Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Your Rights Online

NSA Hacked Email Account of Mexican President 242

Posted by timothy
from the because-why-not dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NSA Hacked Email Account of Mexican President

Comments Filter:
  • Well that's new (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @11:31AM (#45181163) Journal

    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.

    • Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Informative)

      by cold fjord (826450) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @11:44AM (#45181269)

      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.

      The problem is that EPIC is trying to jump the line. There aren't many circumstances in which a direct filing to the US Supreme Court is appropriate without going through the process in the lower courts. What EPIC did really isn't appropriate.

      Administration looks to dodge Supreme Court challenge to NSA program [thehill.com]

      The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a petition directly to the Supreme Court in July, claiming that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court overstepped its authority when it granted the NSA permission to collect the phone records in bulk.

      The program — the most controversial revelation from the leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden — collects phone numbers, call times and call durations, but not the contents of conversations, according to the NSA.

      Other civil liberties groups have sued to end the NSA program, but those cases were filed in federal district court . EPIC is the only group to go directly to the Supreme Court.

      • Re:Well that's new (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 20, 2013 @11:48AM (#45181283)
        If it involves the US Government breaking the constitutional rights of every US citizen, then attempting to silence anyone who questions them, it might be one of those circumstances.
        • Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Informative)

          by cold fjord (826450) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @01:43PM (#45182095)

          Since we seem to have a group of moderators running around today that are ignorant of the functioning of the US court system, I'll restate.

          Lower courts have the authority to rule acts of the Federal government unconstitutional and stop them. This case has little chance of being accepted by the US Supreme Court. It isn't proper procedure for it to start there, and it isn't the type of case that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over. This is a matter for the lower courts to start with. Any citizen or corporation that received a gag order from a court could challenge it in the same court, or appeal it.

          A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court [supremecourt.gov]

          “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

          Hopefully this is clear, and modding me down doesn't change the law even if you don't like it.

          • by amiga3D (567632)

            I hear what you are saying but the administration made it sound like the Supreme Court didn't have jurisdiction, not that it wasn't appropriate. I'm sure if the Supreme Court chooses to hear the case it can. If anyone has overstepped their bounds it's been the executive branch of the last two presidencies.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by cold fjord (826450)

              To the best of my knowledge the Supreme Court doesn't have original jurisdiction for the case. That is, it can't act as a trial court, it has to be an appeals court. That means that this case has to start the way almost every other case does which is in a lower level federal court. The Supreme Court doesn't have unlimited jurisdiction.

          • Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Interesting)

            by HiThere (15173) <`charleshixsn' `at' `earthlink.net'> on Sunday October 20, 2013 @05:15PM (#45183509)

            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:Well that's new (Score:5, Interesting)

              by cold fjord (826450) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @10:03PM (#45185217)

              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:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 20, 2013 @12:06PM (#45181425)

        The NSA not only has the capability to violate client attorney privilege at every point in the course, and to threaten judges, lawyers and everyone up and down the line, they have demonstrated the will to ignore the courts already by ignoring the FISA courts rulings.

        Not only should the supreme court rule on this before any lower court can, it should invalidate the entire domestic spying apparatus.

        And that's likely just what will happen given the circumstances. Judges do not like their power being questioned.

        • Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Interesting)

          by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Sunday October 20, 2013 @12:45PM (#45181705) Homepage

          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.

    • by Guppy06 (410832)

      It's especially ballsy to try and argue that the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction.

      Emphasis mine:

      In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

      The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction only where Congress allows it. If Congress excepted the FISA court from Supreme Court jurisdiction, that's the end of it.

      • by TubeSteak (669689)

        The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction only where Congress allows it. If Congress excepted the FISA court from Supreme Court jurisdiction, that's the end of it.

        Roberts's Picks Reshaping Secret Surveillance Court [nytimes.com]
        Chief Justice Roberts is personally responsible for picking 10 of the 11 sitting FISA judges.
        To be clear: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court nominates all the FISA judges, the President signs off.

        I understand what you're saying, but what kind of ass backwards policy would it be
        to have the Chief Justice of the United States pick judges for a court that he has no jurisdiction over?

        • by Guppy06 (410832)

          I understand what you're saying, but what kind of ass backwards policy would it be to have the Chief Justice of the United States pick judges for a court that he has no jurisdiction over?

