stipulated by the law. [..] In April 1998, Article 13 of the Constitution (Grundgesetz) that provides for the inviolability of private homes was amended in order to allow police authorities to place bugging devices in private homes (provided there is a court order)."
I wasn't "acting surprised", I was asking for sources, and now I kind of have to call bullshit on a lot of the stuff you said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Germany#Torture
Yup, bullshit. And at any rate nowhere near comparable to the US, where people are afraid to close Gitmo because the people were so badly mistreated they might turn on them. So why would I be "10 times more" outraged? Maybe because I, as a German/EU citizen, am more directly responsible for the stuff going on here - granted. But otherwise? Get real. Have you even READ the first article you posted?
> "The Court stated that “[t]orture, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be inflicted even in circumstances where the life of an individual is at risk” and –under its assessment of the alleged violation of art. 6 – “[b]eing absolute, there can be no weighing of other interests against article 3."
How does this make you conclude that "people get tortured to varying degrees by the German police on a weekly basis at least"? That's just saying stuff, in the hope some of it will stick. Boo.
So you should only compare German police using torture Police, FBI or DEA or some department like that using torture inside America on American citizens. There I think it's much, much less clear that the rate of torture in Germany is higher or lower than the rate used by American law enforcement agencies. I'd guess the rate in Germany would be lower, but not that much, simply because America has many more regions where heavy violence against the police happens very often.
As for what the BND does, is it really so hard to find ? http://www.globalresearch.ca/germanys-intelligence-service-b... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/04/german-... ...
(note that information they forwarded, they obviously collected first, so yes, it does in fact prove the BND spies on all German citizens as part of normal operations)
Simply not true. There may be a few large countries trying, but at nowhere near the global capability to lay bare all details of just about any person on the planet, like the US. And that's just comparing to the larger countries. The UK hacked Belgian telecoms, you're going to have to show me some proof that the reverse is also true. That's ridiculous.
The consequences of the Netherlands "behaving in this way to one extent or another" towards the US--yes, even a little bit--would not be very positive for the Netherlands. We do, however, "have a foreign policy and interests abroad".
The fact that the US believes it can get away with this sort of behaviour (and we'll have to see about that), doesn't somehow make it right or justify it in any way.
As for the US being allowed to get away with it, I do not have any simple prescriptions to offer the US government for replacing it with something better, although I too wish it did not engage in it.
I'm as appalled as the next guy about the NSA's actions, but let's keep this in perspective here: many countries have 2 intelligence agencies, one for external and one for internal. Do "MI-5" and "MI-6" ring a bell?
Plus, in this particular instance: the GCHQ (British version of NSA) is the one passing along the wiretapped stuff to the NSA.
> We are not spying at US citizens, only at this other guys across the ocean.
In this instance, it's the guys across the ocean who are spying, and passing on the results to us.
When a group puts a draws a line of Us and them, they are making enemies. With this approach the NSA is declaring the USA as the enemies of all those being spied upon. The more similar news spread the more this mentality that "The USA is the enemy" will spread and its only a matter of time that more countries turn a blind eye or even facilitate terrorist actions against the USA.
If this is really what you believe, then start pushing for legislation to include non-US citizens as first-class humans.
People like Brazilian president, Dilma Rousseff, that had the courage to cancel state visits and declaring outraged by the state-sponsored spying supported by the Obama Administration.
We need many more governments standing up and threatening to cut commercial ties with the US, until we can see some traction.
Sadly, I'm not very hopeful that this will happen, given the commercial interests involved. Mexico had a slow initial response, but it's starting to demonstrate some reaction. Germany and France are my hopes [1].
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/22/mexico-presiden...
And everybody else must be really pissed off with the latest documents. Here's the punch line:
> Intercepting communications overseas has clear advantages for the NSA, with looser restrictions and less oversight. NSA documents about the effort refer directly to “full take,” “bulk access” and “high volume” operations on Yahoo and Google networks. Such large-scale collection of Internet content would be illegal in the United States, but the operations take place overseas, where the NSA is allowed to presume that anyone using a foreign data link is a foreigner.
[1] http://electrospaces.blogspot.nl/2013/10/how-nsa-targeted-ch...
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-in...
As both a US citizen and world citizen (how can we who've grown up in the Internet age not feel a little more worldly?) it feels violating to know this has been going on, and that it likely effects me.
On the other side, it has forever been, and continues to be, in a physical-boundary-defined nation's best interest to know things about every other nation, in order to compete within international relationships. I would be surprised to find a major international player that didn't have a clandestine agent group or groups like the CIA or NSA.
