Revealed: How the UK Spied On Its G20 Allies At London Summits 262
Writing "Wow, this is going to really set the cat amongst the pigeons once this gets around," an anonymous reader links to a story at The Guardian about some good old fashioned friendly interception, and the slide-show version of what went on at recent G20 summits in London:
"Foreign politicians' calls and emails intercepted by UK intelligence; Delegates tricked into using fake internet cafes; GCHQ analysts sent logs of phone calls round the clock; Documents are latest revelations from whistleblower Edward Snowden."
Re:Seems fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's part of the problem with massive caches of data -- it's hard to secure. So, setting aside all the potential evils that will absolutely certainly occur because of politicians and career bureaucrats having the data, throw in the random security breach by insiders, contractors, script kiddies, whatever.
It is beyond retarded to trust the government with this data.
Re:Seems fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's one of the few places that provide some decent protection against extradition to a "beacon of freedom" that runs secret prisons, tortures its prisoners and imprisons people for years without a trial
A great service (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. Snowden may eventually be captured by the U.S. government and be hanged by his balls, he may be a Chinese spy as has been alleged by some in the government, but if his revelations are true he is doing you and I ordinary people a great service by airing all this, at a minimum, naughty, and, at most, highly illegal shit. If this stuff is true, I want to see some high government officials hanging by their balls (or tits for those of the female species) for their actions.
Re:Seems fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
So, setting aside all the potential evils that will absolutely certainly occur because of politicians and career bureaucrats having the data, throw in the random security breach by insiders, contractors, script kiddies, whatever.
When the day comes that this information is obtained and used against the same politicians who voted for it, it will be some delicious comeuppance. And better than they deserve. And a minor observation. From the fine summary:
an anonymous reader links to a story at The Guardian about some good old fashioned friendly interception
It's funny the way they phrase things when governments are involved. If you steal your neighbor's car, they won't call it a "friendly theft" just because you were on good terms prior to the theft.
Re:A great service (Score:5, Insightful)
Give hum a fucking medal, forget prosecution.
Re:Seems fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
>When the day comes that this information is obtained and used against the same politicians who voted for it, it will be some delicious comeuppance.
I really don't think you quite get how that day would work.
"Senator, PRISM has discovered an email of you admitting to having a gay lover in college, something that would make you completely unelectable in this country for some reason."
"Ahh. Johnny Ten Inches. Yes, well, I admit to that. How much is it going to cost for this to go away?"
"We have all the money we need, but it would sure be nice if that new NSA data seizure legislation in the pipeline got a yes vote. #211,944 if I recall."
"#211,944? I'm not familiar with it."
"Of course you aren't, senator. We haven't written it yet."
The problem is people (Score:5, Insightful)
"A secret once shared is secret no more."
It's marginally possible to maintain infosec when your operatives are groomed, recruited, trained and thoroughly and frequently tested by counterops, psych, and intel pros who outnumber them hundreds to one. Then only occasionally does a spy get in and get promoted to the top. This is only possible when the people who know the precious things are few. The top end is maybe 5,000. Probably far less.
When your secrets are shared across thousands of subcontractors whose recruiting you don't even monitor? No. You may as well post your own shit to pastebin.
Re:Seems fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
How times change. And to think that the US Government once prosecuted WWII Japanese Officers over the war crime of waterboarding. We executed some of those convicted, and others spent a long time in prison. Cheney and his ilk though(*), they profit from the chest thumping book sales.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/yes-inational-reviewi-we_b_191153.html [huffingtonpost.com]
(*) I include those who excuse such War Crimes, such as Obama, in that "ilk"
Re:A great service (Score:0, Insightful)
Because it has been in a bunch of Hollywood movies, so it must be true. Or that the paranoid people want it to be true to fit to their reality.
And why wasn't this debated by the people who are 'shocked' by this back in 2001 or 2006? Even in 2012? The info was out there. I'm not even sure that this isn't a GOP/Tea Party/Libertarian plot to pile on more scandals to win back the senate in 2014.
Re:Seems fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's part of the problem with massive caches of data -- it's hard to secure.
There was no intention to secure the data. Each country's intelligence service shares with their counterparts so they have plausible deniability regarding spying on their own citizens.
The Brits can say they got info from the Americans or Australians NZ, etc and vice versa.
These people in their surveillance communities have far more in common with each other, and more loyalty to each other than to the nations that hire them.
War on Terror == War on Everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
The full bore surveillance state that has emerged in the US/Great Britten/etc since the 9/11 attacks has an autonomous agenda. Coping with terrorism is not it's primary goal. It's aim is to permanently protect the current ruling clique from all challenges. It is intrinsically anti-democracy and anti-capitalism. Functioning democracy and capitalism reduce the control and economic position of the power elite, so democracy and capitalism must be being suppressed.
This is the inevitable result of an out of control security system. There are secret organizations governed by secret charters overseen by secret courts with elected officials sworn to secrecy. The people running the organizations lie to everyone all the time. They justify their behavior by claiming that since they are the "good guys", it's OK to do evil things. This is literally the road to hell based on good intentions.
Once an unaccountable organization has the ability to spy on anyone for a good reason, it will spy on everyone for any reason.
Re:Seems fishy (Score:5, Insightful)
And people swallow that 'unlawful combatant' nonsense? Didn't they have the right paperwork? Forgot to get their forms signed by the right people? Or just weren't ready to stand out in the open and be simply blown away by a military that is 100% better equipped than all the other militaries in the world, combined?
Phrases like 'unlawful combatant' are the true banality of evil.
Re:Seems fishy (Score:5, Insightful)