Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spy access to NZ used as bargaining tool

nzherald.co.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 32 posts

Re: Spy access to NZ used as bargaining tool

#3

Post by malandrew » 

    [former CIA director and National Security Agency director 
    General Michael Hayden] was quoted as saying: "Because of 
    the nature of global telecommunications, we are playing 
    with a tremendous home-field advantage, and we need to
    exploit that edge.
I really hope the rest of the World understands the implications here and works to eliminate the home field advantage for the US and makes sure that no other country ever gets this advantage. No single country should ever have that power.

Re: Spy access to NZ used as bargaining tool

#4

Post by mappu »

rdl wrote: post #2

Is this why they killed Pacific Fibre?

I think the official line is that having investment from both China and the US was considered a dealbreaker by the US side, and since the US wouldn't fund it completely, the deal couldn't go through. Guess this explains why.

I'm a resident but not anyone important, so clarifications welcome

Re: Spy access to NZ used as bargaining tool

#6

Post by javajosh »

Gods, could the NSA get any more short-sighted? Once they started tapping into all of this data, how long did they think they could keep it secret, especially when tens of thousands of contractors knew about the program? Once the news leaked, what did they think other countries were going to do?

Whenever people in power setup perfect systems of abuse, the people being abused will change that system by going out-of-band.

Re: Spy access to NZ used as bargaining tool

#7

Post by amirmc »

"It seems that we now have the choice between taking the time to understand and implement secure encryption or choosing services based on which governments we don't mind spying on us."

I prefer the first of those two options but it'll only have an impact if more people make the same choice.

Re: Spy access to NZ used as bargaining tool

#8

Post by e3pi »

So McCain says today US needs to start poking digits(pun?) into Putin's eye, and this NZ fragment leads me to wonder what fist or carrot incentive makes every(?) country in the world pipe their domestic surveillance back to US? Now, how then, do you apply all the world's intel to acquire whatever you want? What new US intel agency with an eagle logo orchestrates the `parallel construction' to `git 'er done'?

Re: Spy access to NZ used as bargaining tool

#9

Post by lancewiggs »

mappu wrote: post #4
rdl wrote: post #2

Is this why they killed Pacific Fibre?

I think the official line is that having investment from both China and the US was considered a dealbreaker by the US side, and since the US wouldn't fund it completely, the deal couldn't go through. Guess this explains why. I'm a resident but not anyone important, so clarifications welcome

China investment meant a preference for Chinese equipment/vendors, which in turn would mean getting a landing in the USA would be very hard, essentially impossible.

The primary contract was signed with a US vendor, TE Subcom (actually HQ is in Switzerland for tax reasons), and whether the Chinese vendor could even do the job aside even from landing rights was a big question.

Funding from any source never amounted to enough to get it away. Which is a shame as the business case was - and still is - compelling.

Source: me - a Pacific Fibre founder

Re: Spy access to NZ used as bargaining tool

#10

Post by rdl »

lancewiggs wrote: post #9
mappu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the official line is that having investment from both China and the US was considered a dealbreaker by the US side, and since the US wouldn't fund it completely, the deal couldn't go through. Guess this explains why. I'm a resident but not anyone important, so clarifications welcome

China investment meant a preference for Chinese equipment/vendors, which in turn would mean getting a landing in the USA would be very hard, essentially impossible. The primary contract was signed with a US vendor, TE Subcom (actually HQ is in Switzerland for tax reasons), and whether the Chinese vendor could even do the job aside even from landing rights was a big question. Funding from any source never amounted to…

I still don't understand what legal justification the US has for making it hard to get landing rights in the USA just because you use Chinese equipment.

If I ever have a spare $300mm or so, I know what I'm funding.

Post reply on HN