Isn't this the explicit purpose of the NSA, to spy on the communications of foreign governments? And aren't EU members' governments doing the same thing against the US?
> Isn't this the explicit purpose of the NSA, to spy on the communications of foreign governments?
In what deranged world-view does being "the explicit purpose" of something make it right?
(and it's not even their explicit purpose, otherwise they'd be called the International Spying Agency ...)
> And aren't EU members' governments doing the same thing against the US?
That's a childish argument. Frankly I don't care if Germany or France or whoever are spying on eachother too. An example from my work with kids, "but he's doing it tooooooo!" doesn't really fly with me, it doesn't matter, they shouldn't be doing it either, but I caught you, now clean that up.
While two EU states spying on eachother is an internal EU matter, I do wonder to what extent EU states are spying on the US. It sounds risky, though. I mean, if we catch a US spy snooping on our diplomats, we can't really throw them in Guantanamo, or anything ...
> In what deranged world-view does being "the explicit purpose" of something make it right?
That is like being shocked and horrified that animal control puts down stray dogs. People don't like to talk about it, a small number of people might be upset by it, but it is a necessary part of civilized society.
We give them our tax dollars for this explicit reason. Please go spy on other countries so that we know what is going on in the world. Congress has been approving their budget every year to continue doing it for the last 62 years.
Call it childish all you want, but every other country in the world has an intelligence service. The EU itself has INTCEN, the UN has UNIT, heck even the Vatican has SRS, that all have the same basic functions as our CIA and NSA.
Well, it _is_ their explicit purpose, or how else do you interpret their mission statement?
Other governments doing the same is exactly why the NSA and the CIA can be justified. Not having them would put the US at a serious information disadvantage.
A completely different issue is _what_ and _how much_ information gathering they should be doing. For instance, the US has been complaining about Chinese computer attacks for a long time, and it now seems that the US is at least as guilty in doing this. So the US certainly don't seem to have the moral high ground anymore.
Spying promotes stability. Having too many secrets promotes accidental armageddon. In fact, Germany is a signatory of the open skies treaty that allows military surveillance overflights.
Well yes. But we Europeans see ourselves as US allies and partners ... mostly because US tells us we are. Wanting to be informed what is going on is understandable.
So intrusion in government networks and wide interception of the civilian population communication of a countries that are stable, democracies and partners in NATO and allies in the wars US is waging comes as a somewhat hostile stuff.
US is doing too much spying right now. Too wide, too long a period, too broad. Europe has deep scars and trust issues.
In a sense US should abandon SIGINT and stick to the good old fashioned HUMINT with its allies at least. If you want documents and info there are gentler ways to obtain them.
Do you think "in a sense" that the EU nations should abandon SIGINT and stick to good old fashioned HUMINT? Or maybe a middle of the road position and just have the Five Eyes abstain from SIGINT?
The US has no partners. It has two rivals, Russia and China. It does have allies but they are not remotely equals. The legal fiction may be of equality in international law but the reality is more like the old Chinese view of the world where there was China, Chinese tributary states and rebels.
Yes. I'd be disappointed if NSA wasn't trying to spy on other nations; or if GCHQ wasn't trying to spy on other nations.
That's why they get all that tax money. If anything, we should be pleased that here are some government departments who actually manage to meet their obligations - gather a bunch of intelligence.
What other people do with that intel is perhaps disappointing.
Disregarding the national sovereignty of non-enemy combatant nations is moral because... that's what spies do?
I hear that argument a lot on HN defending state vs state spying. I never really understood the moral basis of it. Or is national security not required to operate under a moral framework?
Being in receipt of tax revenue is no measure of being a useful department. And how does it work when other countries are found spying on the US or UK? presumably this is also perfectly acceptable.
The outrage is not because NSA spies on foreign governments. The outrage is because the context of the spying.
If a diplomat get caught spying, he gets deported. If the offending country continues, then the embassy might get closed. If a non-diplomat get caught spying, he gets jailed. Those are the common tools in dealing with spies.
