This all boils down to the question of how to reign in the administrative state, and the problem here is that no one really wants to reign it in, they want to control it and point it in the direction they prefer, that is, they want an extra-judicial, extra-legislative source of power to exist, but just not do any of the things they don't like.
But I don't think this is possible, once you have an administrative state, of course it's going to monitor and spy on everyone, it's going to arrest people and not give them fair trials (hello Assange), it's going to try to manipulate democratic processes and it's going to crush any force that it perceives as a threat to its own survival. In short, it will have a mind of its own, with its own goals, and by definition it will not be bound by legislative or judicial restraints.
Do you think it would be fair to say that countries that operate in this way are no longer democracies?
I have my own thoughts on the matter but I'm curious based on this assessment of yours what other people think about the implications of the situation.
I'm so glad your government is helping to keep us safe!
To express my gratitude I'll help boost your economy with some ad revenue today and aid the good fight. The profits should trickle down to you eventually.
On a more serious note, I think (possibly in my naive ignorance) the geopolitical implications are quite different. I have the impression that American cultural influence has become increasingly prevalent throughout Europe, since of course WO2 and especially since the dawn of the internet. A non-negligible part reads and writes more English than their native language, and the majority consumes mostly US media; for entertainment at least [citation needed].
This is one of many reasons leading me to believe that US-EU interests and popular opinions are even more aligned relative to other potential geopolitical/economical US "adversaries" than is obvious already (modulo the rep hit from the last 4 years). This may be only tangentially related to what you're saying, but I wonder whether the degree of spying on European countries and vice-versa is more of a low-profile intel maintenance thing as opposed to full-blown strategic warfare. I.e. I'm not sure to what extent I should consider this to be problematic.
> Listen Europe, this is good spying though. Not Huawei 5G spying.
IMHO there is a difference between the two.
In one case you (hopefully) have good, secure infrastructure for a society's general needs. In the other you (potentially) have fragile infrastructure that may not be under your control.
I personally don't have too much of a problem with governments doing targeted operations at certain individuals, especially if they are important members of other governments.
Doing large-scale dragnets that catch innocent people who pose no risk or do not have any strategic/tactical value to your goals is something else. (Which the NSA has been guilty of doing in the past.)
I still wonder, what happens if other countries like China, Russia spy on other governments and are disclosed? They will be embargoed by US. But why there is nothing happens when US spying other countries? Because US does it with good manner and good intention?
Because nothing happens when you spy on your satellite states. 40 years ago people said it was wrong to have Soviet satellite states in Europe, and they seemed right. Only that they just meant the "Soviet" part of the sentence.
Spying among allies has more impact than you think. There are similar levels of public outrage, but obviously you can't boycot allies without damaging relations more. So measures won't be pubically visual. But it will lead to a degraded confidence and all kinds of cooperation will be reduced and cold shouldering will happen. However subtle and only when a countries own interest is not hurt too much.
> But why there is nothing happens when US spying other countries? Because US does it with good manner and good intention?
The best way to understand the relationship between the US and Europe is that it is an American Empire in all but name. The provinces of the Empire have a lot of autonomy, but in matters of defense and security they are tied to the Empire.
It is one thing that intelligence services is monitoring specific actions that are important to national security. However, along the way, Lockheed Martin and friends and the jobs provided by them became national security. These two things are important to keep separate to understand the debate that is going on here.
So this is Danish intelligence services helping Boeing securing contracts against Airbus and Saab. This is rightfully causing some much needed debate, even if it was a surprise to approximately no one.
Part of the context here is that Denmark like so many small European companies allowed the American military industrial complex to infiltrate it's military and security services to the point where it cannot actually operate independently an hence have to say yes when this kind of request comes in they cannot really refuse.
And this is by design as the US military "tech transfer" projects like the JSF/F-35 is explicitly designed to lock recipients into an bond with the US military/strategic establishment.
I'm unsure what of this information is new. It sounds like the EU just found nine sources to confirm one aspect of the Snowden leak? Were people ever really doubting the authenticity of those documents? I'm sure some people have, but it never seemed like a common realistic belief.
It wouldn't surprise me if every military intelligence organization on the planet was now secretly allied and colluding against the common enemy, the public interest.
And not just the NSA. Despite their feigned outrage every time stuff like this hits the news, both Germany and France actively spy on US government and industry all the time. Every nation spies on every other nation, friend or foe, to look out for their own national interests.
