NSA Cracked Into Encrypted UN Video Conferences 427
McGruber writes "According to documents seen by Germany's Der Spiegel, the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) successfully cracked the encryption code protecting the United Nations' internal videoconferencing system. NSA first breached the UN system in the summer of 2012 and, within three weeks of initially gaining access to the UN system, the NSA had increased the number of such decrypted communications from 12 to 458. On one occasion, according to the report, while the American NSA were attempting to break into UN communications, they discovered the Chinese were attempting to crack the encryption code as well."
Yo Dawg we heard the chinese (Score:5, Funny)
were trying to break in , so we did it first to warn you.
Re: Yo Dawg we heard the chinese (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. So it's OK the USA does it but not the Chinese?
UDL
Re: Yo Dawg we heard the chinese (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course. We may do every kind of atrocity, for it is in the name of peace and democracy.
Re: Yo Dawg we heard the chinese (Score:5, Funny)
Of course. We may do every kind of atrocity, for it is in the name of peace and democracy.
But not in the name of the Doctor!
Re: Yo Dawg we heard the chinese (Score:4, Funny)
Of course. We may do every kind of atrocity, for it is in the name of peace and democracy.
But not in the name of the Doctor!
The DOCTOR? Please state the nature of the medical emergency.
Let's get the Borg in and hear what THEY have to say on uncrackable encryption!
Re: Yo Dawg we heard the chinese (Score:5, Informative)
I know this is feeding the troll, but.
The united states DOES do those things. Just not within their own boarders.
They are doing it now in Iraq and Afghanistan, they did it all the time in South America by funding and arming terrorist groups there.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So your answer to this is to finger point at people who did worse things? Let me equate this, ok. The US committed a crime like robbing a bank without violence. In defence of your actions you are saying, "oh oh but look those people murdered many people and I am good!" Just because your crime is less worse does not make it better. A crime is a crime is a crime! Or are you saying that there are good crimes and bad crimes? And if there are who is to judge? Are you not starting down the slippery slope of dicta
Re: Yo Dawg we heard the chinese (Score:4, Interesting)
(I'm not commenting on the actions of the US with this, as a side note.)
A crime is a crime is a crime! Or are you saying there are good crimes and bad crimes?
Yes and no. As a staring point: the vast majority of people recognize that there are different degrees of crime, usually based on the amount of harm done -- for example, it's worse for soldiers to kill & rape civilians than it is to take some of their belongings. Both actions are bad and qualify as crimes most of the time, but they're not "a crime is a crime" by any measure.
People that have reached the later stages of moral/ethical development also recognize that sometimes a "crime" means violating a law that would insist upon the person doing or allowing something harmful. In these cases, the "crimes" are a matter of violating laws that either demand we do something objectively bad (like turning in a sick little old lady for eating marijuana brownies to treat nausea), or refrain from doing something that will prevent a truly bad outcome (the Heinz dilemma [wikipedia.org], of whether a man should steal outrageously overpriced drugs to save his sick wife's life, is a classic example).
In addition to that, sometimes laws defining crimes are arbitrary and shift to suit the ruling force in that place at that moment. Some places make it a horrible crime to not be heterosexual, others outlaw whistleblowers identifying corruption in government, or for an adult of sound mind to be in a consensual relationship with someone of a different skin color... If "a crime is a crime is a crime" were true, then being gay, murdering people, and stealing kids' lunch money would all be equivalent, which obviously isn't very logical!
Re: Yo Dawg we heard the chinese (Score:5, Insightful)
So you advocate a get out of jail free card for anyone who only sold a few bags of dope or 'only' robbed a few liquor stores? How about if they "only" committed tax fraud? It's not like they overthrew their government and ordered the death of millions or anything. They didn't even dupe a superpower into a costly and unnecessary war with trumped up evidence.
I am sad to say, the U.S. has tortured, and it has imprisoned people without a trial and without competent legal representation. It has performed lethal medical experiments on minorities. It hasn't done it on the scale of the Nazis but it has done it. It would be easier to say that was then but it has grown and changed if we didn't still have Gitmo up and running and if the NSA's domestic spying had been shut down instantly and without question rather than being allowed to continue while we hunt down the person who exposed the distinctly unConstitutional and un-American (in the ideals sense rather than actuality) program.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly. So it's OK the USA does it but not the Chinese?
