|
Kid Gloves posted:This was originally reported by Der Spiegel based on their own research. I'm not finding anything that links this to Greenwald or Snowden's leaks. This is about as problematic as the NYT doing research to find out that Germany is tapping Obama's phone. Can you point out the part where Snowden or Greenwald engandered U.S. interests here or did you mean to make that post with regard to some other leak that isn't represented on this page? I thought I read in either the Globe and Mail or CBC News that it was based off of Snowden leaks. If it isn't even based on that then it's Der Spiegel being poo poo again. Tezzor posted:Other people have civil liberties too. I see no moral reason to write off the civil and fair economic rights of people if they exist outside our borders and are of no conceivable threat to us. Security agencies are supposed to work for security, not operate as the petty functionaries of economic imperialism, and as a US citizen I fully support hurting these "interests." Won't someone think of Angela Merkel's civil liberties? Torpor posted:But what security is gained from spying on Merkel? I mean, sure, they are supposed to find out what other countries are doing, but "national security" can't exactly be used as a justification here. I'm not sure why. None of us are privy as to why they're doing it, and assuming that it's for "economic imperialism pursuant to American hegemony" seems to be based on precisely as much information as saying "it's because there was a national security threat that required tapping the phone lines of German politicians including the Chancellor." That being said, I don't really see why it can't be justified with national security. Are heads of state automatically off limits for being monitored? If not, which ones are okay and which one's aren't? If they aren't allowed to be monitored then that's a pretty huge hole in intelligence operations particularly involving exceptionally unstable borderline failed states. When discussing international intelligence operations you should go in assuming that everyone is spying on literally everyone they possibly can. That's how the game has been played since modern intelligence became a thing at the turn of the 20th century. I personally find people expressing indignation over the fact that the US is in fact spying on people to be naive at best and dangerous at worst. And if all this is coming from Snowden documents, I fail to see how it meshes with the whole "We're defenders of civil liberties" drum that he and his supporters have been beating if the majority of his leaks from this point onward are obviously only leaked to sow discord amongst its allies and flip the bird at the US.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 03:53 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 23:04 |
|
Fojar38 posted:So I'm not particularly impressed with Snowden and Greenwald because they seem to be going beyond their self-appointed mandate of protecting civil liberties if they're also leaking US Intelligence operations including spying on other countries, also known as "that thing that security and intelligence agencies are supposed to do." Regardless of the veracity of the claims it strikes me as being done not because of the ideology that they and their supporters repeatedly espouse but rather out of petty spite and a desire to hurt US interests even if they're irrelevant to civil liberties. From a purely cold blooded economic standpoint, surely investing billions of dollars into spying on the EU to steal their technology and get a leg up in our trade negotiations while our infrastructure, education, and research institutions fall apart because the government literally won't pay its bills is "loving A brilliant". Also it's silly to pretend that these issues are purely American issues. These are global times, and the struggles against the police states of the world are also global. Foreign powers can bring a lot of pressure to bear by pointing out America's glaring hypocrisy on the issues of surveillance and espionage; even if that criticism (from China or Russia for example) is itself hypocritical and self-serving. Doing away with whatever moral high ground America has left on these issues is a crucial strategic move for anti-Panopticon advocates. Finally, from an analytical standpoint, what the gently caress are "US Interests"? Was there a plebiscite? Who gets to define what those are?
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 03:57 |
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:From a purely cold blooded economic standpoint, surely investing billions of dollars into spying on the EU to steal their technology and get a leg up in our trade negotiations while our infrastructure, education, and research institutions fall apart because the government literally won't pay its bills is "loving A brilliant". I'm with you all the way as far as the US' domestic situation is concerned. There is definitely poo poo there that needs to be fixed badly. That being said, I don't see why that means that the US should stop its intelligence programs, particularly when those programs are in fact necessary. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Finally, from an analytical standpoint, what the gently caress are "US Interests"? Was there a plebiscite? Who gets to define what those are? Uh, I would assume that the US gets to define what its interests are.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 04:02 |
|
But nations (even governments!) aren't unitary entities, despite how much we pretend otherwise by claiming there are such things as "national interests". There are myriad internal interests, especially when it comes to economics and trade. Who gets to define which of those interests are definitive? E. What is necessary about spying on Merkel? What do you think might happen if we didn't? It doesn't seem "necessary" at all, to me. It's not like they could nuke us, or attack us. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Oct 24, 2013 |
# ? Oct 24, 2013 04:09 |
|
Fojar38 posted:I'm not sure why. None of us are privy as to why they're doing it, and assuming that it's for "economic imperialism pursuant to American hegemony" seems to be based on precisely as much information as saying "it's because there was a national security threat that required tapping the phone lines of German politicians including the Chancellor." You've created a false dichotomy. There is nothing necessary about spying on anyone. The cold war is over, the future of the human race isn't at stake anymore. Give me one scenario, however outlandish you want make it, that would justify the current American intelligence industry. In short, WHY is the NSA justified spying on ANYONE?