It's a very tough and frustrating topic. Spying always feels disrespectful and arrogant to the spied upon. But should we implicitly assert that this isn't done by the rest[0] of the intelligence agencies around the world?
0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies
I'm not defending the NSA, but let's not be naive here. One function of the government is to protect its people from all threats, foreign and domestic. So yes, citizens of other countries are second class, and well they should be from some perspectives. Again though, there are lines, and some have been crossed.
Whoah, there. Your grievances are well-placed. But keep in mind that it's a certain subset of agencies in the US government that are responsible for the problems you're upset about, not all US citizens. As for fixing things, the government has become literally unmanageable, and things are a mess right now.
That said, instituting similar sanctions against the US should absolutely be the number one thing the rest of the world responds with! It might not be every US citizen that is culpable, but they are your representative government, and your responsibility. (I assume you're from the US, but I use "your" as a collective for anyone from the US that may be reading this).
Do you think the people might take a legitimate stand if business dealings, travel, and exports were banned to the United States? Do you think US citizens would go absolutely fucking crazy?
> As for fixing things, the government has become literally unmanageable, and things are a mess right now
Well untangle yourselves and then we'll talk.
Unfortunately, the US has so much power around the world that most countries are literally unable to respond. They are the new Rome, using political and economic power rather than pure force (but use force where necessary) to control the world. It's disgusting.
Inconceivable!
you left out a big part of the statement quoted. The tactics you listed would be commendable in comparison to pure force if the end goal wasn't world domination.
Since the end goal IS world domination, however, then no means is suitable from a humanity perspective.
I do believe this is very true:
> All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing - Burke, Edmund
So, yes, I'd say most Americans are responsible for this yes, by doing nothing to stop it. So don't blame the rest of the world if they start "hating Americans" or "hating America". You are part of it, you are responsible to change the America you want the world to love, too.
Blaming only the government, that you probably voted in, too, does not cut it.
Hating a group of people is a completely irrational, unconstructive approach to solving a problem. If one has anger about something, they shouldn't lash out at group of people.
If people want Americans to change something on their behalf, for their benefit, it needs to be from a standpoint of respect. They can start by asking nicely.
"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people that were oppressing them." -- Assata Shakur
Even though we could argue about wether this stuff consititutes "oppression", I think the point still applies, sadly.
I think there are one or two examples in recent history. The LGBT movement has made a great deal of ground recently by appealing to peoples' sensibilities.
Now, in more extreme cases you aren't going to talk the oppressors out of anything. I doubt anybody has ever stopped a genocide with rational argument and appeal to the murderers' sensibilities.
In theory, the American people are the only ones with the power to solve this problem. This responsibility is a burden. Before going to bat, I would rather encounter friendly encouragement than smug contempt.
> They can start by asking nicely.
"Can you please kindly, stop perpetuating your morally bankrupt spy-state?"
Gosh. That achieved a lot.
I'm talking about hating Americans. It's irrational, unconstructive, and not a novel thing to do. It's certainly not going to accomplish anything against NSA spycraft.
If anything is going to change about NSA spycraft, especially on behalf of the rights of foreign nationals, having the rest of the world consider all Americans enemies is going to be counterproductive.
That's b/c most Americans are caught up in an endless cycle of work-aholism to either support their consumer-addiction and/or to climb out of debt and just pay the bills.
Related to that, I know this is somewhat menial, but I have found the site http://popvox.com to be fairly useful in this regard. Create an account, and you can track all current legislation -- a couple clicks will fire a stock letter to your rep either supporting or protesting a bill -- or you can edit the letter with a custom message (better). It is certainly a step above doing nothing and makes the task much easier.
The vast majority of citizens support these initiatives. Given the winner-take-all approach we employ, it is not a stretch to say that yes, we all share blame.
From the very start the polls have generally been against mass NSA surveillance except when the wording of the poll was misleading[1]. As more and more information has come out the polls have become more and more clearly against it[2].
Try to keep the facts straight.
Not sure why you refer to winner-take-all and how that concept could make everyone responsible. Keep in mind almost know one knew about this until very recently and we learned more even today.
[1] http://www.policymic.com/articles/53767/nsa-surveillance-sca...
[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/polls-continue-show-ma...
That's how they view it, for better or worse.
Furthermore, the people who are to blame for our current political system are long dead. Everyone alive today was born into this framework and told to work within the framework to modify the framework. They have not had the opportunity to shape the framework free from the constraints of the framework. The facilities the framework provides to modify itself are clumsy, inadequate, and ineffective when everything is working smoothly.
This isn't a system we chose, this is a situation that we were born into, and find ourselves unable to change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQlsS9diBs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6fnfVJzZT4
"This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand." (...) "That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists."