          It'd be an olive branch, a consolation prize to the Chief Justice to give the appearance of SCOTUS influence where there need not be. After all, the Chief Justice doesn't have that kind of say over bread-and-butter district, bankruptcy and circuit judges.

    • You don't pay much attention to the Courts. "Standing" is something that gets argued all the time, and it is solely about jurisdiction.

      In this case the issue is that the Supremes almost never take cases without them being adjudicated at a lower level. Generally exceptions are extremely exceptionable -- think Bush vs. Gore, which actually includes a clause that it should not be referenced in future court rulings -- and involve cases where a definitive ruling is needed Right This Very Minute or Bad Things Hap

      • by cusco (717999)

        Although in that case they gave a ruling, and Bad Things Happened as a result of it . . .

        • [sarcasm]
          Somebody hasn't been watching Foxnews enough.

          A few thousand US Troops, a few hundred thousand Iraqi and Afghani civilians, a massive deficit caused by unpaid-for tax cuts, and a minor economic collapse were a small price to pay for killing the Kyoto Treaty.
          [/sarcasm]

        • by tqk (413719)

          My understanding is that in that case, they shouldn't have been asked. It was up to the state legislature to make the decision, and they punted.

      • by TubeSteak (669689)

        You don't pay much attention to the Courts. "Standing" is something that gets argued all the time, and it is solely about jurisdiction.

        Standing is about who has the right to sue.
        Jurisdiction is about where you have the right to sue.

        Everything else you said is correct, though I hope your prediction of his lawsuit's path is not correct.

    • Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Arker (91948) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @12:28PM (#45181581) Homepage

      "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.

      • by amiga3D (567632)

        You have to admire it. They have a limitless amount of nerve and absolutely no shame. This is what happens when people decide that the end justifies the means. Also the quote "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." comes to mind.

      • 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.

        Actually no, they aren't. The Supreme Court doesn't have original jurisdiction for the EPIC complaint. The lower court cases are running into other issues. The Supreme Court has already ruled about the status of phone records is one issue. Another is standing for a 4th Amendment challenge.

        NSA Phone Records Collection Can't Be Challenged By The Callers, Government Argues [huffingtonpost.com]

        The government is arguing in the terrorism case that serves as the National Security Agency's primary public justification for its bulk collection of telephone records that criminal defendants have no constitutional right to challenge the agency's sweeping surveillance program.

        In a filing made Sept. 30, U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy of the Southern District of California contends that only the telephone companies have a Fourth Amendment interest in their call records -- and therefore that Basaaly Moalin cannot challenge his conviction for providing material support to the Somali terrorist group al-Shabaab.

        Moalin is a Somali immigrant and San Diego cab driver convicted in February with three other defendants of sending $8,500 to al-Shabaab. His case constitutes the only time the government has admitted using bulk phone records surveillance as the crucial step in a domestic terrorism investigation, and thus it has taken on an outsized significance in the debate over the NSA's program.

        "[N]either Moalin nor his co-defendants have standing to challenge the United States' collection of the telephony metadata from the service provider, regardless of the collection's expanse," the government's filing asserts.

        One example.

  • As a Mexican... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Niterios (2700835) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @11:32AM (#45181173)
    I can say nobody is surprised this happened. President Calderón would have been silly not to assume something like this.
    • Re:As a Mexican... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NicBenjamin (2124018) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @12:43PM (#45181681)

      I can say nobody is surprised this happened. President Calderón would have been silly not to assume something like this.

      Mexicans understand the world beyond Latin America a lot better then the rest of Latin America does. The US spies on everybody, everybody spies on the US, when anybody gets caught there's a lot of pretentious bitching because a the electorate doesn't understand this, but nobody takes it very seriously. Thus France's initial response to the NSA allegations was an extremely self-righteous defense of the Right to Privacy, and it was immediately followed by everyone who has ever met France going "WTF? You're a million times worse the NSA could ever hope to be." There's actually probably more spying between friends then enemies. Latvia got burned really badly back when Hitler (the supposed anti-Communist Crusader) sold them out to Stalin, so they'd be fools if they don't have plenty of ways to verify their current anti-Russian protector (aka: Barrack Hussein Obama) isn't doing it to them.

