NSA Hacked Email Account of Mexican President 242
rtoz writes "The National Security Agency (NSA ) of United States hacked into the Mexican president's public email account and gained deep insight into policymaking and the political system. The news is likely to hurt ties between the US and Mexico. This operation, dubbed 'Flatliquid,' is described in a document leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden. Meanwhile U.S. President Barack Obama's administration is urging the Supreme Court not to take up the first case it has received on controversial National Security Agency cybersnooping."
Well that's new (Score:5, Interesting)
US government attorneys argue that the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to take the case, filed in July by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
First time I've seen the government argue that the Court doesn't have jurisdiction.
All the other cases that have been quashed were either from claiming the plaintiff had no standing to sue, or that it involved State Secrets.
It's especially ballsy to try and argue that the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction.
A US Supreme Court decision to take the case would be "a drastic and extraordinary remedy that is reserved for really extraordinary causes," argued Donald Verrilli, an administration lawyer, in a statement released late Tuesday.
"drastic and extraordinary remedy"
No shit. It certainly seems like we need one of those.
Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)
The National Security Agency (NSA ) of United States hacked into the Mexican president's public email account and gained deep insight into policymaking
OK, seriously? From his public email? Even Obama has a "public email" you can send shit to. Little old ladies and bent out of shape whack jobs pounding away at their keyboard send stuff to El Presidente's "public email".
Next...
Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Interesting)
"It's especially ballsy to try and argue that the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction."
It's worse than you think.
They are simultaneously arguing in lower courts that the lower courts have no jurisdiction because it's a matter for the SC, AND in the SC that the SC does not have jurisdiction, because it's a question for the lower courts.
Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Interesting)
What I'm hoping for is reform of the Third Party Doctrine -- Justice Sotomayer has already expressed sympathy with such reform. See her concurrence, specifically, the paragraph starting at PDF page 19: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-1259.pdf [cornell.edu]
The 3PD is the rule that if you share info w/ a third party, even if that party promises you confidentiality, and even if they never actually breach your confidence, then the Feds can just have the data because the 4th Amendment doesn't apply at all (you have no reasonable expectation of privacy). The 3PD conflates "perfect secrecy" with "reasonable expectation of privacy" and not even the NSA can do perfect secrecy under that standard -- Booz Allen Hamilton is a third party after all.
The Supreme Court has applied this to info people consider quite private, like banking, telephone, accounting records. There is a split on jurisdictions with respect to cell tower location, and some jurisdictions even apply the 3PD to medical records because your doctor is after all, a third party.
If the 3PD disappeared, all of this stuff the NSA, CIA, DEA, FBI, etc. do, would have to go through a 4th amendment analysis and a third grader could demonstrate they fail to comply. The only reason Section 215 of PATRIOT Act can even exist without being an instant 4th Amendment violation, is the 3PD. Take away 3PD, and it's all unconstitutional. Fail to address the 3PD, and any proposed reform is just toilet paper.
I'd encourage people to ask their reps/senators what they intend to do about the third party doctrine.
Re:With a friends like Americans, who needs friend (Score:3, Interesting)
No moron it's called putting the situation in it's appropriate context. The NSA or the government for that matter does not operate in a vacuum. As long as there are other countries practicing espionage against US interests it would be foolish in the extreme to de-fang their own intelligence services. Just like if every country destroyed their nuclear arsenals the US could get rid of theirs.
Re:NSA doing its job (Score:4, Interesting)
Spying on foreign governments is pretty much the job description of the NSA. Spying on domestic communications is something they get away with, spying on foreign communications is what they were created to do.
I imagine the Mexican government will be publicly shocked to learn these details, but their counterintelligence teams have likely privately detected and thwarted other US hacking attempts.
US officials said how attacks on US networks are considered to be 'acts of war'.
NSA goes and attacks pretty much every corporate and/or government network known to man.
It's just NSA "doing their job", right? Not acts of war, by any chance?
Re:NSA doing its job (Score:5, Interesting)
So what would your take be if Mexico were to invade the whitehouse.gov email server to " check for drug cartel influence at the highest levels of the" US government? It's not like there aren't valid reasons to be suspicious, things like a US Treasury Secretary who resigns to go work for CitiCorps international money laundering division don't go unnoticed elsewhere in the world.
Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Interesting)
Excuse me, but doesn't the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction in cases where there are crimes by the government that cross national boundaries? Is there some requirement that the case be filed by a state's Attorney General?
I can't see this as a dispute between the states, so that's not the grounds. But I thought that when the government committed crimes in foreign countries, THAT was grounds. (N.B.: I'm drawing a distinction here between the government and the people who work for the government. I'm not totally comfortable doing so, as I believe that's a fraudulent distinction, but I believe that it is considered valid by the government.)
OTOH, IANAL, so I could be all wrong here. I could be only describing how things ought to work.
Re:As a Mexican living in Argentina... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me tell you something... I have been in Canada. I'm Mexican. In both paces US news are covered to an extent far beyond that any other country covers US and/or a neighbour nation. Both countries even follow US sports leagues as if they were local. How do you explain that?
France initial response to the NSA allegations was to take down Evo Morales plane.
From my point of view, US can't be trusted. It has too much information, the policies are little enforced and these leaks seem to happen very frequently. So what happens when this sort of information is silently leaked to corporations or to the enemy? Or how is it regulated to which friends the US can exchanges this information?
And then when they are caught, they decide to act like nothing happened, and expect everybody else to pretend this is the way things should be on the world. And when Dilma doesn't like Obama reading her email, and even proposes to do something to avoid it, you say she can't look beyond Latin America?
I expect this sort of event to make Latin America rethink in which terms they want to cooperate with US. If it's convenient to have US bases in our soil or to which extent we want to be US allies.
Re:So what is this about? (Score:4, Interesting)
Snowden has revealed US spying against China. He has not revealed spying done by China. Why?
Uuuhh...maybe because China's spying is of little to no concern to him?
More Mexicans have been killed in the current drug war/narco-insurgency than there were Americans killed in Vietnam. Do you think the US might reasonably want to keep an eye on that, especially since the violence bleeds over the border, US-Mexican border areas are dangerous on the US side, and drugs are flooding over the border?
Ok...and how much intel from drug gangs trying to get drugs into the US over the border do you think they're going to get from the Mexican president's personal email? Pretty much squat? Yeah...that's what I thought.
You might also want to consider the many countries in Europe that are both friendly to the US, and harbor Islamic extremists with ties to terrorism. The ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers came from living in Germany, for example.
That's the problem with freedom. People sometimes use it to do nasty things. However, the solution to this isn't to monitor everyone to prevent the nasty things. It's to create a society that, on the whole, people don't want to do nasty things to, and if some whackjob does anyway, find them and prosecute them if they're still alive.
Monitoring everybody just because you can falls firmly on the side of making a society that people do, in fact, want to do nasty things to.
I think you need rethink your ideas on this.
Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Interesting)
To give the best answer I think you might have to clarify exactly what you mean by "crimes by the government." Like you, INAL, but I do have some understanding of various aspects of the law for various reasons. To really be sure you would probably want to speak with a lawyer that practices in this particular area, especially since there are some unusual aspects to it compared to ordinary criminal law or the law of war. Having said that.....
The US government has what is known as sovereign immunity. It has to agree to face legal consequences for its actions in court for anyone or any organization to take legal action against it in US courts. There are many areas in which it has done so, and others where it hasn't. When you say "crimes by the government that cross national boundaries," I'm going to assume you are referring to intelligence gathering or surveillance. US Law and constitutional rights, as I understand them, are largely confined to American territory, or vessels, although American citizens retain their rights outside the country when dealing with the US government. A citizen of Syrian living in Luxembourg as a member of a terrorist cell plotting attacks against Canada has no rights under the US 4th Amendment that would require the NSA or CIA to get a warrant to spy on him. The same would apply to the Quds Force special forces of the government of Iran. The NSA or CIA wouldn't require a warrant to spy on them. The same would apply to other countries and their citizens. Inside the US, the rules change so there would need to be warrants at some point, unless they were in direct contact with terrorists outside the country. (And you can quibble about this point on various statutory or Constitutional grounds.) And American citizen would retain 4th Amendment rights both in and out of the country unless they were in direct contact with a terrorist group. (Same quibbling could again apply.) So if some US intelligence agency actually did have access to an email account of a foreign leader, it is very unlikely that there was a crime committed under US law for there to be an action against the Federal government in US court, even assuming that the US government waived sovereign immunity in that instance, which isn't likely as far as I know. (Check with a lawyer.) There might be a diplomatic problem, but that is a different question. If some foreign citizen felt that they had a legitimate grievance against the US government, the thing to do would be to contact a lawyer that practices in the area of US law in question and see about filing a suit US Federal court. It would start in the lower courts. If there was a significant Constitutional question, it might make it to higher courts, perhaps even the Supreme Court. I think the key for the vast, vast majority of people to avoid being a subject of surveillance by the US government, when someone is actually looking at your information instead of just having it in a computer, is to avoid involvement with violent extremists groups or foreign intelligence agencies. The resources that the US has, extensive as they may seem, are still limited and they aren't going to waste much time on someone unless necessary. Write letters of protest instead of picking up an AK.