This should be quoted much more often.
Regarding "work within the framework to modify the framework" Snowden decided not to work within it and we still don't know what will happen to him.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130726/01200123954/obama-...
What we do know is that he got shit done. His voice has been heard, people are talking now, he has had an impact.
Opting to work outside the framework is often not safe, particularly when the framework includes provisions for harming those who opt to work outside of it, but sometimes that is the only effective option.
What did you used to think foreign intelligence services did?
Very disappointed in the american citizens' reaction to the catastrophic political decisions their leaders have been making for decades.
Manipulating the defacto world currency -- that is leeching.
And there is an interesting counterpoint to that, e.g.
> "If the Americans eavesdropped on cellphones in Germany, they broke German law on German soil, and those responsible must be held accountable."
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/10/28/world/obama-unaw...
While there may be some room between the people on the ground who are immune and the senior officials who are immune to prosecute mid-level functionaries, that's not terribly satisfying and there still remains the problem of getting them in front of the court.
See generally: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/10/the-nsa-affair-goes-crimi...
+The most serious types of international norms: things like genocide, slavery, torture, and piracy.
Absolutely, but when German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich says "those responsible must be held accountable." I would guess that he means that there will, must be consequences. Closing the embassy is a consequence of last resort, if there is continued intransigence.
Will that happen? that's up to the US government, and possibly not the elected part.
Indeed! They should be on the streets!
And I've communicated with my representatives. Udall is one of my Senators, and his staff got an email and an earful on the phone.
And these days I vote third party, which to me is "None of the above." I'm done playing into their hands by voting for one because at least he's not the other. They're the same.
I do think we're far from revolution, I hope never, but I wouldn't say it won't ever happen. The thing is, a few people are pissed and aware, and most don't care. But once the government realizes that they're getting away with whatever they're doing now, they'll do more. Eventually they'll grab so much power that we'll get sick of it and revolt.
Or maybe they'll go against history and stop grabbing ever more power.
This would at least force all eavesdropping and surveillance performed to be the same kind of eavesdropping and surveillance doable from US soil. Furthermore, the Germans can try to perform some form of enforcement on what types of people can show up at the embassy to work.
With biometrics and sharing between countries, it's conceivable that one day you won't be able to cross official borders with two identities ever again. This means that you effectively force someone to choose only one identity forever. That identity can either be one of your secret government identities or it can be your real identity, but it can no longer be both at different times. Once you choose, you'r stuck with that decision
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/cover-story-how-...
> "Research by SPIEGEL reporters in Berlin and Washington, talks with intelligence officials and the evaluation of internal documents of the US' National Security Agency and other information, most of which comes from the archive of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, lead to the conclusion that the US diplomatic mission in the German capital has not merely been promoting German-American friendship. On the contrary, it is a nest of espionage. From the roof of the embassy, a special unit of the CIA and NSA can apparently monitor a large part of cellphone communication in the government quarter."
http://www.focus.de/politik/deutschland/tid-34373/infrarotbi...
^ "US diplomats could be expelled from the country"... mind you, they're not at all talking about closing the embassy, but "just" expelling those under diplomatic immunity who were doing this (and persecuting those not under diplomatic immunity). It might just be to look good for the Germany population, they might be serious... here's hoping.
http://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/media/usbotschaft105_v-ardga...
^ infrared image of the embassy rooftop which I saw on German TV, in a discussion which surprised me by its serious tone and the absence of handwaving or belittling.
That is the change that has occurred.
I would like to see something drastic and concrete happen, if it lead to reining in the wolves.
Pointing out that illegal things are illegal isn't really a interesting contribution to the discussion, is it? I assume that wasn't all you meant to do.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=ht...
More to the point of the article here, the government takes the position that their agents are completely unconstrianed by law when it comes to using information shared by foreign intelligence services that their agents had no part in collecting, and the collection here is done by the GCHQ -- a British intelligence agency -- who simply provides NSA the privilege of submitting search terms and getting matching data from the collection GCHQ does from their taps.
It's worse than this. You also generally can't sue the US government civilly unless they allow you to. US has abrogated sovereign immunity in certain situations for certain types of torts, but ..
Sorry, I didn't read it that way :) Since the original thread seemed to be about criminalness, I assumed you meant they could not be charged criminally for their actions.
There is a huge difference, as you point out, between civil and criminal liability.
Aren't Google and Yahoo US persons?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Corporatio...
given the game the leakers are playing with these documents...
I would wait before I made any definitive statements about who is a victim and who is a villain.
The release of these documents seem to be carefully timed and calculated to give the government, corporations and people involved in the surveillance state the time and latitude to incriminate themselves.