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 05:43 |
|
You don't need to have a nuclear arsenal or even the capability to engage in a military confrontation with the United States in order to be a potential security risk. The September 11 attacks seems to have proven that, even if that was the result of administrative incompetence rather than a simple intelligence failure. Again, I can't answer why Merkel might be listened in on. We don't even know if that's actually true or not yet. But that's because I don't have the information or perspective that the various intelligence agencies under discussion have, not because there is no possible reason whatsoever. If I'm allowed to give outlandish, Tom Clancy-esque examples then for all we know there might be a suspicious individual or company or organization using another organization as a front that happens to contribute to Merkel's government in some way, likely without her awareness. I understand that the world is much stabler now than during the Cold War but that doesn't mean that it'll be stable forever, nor does it mean that there are no threats to the US or their allies now, nor does it mean that it stays stable on its own without any intervention or manipulation from the very organizations being decried.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 05:58 |
|
In your Tom Clancy scenario, you are making the mistake of assuming that the NSA ISN'T the shadowy organization. Why do you assume that the US Government has your best interests at heart? Or that any individual has put the "stability" of the US above their personal short-term gain? Politicians have repeatedly demonstrated they are selfish and do what they do because they are paid to, why would the NSA be different?
ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Oct 24, 2013 |
# ? Oct 24, 2013 06:07 |
|
Fojar38 posted:Won't someone think of Angela Merkel's civil liberties? It's not just Angela Merkel, although you knew that. It is hundreds of millions of peaceful, decent people, mostly in allied countries. It is businesses with no ties to terrorism. And yes, it is Angela Merkel. I have no doubt that if it was leaked that some other nation was breaking into Barack Obama's communications the general consensus would be that this was a potentially dangerous state of affairs against the spirit of diplomatic engagement and the offending nation should be criticized for it at the very least. I also have a very difficult time believing that anyone would denounce the leaker of this information as some hypocritical, conniving rabble-rouser. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Oct 24, 2013 |
# ? Oct 24, 2013 06:10 |
|
Powercrazy posted:In your Tom Clancy scenario, you are making the mistake of assuming that the NSA ISN'T the shadowy organization. Why do you assume that the US Government has your best interests at heart? Or that any individual has put the "stability" of the US above their personal short-term gain? Politicians have repeatedly demonstrated they are selfish and do what they do because they are paid to, why would the NSA be different? I don't assume that, I assume that they have the best interests of the US at heart. I am well aware however that I occupy a somewhat unique position on these forums in that I believe that the interests of the United States are beneficial to more people in the world than the interests of other nations of similar power and particular organizations who wish to do people harm for no reason aside from ideology. That being said, it should also be pointed out that the NSA isn't a monolithic hive mind organization headed by King Obama. I don't trust individuals to put stability over their own personal gain, but that's irrelevant because this isn't an individual we're talking about. It's not even a small group of individuals. It's a nation.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 06:32 |
|
The NSA ISN'T a nation, it is an organization that is hiding it's actions from the democractic representatives of this nation, and further, that organization is made of individual's of varying accountability, and precious little oversight. We can only trust it's intentions are what it says they are. But, without transparency, there can be no trust. Keith Alexander might as well declare martial law "for our own protection" of course, and rebuke anyone who doubts him with the same nebulous claims of "national security." As for US Hegemony being preferable or even approaching Utilitarianism I suggest you take an Ethics 101 class as well as learn some Post WW2 US History.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 07:32 |
|
