I’m a Danish citizen. The story doesn’t really surprise me (given the news a few years back that US spy on EU MPs in Brussels by eavesdropping Belgian telcos). The worst part is the complete apathy from Danish politicians to stand up against this kind of spying and take action. It’s completely unacceptable and should be prosecuted; yet none of the centrist parties are interested in or motivated by standing up against the US and their illegal activities.
>> motivated by standing up against the US and their illegal activities.
They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor.
Here you have it, it's no secret:
Denmark opposes the creation of a "European army" to defend the E.U. from threats, Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said Friday.
Speaking at the meeting of Denmark's 2019-2020 foreign and security policy, he said: "There is no such thing as Denmark will defend itself against the U.S. The U.S. is the cornerstone of our freedom."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security.
What I don't get is why the US doesn't just ask the questions they would like to have answered. In most cases our politicians would pretty much just tell them what they need to know.
In the case of the F35 it especially make no sense, AT ALL. The selection process for a new fighter jet was so heavily skewed in favor of the F35 that other manufacturers didn't even want to bid. At no point did anyone seriously believe that any other plane was even an option.
It's my belief that letting the NSA do their spying is a move done to ensure that our own politicians cannot be held responsible for informing the US about internal affairs. As you say, they show a complete apathy towards the situation.
The current generation of politicians has an unhealthy positive view of surveillance in general, while attempting to keep the press and public out from anything they deem to be "confidential government decisions".
The main issue for EU with regard to NSA/USA, is that NSA makes no difference on data collection and USA government makes no difference in intelligence use. NSA collects all data they can and USA government uses that to maximize USA interests, no matter if it is terrorism or industrial espionage and information sharing with their US national businesses against EU. Unlike USA, EU has nothing that organized in place to match that threat.
Please let the EU develop its own standing military force independent of NATO and US. It's truly about time this happened. We need a third counterpart to China and the USA.
I'm not sure precisely when we decided that intelligence gathering wasn't a part of all diplomatic relations?
I expect my government to be spying on everyone to some degree or other, friend or foe. I have to assume the same is therefore being done to us. The US simply has more money and more resources allocated to doing so.
I know it’s not a popular opinion, but I’d like you to at least consider the possibility that spying between both allies increases peace and diplomatic cooperation.
The outcome of spying is that we know what our allies are going to do. If our intelligence verifies something our allies told us already, this process fosters trust and better relations. If our intelligence uncovers lies, we have forewarning and are not caught completely off guard.
I like both outcomes, though I can see how being spied on would feel bad. I suspect governments have come to much the same conclusion, because it seems tolerated that pretty much every embassy on earth is 50% spies. Yes, even european embassies in the US. In fact, opening new embassies in allied countries and increasing the number of staff in them is seen as a mark of friendship.
Expect the standard 'Mistakes made, Accidental access, Lessons Learned & Never happen again' response from the NSA.
And this only a mere 5 years after [1] " American spies may have snooped on Angela Merkel's mobile phone for more than ten years, according to reports in Germany."
Lessons Learned, Accidental, Never Happen Again etc etc indeed.
"An important developed nation is picking a new fighter. Let's know nothing until it's over with." is hardly good stewardship of your own nation's trust and resources. It's the NSA's job to monitor who is friends with whom so policy makers can make policy.
That's not to say the NSA should do anything they can. But it is their proper job to spy on non-Americans for America.
Lets take the Turkey case for example. For all intents and purposes, they are a close NATO ally since the Cold War. They were part of the F-35 program, where the specific electronic and radar profile are paramount to the tactical advantage of the weapon system. But Turkey decided they wanted to buy into the Russian S400 antiair system as well (given that their alternatives like Pariot is frankly quite lackluster).
Now lets put aside the potential of hidden Russian code providing telemetry back to the motherland about what is going on. Similar performance information about F-35 detections could easily be acquired through non technological means as well through human intelligence. The entire premise of the F-35 program is essentially that OpFor doens't really have great knowledge in the radar profile of what the F-35 looks like, meaning it could lead to an inefficient deployment of resources/unknown vulnerability in radar coverage.
So much of modern air war doctrine is premised on this notion, that the concern of what nation buys into what system creates systemic risk. If it's a narrow program that is intended to understand potential risk, I think it is easily justified. If it is to try to win contracts for American companies for a profit in a form of state sponsored industrial espionage a la China, I am fully against.
The problem isn't the spying, it's their duty after all. The problem is the suspected strong arming that may or may not have occurred behind the scenes.
I remember a Dutch politician that was vehemently opposed to the F35 that died in mysterious circumstances. I would normally put this on coincidences but when the stakes are that high I won't go for Ockham razor first.
So under this data sharing agreement where the US is sharing data with them, would you say the Danish FE would be failing at their job if they weren't using this system to target American politicians?
The article lays out the expectations (and law) of the Danes re hosting the NSA espionage center and ground rules about its non-use against Danish interests, which sound pretty modest.
