N.S.A. Dragnet Included Allies, Aid Groups and Business Elite

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/world/nsa-dragnet-included-allies-aid-groups-and-business-elite.html?smid=tw-bna

by weu • 13 years ago

279 113 13 years ago

adventured3• 13 years ago

I wonder what this is all going to look like when it comes out that the NSA spying has at times helped companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Cisco and Oracle compete with domestic and foreign competition, as well as deal with foreign government regulators.

bananacurve5• 13 years ago

The entire West is complicit.

http://cphpost.dk/news/denmark-is-one-of-the-nsas-9-eyes.761...

mhurron3• 13 years ago

No one seemed to care when the French did it.

adventured3• 13 years ago

I agree that industrial spying by national agencies is rather common across the globe. The only difference here is the perception and magnifying glass / media spotlight.

declan3• 13 years ago

There is zero evidence in the NYT article that started this discussion that any NSA surveillance directed at EU antitrust bureaucrats would benefit US software companies.

The particular EU antitrustocrat was involved in decisions relating to many other firms that FedGov might find of interest, including Gazprom, Citigroup, JP Morgan, HSBC, ICAP, ISI, UMG, EMI, Panasonic, Toshiba, Intel.

I'm not defending use of the NSA's surveillance apparatus for economic espionage; in fact, I'd be happy to see all relevant FedGov employees fired, denied their pensions, and prosecuted if that's true. What I'm saying is simply let's not assume software companies are the beneficiaries when there may be legitimate reasons to spy on companies like Gazprom, which is controlled by the Russian government and likely the largest natural gas extractor in the world.

ganeumann• 13 years ago

They spied on UNICEF? Really? Why?

mhurron3• 13 years ago

If it hasn't become clear yet, they spy on everyone.

angersock• 13 years ago

We prefer the term "indiscriminate wideband metadata and source data aggregation".

mladenkovacevic4• 13 years ago

If you look at the way NSA's been operating over the last little while a sensible answer seems to be a belligerent "Why not".

ry0ohki• 13 years ago

Let's assume you wanted to send money to help terrorists in Somalia. What better way then funneling it through a charity that already has boots on the ground? Or at least I could see a paranoid person at the NSA coming up with such a theory.

alan_cx6• 13 years ago

UNICEF help people who can't help themselves. There for they are leftie liberal socialists and a great threat to the American way...

guelo• 13 years ago

My guess would be for the benefit of undercover CIA spies working as aid workers.

fidotron• 13 years ago

The best bit here is right in the first paragraph: "and a European Union official involved in antitrust battles with American technology businesses."

Spying on foreign governments because you think they might present a threat to you in terms of war/foreign policy is generally defensible (although many on here would disagree with that), while using the apparatus of the state to support select private enterprise through espionage is not.

The US government has still not appreciated the full impact of the leaks or they would be far more concerned about cleaning things up fast as the economic consequences threaten to be huge.

sentenza2• 13 years ago

The US has really dropped the ball here. We, here in Germany, have a mainstream political party whose leaders are blindly americophile. The last and current government are dominated by that party.

From the beginning of the crisis, these people loudly blamed the victim, accusing NSA-critics of anti-americanism and telling us that "the NSA discussion is over".

Then, with time, the industrial espionage stories started to emerge (and it became known that Merkel's phone has been bugged since 2002). Turns out, there are quite a few instances where German companies had their trade secrets stolen by American intelligence agencies, which in turn gave those secrets to US competitors.

So now even the most blindly devoted atlanticists in government know that they must do something against the NSA problem, and to make it worse, they have to do something that actually works (as opposed to feel-good measures).

bananacurve5• 13 years ago

German companies had their trade secrets stolen by American intelligence agencies, which in turn gave those secrets to US competitors

Do you have a source for that? As far as I can tell Germany wants tighter intelligence integration with the US and howls at the slightest mention of even reducing the size of US military bases on German soil.

wil4217• 13 years ago

Could you provide some information where the NSA conducted Industrial Espionage? Merkel is a politician so I could see why she was targeted.

As far as I know China is the only one being blamed for Industrial Espionage. NSA is snooping on citizens and interest groups.

Note: I am no way in favor of any snooping on any countries citizens foreign or domestic.

43543254254• 13 years ago

Turns out, there are quite a few instances where German companies had their trade secrets stolen by FRENCH [1] intelligence agencies, which in turn gave those secrets to FRENCH competitors.

Fixed that for you. Please produce the articles about US companies benefiting from economic espionage.

[1] http://www.france24.com/en/20110104-france-industrial-espion...

gaius3• 13 years ago

I am awaiting the revelation that Boeing was privy to Airbus secrets. If forthcoming, that would be a bombshell.