Who is making moral judgements? As long as some countries might become a threat in the future, every other country will spy. The alternative is to be caught off guard and lose a war. You don't have to like it, but pretending to be shocked makes you come off as incredibly naive. Put "prisoner's dilemma" into the search engine of your choice to understand the problem better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is making moral judgements? As long as some countries might become a threat in the future, every other country will spy. The alternative is to be caught off guard and lose a war. You don't have to like it, but pretending to be shocked makes you come off as incredibly naive.
Yeah, and? The U.S. has spent decades loudly vilifying the Chinese in news media for doing things like this...and now they're getting exposed for the liars and hypocrites they really are.
Re: Yo Dawg we heard the chinese (Score:4, Interesting)
Exactly. So it's OK the USA does it but not the Chinese?
Actually, I suspect at least half the break-ins blamed on the Chinese are actually the NSA doing it, then planting a trail designed to point to the Chinese. Not that I doubt the Chinese are doing hacking, just that because the do attempt to penetrate important sites, the NSA can use that as cover.
Re: Yo Dawg we heard the chinese (Score:5, Insightful)
actually this is the sort of thing I would expect a spy agency to do.
this is about getting an edge in the foreign relations / diplomatic game.
and im ok with this, its the same as spying on embassies (which everyone also does).
this is still spying on "the other guys", which is what spies are supposed to do.
its the "spying on our own citizens for their own safety" that I have a problem with.
this? business as usual, and acceptable at that.
The dilema ... (Score:5, Interesting)
If the NSA can do it, so can other people. So should the NSA reveal what they can do so the UN can switch to more secure communications. Or should the NSA have continued to monitor with the knowledge that the Chinese, Russians and probably a few others were also listening in?
Re:The dilema ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the NSA can do it, so can other people. So should the NSA reveal what they can do so the UN can switch to more secure communications. Or should the NSA have continued to monitor with the knowledge that the Chinese, Russians and probably a few others were also listening in?
Where's the dilemma? Yes. No.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The dilema ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If spying were an "act of WAR", then EVERY government has a casus bellum against EVERY OTHER country.
Face it, espionage has been a fact of life between governments since at least the time of the ancient Greeks...
Re:The dilema ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, espionage has been a fact of life between governments since at least the time of the ancient Greeks...
And soon, it we don't so something about it:
Year 4026, in the Human's Republic of Earth: "Face it, government surveillance of citizens in their own homes has been a fact of life since at least the time of the ancient American empire..."
Re:The dilema ... (Score:4, Insightful)
So you justify your actions by "everyone else is doing it"? That's just as immoral as "the (potential) ends justify the means".
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. In this case, trust is the sight lost. And not caring about trust between partners is short-sighted.
Re: (Score:3)
Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/1170/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If spying were an "act of WAR", then EVERY government has a casus bellum against EVERY OTHER country.
Face it, espionage has been a fact of life between governments since at least the time of the ancient Greeks...
Espionage is how wars are prevented. We'd have a world war constantly for hundreds of years if not for the spy wars. World War 1 would never have ended.
Re: (Score:3)
Wars are prevented when leaders of countries actually sit down and try to work out relationships with countries, without the intent of screwing them over for gain.
Agree, and its much easier to do that if there is trust between the parties/countries.
Trust makes relationships (economic and social) more efficient as it enables greater teamwork between parties, it also makes people feel safe and part of a community.
Trust is one the most valuable social resources we have, it takes years to nuture and grow, and these people constantly undermine it and destroy under the pretence that they are "helping" us.
They fail at being human.
Re: (Score:3)
If spying were an "act of WAR", then EVERY government has a casus bellum against EVERY OTHER country.
Face it, espionage has been a fact of life between governments since at least the time of the ancient Greeks...
And yet you can be put to death if caught spying...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, spying is NOT an act of war. In fact, spying probably stopped WW 3 from happening several times. Since we were spying on the USSR, (And them on us), both sides knew where things stood and how far they could push.
And as to the NSA spying on the UN, big deal. that is one place they should be spying on. You could probably cook a steak from all the radio waves emanating from the bugs, taps and other assorted intelligence gathering devices in and around that building.
Re:The dilema ... (Score:5, Informative)
Spying is an act of WAR.
Spying is almost never considered an act of war. Although it has at times lead to war, for instance the Ems Dispatch [wikipedia.org] and the Zimmermann Telegram [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
In your sad little world perhaps.
If governments believed that, the entire world would constantly be at war since everyone does it to everyone.
The world is bigger than your fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The dilema ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Spying is an act of WAR.