While perversion of national-security spying for generic & narrow commercial gain is concerning, arms deals are a hybrid case. To the extent a case involves government-on-government spying, it's hard for me to get angry. I tend to see it as a rare horizontal form of transparency/accountability among entities that often have too few checks on their corruption & skulduggery.
Even between friendly governments, maybe friends that spy on each other achieve an even greater mutual trust - an assurance there's nothing being planned internally that conflicts with the claims made via official channels.
"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" is a shitty principle when hypocritically deployed by the powerful against private people.
But doesn't it kind of make sense when applied to governments? What right-to-privacy, exactly, does a government have against its citizens or allies?
When both allies were spying on each other, then sure, you can go "hehe look at us sillies xD".
But when it's just one party doing the spying, it violates trust, not builds it, as the US has learned.
It's hard to measure how much the Snowden revelations have contributed to the distancing of US allies, since there was also someone else who contributed greatly to the ongoing political isolation of the US, but it certainly didn't help build trust.
It's super ironic various EU government parts want to introduce encryption backdoors "for the good guys" (sic), without understanding they'll be opening themselves up to more scenarios like this. :/
I can't say I'm surprised they spied on their allies, it's a US spy agency after all. It does underline the fact that countries within the EU should move away from US deals for industries their member states compete in. The US simply cannot be trusted.
There's no way the Pentagon actually cares what planes Denmark buys, so some Lockheed executive probably asked a congressman to do it at some DC luncheon, and then the congressman made a bunch of noise at the Pentagon, and somebody at the Pentagon made a bunch of noise at the NSA, and the NSA had some Georgetown flunky query a database with some names and email addresses and write a report.
The question is: Did the NSA spy on Danish companies for political reasons or industrial espionage reasons?
I think the former is to be expected while the latter is not.
As an aside.. say the NSA finds out some great industrial espionage info.. how do they actually give the information to the correct US companies? Drop a USB stick in front of the CEOs door?
In this post-Snowden revelations world isn't it wise to assume the NSA is spying on absolutely everything and everyone they possibly can with the goal of strategic, military and financial gain of the USA?
I mean.... that's their job, and we know they have the tools to do it.
It's not often you read headlines about the NSA actually doing what they're meant to do. I'm glad to hear they still find time for real work, not just spying on everybody's dick pics.
[+] [-] hestefisk|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thefounder|5 years ago|reply
They know they can't do much to stand up against US. I may be wrong but I think Denmark's security is based on US millitary support through NATO. This applies to most EU countries. Russia is too threatening to upset your security guarantor.
Here you have it, it's no secret:
Denmark opposes the creation of a "European army" to defend the E.U. from threats, Defense Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said Friday.
Speaking at the meeting of Denmark's 2019-2020 foreign and security policy, he said: "There is no such thing as Denmark will defend itself against the U.S. The U.S. is the cornerstone of our freedom."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Tuesday called for creating a European Union army, stressing that Europeans can no longer merely rely on the U.S. for their security.
[+] [-] mrweasel|5 years ago|reply
In the case of the F35 it especially make no sense, AT ALL. The selection process for a new fighter jet was so heavily skewed in favor of the F35 that other manufacturers didn't even want to bid. At no point did anyone seriously believe that any other plane was even an option.
It's my belief that letting the NSA do their spying is a move done to ensure that our own politicians cannot be held responsible for informing the US about internal affairs. As you say, they show a complete apathy towards the situation.
The current generation of politicians has an unhealthy positive view of surveillance in general, while attempting to keep the press and public out from anything they deem to be "confidential government decisions".
[+] [-] msh|5 years ago|reply
If for example russia wanted greenland, I dont feel confident that any other of our allies would put soldiers on the ground to defend it.
[+] [-] throwaway4good|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guest3456780|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lenkite|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ntrails|5 years ago|reply
I expect my government to be spying on everyone to some degree or other, friend or foe. I have to assume the same is therefore being done to us. The US simply has more money and more resources allocated to doing so.
[+] [-] somesortofsystm|5 years ago|reply
An under-utilized protest mechanism exists in the fact that citizenships can change. Most modern republics allow for this.
>It’s completely unacceptable and should be prosecuted
It cannot happen until and unless citizens inform themselves, and most of all: strive to remain informed.
[+] [-] mkroman|5 years ago|reply
[1]: https://ulovliglogning.dk/en/
[+] [-] smeeth|5 years ago|reply
The outcome of spying is that we know what our allies are going to do. If our intelligence verifies something our allies told us already, this process fosters trust and better relations. If our intelligence uncovers lies, we have forewarning and are not caught completely off guard.
I like both outcomes, though I can see how being spied on would feel bad. I suspect governments have come to much the same conclusion, because it seems tolerated that pretty much every embassy on earth is 50% spies. Yes, even european embassies in the US. In fact, opening new embassies in allied countries and increasing the number of staff in them is seen as a mark of friendship.