AndrewKemendo2• 13 years ago

Spying on foreign governments because you think they might present a threat to you in terms of war/foreign policy is generally defensible, while using the apparatus of the state to support select private enterprise through espionage is not.

I am genuinely curious why the former would be defensible while the latter not. The former in this case would trend toward causing (at some point) some level of death an destruction, the latter amounts to high level piracy.

Is the basis for the former's defensibility the assumption that it is strictly defensive in nature?

Why would a country not have a program to enhance it's own industry through espionage?

gaius3• 13 years ago

Because who would be so foolish then as to invest in R&D?

coldtea5• 13 years ago

I am genuinely curious why the former would be defensible while the latter not.

Because the one is (supposedly) defensive tactic, the other is offensive.

Why would a country not have a program to enhance it's own industry through espionage?

Because the country being a superpower gives all other countries an unfair advantage. Even if you don't believe in morality and ethics, so you don't care about that, this can still get to bite its ass at some point.

Second, because it's also hypocritical with said country paying lip service to "free markets".

flexie• 13 years ago

In the last 20 years several American tech companies have grown huge with very little challenge from European antitrust or tax authorities.

Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Apple, Amazon, Intel, Microsoft...

Rules regarding abuse of dominant position could have been applied much stricter. Some of these companies have 90-something percent market share on several of the geographic and product markets they operate in. But not one of them has been forced to split up. MS was forced not to include IE in Windows and MS and Intel were fined (fined!), but not one of them have been forced to open access to (or just make it possible to export) their social graph. Apple is still allowed to block other content providers from selling movies and music iPhone and iPad. The iphone costs more or less the same all over Europe as does the music and movies on it. Amazon has been allowed to apply predatory pricing for more than a decade.

Tax laws could have been designed so that companies were taxed on their European profits, just like the European companies they compete against.

These companies barely employ Europeans, barely pay any European tax, but they hold thousands of European patents and make hundreds of billions of euro in Europe and operate in markets where there is curiously enough still not/no longer serious competition from European companies.

I don't believe for a second that NSA hasn't used their spying to improve American competitiveness.

43543254254• 13 years ago

What did all of that have to do with the NSA?

How would US espionage force the EU from prosecuting or legislating against these companies?

adamki• 13 years ago

I’m not sure why you would choose tech companies to illustrate your point, financial institutions and energy companies might fit your narrative better.

One could argue that the regulatory environment in Europe has prevented local success, you don't get to baselessly blame these companies (none of which have gained their position undeservedly) and spue accusations without proof.

Also you don't get to blame the US for Europe's lack or enterprise, I suggest you ask an economist for a better excuse.

jahewson• 13 years ago

The iphone costs more or less the same all over Europe as does the music and movies on it.

It's supposed to, the European single market laws require that it costs the same in each country.

davidmartin• 13 years ago

Any European citizen know what is needed for the European Commission for Competition to put a tariff to American imports so they stop destroying the European industry making undeclared and illegal subsidies?

If you do not know, the NSA is paying American cloud providers for spying. That is an illegal subsidy that is killing the European cloud industry. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/23/nsa-prism-costs...

rgarrett88• 13 years ago

Not only that, think about what a security contractor with no positive incentives was able to collect and publish without NSA knowledge. We honestly have no idea what state secrets might have been sold to the highest bidder.

coldtea5• 13 years ago

Spying on foreign governments because you think they might present a threat to you in terms of war/foreign policy is generally defensible (although many on here would disagree with that), while using the apparatus of the state to support select private enterprise through espionage is not.

Exactly. And this is something that has been going on for ages,

To be clear, it's not like they feel they promote "select private enterprises" by doing so. That is, it's not "let's help our pals at company X" -- it's more like "let's give the US corporations a leverage against Mexico / Brasil / France etc".

It already is an unfair (and illegal in most cases) leverage because it's based on huge spying machinery. But when it's also combined with the kind of huge diplomatic, political and military pressure the US has, then it becomes a way to crush competition, in other words post-colonialism at its best.

And no, not "all countries do the same" (a common counter-argument). A lot, maybe all countries do have spying agencies, but most of them are concerned with internal affairs (dissidents and such) and dangerous neighborhoud countries (feuds). And of course, their scale and scope is orders of magnitude smaller.

Only someone watching too much 24 and Homeland would believe that countries such as, say, Chile, Argentina, Luxemburg, Czech republic, Albania, Greece, Portugal, Denmark, Colombia and such have the same kind of spying infrastructure and reach as the US has (and much much less the diplomatic might to take advantage of it, even if they had). It's not called a "superpower" for nothing.

thisiswrong• 13 years ago

Only someone watching too much 24 and Homeland would believe that [...]