Not only are the Government, the corporations and the people involved trying to tell a story... clearly the leakers are trying to tell a story as well.
Are we at the climax of the leakers' plot? or are we still building?
I think it might be best to get a look at all the cards first... and then decide what happened.
I mean, it appears that NSA has the ability to separate the retrieved gmail data into citizens and non-citizens, so they can legally use the non-citizen part of data and throw the 'forbidden' US-citizen data away. Think of the wonders that we could do with such technology! We wouldn't need passports anymore, when arriving from another country, you just provide your gmail account, TSA systems check that you're a citizen and lets you right in with a smile...
I am not saying it's OK, but in that case, most US citizens aren't even affected. In the case of surveillance, data from US citizens is being directly compromised. Their attempt to do what they want to foreign individuals with surveillance actually causes some collateral damage to US citizens.
There is a very strong line of reasoning that says terrorist attacks and thousands of America soldiers killed in combat are a direct result of these kinds of foreign policies.
remember that democracy (even half-implemented as it is in the US) is the dictatorship or the majority (that can vote).
Asking voters to be concerned with what their government does to non-voters should never be discouraged. It may be futile, but it should not be discouraged.
Think about that for a second. Most people on HN wouldn't send a single file to their own backup provider in the clear. Google was sending gushing torrents of data, presumably including email, IMs, etc, over long distances that way.
That's very nice that the company that encouraged all of us to put all our email and documents in its data centers "pushed harder than anyone on the whole internet" for some basic security well after the NSA compromised their shit, but it doesn't excuse their irresponsible practices.
Over their own private WAN. The analogy would be sending things in the clear over your LAN. [Citation: http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~rcs/research/google-onrc-slide...]
This is a very interesting assumption
http://www.howstuffworks.com/tech-myths/5-myths-about-google...
They literally bring part of the cable into the sub and work on it from there.
Apparently the procedure is to position the USS Jimmy Carter over the cable, send out a remote vehicle to grab the cable and pull it up to the sub, splice in tapping equipment, and then drop the cable.
Intercontinental cables are less than one inch in diameter in deep water. If the sub plants the tap in deep water, it's extremely unlikely that anyone would ever discover it. There are a few cable repair ships that pull broken cables to the surface and fix them, but other than that... No one can reach it and no one will bother it.
The most interesting thing is actually getting the data back to the U.S. Do they run a separate cable alongside the existing cable? Getting SMALL bits of data back to the U.S. is easy, can just broadcast it. But LARGE amounts of data? Tricky.
Even if you pull the cable up to repair it, it is unlikely that you would discover the tap. The device used in Operation Ivy Bells was designed to detach from the cable if the cable was lifted. Non-intrustive tapping might not be possible with fiber (it isn't, as far as I know), but I expect they have other mechanisms to avoid discovery. Perhaps lifting the cable would cause the cable to "snap" on either side of the tap, before the device could be lifted.
> Google is buying a piece of a new transpacific fiber optic cable
Only a half dozen or so companies actually own undersea fiber. It requires a huge amount of effort to lay and maintain including hundred million dollar cable ships.
Everyone (even Google) leases, or in this case buys, capacity on shared cables.
Or just buy a company which does.
I wouldn't be surprised if they do so in the future.
I remember over a decade ago talking with the security head of a university where I was working, about a new system design. I made some comment like "well this is all on the machine room network" and his response was "I wouldn't trust the machine room network." Pretty eye-opening since he was the person responsible for its security.
There's the actual paper google wrote. It's very good. OpenFlow is a terrific piece of technology.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/tech-myths/5-myths-about-google...
http://news.cnet.com/Google-wants-dark-fiber/2100-1034_3-553...
I thought he was loopy at the time. Amazing how wrong I was.
Obama should be impeached. Both Obama and Bush should be tried for criminal conduct. Both should be put in prison for decades for treason. Of course on top of that are the war crimes and general crimes against humanity both committed (torture, war, murder of thousands of civilians, and so on).
Certainly he has revealed a lot of scary information about the government that the people needed to know about, but opposing the state (which is what Snowden seems to do) does not always equate to supporting the nation.
Some of Snowden's disclosures have been directly harmful to American interests without a corresponding harm being done to the American people that would have warranted that disclosure. For instance, his leak of details of NSA hacking attempts against China.
Likewise, his disclosures about spying against allied heads-of-state. Knowing what your friends truly think would be invaluable for American interests when negotiating. I certainly agree that spying on friends like that is distasteful, but revealing that can't possibly be said to have helped the American people.
