Live data from Hacker News

NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

theguardian.com

121–130 of 231 posts

Re: NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

#121

This is the top comment on the Reddit thread: "They went after high ranking military officers . They went after members of congress . The Senate and the House - especially on the intelligence committees, and on the armed services committees and judicial. But they went after other ones too. They went after lawyers and law firms . Heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges . One of the judges is now sitting…

The surveillance service began their history by monitoring enemy armies, knowing what the troop movements were and locating potential weaknesses. Their purpose was to help the military in defending the nation.

They later grow to encompass international commerce, as that too related to national defense. Knowing where, how, and who are able to transport material in and out of countries is paramount in successful wars between nations. Of course, having access to private information in the international market, they were also able to start supporting their own nations companies and improve the nations ability to commercial out compete foreign companies.

Afterward, the next step was to encompass everyone in ubiquitous surveillance. Having a working social graph of their own citizen, as well as anyone else can very much relate to national defense, now called nation security. Knowing who might in 10 years become the next President of the United States is important, as otherwise the wrong candidate might get elected. Surveillance of news papers is also of paramount importance, as otherwise state officials won't have time to react to the fast pace of inquiries that otherwise might happen. Documents destined to be shredded could be laying around for just anyone to read.[¹]

The next step they took was a bit more bloody. Secret indefinitely incarceration, torture, and kill lists (The renamed Deathsquad of old). Using military force in targeting journalists, and publications.

I wish I know what the next stage is. The insight from the old big leaders of west Germany, USSR and China has not made any new innovations on this front. At most, they were better at scaling the last step up and increasing the size of the kill lists, torture chambers, and the nastiness of the military force against journalists. I wonder if the national security agency feel a need to go one up on this, and innovate further. The virtual strip search by massive radiation machines are a nice touch, but they surely can do more.

[¹]: http://snowdenandthefuture.info/

Re: NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

#122
post #73
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well to be fair, the Germans did try to kill us all.

Yeah, and the Mongolians once sacked the world. Should we be afraid of them too?

Definitely. If it weren't for the Chinese and Russians having them effectively surrounded, Europe would be knee deep in blood and the wreckage of their onslaught.

Re: NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

#123
post #39
post #14

What is the strategy here? Of releasing information about NSA activities with foreign nations? Seems like it is mixing a potentially illegal activity (domestic spying) with their designated job. Doesn't every country try to do this. The NSA personnel could very well have undergone considerable risk to get this sort of thing going on. On the other hand, Joe public sees Snowden fleeing and chilling out in Russia/China…

I think the Guardian is just trying to ride the NSA gravy train at this point.

I disagree.

Within the UK, the general public has not favored the Guardian's reporting on the Snowden-NSA files. Many see it as anti-British and the much of the rest of the press has taken the government's side - quoting the government line concerning the protection of the country against terrorism and pedophiles.

What little the Guardian has been allowed to report (outside the D-Notice that covers GCHQ coverage) hasn't seen major coverage. The BBC for instance is petrified of losing its favourable role, and will not risk (again) threatening the government. Not in the near future anyway.

The Guardian's daily circulation figures since Snowden blew the whistle has continued to drop off [1]:

   Compared to the same period the year before, The Independent lost 26% of its
   daily audience. The other five losers, in descending order, were the Daily
   Star (-16%), The Guardian and Daily Express (-14%), Daily Mirror (-13%) and
   The Sun (-11%).
The actual month-by-month breakdowns are here:

- April 2013 [2]

- May 2013 [3]

- June 2013 [4]

- July 2013 [5]

- August 2013 [6]

- September 2013 [Not yet released]

Online is booming [7]. Back in January [8], the Guardian had already reported record online readership figures. I would hazard a guess that the online readership has continued to grow, but it isn't clear how many of those are from inside or outside the UK. The NSA reporting has no doubt improved the online bottom line, but not the ABC's.

At a minimum the ABC circulation figures (for print) seem to suggest that the Guardian has continued to see its readership shrink at a rate that is consistent with the entire UK press industry. The only upturn has been the Financial times which saw a 2% increase [1] for the same period.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/aug/29/nati...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/may/10/abcs-nati...

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jun/07/abcs-nati...

[4] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/jul/15/abcs-nati...

[5] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/aug/09/abcs-nati...

[6] http://www.theguardian.com/media/table/2013/sep/06/abcs-nati...

[7] http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/02/the-guardian

[8] http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/201...

Re: NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

#124

This has some interesting implications: What would this information be useful for? Why was the NSA collecting this information and at whose request? Is the same being done to US politicians? The most useful applications of this I can think of are betraying allies, manipulating negotiations with rival trade blocs, economic espionage, and of course protecting the power of the agencies who perform this surveillance and…

In the 1970s it was well known that the CIA worked to pave the way for American business interests overseas, through everything from espionage to blackmail, murder and military interventions. I assume the NSA works much the same way today (but God knows what all the domestic spying is used for).

Re: NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

#125
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we are not at war with everyone, and those countries involved (like Germany, France and Italy) are our partners, economical and military partners. I can accept doing SIGINT on non-friendly countries and organizations but is it correct to spy on your own people and partner countries?

>but is it correct to spy on your own people and partner countries? It's rude, but I think to a degree it is acceptable, and probably expected. Friendly countries spy on each other all the time. For one thing, friendly countries might not remain friendly forever.