Powercrazy posted:The NSA ISN'T a nation, it is an organization that is hiding it's actions from the democractic representatives of this nation, and further, that organization is made of individual's of varying accountability, and precious little oversight. We can only trust it's intentions are what it says they are. But, without transparency, there can be no trust. Keith Alexander might as well declare martial law "for our own protection" of course, and rebuke anyone who doubts him with the same nebulous claims of "national security." It's hiding its actions because that is precisely what it is supposed to do. Hide it's actions, be discreet, and do stuff in the background that almost nobody is aware of. That is the entire point of intelligence. Transparency defeats the entire point of it existing. I agree that there should be oversight, but people on this forum seem to interpret "oversight" as "Everyone should be able to see what they're doing and judge them accordingly." They may as well not even exist then. At some point people are going to have to acknowledge that there are things that they shouldn't know and that the world is a better place because they don't know them. And I find US Hegemony preferable because the alternatives are all several magnitudes worse. I don't really get all that upset about the US doing unethical things because at the very least the core ideology of the Americans and a world that is dominated by the United States is one that I can live in and be happy. I can't say the same for most other nations that have challenged the US in the past. I guess you could say that I think that even if the US does bad things for the sake of it's interests, I consider that to be for the greater good. Usually. quote:As for US Hegemony being preferable or even approaching Utilitarianism I suggest you take an Ethics 101 class as well as learn some Post WW2 US History. Just because I interpret things differently from you doesn't make me ignorant. I think that this forum and many people in this thread have a serious perspective problem and don't realize just how good they have it as a result of US dominance in world affairs. This is getting sidetracked though. Snowden and Greenwald and whatnot were purportedly doing what they were doing for the sake of civil liberties in the US and abroad. Leaking details regarding US intelligence operations in Europe and elsewhere goes beyond that mandate as such intelligence operations are a key part of international affairs and the current international order. If these leaks are even coming from them. It's possible that they aren't and "dismantling the Anglo-American Capitalist hegemony!" is something that publications such as Der Spiegel and D&D posters are thrusting upon them because they have an axe to grind against the establishment.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 07:49 |
|
Fojar38 posted:It's hiding its actions because that is precisely what it is supposed to do. Hide it's actions, be discreet, and do stuff in the background that almost nobody is aware of. That is the entire point of intelligence. Transparency defeats the entire point of it existing. I agree that there should be oversight, but people on this forum seem to interpret "oversight" as "Everyone should be able to see what they're doing and judge them accordingly." They may as well not even exist then. At some point people are going to have to acknowledge that there are things that they shouldn't know and that the world is a better place because they don't know them. In truth broader discussions about the nature of spying by nation states is precisely why I recreated the thread. To the argument about the beneficial nature of American hegemony, I suggest this (rather long) piece in Foreign Affairs. I think it sums up well why things like this are actually a problem. Since I'm all aflutter that my creation was given second life, here's a couple of articles that haven't yet been discussed to kill this thread off again: The European Parliament adopted a (conveniently) nonbinding resolution to suspend the SWIFT agreement with the United States. 10/23/2013 A paper by a Georgetown law professor on the legality and constitutionality of bulk metadata collection. I haven't read it, but stuff hosted on justsecurity is usually good.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 09:12 |
|
Fojar38 posted:This is getting sidetracked though. Snowden and Greenwald and whatnot were purportedly doing what they were doing for the sake of civil liberties in the US and abroad. Leaking details regarding US intelligence operations in Europe and elsewhere goes beyond that mandate as such intelligence operations are a key part of international affairs and the current international order. If these leaks are even coming from them. It's possible that they aren't and "dismantling the Anglo-American Capitalist hegemony!" is something that publications such as Der Spiegel and D&D posters are thrusting upon them because they have an axe to grind against the establishment. Yo Der Spiegel is a German newspaper. They (and Greenwald and Snowden had nothing to do with this as far as we know at this point) did some independent research regarding surveillance of their country's chancellor. This should be about as shocking as the New York Times reporting on things that happen in the White House.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 09:36 |