No, spying has been an illegal but ongoing act of governments everywhere, and has been true across history. It's unethical, highly offensive, unjustifiably immoral, and dangerous to the agent if you act on the knowledge gained, but it's not an act of war.
The primary differences between the NSA and all other spying is that they have essentially unlimited resources, technology, and personnel to throw at it, and they are very, very good at it.
Where the NSA is lacking, though, is with actual infiltration. They have no agents hiding inside every possible organization. They are instead performing their spying on the communications that the other people are using. It's cheaper, easier, more reliable, and more "politically acceptable" to tap conversations. It's expensive, difficult, and unreliable to have a source reporting from within the organization, and it's politically unpalatable when an agent is discovered and killed or tortured for their treason.
Typically, infiltration has been the job of the CIA and similar spy agencies in other countries, but their historic mission has been to infiltrate an entire nation-state. Nations are easier to spy on because the attack surface is large, and they can get useful benefits from spies anywhere in the government, military, or police. It's much harder to infiltrate a religious or tribal clan, where it's a smaller group where everyone is personally known to the others.
Where it gets dodgy, though, is not in the passive (or even aggressive) monitoring. It's when the monitors begin injecting their own information in order to influence the behavior of others. It's obviously one thing to overhear a voice on the radio saying "we'll meet at the ABC building on Thursday," but a completely different thing to alter the voice on the radio to say "let's meet at the 123 building on Thursday" to lead them into an ambush. Deploying an agent provocateur can indeed be an act of war, even via the proxy of communications.
Re: (Score:2)
Infiltration is the CIA's job.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Spying actually prevents wars as it allows governments to act diplomatically before the shit hits the fan. However, spying on ones own citizens is what dictatorships do to oppress their own people. The NSA was created specifically to spy on foreign nations, just like every other country does.
It sucks but thats how the world is.
WAR? (Score:2)
Re:The dilema ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA shjouldnt be fucking monitoring the UN. I really hate how everyone thinks it is okie dokie to spy all they want. Spying is an act of WAR.
Spying is how you prevent wars.
Re: (Score:3)
According to the UN Charter itself, spying would not be an act of war, definitely not a reason to start one. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_belli [wikipedia.org]
As a practical matter, we cannot allow spying to be considered a reason to go to war, because by it's nature it is hard to prove and easy to fake; it would basically be giving states the right to start a war whenever they want. At times in history we've tried that, such when most of t
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA shjouldnt be fucking monitoring the UN. I really hate how everyone thinks it is okie dokie to spy all they want. Spying is an act of WAR.
Perhaps the UN should have sanctions against any member found to be spying on them.
Although, frankly... the UN as an organization with rampant corruption deserve to be spied upon, almost as much as the EU deserves to be spied upon.
As far as i'm concerned: it's individuals that have a right to keep secrets, not foreign governments.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. Spying performs a vital function to keep nations from war by not misinterpreting the other side. If you have a really sharp spy capability, you don't get surprised and do something stupid.
Just to give you an idea, during Kruschevs' tenure, he wanted to boot the allies from West Berlin, and he used the threat of putting nukes on missiles since they had just punted their satellite up there. The U.S. balked during the negotiations and the K-Man figured he'd be able to roll Eisenhower since Ike had
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good riddance.
The UN's special brand of corruption makes the entirety of the US - from our incompetent presidents, to our circus-like Congress, to our crushing-rights-under-jackboots three-letter organizations - look like goddamned saints.
Please. Get the hell out of my country. I beg you. Shit, I'll even help you pack.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
umm, you do know it was corrupted by the US right?
Haven't been paying attention to groups like the Arab League have you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What if the UN kicks the US out of the UN?
UN loses military and funding.
US regains some national sovereignty.
It unfortunately is not going to happen. Then US could send to hide under all the tables of the UN conference rooms, and nothing would come of it. The US could hide in the ceiling rafters and start sending all of the members each other's secret communications and nothing would come of it.
Re:The dilema ... (Score:5, Informative)
What if the UN kicks the US out of the UN?
UN loses military and funding.
What?
Jordan, Bangladesh, even ZAMBIA contribute more to UN military operations than the USA.
Currently there are an embarrassing THIRTY US military personnel on UN deployments. Seriously.
National contributions to UN operations [un.org]
Re:The dilema ... (Score:5, Informative)
Well after some searching I found this for the year 2009:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=ST/ADM/SER.B/755 [un.org]
In one year the United States contributed $598,292,101 to a UN budget of $2,498,618,698 which comes to 22% of the entire budget.