      OTOH everyone else in Latin Amer4ica is acting like the entire world lied to them by stealing their email. Which is technically true, but it's also technically true that part of being a grown-up real nation is knowing that they will always steal your secrets.

      • Mexicans don't understand the the world beyond US, they are too close and too economically dependent to see there is something else.
        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 v
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by NicBenjamin (2124018)

          If you think it's unusual for a small country to follow it's large neighbors closely you clearly haven't spent much time in Europe. Scandinavia and the Finns pay an inordinate amount of attention to Germany and Russia. Portugal pays a lot of attention to Spain, and Portugal isn't that much smaller then Spain. The Irish are renowned for their ability to denigrate anything English, while being more English then the goddamned English.

          You're missing key points of the French timeline. While Snowden was still in

  • Seriously? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Sunday October 20, 2013 @11:33AM (#45181177)

    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:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NicBenjamin (2124018) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @12:53PM (#45181749)

      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...

      Of course the Russian Foreign Service Security guy who hacks Obama's public email would write that he "gained deep insight" into Obama's secret thoughts this way. Otherwise he'd be deemed useless and have his budget cut.

      From a non-American point-of-view you could probably gain a lot of little insights from the Obama admin's responses to their public email. You would know what Obama's dealing with at a grassroots level, for example. A very common way for countries to not make a concession is for them to politely say that if they do that their publics will freak out. Reading Obama's email would let Putin know when Obama was lying about that shit. You would not know much more about Obama's actual positions then he tells you himself because he's got to know it's trivial for a foreign agent to register john.smith@yahoo.com and shoot Obama an email, but you'd get real insights into the political constraints Obama had to deal with.

    • Intentionally stupid or normal stupid?

      "this email domain was also used by cabinet members, and contained âoediplomatic, economic and leadership communications which continue to provide insight into Mexicoâ(TM)s political system and internal stability.â

      This article was barely longer than that so it wasn't hard to find.

  • 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).

    i would love to see their response when mexico demands extradition. yes, mexico can extradite people from the US. [umich.edu]

    i'm pretty sure espionage is a capital crime.

    • 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).

      i would love to see their response when mexico demands extradition. yes, mexico can extradite people from the US. [umich.edu]

      i'm pretty sure espionage is a capital crime.

      Extradition only works for things that are crimes in both countries, and the extraditing country generally gets a veto on the death sentence.

      Since spying on foreign countries is a core function of the US Government several Constitutional provisions make arresting a US Government employee for spying he did in the course of his job illegal. Which means all Mexican charges will do is stop some NSA spooks from vacationing on Mexican beaches, or in Latin American countries likely to extradite them to Mexico.

    • A snowballs in hell chance. If USA's says "jump" our president's answer is "how much?"

  • 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.

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      it's still illegal and technically usa has contracts in place that say that they would help catch such persons and would send them to mexico for trial.

      • it's still illegal and technically usa has contracts in place that say that they would help catch such persons and would send them to mexico for trial.

        What US law prevents us from spying on Mexico? I am genuinely curious about this. Note that a treaty is irrelevant. It is a law in the sense that it is legal, but crimes are based on statutes passed by Congress, so you'll need to cite the statute. Moreover legally speaking our relationship with Mexico is less close then our relationship to Argentina or Pakistan, both of which are Major Non-NATO Allies.

        • by cusco (717999)

          a treaty is irrelevant.

          Take a look at the Constitution:

          Article. VI.
          . . . all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

          Looks like treaties are perfectly relevant. Care to restate your position?

          • Nope. Because you have read without understanding. The point of that clause is to say that state laws can't trump any source of Federal law, including treaties. If this clause said what you think it said it would put treaties on equal footing with the Constitution, which would mean a Jew-banning treaty would be just as valid as the First Amendment. In actual practice treaties have virtually no standing in Courts unless Congress has also passed statutes backing them up, in which case the judges ignore the tr

        • Really? You didn't realize that computer hacking is illegal in pretty much every civilized country in the world, including the US? Doesn't matter where the target is, just that the hacker operated from within the US.

          • Computer hacking is illegal for private citizens. So I couldn't hack the President of Mexico's email.

            But that does not apply to government employees, working under legal government orders.