Yes he is. He gave up his life and comfort in order to reveal illegal, massive surveillance by the US Government and friends. That's what actual patriots and heroes do.
> Certainly he has revealed a lot of scary information about the government that the people needed to know about, but opposing the state (which is what Snowden seems to do) does not always equate to supporting the nation.
This kind of statement is a sophists trick used to justify the unjustifiable: "Spying is typically bad but he revealed spying done by our own government!"
> Some of Snowden's disclosures have been directly harmful to American interests without a corresponding harm being done to the American people that would have warranted that disclosure. For instance, his leak of details of NSA hacking attempts against China.
The NSA are the ones causing the actual harm. Also, China boogeyman card.
> Likewise, his disclosures about spying against allied heads-of-state. Knowing what your friends truly think would be invaluable for American interests when negotiating. I certainly agree that spying on friends like that is distasteful, but revealing that can't possibly be said to have helped the American people.
Sounds like 1984 Ingsoc. Diplomacy with "friends" should be honest. Not conducted as "trust but verify" Reagan-esque bullshit.
Yes it can. I'll say it right now: It has helped the American people. It has helped us, by giving us knowledge we need if we are going to hold our government accountable. Lest people forget, government exists to serve the people, not the other way around. This ain't a monarchy, pal. Here we can, and should, hold our elected officials' feet to the fire when our government screws up or does things we don't approve of.
Now, in the end, the American people might decide to keep "Baaaaah"ing like mindless sheep and let our government off the hook, which is, I suppose, their right. But what Snowden did was absolutely the right thing, as you can't even think about having accountability unless you have transparency.
second; perhaps here on the internet we need something more international. perhaps he is a patriot in an international sense - since he works for the rights of all people. i certainly appreciate what he's done, and i am not american. of course, an alternative is to say that i am the enemy. but then we get to the american duplicity - they seem to want to be our friends, shake our hands, but then treat us as second class people.
[i wondered whether to include british duplicity with gchq, but they don't really make the same distinction. they seem to quite happily spy on britons and foreigners equally. they are not hypocrites, just assholes...]
Yes, I would certainly argue that someone claiming to act in the patriotic interests of the people of a nation should do things that are in that interest. Remember that by Snowden's own admission, he deliberately selected each individual batch of documents for later disclosure, it's not Manning-style indiscriminate collection of material to leak later.
On the other hand there is a very workable explanation to explain Snowden's actions: A belief that government is oppressive and wrong, with a corresponding imperative to harm that government. So it is here. You could argue that Snowden feels that by breaking the government that overall good things would happen for Americans, but his individual actions are certainly being conducted without regard to harm. So I would argue that he's anti-government, but not necessarily patriotic.
> but then we get to the american duplicity - they seem to want to be our friends, shake our hands, but then treat us as second class people.
That's hardly a trait unique to America and I think you know that. Remember that much of the outcry in the U.S. is very much because the NSA is treating American data the same as they treat foreign data. But either way, national governments work in the best interests of their citizens, not others. It's hard enough to convince people in America to maintain even existing levels of foreign aid for example.
As one of the French intelligence professionals mentioned, they spy on us too and if anything, are jealous of the abilities the NSA has.
The "more international" idea you talk about is certainly the direction we need to go down (as I've argued since Snowden first hit the news). Right now the global Internet is simply not working well with the ideal of individual national legal frameworks. But what solution will that be?
Somehow I suspect those on HN won't be satisfied with simply scaling up Five Eyes to include Western European governments as well, and as of yet there's no pan-world government to kick the task up to. Nor do I think that nations will (or should) completely give up on SIGINT.
(Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I'm not suggesting armed rebellion against the government. Rather, I'm pointing out that this situation has happened in history before, and, well, that's what we called it.)
Or even your own fiber (Google owns tens of thousands of miles of it). There's nothing to prevent the black-hat guys from digging down to a cable in the middle of nowhere and installing an optical tap. Especially if they did it before commissioning, after which signal levels would start being monitored.
If this haven't already I imagine they will be hiring security forces to patrol and inspect.
“It’s an arms race,” said Eric Grosse, vice president for security engineering at Google, based in Mountain View, Calif. “We see these government agencies as among the most skilled players in this game.”
This is a threat to Google's international business. They have a vested financial interest in reducing the hacking against their systems.
The risk of things going wrong when you're tapping cables is much less pronounced as far as I can see.
How can that guy be trusted with anything?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2347047/Former-Faceb...
1. Has the technical credentials and interviewing skills to get hired at Google (not easy). 2. Has a security clearance. 3. Wants to be a spy. 4. Can get themselves assigned to the team working on datacenter interconnects. 5. Can set up a tap on the interconnect without getting caught.