The outcry happens when the spying is on neutral grounds like the European Union offices, or the spying is done in intrinsic globally shared common resource like the Internet. Problem is, the previous tools are not suitable. You can't really kick out U.S. from ever enter the European Union offices as soon the U.S. is found to be spying. Nor can you isolate the U.S. from the Internet when the U.S. is found to be spying there.
Perhaps, but the U.S. has also entered into international agreements not to spy on certain diplomatic channels, though. And even if it were legal, its revelation could do more to isolate and harm U.S. foreign relations than the good that might have come from it.
Technically, the US is supposed to be allied with most of those EU member governments. Violating the security of your allies isn't exactly a friendly move.
tripzilch|12 years ago
In what deranged world-view does being "the explicit purpose" of something make it right?
(and it's not even their explicit purpose, otherwise they'd be called the International Spying Agency ...)
> And aren't EU members' governments doing the same thing against the US?
That's a childish argument. Frankly I don't care if Germany or France or whoever are spying on eachother too. An example from my work with kids, "but he's doing it tooooooo!" doesn't really fly with me, it doesn't matter, they shouldn't be doing it either, but I caught you, now clean that up.
While two EU states spying on eachother is an internal EU matter, I do wonder to what extent EU states are spying on the US. It sounds risky, though. I mean, if we catch a US spy snooping on our diplomats, we can't really throw them in Guantanamo, or anything ...
dsl|12 years ago
That is like being shocked and horrified that animal control puts down stray dogs. People don't like to talk about it, a small number of people might be upset by it, but it is a necessary part of civilized society.
We give them our tax dollars for this explicit reason. Please go spy on other countries so that we know what is going on in the world. Congress has been approving their budget every year to continue doing it for the last 62 years.
Call it childish all you want, but every other country in the world has an intelligence service. The EU itself has INTCEN, the UN has UNIT, heck even the Vatican has SRS, that all have the same basic functions as our CIA and NSA.
gnaffle|12 years ago
Other governments doing the same is exactly why the NSA and the CIA can be justified. Not having them would put the US at a serious information disadvantage.
A completely different issue is _what_ and _how much_ information gathering they should be doing. For instance, the US has been complaining about Chinese computer attacks for a long time, and it now seems that the US is at least as guilty in doing this. So the US certainly don't seem to have the moral high ground anymore.
tetrep|12 years ago
skrebbel|12 years ago
Daniel_Newby|12 years ago
unknown|12 years ago
[deleted]
venomsnake|12 years ago
So intrusion in government networks and wide interception of the civilian population communication of a countries that are stable, democracies and partners in NATO and allies in the wars US is waging comes as a somewhat hostile stuff.
US is doing too much spying right now. Too wide, too long a period, too broad. Europe has deep scars and trust issues.
In a sense US should abandon SIGINT and stick to the good old fashioned HUMINT with its allies at least. If you want documents and info there are gentler ways to obtain them.
dfc|12 years ago
barry-cotter|12 years ago
unknown|12 years ago
[deleted]
DanBC|12 years ago
That's why they get all that tax money. If anything, we should be pleased that here are some government departments who actually manage to meet their obligations - gather a bunch of intelligence.
What other people do with that intel is perhaps disappointing.
dmix|12 years ago
I hear that argument a lot on HN defending state vs state spying. I never really understood the moral basis of it. Or is national security not required to operate under a moral framework?
alistair77|12 years ago
belorn|12 years ago
If a diplomat get caught spying, he gets deported. If the offending country continues, then the embassy might get closed. If a non-diplomat get caught spying, he gets jailed. Those are the common tools in dealing with spies.
The outcry happens when the spying is on neutral grounds like the European Union offices, or the spying is done in intrinsic globally shared common resource like the Internet. Problem is, the previous tools are not suitable. You can't really kick out U.S. from ever enter the European Union offices as soon the U.S. is found to be spying. Nor can you isolate the U.S. from the Internet when the U.S. is found to be spying there.
Thus the political outcry.
maaku|12 years ago
lispm|12 years ago
uvdiv|12 years ago
stackedmidgets|12 years ago