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:What? Are you seriously suggesting that there is no legal or technical distinction between metadata and data? Do you understand what a pen register is and why it is legal? Kind of surprised to see this thread jump back to life. Good thing, though. You're getting hung up on the details in this. Information in just that; it is information. Whether we call it "data" or "metadata" doesn't matter a whit, inasmuch as it might be useful for something. I'm complaining about the (stupid) rhetorical use of "metadata" in this discussion. People discredit privacy concerns because the government is collecting "metadata" instead of "data" without realizing that the only arbiters of what is "metadata" is the government itself. And further, whether people are charged on the basis of "data" or "metadata" doesn't matter either! So, we have two terms, which have no meaningful difference, but one of which keeps popping up in these discussions because it obfuscates the details of the discussion by introducing jargon, and minimizes the loss of privacy by euphamism. Consider my previous example, and this one: Let's say that I call 99 people and talk about whatever with them. Then, I call 1 person and only say that I've called these other 99 people before hanging up. What's the metadata here? The practical definition used throughout these discussions is, the list of all 100 people that I've called. If the CONTENTS of my last call are surveiled, though, the government has a reasonable expectation that it could use the CONTENTS of the call in one of these cases. At the very least, they could use it as corraborative evidence. All while ignoring the line in the sand that they drew when originally laying out the differences between "metadata" and "data". And further, this is how the government actually goes about collecting this so-called "metadata". The government, itself, doesn't pen register peoples' phones. They ask the provider, a third party, for that information. Effectively, in all cases, the government is surveiling the CONTENTS of that last call in my example. The difference also has a problem in that it ONLY applies to certain types of communications, when in fact we can be sure that the government is surveiling a much larger pool of communications. Sure, telephone and email is the common example, but how does this regime play out in, say, handwritten communications? Will the government only collect the addresses on the outside of envelopes? If they use the side of a pencil on a notepad to determine what was written on the previous note, is that "metadata"? If they ask the Post Office to carry out their surveilence for them, is everything they gather "metadata" by mere virtue of being handed to them from a third party? "Metadata" is a popular term that's used in programming the computer science. However, it's the data structure author that makes the distinction between what is "data" and what is "data about the data", and the it's the user that does what he can with the distinction, not the other way around. It's being misused in this discussion for, what appears to me to be, nefarious purposes. I'm perfectly open to the idea that a surveilence regime that collects who calls/emails who might be necessary or even good, but the rhetorical use to "metadata" here to get around the obvious privacy concerns makes me instinctively think that proponents are not arguing in good faith. And if that's the case, then why take anything proponents say at face value? They say that they understand the privacy concerns and that they're technically capable of pulling this off in the way they describe, and yet they fall back on jargon, euphamism, and abusing terms of art which by the nature of their work they should know not to?
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 10:21 |
|
Fojar38 posted:It's hiding its actions because that is precisely what it is supposed to do. Hide it's actions, be discreet, and do stuff in the background that almost nobody is aware of. That is the entire point of intelligence. Transparency defeats the entire point of it existing. I agree that there should be oversight, but people on this forum seem to interpret "oversight" as "Everyone should be able to see what they're doing and judge them accordingly." They may as well not even exist then. At some point people are going to have to acknowledge that there are things that they shouldn't know and that the world is a better place because they don't know them. That's fine right up until the point where the intelligence agency feels comfortable about lying to Congress. If any government agency cannot demonstrate the basic act of not lying to America's democratically elected government it starts being less an intelligence agency and more a taxpayer subsidized crime syndicate.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 12:43 |
|
Regardless of if you're pro- or anti-American hegemony, you can look at this from a more pragmatic position. There's a benefit from surveillance on the heads of state of our allies, but there's also a negative impact on that relationship to that surveillance ever being discovered. As these leaks show, the risk of these measures being revealed is very real, and I can't see how the benefits to our country from that surveillance can be greater than the long-term results of alienating our financial, diplomatic, and military partners.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 13:49 |
|