That sounds both hard and expensive to me.
Before the Snowden revelations came out, I'd have strongly considered Sally Smith to be a good fit for a position dealing with data center security. Who wouldn't have?! Years of experience at high levels securing data centers? Letters from generals and senior government officials attesting to her qualifications? Sign me up right away!
Post-Snowden, I'd start believing that Sally Smith is far more likely to be Sally Spook, an active NSA employee experienced in data center infiltration and with an impeccable cover story.
The only thing that keeps Sally Spook away from our data centers is Google's hiring processes & internal security, and is that really enough to stop a determined adversary with all the advantages of the NSA? I doubt it.
The NSA can do this. They have the resources and the time to try. The only question is if they want a mole inside Google. Hell, I'd be shocked if large internet companies (Google, Yahoo, etc.) don't have agents from foreign and domestic intelligence agencies working there right now.
Betting on a companies hiring process to catch agents of an advanced persistent attacker is betting against house money in Vegas. You aren't going to win in the long run.
It's the same reason why security through obscurity doesn't work: if you chain together 5 obfuscation layers that each keep out 80% of competent hackers, in total they probably keep out 85% or 90% of competent hackers if you're lucky, but certainly not 99.99%, because everyone who bypasses the first layer has a much higher probability of having the skills to bypass the other layers as well.
As for the internal mole, I'd imagine that any such individual's role would be highly focused. They'd be used to tackle specific target information rather than the wholesale siphoning tapped cables would provide. Aside from the simple logistic issues with the sheer amount of data they're tapping, I can't imagine how anyone could be in a physical position to do so across the entire Google network without tripping at least <i>one</i> internal safeguard?
For bulk collection, the taps enable surveillance without the possibility of detection unless the NSA screws the proverbial pooch. And if there's one thing history can tell us, it's that surveillance agencies will spend obscene amounts of money in pursuit of that undetectability. From the Project Azorian with the Glomar Explorer to the Berlin tunnels in Operation Gold, the Cold War alone proves the point.
Also, in other countries, I assume those g-men have access to those cages.
The sad fact of the matter is that we cannot trust individuals that have ever worked with these agencies, nor with the private contractors that supply them. The risk of insider attacks is too high. Equally, we cannot trust companies that employ those individuals.
If silicon valley is to recover the confidence of it's customers, it must go through the painful and heart-rending exercise of dismissing all employees with any connection whatsoever to government espionage. Many innocent people will lose their jobs, and will face the prospect of being excluded from high-tech employment in the private sector, but I cannot see any other way of regaining trust in our fundamental infrastructure.
Wouldn't it be the people that used to be blackhat and have transitioned to gray or white-hat hacking that would be the best people to provide their services for pen-testing/anti-virus writing/etc?
Is the probability of an so-called ex-virus-writer writing in exploits into the system higher than someone else?
Is their knowledge worth the chance?
Without trust, the antivirus vendor has no business whatsoever. As a result, they are (or jolly well should be) ultra-careful to earn that trust. This includes subjecting their employees to a certain degree of vetting.
In the age of cloud computing, the same relationship dynamics are observed between businesses and the cloud vendors to whom they entrust their data.
See? There it is again: Trust.
Important stuff.
From our parent: I used to work in the antivirus industry, and, as I recall, anything that even hinted at a history of hacking or virus-writing would lead to instant dismissal and black-listing (from pretty much the entire computer security industry). I imagine that the same prohibition would now apply to former government employees also.
They used the world "hacking", which I took to mean any form of hacking. We'd need the parent to respond to which one was meant, of course; but if it means any sort of hacking, from xbox modding to submitting bug and exploit reports to Google (which, how do you know if there's an exploit without trying to find it?), then hacking would include all of those people, including the people who you define as "ethical hackers".
If you're a known, aggressive and clearly unreformed cyber-saboteur, then it's pretty much a given that you shouldn't be hired to an anti-virus company since you probably are in there to commit insider attacks (I can't know for sure, I'm not in your brain) and it's reasonable to not hire you; however, if you're a tinkerer and inspector of things and dismantler of technology, then you would know how systems work and where issues are and could even be an asset, especially if you're very good at it. Depending on the author, both of those people could be seen as 'hackers'.
A number of notable, convicted hackers have done additional work (whether employment or successful entrepreneurship or both) in the computer industry (in security-related or other subfields) after conviction. Kevin Mitnick, Julian Assange -- long before WikiLeaks -- and YC's cofounder Robert Tappan Morris are among the more notable examples.
Having a spouse, kids, and a nice house in a nice neighbourhood makes any kind of anti-social behaviour that much harder to justify from a purely pragmatic, never mind ethical point of view.
