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

NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 326 posts

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#311

Post by Pick-A-Hill2019 »

quesera wrote: post #4
voodootrucker wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is thoroughly corrupt and immoral, mostly in the name of cold war morality. It's allies would be wise to reconsider who we truly are.

Maybe. But evvvveryone spies on everyone, except those who cannot muster the resources to do so. It is entirely expected, by allies and enemies alike. Setting a moral example by Doing the Right Thing would be a ridiculously huge mistake. Geopolitics is not for nice people.

I think the problem is that the sanctity of the 5-Eyes data-sharing was abused. While what you say is both true and also valid, the promises offered were (excuse the phrase) ass-raped by the US and extremely one sided.

Sure, there was a great deal of naivety on the part of the European Nations that were lining up to share the Great Firehose (As you say, 'If you could, Why wouldn't you?').

It is also true that there was a certain amount of 'beers, bribes & hoe's for the bros' involved but I honestly don't think that anyone in Europe ever truly considered that any intel gathered would be used by the US in the way it was.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#312

Post by seppin »

bigbubba wrote: post #291
seppin wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also don't ever stay on top by stealing/copying from others. By definition that always puts you (at least) 1 generation behind.

In simple scenarios with two actors perhaps, but I don't think that holds true for complex scenarios with multiple participants. Somebody who steals the best from everybody and is always one generation behind the state of the art in every regard may still prevail against all others because they are a Jack of all trades, master of none.

I'm not saying there isn't use for knowing your adversary's capabilities (especially in designing your own offense/defensive systems) but very little of that knowledge informs the core of future arms programs.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#313

Post by seppin »

mrslave wrote: post #37
fakedang wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about the US spying on Israel, but Israel and the UAE actively spy on the US, and this arrangement is pretty much allowed. I do know that US embassies in both places "monitor" their host countries, which is significantly different from spying and intercepting comms.

Interesting that the US doesn't actively spy on its partners, at least in their home countries, yet they allow it to be done to them. I don't follow this stuff closely so I can't really contribute. I'm sure others here would like to hear more. I do remember when Israel's cell tower interceptors were found in D.C. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house...

Interesting news today, Israel remains the only country on earth capable of freeing a spy in the USA convicted and serving a life sentence.

https://www.jns.org/us-frees-jonathan-pollard-after-decades-...

A complicated relationship.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#315

Post by rweir »

cturner wrote: post #270
rweir wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia doesn't have nukes because they don't want them, not because the US told them not to or promised to use them on it's behalf. it's so historically uninterested that it doesn't even have a nuclear power industry.

> Australia doesn't have nukes because they don't want them I don't think you did any investigation before posting that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_and_weapons_of_mass_... Australia didn't need a nuclear power industry during this era, it was a major coal producer and nobody cared about emissions.

I don't understand your point? Nuclear testing occurred in Australia but not by Australia.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#316

Post by nyolfen »

cambalache wrote: post #42
elefanten wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article proves the opposite point, despite the intense message-warping attempted. The report in question is a hypothetical "what if" scenario analysis (one of many) that outlines one possible strategy to address a future where US corporate innovation is not in the top tier. It's not real and it's speculative about the medium-to-long term future. Despite falling over itself to try to imply the US might actually b…

Yeah, you are right I am sure the NSA/CIA will let us know when they decide to do it.