> Bernard Squarcini, head of the Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI) intelligence service until last year, told French daily Le Figaro he was “astonished” when Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said he was "deeply shocked" by the claims.
> “I am amazed by such disconcerting naiveté,” he said in the interview. “You’d almost think our politicians don’t bother to read the reports they get from the intelligence services.”
> “The French intelligence services know full well that all countries, whether or not they are allies in the fight against terrorism, spy on each other all the time,” he said.
> “The Americans spy on French commercial and industrial interests, and we do the same to them because it’s in the national interest to protect our companies.”
> “There was nothing of any real surprise in this report,” he added. “No one is fooled.”
> The Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, reportedly monitored email addresses at the White House with a list of some 4,000 selector keywords between 1998 and 2006. Other targets included the US Department of State and Department of Treasury, as well as a number of defense agencies including the US Air Force and the Marine Corps, and the NASA space agency.
US is outside and can spy whatever they want, Denmark on the other way is "in theory" part of the European-Family, if a "friend" sells you out to someone else, who is the traitor?
I spoke to someone in intelligence and apparently for a while, France spied quite a bit on the US. Spying on allies is not as uncommon or taboo as most others would think it is.
You just assume that every electronic communication is dragneted now. Your phone, your car radio's bluetooth radio, toll transponder, alpr, everything.
What I like about the signals-intelligence-only focus is that I can leave my phone at home, hop on an ebike with a legally mandated helmet obscuring my face from cameras, and I'm completely invisible to the state. I just don't exist. Unlike East Germany there's no HUMINT apparatus in the west or in China.
> German media later reported that the NSA had provided German intelligence services with spying software in exchange for data sharing. Consequently, the BND and it domestic intelligence couterpart, called the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), were accused of assisting the NSA in its global surveillance programs.
> ...
> More than two-thirds of all 3,300 targets monitored by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) foreign intelligence service were on diplomatic representations of EU and NATO member states around the world, according to a parliamentary committee report seen by German news agency dpa.
> The report found a "low two-digit number of people" - including heads of state and government, ministers and members of their offices and military institutions - were spied on until October 2013. That same year, Chancellor Angela Merkel had complained to US President Barack Obama that spying on friends was "not done."
> The BND was also found to have spied on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the aviation and space industries, as well as the arms trade, transport, media and consultancy.
The truth is that allies spy on each other all the time, it's not just normal but prudent to do so.
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if at the same time NSA had for instance a concurrent program running along with for instance Germany (or any other EU country for that matter) to spy any other european countries, including Danemark.
Bellum omnium contra omnes, "the war of all against all".
The system as currently designed in most Western democracies (Denmark and the USA included) puts the intelligence agencies under the oversight of elected officials. You can't put intelligence operations to a public referendum without revealing critical information. So the people trust their elected officials to be the select few who get to see what is going on and keep a secret, but also act in the country's interest by directing the intelligence operations through policy making and funding decisions.
The scandal here isn't that the NSA is spying on people, that is their job; everyone should expect every government other than their own to spy on them if they can. So then the scandal must be that the FE were helping spy on their allies. If the Danish people don't like this operation they should vote for new politicians. But don't be surprised when the new politicians get into office, have a discussion with the FE about why they cooperated with the NSA, and then choose to continue the activity (which the public won't discover for another decade). Denmark gets a benefit from it too. They open the doors to the NSA, and the NSA uses some capabilities that a smaller organization like the FE doesn't have. Then the NSA shares information back to the FE. Denmark's politicians end up better informed due to this partnership and are less likely to be caught off guard in negotiations with their neighbors.
Remember, every other country is spying on Denmark as well. Don't believe for a second that when Germany (or whomever) complains about their Prime Minister's phone being tapped that they've never tried to intercept communications from other countries. That's all just posturing; this is a giant stone throwing competition in a giant glass house. In public, every politician from every country is throwing accusations and hoping they aren't next up to have a whistleblower reveal what they are doing. No politician is going to stop their country's spying because it puts them at a disadvantage. They are elected to protect their country's interests.
Tl;dr: the only surprising thing here is that the public found out, this isn't going to stop even if you elect new politicians because this is what they are elected to do.
I kind of get tehe argument, but at the same time my thinfoil hat says, that newly elected officials during talk with FE get the message "we will leak and/or fabricate your xyz, if you make a move against us".