You're picking up on something very interesting here. Sadly, you don't fully address the issue.

Hollywood propaganda [1] could very well be THE reason why we have become so politically apathetic and hence THE reason why such tyrants have managed to gain power in the USA/UK.

[1] http://www.globalresearch.ca/screen-propaganda-hollywood-and...

bobbydavid4• 13 years ago

Many industries (food, steel, electronics, energy, mining) are considered to have military strategic importance.

For instance, Japan works very hard to grow rice even though it would be much cheaper to import rice from China. It's because not being able to feed your own population is bad in a war. Energy (oil) is the same way.

The line between military and industry is often not very clear.

madaxe_again• 13 years ago

This little snippet is some mindblowing doublespeak - they know full well what they're doing.

“We do not use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of — or give intelligence we collect to — U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line,” said Vanee Vines, an N.S.A. spokeswoman.

But she added that some economic spying was justified by national security needs. “The intelligence community’s efforts to understand economic systems and policies, and monitor anomalous economic activities, are critical to providing policy makers with the information they need to make informed decisions that are in the best interest of our national security,” Ms. Vines said.

nebulasri• 13 years ago

It seems the damage has already started, and deservingly so: Brazil awarded a $4.5 billion contract to Saab AB on Wednesday to replace its aging fleet of fighter jets, a surprise coup for the Swedish company after news of U.S. spying on Brazilians helped derail Boeing's chances for the deal.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/18/brazil-jets-idUSL2...

thrillgore• 13 years ago

And it just keeps on getting better.

cryoshon• 13 years ago

I guess this revelation should permanently put to death the canard that the NSA surveillance is strictly "for our safety" and only against suspected or potential terrorists.

Of course, there will be hordes of people claiming that this piece of the puzzle is "nothing new", but it is-- this reveal is another very meaty piece of evidence for the thesis that the NSA's goal is universal control and that the terrorism justification is merely a pretense. There is literally no room to argue that eavesdropping on UNICEF is making Americans even an iota more safe.

dobbsbob• 13 years ago

Intel agencies fill these charities with spies so they can identify targets families who show up for medical care in middle of nowhere Somalia. Despicable practice that lead to lot's of shootings and kidnappings of aid workers

PavlovsCat4• 13 years ago

Another example (of using humanitarians organizations or pretense for their own ends, and not giving two fucks about the fallout, I mean):

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/chomsky-boston-bom...

To locate bin Laden, the CIA launched a fraudulent vaccination campaign in a poor neighborhood, then switched it, uncompleted, to a richer area where the suspect was thought to be.

The CIA operation violated fundamental principles as old as the Hippocratic oath. It also endangered health workers associated with a polio vaccination program in Pakistan, several of whom were abducted and killed, prompting the UN to withdraw its anti-polio team.

The CIA ruse also will lead to the deaths of unknown numbers of Pakistanis who have been deprived of protection from polio because they fear that foreign killers may still be exploiting vaccination programs.

Zigurd4• 13 years ago

There are some curious things about the response to these revelations:

1. Zero "friendly" nations have gone beyond carping. If the NSA still thinks they can put the toothpaste back in the tube it's because nobody who matters has told them otherwise, much less acted on such a declaration.

2. Even more surprising is that zero small nations who are far down the "Eyes" hierarchy, have concluded they can't win, so they should not play the game. That is, nobody has said: "It's unacceptable for our citizens, industry, and government to be an open book to the NSA, therefore we will take action to make communication secure." You would think some nation would seize the opportunity to become the "Switzerland of data."

abalashov• 13 years ago

Given the inherently interconnected and international character of the Internet, as well as the fact that many of its key network peering and exchange points are in countries fairly high on the "Eyes" hierarchy, I would be deeply sceptical of the viability of any effort to become "the Switzerland of data".

So, you build a data centre in a "Switzerland of data" and throw something like national government-level resources into its physical security, and buttress it with legislation highly supportive of nondisclosure and customer privacy. So what? To get any utility out of such a place, outside users need to send traffic to and from it. Unlike, say, copyright enforcement takedowns or what have you, the NSA's surveillance isn't highly reliant on physical proximity to that kind of facility, or nearby listening posts. Much of the Sigint took place at vulnerable transoceanic Internet traffic convergence points in countries like the UK and Germany.

How would a Switzerland of Data stop that? :-)

mladenkovacevic4• 13 years ago

Somehow I have a feeling in federal government circles of smaller countries it is a quite bit more clear-cut on what your options are.