    • Not quite (Score:5, Informative)

      by Arker (91948) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @12:25PM (#45181549) Homepage

      Actually they are supposed to be spying on *enemy governments*.

      Problem is we dont have any more of those left, but bureaucracy doesnt know how to shut down when it is not needed. Instead they keep trying to make new enemies. And unfortunately succeeding...

      • No, their supposed to be spying on every other government and country. They are all spying on us as well. It's the dirty little secret of diplomacy, everyone is spying on everyone else.

        The problem has become that the lines of separation between foreign intelligence and domestic intelligence gathering is getting extremely blurred. Foreign figure A has an account on Facebook with friends in the US. NSA et. al. collects the data on Foreign figure, but now that includes data on US citizens as well...

        I mean

        • by Arker (91948)

          Spying on friendly governments *might* be technically legal, though I doubt it. Nonetheless it is certainly not what anyone tasked with national security *should* be doing, because it is completely contrary to the supposed goal.

          • Countries don't have 'friends' they have 'allies'. Allied countries have always spied on each other.

            • by Arker (91948)

              "We have always been at war with Eastasia."

              I know you probably are not old enough to remember it, but there was a time before this BS. Then came the cold war, and it made sense to build stuff like this to stop them. Then they keeled over dead from bad economics and we... started making new enemies. And by that time generations had gone by so constant wartime footing seems 'normal' to a lot of people.

              But it's bad economics and if we keep it up we're going the way of the Soviet Union.

        • No, their supposed to be spying on every other government and country. They are all spying on us as well. It's the dirty little secret of diplomacy, everyone is spying on everyone else.

          I love how people try to sound wise when talking about this stuff, "of course" the USA spies on everyone, everyone knows "everyone spies on everyone else".

          Except they don't. Do you really think Brazil or Mexico is running operations hacking President Obama's email account? Do you think Germany is? If "everyone" was doing this

      • by Nyder (754090)

        Actually they are supposed to be spying on *enemy governments*.

        Problem is we dont have any more of those left, ...

        The way the USA is going, it's that is all it's going to have left...

    • Re:NSA doing its job (Score:4, Interesting)

      by X.25 (255792) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @01:25PM (#45181963)

      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?

  • to believe that this sort of thing will forever remain a secret ? Sooner or later this sort of thing will become public knowledge; I suppose that the best that they can hope for is that, by then, no one will care.

    Regardless of the legality or morality of this, or that ''it is just the NSA's job'', they should have forseen that it WILL become known, at that it is likely to cause a public storm or damage USA reputation or international relationships. Instead they seem to act surprised and then try to blame th

    • by joh (27088)

      I'm pretty sure they think that caring for that just isn't part of their job. Maybe they're even right with that, it's the job of others to reign them in.

    • What's going to happen is what always happens when these programs come to light: everyone will bitch, somebody may try something really dramatic like expelling Ambassadors; and then six months from now nobody will care. Everyone the NSA has spied on so far has acted this way. Brazil's response is actually strongest. They are starting a program encrypting their internal government emails, which begs the question: why the fuck they weren't doing that already. In other words it's you're being arrogant and naiv

  • No hard feelings (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mapuche (41699) on Sunday October 20, 2013 @12:45PM (#45181703) Homepage

    "The news is likely to hurt ties between the US and Mexico."

    Hardly. When you have huge difference of powers the weaker nation, Mexico in this case, can only act as offended but forget the issue very soon and go on.

  • ...I've always considered that:
    a) anything I post on the web is essentially permanent.
    b) emails are *basically* like writing a message on a postcard; 'private' ostensibly, but really readable by anyone that wants to.

    Clearly, nobody explained "B" to the Mexican president.

  • The US administration also believes the EIPC suit cannot move forward because it argues the [supreme] court lacks authority under the 2001 Patriot Act to weigh in on the legality of NSA activities.

    So how does that work? I thought the Supreme court was the highest authority on the law in the US?

  • The Supreme Court of the United States, the highest federal court in the country, doesn't have the jurisdiction to challenge the NSA? What kind of bullshit is that?

  • What has NSA _not_ done?
    Anything thinkable and unthinkable they have done, continue doing, will do and have or will get the capability to do.

    http://www.thensavideo.com/ [thensavideo.com].

The world is no nursery. - Sigmund Freud

Working...