It's not just you, and it's been going on a while.
The natural result of autodead comments. Heavy mod censorship. The inability to speak about mod censorship. And of course HN kowtows to US surveillance interests. Some accounts get special privileges and vote brigades are allowed by some. Finally those against such interests such as Snowden or Assange get special treatment. Having an open, fair, unbiased, uncensored discussion or such issues on HN is impossible. My c…
>My comment will never be seen.
This is false, I'm seeing your comment. I even see it when logged out (so no showdead).
>Some accounts get special privileges and vote brigades are allowed by some.
Is there evidence for this? (Besides of course mods getting mod privileges.)
Yes, it's a violation of sovereignty. It's probably illegal under those countries' laws. But it's legal for the US government to do abroad, and breaking other countries' laws and sovereignty to obtain intelligence is more or less the entire job of our intelligence agencies. This is the job of every foreign intelligence agency. Otherwise they'd just be investigative journalists. Friendly countries spying on each other…
The overwhelming German public response to Merkel's bugging was one of outrage. Accepting your argument, doesn't that suggest it was actually out of bounds and not normal?
That outrage is pretty rich, since Germany spies flagrantly on other nations, including their embassies, as well.
Good, right? I mean, if he really is some Russian asset rather than a straightforward political opposition journalist, they would have obtained loads of evidence to substantiate this. So, where is it?
It's where they keep all the other evidence of foreign intelligence operations - a secure classified intelligence facility. Where should they be keeping it?
It can't be that secure if "La Repubblica has had access to the video and audio recordings".
This doesn't make sense to me, please educate me as to what I am missing. Why is the United States within its rights to gather intelligence within the Ecuadorian Embassy within England? It seems like embassies of foreign countries, not located within the US's borders means that the US government has no legal rights to any of that. To me it looks like the US violated the rights of not just Ecuador's sovereignty, but a…
Yes, it's a violation of sovereignty. It's probably illegal under those countries' laws. But it's legal for the US government to do abroad, and breaking other countries' laws and sovereignty to obtain intelligence is more or less the entire job of our intelligence agencies. This is the job of every foreign intelligence agency. Otherwise they'd just be investigative journalists. Friendly countries spying on each other…
You mean "the US considers it legal within the US". It's not legal. It's like the shit you see on Reddit about China and Russia spying, with the US playing the victim as if they weren't spying too, and better, before that. The same goes with corporate espionage and tech transfers. Hyptocrites. People were thrown in mental hospitals back in the day when they theorized about Echelon, Carnivore -- what we know developed into PRISM run by the 5 Eyes. These people should be ashamed and liable for all the problems they've caused at home and abroad. National Security Interests is an excuse. And a flimsy one. And one day, when the US isn't The Superpower anymore, they're going to pay for this shit if they continue this colonialistic, imperialistic bullshit.
Yes, it's a violation of sovereignty. It's probably illegal under those countries' laws. But it's legal for the US government to do abroad, and breaking other countries' laws and sovereignty to obtain intelligence is more or less the entire job of our intelligence agencies. This is the job of every foreign intelligence agency. Otherwise they'd just be investigative journalists. Friendly countries spying on each other…
The overwhelming German public response to Merkel's bugging was one of outrage. Accepting your argument, doesn't that suggest it was actually out of bounds and not normal?
A quick google search turns up this article[1].
> The German intelligence agency used the selectors to surveil telephone and fax numbers as well as email accounts belonging to American companies like Lockheed Martin, the space agency NASA, the organization Human Rights Watch, universities in several U.S. states and military facilities like the U.S. Air Force, the Marine Corps and the Defense Intelligence Agency, the secret service agency belonging to the American armed forces. Connection data from far over 100 foreign embassies in Washington, from institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Washington office of the Arab League were also accessed by the BND's spies.
Yes, it's a violation of sovereignty. It's probably illegal under those countries' laws. But it's legal for the US government to do abroad, and breaking other countries' laws and sovereignty to obtain intelligence is more or less the entire job of our intelligence agencies. This is the job of every foreign intelligence agency. Otherwise they'd just be investigative journalists. Friendly countries spying on each other…
The overwhelming German public response to Merkel's bugging was one of outrage. Accepting your argument, doesn't that suggest it was actually out of bounds and not normal?
The only part that wasn’t normal was it becoming a publicized story. What do you think intelligence agencies normally do, ask politely for confidential information?
This doesn't make sense to me, please educate me as to what I am missing. Why is the United States within its rights to gather intelligence within the Ecuadorian Embassy within England? It seems like embassies of foreign countries, not located within the US's borders means that the US government has no legal rights to any of that. To me it looks like the US violated the rights of not just Ecuador's sovereignty, but a…
Yes, it's a violation of sovereignty. It's probably illegal under those countries' laws. But it's legal for the US government to do abroad, and breaking other countries' laws and sovereignty to obtain intelligence is more or less the entire job of our intelligence agencies. This is the job of every foreign intelligence agency. Otherwise they'd just be investigative journalists. Friendly countries spying on each other…
> But it's legal for the US government to do abroad, and breaking other countries' laws and sovereignty to obtain intelligence is more or less the entire job of our intelligence agencies.
Yes, it's a violation of sovereignty. It's probably illegal under those countries' laws. But it's legal for the US government to do abroad, and breaking other countries' laws and sovereignty to obtain intelligence is more or less the entire job of our intelligence agencies. This is the job of every foreign intelligence agency. Otherwise they'd just be investigative journalists. Friendly countries spying on each other…
The overwhelming German public response to Merkel's bugging was one of outrage. Accepting your argument, doesn't that suggest it was actually out of bounds and not normal?
You’re right: for the German public foreign intelligence gather is out or bounds and not normal.
The right to attorney-client confidentiality does not apply in the context of national security intelligence gathering. The United States was within its rights to gather intelligence about a foreign person in a foreign country. Such intelligence would be absolutely inadmissible in court. But intelligence agencies aren't interested in prosecuting people. They are tasked with national security, not prosecution.
This doesn't make sense to me, please educate me as to what I am missing. Why is the United States within its rights to gather intelligence within the Ecuadorian Embassy within England? It seems like embassies of foreign countries, not located within the US's borders means that the US government has no legal rights to any of that. To me it looks like the US violated the rights of not just Ecuador's sovereignty, but a…
The right to attorney-client confidentiality does not apply in the context of national security intelligence gathering. The United States was within its rights to gather intelligence about a foreign person in a foreign country. Such intelligence would be absolutely inadmissible in court. But intelligence agencies aren't interested in prosecuting people. They are tasked with national security, not prosecution.
This doesn't make sense to me, please educate me as to what I am missing. Why is the United States within its rights to gather intelligence within the Ecuadorian Embassy within England? It seems like embassies of foreign countries, not located within the US's borders means that the US government has no legal rights to any of that. To me it looks like the US violated the rights of not just Ecuador's sovereignty, but a…
Spying on foreign people in foreign countries is pretty much every intelligence agency's raison d'etre