Either play along with the 14 eyes, or join some loose alliance with the BRIC countries.

The result of your decision, combined with your country's geo-political circumstances, could range from political/economic isolation and worst-case scenario military invasion, to mild prosperity in exchange for total colonialist-like obedience at the expense of your own citizens' full potential in prosperity and living standards.

43543254254• 13 years ago

Isn't Brazil doing just that (#2)? I thought they were planning to build fiber lines directly to Europe, and implementing a domestic secure email system. Good for them, by the way.

bobbydavid4• 13 years ago

Somehow I imagine the plan involves Brazil being able to tap the line...

alan_cx6• 13 years ago

I'd love to see a Switzerland of data, but these days Switzerland isnt able to hide money any more, under pressure from, well, guess who...

lio32• 13 years ago

Gentle reminder: Google willingly co-operated with the NSA and provided direct access to their systems: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-...

We can affect change by boycotting the services of Google and other tech giants. We all know that the Senate only listens to rich Corporate lobbyists rather than citizens.

frou_dh• 13 years ago

I'm not sure "gentle" is the right word for creating throwaway accounts to post rephrasings of that daily. Do your cause more good by coming up with some noteworthy action.

joelcollinsdc• 13 years ago

i thought it was determined that the access was obtained by tapping unencrypted interlinks between datacenters? can you provide citations of the 'willingness' part of this?

declan3• 13 years ago

No, because the allegation is untrue.

In fact Google was challenging the legality of FedGov national security letters in two different courts (my article in May was the first to disclose this) even before the Snowden documents began to appear.

edit: here's the link: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587005-38/

declan3• 13 years ago

Of course that article was back in June, and if you read the followup, a day later, written by yours truly, you'll see your assertion is untrue: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57588337-38/no-evidence-of...

leoc• 13 years ago

They didn't provide direct access.

w_t_payne• 13 years ago

Hmmm... although this article does not suggest it, I wonder if the surveillance of EU antitrust officials indicates a willingness to subvert the rule of law in overseas jurisdictions?

alan_cx6• 13 years ago

Well, yes. Otherwise, why bother?

Put it this way, if you or I hacked say, I dunno... NASA, looking for proof of , oh random subject... aliens... Would it be a defence to say, "I was just looking, I did no harm. I didn't use any data I saw"? Or would the US try to prosecute such a person? Hmmmmm

codex• 13 years ago

Every organization generates information of some kind; nation states especially, but even aid groups and corporations. Spying on the heads of these organizations is a very efficient way to get at the most important, post-filtered information these groups have uncovered or generated.

If you assume NSA spying net benefits the United States, then a U.S. citizen should count it beneficial that the extent of the surveillance is so comprehensive. If you don't, or have interests not aligned with the U.S., these revelations are pretty horrible.

vondur• 13 years ago

I'm not surprised, they apparently capture everything that they possible can and search it later for items of "interest", whatever that may be.

j_baker• 13 years ago

I don't get it. Why Unicef and other aid groups? I mean, foreign leaders I can somewhat understand. But what do we have to gain from spying on aid groups?

tobltobs2• 13 years ago

For example to know what is the best offer for a Unicef call for bids. There are lots of american companies who depend on this kind of informations.

robomartin• 13 years ago

To me all of this: NSA, Wars, Obamacare, IRS, Iran-fail, etc. just screams "Enough big government!".

Do you guys understand just how much all your efforts in tech could be for naught when you have government acting against you every step of the way? I would think that eventually it's got to sink in just how damaging all of this is to you. You could be an oncredible engineer or scientist and have a guy (or gal) you supported politically destroy your efforts through action or inaction. Time to really pay attention folks.

icelancer• 13 years ago

Yeah, but, who will build the roads and stuff? Most people would rather sacrifice their civil liberties so they can continue to get free ponies.

alan_cx6• 13 years ago

I cant believe people aren't shocked that they even spy on Israel's PM. To me that is stunning. I, clearly wrongly, assumed that where it counts the US and Israel are glued to the same page. So, why spy on them? Its almost like the NSA treating some US states as enemies to spy on. Does the US consider any nation a trusted ally? Well, clearly the US and Israel are not quite as chummy as I had previously thought.

BTW, is Snowden done yet? Is there a chance that we'll find out that the NSA spies on the US President and the UK Queen? (I'll take as a given that they spy on London Mayor Boris Johnson for pure entertainment value. Hell, even I'd do that.)

All we need now is the head line "NSA spies on NSA", and the whole thing will implode.

Sorry HN. Its just that it is getting so absurd, it has to be funny.

N.S.A. Dragnet Included Allies, Aid Groups and Business Elite

Related Stories