This Jacket Is Me posted:Consider my previous example, and this one: Let's say that I call 99 people and talk about whatever with them. Then, I call 1 person and only say that I've called these other 99 people before hanging up. What's the metadata here? The practical definition used throughout these discussions is, the list of all 100 people that I've called. If the CONTENTS of my last call are surveiled, though, the government has a reasonable expectation that it could use the CONTENTS of the call in one of these cases. At the very least, they could use it as corraborative evidence. All while ignoring the line in the sand that they drew when originally laying out the differences between "metadata" and "data". And further, this is how the government actually goes about collecting this so-called "metadata". This Jacket Is Me posted:The government, itself, doesn't pen register peoples' phones. They ask the provider, a third party, for that information. Effectively, in all cases, the government is surveiling the CONTENTS of that last call in my example. This Jacket Is Me posted:The difference also has a problem in that it ONLY applies to certain types of communications, when in fact we can be sure that the government is surveiling a much larger pool of communications. Sure, telephone and email is the common example, but how does this regime play out in, say, handwritten communications? Will the government only collect the addresses on the outside of envelopes? This Jacket Is Me posted:If they use the side of a pencil on a notepad to determine what was written on the previous note, is that "metadata"? This Jacket Is Me posted:If they ask the Post Office to carry out their surveilence for them, is everything they gather "metadata" by mere virtue of being handed to them from a third party? Seriously though, do some more research before you proclaim a term with a long and storied legal and technical history to be a nefarious invention of the government surveillance conspiracy. Thanqol posted:That's fine right up until the point where the intelligence agency feels comfortable about lying to Congress. If any government agency cannot demonstrate the basic act of not lying to America's democratically elected government it starts being less an intelligence agency and more a taxpayer subsidized crime syndicate. KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 24, 2013 |
# ? Oct 24, 2013 16:42 |
|
Why is it classified that the NSA is spying on citizens? We all know it is true, and merely 10 years ago you were considered crazy if you thought the government was spying on you, now it is taken for granted, and yet the NSA still doesn't even admit to it? Give me the metadata of what the NSA is collecting.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 17:02 |
|
Powercrazy posted:Why is it classified that the NSA is spying on citizens? We all know it is true, and merely 10 years ago you were considered crazy if you thought the government was spying on you, now it is taken for granted, and yet the NSA still doesn't even admit to it? It probably would have been a good idea to declassify the general premises of the program a decade ago, so that it could be calibrated to better represent citizen's interests. Unfortunately, American politics doesn't work that way.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 17:11 |
|
Clandestine spying on internet communications has actually been occurring since at least 1997 (that was when the technical ability was installed), and phone communications before that. But it was extremely limited in scope, and the ability to only collect metadata with short retention made it a non-issue.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 17:24 |
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:It is an enormous, John Yoo-esque stretch to say that the contents of a call discussing pen-register type data about other calls renders it metadata not subject to a reasonable expectation of privacy. I have never heard of this creative interpretation being used by the NSA, or anyone else for that matter, and if you're going to boldly assert that this is the status quo, you should provide evidence for this extraordinary claim. You don't understand the argument. The distinction between "data" and "metadata" is extremely dubious because, when you pick up a phone receiver, you are sending data to the phone company. A pen register actually does include content - the content is the number you dial to the phone company, with whom you are communicating. His argument is that the phone company isn't a third party and that Smith v. Maryland is bad law.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 19:20 |
|
Even Michael Hayden's phone is under surveillance.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 22:13 |
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:You don't understand the argument. The distinction between "data" and "metadata" is extremely dubious because, when you pick up a phone receiver, you are sending data to the phone company. A pen register actually does include content - the content is the number you dial to the phone company, with whom you are communicating. His argument is that the phone company isn't a third party and that Smith v. Maryland is bad law.
|
# ? Oct 24, 2013 23:49 |
|
Didn't see this posted here yet. Turns out Merkel wasn't the only one per this new Guardian article based on more Snowden leaks. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/24/nsa-surveillance-world-leaders-calls
|
# ? Oct 25, 2013 05:15 |
|
Good to see Alexander resort to doing the same thing the rest of us do when a third party has their poo poo - whine! http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/10/nsa-chief-stop-reporters-selling-spy-documents-175896.html quote:The head of the embattled National Security Agency, Gen. Keith Alexander, is accusing journalists of "selling" his agency's documents and is calling for an end to the steady stream of public disclosures of secrets snatched by former contractor Edward Snowden. I agree! Maybe end the third party doctrine to start?