On the other hand, some sources like here [heritage.org] explain that the funding is actually pretty complicated, as various departments of the federal government all contribute individually to various departments of the UN, up to as much as "$5.327 billion in 2005".
I'm not sure what the actual true percentage of UN funding is that comes from the US, but the fact remains that they aren't going to do anything substantial regardless of anything the US does.
Re:The dilema ... (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand insightful rating of the above post.
Just another long running conspiracy theory, a minority of Americans believe the UN is run by totalitarians that are planning to destroy the US and take over the world. Then there's the other minority that believe only the US and her allies are worthy of a vote in the general assembly. Basically these people are isolationists, it's the same ideology that saw the US sit on it's hands at the start of WW2 in Europe, they will point at (and even invent) scandals to show that the UN are "bad people" and ignore everything else. Also it's cool to be a cynic these days, don't find out what it's about just dismiss any and all political cooperation out of hand.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
not going to happen unless the isa kicks the UN out(which we should do).
the UN is a bunch of useless cry babies. they don't do anything unless forced to and that takes a lot. Look at Un's response to Syria. Chemical weapons being used lets issue a statement.
The USA should just close 90% of the out of country bases, and go back to a mostly isolation stance. let the world fuck themselves over for the next 20 years until the world wants to apologize for being limp dick idiots. Let Iran have Nuclear weapon
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, please ... why stop at 90% make it 100%. Hell I'll even help you pack.
Oh yes, take your goddamn nukes too.
At least this should help european states by upping our own defensive forces instead of reducing them.
Re: The dilema ... (Score:4, Interesting)
>Fuck they stole all of our IP and turned it into cheap shit.
Not hardly. We gave it to them just as fast as we could, since they could make the physical products for 50% less than anyone else, allowing executives to simultaneously undercut our competitors and pocket fat profit margins. Then one day we suddenly woke up from this beautiful dream and realized we had exported virtually all of our manufacturing industry, and the Chinese were quite happy to use the factories they built for us to make the same exact things without our company logo on them, undercut us right back, and pocket the profit themselves.
The rest maybe you can pin on the Chinese, but that one was all us. What exactly did we think would be the result of exporting our manufacturing to a country which never made any more than token gestures towards patent protection?
Re:You don't know shit. (Score:5, Informative)
You're still suffering under the delusion that the U.S. are the "good guys"? lol.
In the same period of time, the United States, officially a secular nation but predominantly Christian, attacked ....... Afghanistan (2001 to present), Haiti (2010), etc. etc. etc. etc.
So, who is the danger to world peace?"
Errr...the US retaliated against (not attacked) Afghanistan in 2001, due the the fact that the Taliban appeared to be housing/helping the group that attacked and killed a few thousand civilians in the US.
Similarly, the US didn't attack Haiti in 2010. They sent the military in the help in the aid efforts after the earthquake struck just west of Port-au-Prince.
Why didn't you add to your list that the US attacked Antarctica in 2003, when they built the current Amundsen-Scott research base? That would have made about as much sense as some of your listings....
Re:You don't know shit. (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget the "attack" on Yugoslavia to protect muslim bosniaks from christian serbs and croats. Our sworn enemies always seem to gloss over that one when tallying up our sins.
Re:The dilema ... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's very simple, and there's a multitude of historical precedent; war is profitable. It keeps the "little people" in line via fear, and it's a wonderful oppurtunity to steal everything you can pick up. It has evolved into the "military industrial complex" and it isn't going away until and only if We the People exercise our fundamental right to self protection and get rid of the thieves and murderers that always inhabit governments. The "Axis of Evil" is easy to find in the present case: it's midway between the White House and the Capitol Building in Washington D.C.
Of course it's probably moot, our Plutocrats can easily see climate change, peak oil, and worldwide food shortages looming and have been building the infrastructure of control as fast as they can so they can toss us all under the bus with impunity when the shit hits the fan big time. They will be able to do this because most of those reading this are way too complacent to try to defend themselves even when it's obvious their own death is imminent. "Land of the free, home of the brave" . . . right.
Re: (Score:3)
Your reference is outright misleading [wikipedia.org] to very very wrong. No surprise there, given that The Heritage Foundation [wikipedia.org] "is an American conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C." whose shining moment was its "leading role in the conservative movement during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, whose policies drew significantly from Heritage's policy study". As an aside, could be a good chance we have found your handler there, Fjordy.