Re: Well that's new (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure what lead you to interject in this thread at this point, but let me provide you with a simplifying assumption you can make when you respond to my posts, especially it relates to warfare in general, and WW2 in particular. If you think I'm wrong, the most useful reaction for you to have initially is to wonder what is it about my post that you (s. petry) don't understand that would make you think that I (Cold Fjord) am wrong. Your post is completely unconnected with anything that was under discussion other than the general time period of the examples. The purpose of the examples I gave was to show impositions on personal liberty that had occurred in the US during wartime, with much of it applying to the UK, and you completely missed that. You got the country wrong, apparently referring to Germany when the location for the events in question was the United States. You got the context of one of the examples I gave wrong since you thought it had to do with a loss of electrical power in Germany instead of what it really was, light discipline as a security measure in the US/UK. Concentration camps were never a theme of the discussion, nor the reason for German fighting. The other person in the discussion understood my point. You missed all of that, and more, and yet to tell me, "You should really talk to people from the era and check history." I was right about what I wrote, but you tell me in essence that I'm wrong and provide unrelated information unconnected to the topic under discussion. In a way this isn't terribly different from that recent post you made about the 9/11 crash sites, how there wasn't any debris from the planes at the sites. I provided you a series of links on those incidents, some of which had pictures showing debris, and others with discussions of the investigation by either people that conducted them, or experts providing analysis. I doubt that you looked into any of them. You already had the answer you needed from the "truther" site. Oh, I'm sure you'll object that they are "only asking questions", but in essence that is little more than a rhetorical trick to avoid being confronted for offering conspiracy theories. Personally I think that one of the most important questions you need to consider is, did you look at the links I provided you, and if not, why not? I suspect the answer is no, because you think you know the answers, or the "right questions". But just as in this case where you didn't understand the discussion before interjecting irrelevant information, I think it is pretty likely you misunderstand the events around 9/11 as well. There is no meaningful consequence for being wrong in this thread, but being wrong about 9/11 is going to lead you to be tempted to hold positions held by cranks, and will negatively influence your views in a number of areas. If you haven't looked at those links yet I urge you to do so, and strongly urge you to rethink your position on 9/11. You're obviously an intelligent person, but you have a mistaken view on this topic. I truly hope you reconsider.
Re:First Brazil, now Mexico, who's next ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who will be next ?
America is fast losing friends if this trend is continuing.
Not that long ago, Russians, Chinese, Cubans, Iranians, North Koreans were painted as EVIL because America said so ~ and the world (mainly Europeans, plus many third world countries) generally subscribe to that view because the United States of America supposed to be trustworthy
Is America anymore trustworthy than the Russians, Chinese, Cubans, Iranians, or North Koreans ?
There are those who paint Snowden as a traitor who has harmed the security of the USA for leaking information about the excesses of the NSA. Snowden, however, was not the first to speak up, nor is he likely to be the last. He was just the snowflake that triggered the avalanche. It WOULD have come out sooner or later - I forget if it's Ben Franklin or an old Russian adage that "3 men can keep a secret if 2 of them are dead", but sooner or later, truth leaks out. Just ask Richard Nixon.
The greatest enemy to the security and integrity of the USA hasn't been Snowden. He was just one of many messengers. The real enemy was the NSA itself. Had they simply done what they said they were doing, well it's an ugly business, but a necessary one. By grossly exceeding their mandate like a horde of rampaging Mongols, however, they have damaged the credibility and the moral authority of the USA in ways that will take a long, long, time to repair. If ever.