|
# ? Oct 25, 2013 22:00 |
|
Sancho posted:Good to see Alexander resort to doing the same thing the rest of us do when a third party has their poo poo - whine! So lemme see if I understand this. They allowed a trusted party access to their private information, knowingly or not. And that trusted party ran off with their private information providing it to others. And now those other parties are passing it around both domestically and internationally and the originator of said information is powerless to stop it and they have no idea how it is or will be used? It's so.... meta. I think that's why it's hilarious.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2013 07:43 |
|
Michael Ratner, European human rights attorney, weighs in on these leaks. This is the most important point that I think most people are missing: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10913 quote:I want to emphasize one thing about it, which is that the U.S. has justified the spying in large part, and actually almost entirely: this is the way we have to get terrorists. We have to spy on everybody so we can get ahead of the next terrorist attack in the United States.
|
# ? Oct 26, 2013 15:40 |
|
Huh, if this is taken at face value, I guess Japan is one of the few countries who didn't go along with mass surveillance. No idea if this just means the US did it themselves and the Diet looked the other way, however. quote:NSA asked Japan to tap regionwide fiber-optic cables in 2011
|
# ? Oct 27, 2013 05:05 |
|
Powercrazy posted:Why is it classified that the NSA is spying on citizens? We all know it is true, and merely 10 years ago you were considered crazy if you thought the government was spying on you, now it is taken for granted, and yet the NSA still doesn't even admit to it? A good friend of mine always insisted that they were developing a system exactly like this and everyone always thought he was just a bit of a conspiracy nutter over it. I owe him such an apology. I am honestly surprised to see people defending the spying on German (amongst other) soil around here though. It feels like every bit of new information on US intelligence operations is just more depressing and I don't know how anyone can feel we have any moral high ground whatsoever. We've pretty much begun burning all the good will we've built up over the last few years now with the rest of the world.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2013 12:56 |
|
Not only spying on the German Chancellor but also evidence that Obama knew in 2010 and did nothing. I can't bear to watch the news anymore. It's not even so much about whether this or that is right or wrong or justified. You can argue up and down all day about how this situation came about and whether it's justified within this or that bullshit worldview but in the end anyone can see this situation we have RIGHT HERE is hosed and must end. Please, now let's see this exposed NSA beast slain, burned, and buried. And God bless Edward Snowden.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2013 15:11 |
|
CowOnCrack posted:Not only spying on the German Chancellor but also evidence that Obama knew in 2010 and did nothing. I can't bear to watch the news anymore. I love how the shear volume of leaked documents is making it impossible for the US to just sweep it under the rug and even Alexander is getting meltdowns over journalists "selling" information for profi.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2013 16:18 |
|
CowOnCrack posted:Not only spying on the German Chancellor but also evidence that Obama knew in 2010 and did nothing. I can't bear to watch the news anymore. Obama stopped being a defender of civil liberties the minute the intelligence community fed him mountains of classified data that was probably put together for that express purpose. Eight years of appointments by the Bush administration and the massive expansion of staff after 9/11, which was controlled by Bush appointees, means that the intelligence agencies are filled with people who don't respect the Constitution. It would take a stronger President than Obama, surrounding himself with experts who have rock-solid principles, in order to not be swayed when all those people are waging a massive fear campaign aimed at him. Even with such a person as President, I don't think anything short of a total purge and rebuilding from the ground up would fix the institutional culture permeating these agencies.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2013 17:57 |
|
Blazing Ownager posted:I am honestly surprised to see people defending the spying on German (amongst other) soil around here though. It feels like every bit of new information on US intelligence operations is just more depressing and I don't know how anyone can feel we have any moral high ground whatsoever. We've pretty much begun burning all the good will we've built up over the last few years now with the rest of the world. This is puzzling to me too. Reasonable people can disagree about whether such programs are necessary to "prevent terrorism," but what does Merkel have to do with that? And, more than that, the people who claim that this is just what spies do seem to imply that it's the US vs. everyone -- that "good will" as you say and inter-ally cooperation aren't important. I just don't understand that worldview.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2013 18:09 |
|
Blazing Ownager posted:I am honestly surprised to see people defending the spying on German (amongst other) soil around here though. It feels like every bit of new information on US intelligence operations is just more depressing and I don't know how anyone can feel we have any moral high ground whatsoever. We've pretty much begun burning all the good will we've built up over the last few years now with the rest of the world. I don't really see what there is to defend. A spy agency is spying on people. I don't really think that their motives are that relevant either, spying is something that everyone does and is expected to do. I personally find it hard to believe that the Europeans were so naive and foolish as to believe that they weren't being spied on. What I've taken away from all this is less "Oh those horrible Americans are abusing their allies and burning bridges!" and more "Wow, the Germans are complete and utter poo poo at intelligence operations if you take their complaints at face value."