[+] [-] Pick-A-Hill2019|5 years ago|reply
And this only a mere 5 years after [1] " American spies may have snooped on Angela Merkel's mobile phone for more than ten years, according to reports in Germany."
Lessons Learned, Accidental, Never Happen Again etc etc indeed.
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nsa-allegati...
[+] [-] voodootrucker|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ARandomerDude|5 years ago|reply
"An important developed nation is picking a new fighter. Let's know nothing until it's over with." is hardly good stewardship of your own nation's trust and resources. It's the NSA's job to monitor who is friends with whom so policy makers can make policy.
That's not to say the NSA should do anything they can. But it is their proper job to spy on non-Americans for America.
[+] [-] grey-area|5 years ago|reply
Also spies should not be used for the benefit of corporations (in this case arms dealers) under cover of ‘national security’.
[+] [-] skwb|5 years ago|reply
Lets take the Turkey case for example. For all intents and purposes, they are a close NATO ally since the Cold War. They were part of the F-35 program, where the specific electronic and radar profile are paramount to the tactical advantage of the weapon system. But Turkey decided they wanted to buy into the Russian S400 antiair system as well (given that their alternatives like Pariot is frankly quite lackluster).
Now lets put aside the potential of hidden Russian code providing telemetry back to the motherland about what is going on. Similar performance information about F-35 detections could easily be acquired through non technological means as well through human intelligence. The entire premise of the F-35 program is essentially that OpFor doens't really have great knowledge in the radar profile of what the F-35 looks like, meaning it could lead to an inefficient deployment of resources/unknown vulnerability in radar coverage.
So much of modern air war doctrine is premised on this notion, that the concern of what nation buys into what system creates systemic risk. If it's a narrow program that is intended to understand potential risk, I think it is easily justified. If it is to try to win contracts for American companies for a profit in a form of state sponsored industrial espionage a la China, I am fully against.
[+] [-] jmnicolas|5 years ago|reply
I remember a Dutch politician that was vehemently opposed to the F35 that died in mysterious circumstances. I would normally put this on coincidences but when the stakes are that high I won't go for Ockham razor first.
[+] [-] kjaftaedi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fulafel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blackrock|5 years ago|reply
Got it.
So you don’t mind if other countries spy on America, right?
[+] [-] simonebrunozzi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] christkv|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] martin_bech|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gojomo|5 years ago|reply
While perversion of national-security spying for generic & narrow commercial gain is concerning, arms deals are a hybrid case. To the extent a case involves government-on-government spying, it's hard for me to get angry. I tend to see it as a rare horizontal form of transparency/accountability among entities that often have too few checks on their corruption & skulduggery.
Even between friendly governments, maybe friends that spy on each other achieve an even greater mutual trust - an assurance there's nothing being planned internally that conflicts with the claims made via official channels.
"If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" is a shitty principle when hypocritically deployed by the powerful against private people.
But doesn't it kind of make sense when applied to governments? What right-to-privacy, exactly, does a government have against its citizens or allies?
[+] [-] chmod775|5 years ago|reply
But when it's just one party doing the spying, it violates trust, not builds it, as the US has learned.
It's hard to measure how much the Snowden revelations have contributed to the distancing of US allies, since there was also someone else who contributed greatly to the ongoing political isolation of the US, but it certainly didn't help build trust.
[+] [-] justinclift|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] closeparen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PradeetPatel|5 years ago|reply
If not, do you think having one would safeguard the sovereignty and security of the average Internet user?
[+] [-] jeroenhd|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koheripbal|5 years ago|reply
In each nation there are elements of the enemy in them - some that your allied head of state may not even be aware of.
[+] [-] NumberCruncher|5 years ago|reply
Danish politician about having cheap flying taxis by 2030, we only have to give up our privacy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25068820
All lies and deception...
[+] [-] tjbiddle|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arcticbull|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JKCalhoun|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bboygravity|5 years ago|reply
News today: NSA knows something about someone. *1000
[+] [-] phobosanomaly|5 years ago|reply
A perfectly banal waste of taxpayer dollars.
[+] [-] Tangokat|5 years ago|reply
I think the former is to be expected while the latter is not.
As an aside.. say the NSA finds out some great industrial espionage info.. how do they actually give the information to the correct US companies? Drop a USB stick in front of the CEOs door?
[+] [-] grecy|5 years ago|reply
I mean.... that's their job, and we know they have the tools to do it.
[+] [-] bigbubba|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aussiegreenie|5 years ago|reply
NSA is not doing much more than FB/Google does every day.
[+] [-] Tepix|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awaythrows|5 years ago|reply
https://www.nsa.gov/what-we-do/
[+] [-] onetimemanytime|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trophycase|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cm2187|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aperocky|5 years ago|reply
It's literally an expense they don't need.