I.e. young men often have nothing much to lose and act accordingly.
I'm not sure where you got that from. A large percentage of the security industry is made up of people who got their start as blackhats.
This is unfortunate--in a just world everyone doing this would be imprisoned for many years and have all their ill-gotten gains stripped from them--but a real fact. And the typical NSA software developer is certainly highly qualified and very, very smart. Going purely by business concerns, if you have a need for someone with the skill set that'd come from working for the NSA, you can't afford to pass them up just because they worked with the NSA.
You can also be sure that, even if the NSA were disbanded fully and all its employees hated so much that they could not get domestic employment anywhere, many international actors would be extremely excited to pay top dollar for their talent. And by top dollar, we're not talking piddling six figure salaries.
Now, if they decided they wanted out, well ... good luck with that in the manner you describe. I suspect that it won't be too hard, though. They deal with "Big Data" problems at a scale that few do, so being an NSA engineer likely is bound to be a similarly prestigious resume line as working for Google. Aside from the working for an evil entity part, that is, but some employers will not care as much about that.
Sometimes employers are willing to take that risk.
Do you think Ed Snowden is now more or less employable now?
Well, actually, per the article, by GCHQ. Who, as well as using the data themselves, also allows the NSA access to it.
How do you know this is the case? In the diagram submitted within the article, the box highlighted with the smiley face is labeled "GFE" for Google Front-End [1], which means it's a Google controlled server. It seems more plausible to me that the NSA compromised this target with a FISA court order rather than hacking it. And if that is true, then someone at Google did know about it, they just weren't willing to discuss it because of a legal threat.
[1] Google server names: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2007/09/googles-server-name...
Yeah, its the external facing server that is the boundary between Google's (encrypted) communication with outside systems and its internal network which doesn't use encryption.
> It seems more plausible to me that the NSA compromised this target with a FISA court order rather than hacking it.
If you read the article, the leak of documents that included the diagram indicates that:
1. The GFE server itself wasn't compromised, whether by a court order or hacking -- the unsecured communications which occur "behind" the GFE server were compromised, and
2. The entity which compromised the unsecured communications wasn't the NSA, but Britain's GCHQ. The NSA gets information from the compromised system because GCHQ allows NSA to submit search terms ("selectors") which are matched against the data GCHQ collects from tapping Google (and Yahoo!) unsecured internal comms, and then feeds the data matching the selectors back to the NSA.
I'd feel a lot better if Google bought them than say Microsoft or some other company, who'd just try to collect royalties from anyone using them, and I feel that will make things a lot worse for security on the web in the future, especially with Microsoft's long-standing relationship with the NSA.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-c...
That being said, I'm very disappointed in Larry Page's statement about encryption and quantum computers:
> Lloyd made his pitch, proposing a quantum version of Google’s search engine whereby users could make queries and receive results without Google knowing which questions were asked. The men were intrigued. But after conferring with their business manager the next day, Brin and Page informed Lloyd that his scheme went against their business plan. “They want to know everything about everybody who uses their products and services,” he joked.
It bothers me a lot that the leaders of Google would think like that, even though I knew they would because of the incentives in their business. But I just wish they found way for their business to work, so they do not have to think like that, and be more on the side of users on this issue, than they are right now.
Unless their thinking about user-privacy and security changes, we should never fully trust Google (even if they are better than the rest right now). That sort of thinking means they will never go the all the way to protect their users, which probably why you will never see OTR or ZRTP in Google's chat services. All the data collection they do will also become increasingly more irresistible to governments, especially if they keep it forever.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/10/computers-big-data...
The 2nd part makes no sense at all. Why would Google not want to know everything about you. That just goes completely against their business model. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
You're talking about security only. What about privacy? Security and privacy are not the same thing (although they overlap).
No other company has such a rapacious appetite to track and record online behaviour in one form or another - whether it's signing into your Chromebook to print to your desktop printer or using Google Analytics, Google wants to capture it all. Their vaguely-worded privacy statements tell you nothing about how they use this data, who sees it, or just how personally identifiable it is.
Take ChromeOS, the fact that you have to sign-in in with your Gmail account means potentially every activity you perform while in the OS is tracked by Google. I'm amazed at how little discussion is made of this. (I would never run ChromeOS for this reason alone.)
I've no doubt that Google takes security matters seriously. I'm not at all convinced they take privacy seriously.
Although I'm glad they have finally started serving AdSense in SSL, Google need to take ownership in their big role in keeping the internet unencrypted. If they have had a had a change of heart, that's great. But I don't trust them any more.
Are we sure about that?