I am easily as aware of the activities of US intelligence SIGINT programs as nearly any civilian on this site, and just as reflexively critical of them as you would expect of a HN poster (my interest stems from my opposition), but I have never seen any indication of industrial espionage on behalf of American businesses à la China in at least the post-Church committee period. If you make a strong claim, you should be able to support it with evidence.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#317

Post by nl »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #308
buran77 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most of it is based on Any specific existing treaty that forgives or wipes away a war crime? Or many. Despite the tens of thousands (conservatively) of dead civilians resulting from direct US military action, the US has not even been accused of a single instance of a war crime. Why do you think that is? Well I'll tell you, as someone who's been elbow deep into this for quite a few years of my life: international la…

There is no substantial disagreement between us, once I start to ignore some of your unnecessarily snippy and needlessly condescending remarks. Lack of enforcement of international law is due to lack of ratified treaties for such an enforcement. There is a reason why the US refuses to ratify the treaty for the International Court of Justice. So far, attempts to get better enforcement mechanisms were partly successful…

> If your suggestion is that governments cannot be held accountable for their actions, then I have to say I'm baffled and have no idea what made you adopt this outlandish view.

No, their argument is "The US has done bad things, so Russia should do bad things too, and it is UNFAIR to react to that." The rest is just pseudo-intellectual justification for that position.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#318

Post by thefounder »

bobthepanda wrote: post #310
coldtea wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Had to call in the US" -> "the US wanted its cut as top dog, and invited itself"

Sarkozy and Cameron publicly pushing Clinton and Obama to join in on enforcement for weeks would indicate something else, given the marked policy difference between how that was handled and Syria. Libya is not really something America has a strategic interest in.

Exactly! If you watch Obama's past interviews he says explictely that US was disappointed by France's weakness on Libya. Not to mention that France made a big deal of its "decisive" action after the US took down the anti-air defense.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#319

Post by curryst »

buran77 wrote: post #187
nl wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The facts he stated were all Russian justifications for the invasion.

The problem is that people misunderstand "international law" and interpret it as something similar to the more familiar national law. It's not. Why do you think the US can bomb a hospital or school, civilians be damned? That's a war crime but the justification "but terrorists" or "but democracy" wipes it away. How many war crimes do you think were committed in the Middle East and how many were condemned by that "inte…

> The problem is that people misunderstand "international law" and interpret it as something similar to the more familiar national law.

It's far more basic than that. Enforcement of domestic laws is based on the monopoly on violence the government carries. In international law, the two parties do not acknowledge each other's monopoly on violence. They are extremely unlikely to just roll over and accept the punishment.

Enforcing international law is just war with added steps and a more morally palatable justification. Sometimes nations capitulate before war breaks out (typically because the punishment is less severe than war, or because their odds of winning are low), but it doesn't change that they're surrendering to violence.

> Russia doesn't get sanctions because it "guilty" while the US does not because they're "innocent" in the eyes of the law.

International law is largely broken. It's predicated on the idea that the combined military power of the rest of the world can overpower the "guilty" country. Nuclear weaponry means that in the event of international law enforcement that threatens the existence of a country, they have just as much ability to make the rest of the world uninhabitable as the alliance of nations does to destroy theirs. We can't meaningfully enforce international law against nuclear capable countries. This is why economy-ruining sanctions are only enforced on nations that lack nuclear armaments. Hypothetically, if Cuba had nuclear missiles, do you really think our embargo of them would have lasted this long?

It's just a further division of the world into have's and have nots.

Re: NSA Spied on Denmark as It Chose Its Future Fighter Aircraft: Report

#320

Post by seppin »

fakedang wrote: post #304
seppin wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What they do mind is when they themselves are being spied upon That's what SIGINT is. > Like Merkel's phone being tapped. Which is an example of SIGINT. And it was leaked which is why it became an issue. World leader's are always surveilled. There's a certain level of aggression you use against acknowledged enemies that would be awkward if exposed against allies, that is not to say it doesn't still happen.

Oh, my bad at that, got a brain fart I suppose. Sweeped surveillance (which is usually SIGINT) is not minded, and often the backbone of programmes such as Five Eyes relies on that. Targeted surveillance (SIGINT cases that I mentioned) and espionage (mostly HUMINT) is frowned upon. HUMINT is especially frowned upon since it means you're actively investing in recruiting citizens against their government, and the intel…

> HUMINT Intel isn't practiced between staunch allies either

It most certainly is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

Post reply on HN