You know what? Every nation state has my blessing to do a blanket collection of digital communications the moment they don't call me a terrorist for encrypting my email, call the whole thing unwarranted or don't hand over my password.

Re: NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that's the Police having lowered the barrier-to-entry to the lowest possible point: high school drop-outs with no education and/or thinking skills whatsoever. Sad and dangerous.

Psh, it's not the police that are the flashpoint IMO it is the marines. Their entry requirements are so lax it is beyond scary.

Interesting. I'm currently stationed at MCRD San Diego (Navy, though), so I get to see some of how their recruitment and boot process works. Lax in what ways (assuming you're talking about the U.S., not the Royal Marines)?

Re: NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

#127
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This of it this way: Do you routinely monitor the calls, emails and communications of your closest friends and relatives? At some point, those people are going to cut you out of their lives for being so disrespectful and immoral.

Yes, sort of I do. I check the FB-Pages. ;-) Sorry, but something like this seems to me to be the reason, nobody really cares about NSA spying on him (at least here in Germany). We all do it. We all give in to our voyeuristic urges. We all "spy" upon our neighbors, spouses, friends and so on. We do not get the scope. We do not know, what it means, if states do this. We do not think about different hierarchical power…

The big difference is Facebook pages are public, or at least semi-public.

If you go through the e-mail account or texts of a spouse or close friend, you're engaging in a massive breach of trust, and better expect to have them break up with your or refuse to deal with you going forward.

Likewise, the US will now have to face the expectation that US diplomats can not be trusted with any kind of information, including phone numbers that may previously have been considered "safe" to give to allies.

Especially since the document made clear that the NSA did not know all the numbers, hinting that cycling numbers and keeping numbers from US diplomats may still be a viable strategy to reduce the odds of having your calls monitored.

If I was in a position of power now, the first thing I'd do is demand that all senior government officials change numbers, and allocate a wide range of different numbers per person, and allocate one set for the exclusive use for giving to US diplomats and communication that I want the US to pick up, and cycle other numbers frequently and compartmentalise their usage more, since it is clear that the US can not be trusted.

Re: NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

#128

This has some interesting implications: What would this information be useful for? Why was the NSA collecting this information and at whose request? Is the same being done to US politicians? The most useful applications of this I can think of are betraying allies, manipulating negotiations with rival trade blocs, economic espionage, and of course protecting the power of the agencies who perform this surveillance and…

In the 1970s it was well known that the CIA worked to pave the way for American business interests overseas, through everything from espionage to blackmail, murder and military interventions. I assume the NSA works much the same way today (but God knows what all the domestic spying is used for).

In the 1970s it was well known that the CIA worked to pave the way for American business interests overseas, through everything from espionage to blackmail, murder and military interventions.

I don't think this is the way countries should conduct themselves, particularly not ones which trumpet their freedom and liberty. Either the US can employ cynical realpolitik while making hypocritical statements about fighting for civilisation and freedom and live with the consequences, or it can aspire to live up to the ideals it claims to stand for. There's only so much hypocrisy you can employ as an empire before the hollow nature of your statements undermines your authority with allies and citizens alike, and exposure like this is inevitable when the lie becomes big enough.

but God knows what all the domestic spying is used for

I imagine for exactly the same ends, minus the military aspect, which is reserved for overseas at present (though also employed on US citizens abroad). If a politician wants to dismantle the extremely useful and effective spy apparatus, they are likely to find it turned against them first.

Re: NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

#129
post #121

This is the top comment on the Reddit thread: "They went after high ranking military officers . They went after members of congress . The Senate and the House - especially on the intelligence committees, and on the armed services committees and judicial. But they went after other ones too. They went after lawyers and law firms . Heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges . One of the judges is now sitting…

The surveillance service began their history by monitoring enemy armies, knowing what the troop movements were and locating potential weaknesses. Their purpose was to help the military in defending the nation. They later grow to encompass international commerce, as that too related to national defense. Knowing where, how, and who are able to transport material in and out of countries is paramount in successful wars b…

Virtual behavior modification and prediction. Inducing an entire culture to gradually change how it behaves, and its beliefs, through a mixture of opportunism on real events, simulated events, and trial balloons.

Some of that isn't new, but the ability to use vast computing resources to map behavior prediction of 300 million people to an accurate degree, is.

They no longer need your friends, family and neighbors to rat you out as a traitor (terrorist sympathizer?). They already know everything you have said, everywhere you have been, and everything you've done.

ARGUS is very new. And it's a required cornerstone of behavior control. They'll have a hard time dictating who you are, if they don't know where you are at all times.

The ideal fascist state is one of total compliance. A step forward for them would be to accomplish that with even less bloodshed, by essentially brain washing an entire culture toward a new way of thinking (war is peace, slavery is freedom). Not just empty slogans, posters, and fear, but actual belief across an entire culture.

When you look at the near complete lack of protest against the rise of the fascist state in America, you can see they're already well on their way to having accomplished that.

Re: NSA monitored calls of 35 world leaders

#130
I really can't believe that there are so many comments that try to trivialize the actions.

It seems that the United States loses the reality and lapses in an egocentric / ethnocentric disease.

How would the U.S. react if they found out such a thing the other way around?

Post reply on HN