|
# ? Oct 27, 2013 20:07 |
|
I actually don't believe that the Germans are wiretapping Obama's phone. Nor the Brazilians. So the "everybody does it" argument falls apart. Everyone keeps at least minor tabs on everyone, but that's a world apart from knowing every word that's said over the phone of a head of state. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Oct 27, 2013 |
# ? Oct 27, 2013 20:10 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I actually don't believe that the Germans are wiretapping Obama's phone. Nor the Brazilians. The Brazilians at the very least have spied on other members of the Five Eyes. As for the Germans, how do you know that? Or that they at the very least haven't tried to do so? How do you know that they don't because they lack the capability to do so? How do you know that the German intelligence services don't lack oversight as well and hence the German government simply isn't aware of their operations? Saying "X is/isn't doing Y" when talking intelligence, particularly when you don't have any actual information at all, is a very foolish thing to do.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2013 20:18 |
|
Kobayashi posted:This is puzzling to me too. Reasonable people can disagree about whether such programs are necessary to "prevent terrorism," but what does Merkel have to do with that? And, more than that, the people who claim that this is just what spies do seem to imply that it's the US vs. everyone -- that "good will" as you say and inter-ally cooperation aren't important. I just don't understand that worldview. It's more because the terrorism provides a good cover for spying on rivals such as Eurozone countries but also convincing the rivals to let the US setup a brick/mortar presence in their countries. The reality is even allies spy on each other since they compete in many other areas such supplying military equipment or in economic deals.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2013 20:22 |
|
Let me put it this way: do you have any proof at all that the Germans have maintained a long-running wiretap on the phone of the head of state of a close ally? Or are you just speculating wildly to try and excuse the US getting caught doing just that? I mean there's two fundamental divides I see here. One is whether there exists some spying action that is beyond the pale to perform on our closest allies. This isn't deciphering troop movements to prevent an imminent backstab, this is a long-standing system for siphoning off state secrets for reasons that appear largely economic. Does there exist there a line to cross? The second is over whether everyone else does it, which they clearly don't. A bug in the President's phone would not be very well appreciated from a close ally. The only country I can possibly imagine getting away with it is Israel, and we have a really weird and dysfunctional relationship there. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Oct 27, 2013 |
# ? Oct 27, 2013 20:25 |
|
Look guy you just don't get it, it's spying. Spies gonna spy, thieves gonna steal, birds gonna fly. Right there in the name, you can't very well expect them to not spy unless you hate them for being American or something. There is no point in having a problem with anything because stuff simply is, ethics is an illusion of the mind. Have you considered that you should just let go and appreciate the world around you for its own beauty?
Tubgirl Cosplay fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Oct 27, 2013 |
# ? Oct 27, 2013 21:04 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 23:04 |
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Let me put it this way: do you have any proof at all that the Germans have maintained a long-running wiretap on the phone of the head of state of a close ally? No, I don't. It doesn't matter whether they do or not is what I'm saying. You'd be an idiot to assume that they don't based exclusively on your gut, and the vibe I'm getting from the Germans here is that they just assumed that the Americans weren't spying on them. I don't think that they are seriously that stupid, especially considering their central role in the Cold War, which is one of the reasons I think that all this outrage from the German government is feigned and one of the reasons why I sincerely doubt that the German government is so innocent and trusting that it would never dream of spying on its allies (I would bet very large sums of money that Germany has been spying on allies in Europe for example.) Also it bears mentioning that "Well I don't see them wiretapping the phones of other heads of state " is a superficial argument. Yeah, they might not literally be wiretapping the phones of other heads of state (and again, we don't know that they aren't) but that is only one method of spying on people.
|
# ? Oct 27, 2013 21:27 |