[+] [-] rsj_hn|4 years ago|reply
But I don't think this is possible, once you have an administrative state, of course it's going to monitor and spy on everyone, it's going to arrest people and not give them fair trials (hello Assange), it's going to try to manipulate democratic processes and it's going to crush any force that it perceives as a threat to its own survival. In short, it will have a mind of its own, with its own goals, and by definition it will not be bound by legislative or judicial restraints.
[+] [-] estomagordo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dundarious|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|4 years ago|reply
I have my own thoughts on the matter but I'm curious based on this assessment of yours what other people think about the implications of the situation.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] arthur_sav|4 years ago|reply
Um... no. Why "of course".
[+] [-] lucian1900|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcbro141|4 years ago|reply
Just like American torture is good torture, because we only torture the bad guys.
[+] [-] correcthorse123|4 years ago|reply
To express my gratitude I'll help boost your economy with some ad revenue today and aid the good fight. The profits should trickle down to you eventually.
On a more serious note, I think (possibly in my naive ignorance) the geopolitical implications are quite different. I have the impression that American cultural influence has become increasingly prevalent throughout Europe, since of course WO2 and especially since the dawn of the internet. A non-negligible part reads and writes more English than their native language, and the majority consumes mostly US media; for entertainment at least [citation needed].
This is one of many reasons leading me to believe that US-EU interests and popular opinions are even more aligned relative to other potential geopolitical/economical US "adversaries" than is obvious already (modulo the rep hit from the last 4 years). This may be only tangentially related to what you're saying, but I wonder whether the degree of spying on European countries and vice-versa is more of a low-profile intel maintenance thing as opposed to full-blown strategic warfare. I.e. I'm not sure to what extent I should consider this to be problematic.
[+] [-] quyleanh|4 years ago|reply
Are you sure American guys only torture the bad guys?
[+] [-] throw0101a|4 years ago|reply
IMHO there is a difference between the two.
In one case you (hopefully) have good, secure infrastructure for a society's general needs. In the other you (potentially) have fragile infrastructure that may not be under your control.
I personally don't have too much of a problem with governments doing targeted operations at certain individuals, especially if they are important members of other governments.
Doing large-scale dragnets that catch innocent people who pose no risk or do not have any strategic/tactical value to your goals is something else. (Which the NSA has been guilty of doing in the past.)
[+] [-] nix23|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justicezyx|4 years ago|reply
Huawei spying is a scam. No evidence whatsoever.
This is reality. Confirmed multiple times and corroborated.
Let's not drag a perfect fine private company to the same level of shadiness of the most corrupted national government.
[+] [-] quyleanh|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] severino|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] f38zf5vdt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woofcat|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Permit|4 years ago|reply
Does this happen? Has China faced sanctions after spying on US citizens or stealing trade secrets? Has Russia?
[+] [-] planck01|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kalleboo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|4 years ago|reply
The best way to understand the relationship between the US and Europe is that it is an American Empire in all but name. The provinces of the Empire have a lot of autonomy, but in matters of defense and security they are tied to the Empire.
If you realize that, a lot of things make sense.
[+] [-] rsj_hn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xorcist|4 years ago|reply
So this is Danish intelligence services helping Boeing securing contracts against Airbus and Saab. This is rightfully causing some much needed debate, even if it was a surprise to approximately no one.
[+] [-] Stranger43|4 years ago|reply
And this is by design as the US military "tech transfer" projects like the JSF/F-35 is explicitly designed to lock recipients into an bond with the US military/strategic establishment.
[+] [-] boomboomsubban|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] synquid|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SiempreViernes|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] redis_mlc|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] BombNullIsland|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahmedalsudani|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxden|4 years ago|reply
https://www.theverge.com/2015/4/24/8489477/bnd-nsa-informati...
[+] [-] dralley|4 years ago|reply
https://www.france24.com/en/20131024-nsa-france-spying-squar...
> Bernard Squarcini, head of the Direction Centrale du Renseignement Intérieur (DCRI) intelligence service until last year, told French daily Le Figaro he was “astonished” when Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said he was "deeply shocked" by the claims.
> “I am amazed by such disconcerting naiveté,” he said in the interview. “You’d almost think our politicians don’t bother to read the reports they get from the intelligence services.”
> “The French intelligence services know full well that all countries, whether or not they are allies in the fight against terrorism, spy on each other all the time,” he said.