Did Google know or not? Did Google participate or not?
"Google is racing to encrypt the torrents of information that flow among its data centers around the world in a bid to thwart snooping by the NSA and the intelligence agencies of foreign governments, company officials said Friday."
The phrase has that smell when used by the person denying. If an action or inaction is taken to preserve plausible deniability, it is smelly.
But when used by an observer after the fact, it just means that we have no way to know they knew, unless there is proof. So if they say they didn't know, it is a believable statement.
You speak of Google as if it were a single person and not 46,000 people, or as if the threat of a long-term federal prison sentence isn't enough to make most members of society keep absolutely quiet.
I don't see how the administration can fail to disavow them, investigate them fully, and hold their instigators accountable.
Well, the article makes the point exceptionally well; it's unclear why MUSCULAR is needed when PRISM already exists.
However as long as the interception was exclusively between overseas Google and Yahoo data centers I'm not actually sure it's even clearly criminal.
Instead I think it shows a rather stunning 'loophole' in current U.S. law and case law when you intersect a globalized Internet with laws meant to deal with national-level communications.
Frankly, this is the same feeling I experienced when it became clear how global companies are able to "nation shop" for maximum tax advantage. I didn't like seeing it then, and I don't like it here.
But although the behavior might be technically legal (thanks to the platoon of lawyers) it's certainly not in keeping with the spirit. It seems to me that oversight much become much, much more intrusive than it used to be.
Instead of writing the law and then letting NSA squirm for years until it finds loopholes that work for it, it's time to force effective oversight deep into every level.
Because what's most striking to me is that I'm not sure that even the law as it stood before 2001 would have made this behavior technically illegal. MUSCULAR couldn't have happened then, of course, but now that American data is being farmed automatically to data centers around the world....
Citation required.
> Not only that, but Google launched a high-profile effort to encrypt the communications inside and between their data centers.
When exactly was that announced? Before or after Snowden went rogue? If after, the agency had to tell the PRISM partners that they were going to be exposed if they were willing participants in hosting a back-door.
Otherwise, they only got paranoid after that fact?
I'm wondering if there is a state with a particularly restrictive privacy law that can drag Larry or Sergei to the witness stand and find out if participation is willing or unwilling.
You do know that the national security apparatus can and does force companies to lie in press releases to the public about security- and privacy-related matters? Who's to say Google isn't flat out lying to us about that? There's no legal reason they can't lie to us if our secret courts force them to.
The problem now is we can't trust even the supposed "good guys" because the government has completely tainted the well with their secret courts and gag orders on companies (while still forcing them to comply).
The first files that came out seemed to speak of direct access for the NSA into the datacenters done with the support of Google.
These speak of even more intrusive surveillance.
Personally I dont believe for a second that Google has not been fully cooperative with the needs of the American Intelligence community all the time. However Google needs a bit of good PR to ensure that they are not hit too hard with a backlash. As long as Google can maintain plausible deniability they are fine.
I dont see anything criminal that the NSA does as far as US law goes, unless they are spying on American citizens (which they are doing).
Spying in any way possible on other countries is not only legal but a bit reason for the existence of NSA, CIA etc. There is an understanding in the international community that spying may occur.
However there is also a long tradition that if someone is caught with their hand in the cookie jar, a harsh response is expected. The expulsion of diplomats, dropping trade deals, dropping mutual agreements (think US/USSR) and so on. Also the criminal persecution and interrogation of enemy agents discovered.
A couple of points to make
1) Europe has so far not really reacted much to the news. Some blabbing in the press, a bit of travel, but aside from that little has changed.
2) the biggest threat over this for Europe is not so much the disposition of troops, where and how bombs are kept etc, its industrial espionage and leverage for getting EU countries to sign deals to buy American. A good recent example is the sale of JSF. The embassies were very heavily involved in ensuring that nations in Europe bought JSF. I find it impossible to think that intelligence gathering was not offered to ensure that this took place.
That aside, let me re-make a point I keep making:
Google had no knowledge of NSA's physical compromise of their data centers. But still, they pushed harder than anyone on the whole Internet for the adoption of modern TLS with forward-secrecy; they are the world's foremost deployers of ephemeral-keyed elliptic curve cryptography and of certificate pinning, both of which ensure not only the security of the traffic running over the network cables into their data centers, but also minimize the impact of a compromised long-term encryption key or the compromise of the CA system by a state actor.
Not only that, but Google launched a high-profile effort to encrypt the communications inside and between their data centers.
I hope a couple years hindsight will put the importance of Adam Langley's work (and that of the rest of his team; he's just the best-known member of that team) at Google into sharper relief.