> “The Americans spy on French commercial and industrial interests, and we do the same to them because it’s in the national interest to protect our companies.”
> “There was nothing of any real surprise in this report,” he added. “No one is fooled.”
https://www.dw.com/en/german-intelligence-spied-on-white-hou...
> The Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, reportedly monitored email addresses at the White House with a list of some 4,000 selector keywords between 1998 and 2006. Other targets included the US Department of State and Department of Treasury, as well as a number of defense agencies including the US Air Force and the Marine Corps, and the NASA space agency.
[+] [-] chalst|4 years ago|reply
> The FE also cooperated with the NSA on spying operations against the US government itself.
[+] [-] AegirLeet|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yummybear|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nix23|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Semaphor|4 years ago|reply
And I would say it had a decent part in the Anti-USA sentiment in Germany.
[+] [-] wyxuan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peteretep|4 years ago|reply
Denmark is in Nine Eyes, so they’ll happily sell out members of Fourteen Eyes (like Germany) to get closer into the circle.
[+] [-] BombNullIsland|4 years ago|reply
What I like about the signals-intelligence-only focus is that I can leave my phone at home, hop on an ebike with a legally mandated helmet obscuring my face from cameras, and I'm completely invisible to the state. I just don't exist. Unlike East Germany there's no HUMINT apparatus in the west or in China.
[+] [-] dralley|4 years ago|reply
https://www.dw.com/en/parliamentary-report-finds-spying-by-b...
> German media later reported that the NSA had provided German intelligence services with spying software in exchange for data sharing. Consequently, the BND and it domestic intelligence couterpart, called the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), were accused of assisting the NSA in its global surveillance programs.
> ...
> More than two-thirds of all 3,300 targets monitored by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) foreign intelligence service were on diplomatic representations of EU and NATO member states around the world, according to a parliamentary committee report seen by German news agency dpa.
> The report found a "low two-digit number of people" - including heads of state and government, ministers and members of their offices and military institutions - were spied on until October 2013. That same year, Chancellor Angela Merkel had complained to US President Barack Obama that spying on friends was "not done."
> The BND was also found to have spied on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the aviation and space industries, as well as the arms trade, transport, media and consultancy.
The truth is that allies spy on each other all the time, it's not just normal but prudent to do so.
[+] [-] peoplefromibiza|4 years ago|reply
https://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/zi1v0u/south-park-...
/s
[+] [-] JI00912|4 years ago|reply
It's like... BREAKING NEWS: McDonald's found selling burgers!
[+] [-] doe88|4 years ago|reply
Bellum omnium contra omnes, "the war of all against all".
[+] [-] jmartinpetersen|4 years ago|reply
It’s all about plausible deniability. No matter how implausible it is.
The current spin from other countries being outraged begs the question: how are you collaborating with the NSA?
[+] [-] Black101|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] parsimo2010|4 years ago|reply
The scandal here isn't that the NSA is spying on people, that is their job; everyone should expect every government other than their own to spy on them if they can. So then the scandal must be that the FE were helping spy on their allies. If the Danish people don't like this operation they should vote for new politicians. But don't be surprised when the new politicians get into office, have a discussion with the FE about why they cooperated with the NSA, and then choose to continue the activity (which the public won't discover for another decade). Denmark gets a benefit from it too. They open the doors to the NSA, and the NSA uses some capabilities that a smaller organization like the FE doesn't have. Then the NSA shares information back to the FE. Denmark's politicians end up better informed due to this partnership and are less likely to be caught off guard in negotiations with their neighbors.
Remember, every other country is spying on Denmark as well. Don't believe for a second that when Germany (or whomever) complains about their Prime Minister's phone being tapped that they've never tried to intercept communications from other countries. That's all just posturing; this is a giant stone throwing competition in a giant glass house. In public, every politician from every country is throwing accusations and hoping they aren't next up to have a whistleblower reveal what they are doing. No politician is going to stop their country's spying because it puts them at a disadvantage. They are elected to protect their country's interests.
Tl;dr: the only surprising thing here is that the public found out, this isn't going to stop even if you elect new politicians because this is what they are elected to do.
[+] [-] nytgop77|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1cvmask|4 years ago|reply
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/11/nsa-americans-...
[+] [-] markus_zhang|4 years ago|reply
I think they still prefer that option and won't change their stance in the near future.