Here are some more credible figures to educate you (if that is your wish), fro
Re: (Score:2)
What dilemma? You keep spying and tell your government that you shouldn't use the encryption 'cause it's insecure.
Re: (Score:2)
Diplomatic implications (Score:5, Interesting)
If I was the state department I would be furious about this.
Short of a direct attack on a diplomat I don't think there is a worse breach of international custom and law.
Snooping on citizens is bad enough, but this is playing with fire.
Re:Diplomatic implications (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a cruel reality. Instead of using advanced high tech and knowledge to create impartial and protected communication networks for the UN the member countries try to take the systems down for their own use.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a cruel reality. Instead of using advanced high tech and knowledge to create impartial and protected communication networks for the UN the member countries try to take the systems down for their own use.
I will say that reporting the issue to the UN has a host of problems related with it.
1) The UN is a group of nation states that would all be interested in the capability of tapping UN Conversations. If the US can do it, Russia and China can too. If the US announces a vulnerability then it will cause other Nation States to redouble their efforts.
2) It is possible that in their haste to replace encryption systems in place the UN could replace their systems with something that has other security issues
Re:Diplomatic implications (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN doesn't care any more. There is barely a power structure left which isn't dominated by US flunkies.
The world was rightly scared of the USSR, but it should be far more worried about a one-superpower world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US has veto power against any resolution the UN might pass against the US. Nothing to worry about...
Re: (Score:3)
As does any of the permanent members of the UN Security Council [wikipedia.org].
Just to make that perfectly clear to all.
Re:Diplomatic implications (Score:5, Insightful)
In theory, yes. In fact it's like the school bully going through your lunch box and you catching him doing it. What are you gonna do? Beat him up? C'mon...
Re: (Score:2)
Caesar cipher is pretty trivial to decrypt manually, though. There are newspapers which publish short sentences in Caesar cipher every week as a fun, easy puzzle for people to do while waiting for a bus or whatever.
War on Information imminent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments, once they realize the full breadth & capability of the US surveillance, and the fact that they themselves are vulnerable, and not only their citizen... they will soon decide to take action! And of course the US, having the confrontation with China in mind (and that it cannot weaken its position in such a critical time), will not back down easily.
Net neutrality is the first that could go, but I'm not sure it will be the last.
Do you think that Snowden will prove to be the trigger to the 3rd WW? (but an information/electronic one this time)
Re:War on Information imminent? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the US has already said that military action could be an appropriate response to state hacking/cyberwarfare.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG! You're right!
Run Away! Run Away!
No, you're not. This sort of thing has been going on for a long time. Before you spied on encrypted communications you drilled holes in the wall and stuffed a microphone in it. Before that you stuffed your eye into the hole. I'm not sure what Ogg did, probably something like crawling into the ventilation passage in his enemy's cave and hope everyone didn't fart too much.
Re: (Score:3)
Am I the only one seeing a war on information soon descending upon us?
Governments, once they realize the full breadth & capability of the US surveillance, and the fact that they themselves are vulnerable, and not only their citizen... they will soon decide to take action! And of course the US, having the confrontation with China in mind (and that it cannot weaken its position in such a critical time), will not back down easily.
Net neutrality is the first that could go, but I'm not sure it will be the last.
Do you think that Snowden will prove to be the trigger to the 3rd WW? (but an information/electronic one this time)
You think they didn't know that already? They knew before you did.
Re: (Score:2)
No [wikipedia.org], but you may be the only one with a six digit SlashID who thinks you might be.
Leaked? (Score:5, Interesting)
So where did Der Spiegel get these documents? On Friday, Edward Snowden accused the US government of intentionally leaking documents to The Independent that were potentially damaging, in an effort to discredit the responsible reporting being done by The Guardian and the Washington Post. He said he had never worked with nor even spoken to anyone at The Independent. Is the same thing happening here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Presumably from Laura Poitras (she taped Snowden in Hong Kong and received materials from him) since she's worked with Der Spiegel in the past.
For example, she wrote this story from Snowden's files for Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/nsa-spied-on-european-union-offices-a-908590.html [spiegel.de]
Re:Leaked? (Score:4, Informative)
Snowden was right in suspecting foul play as The Independent was not among the original papers he informed.
Another source/translation of Der Speigel? (Score:5, Interesting)
RT is infamous for being virulently anti-American; it's a Russian news organization with an agenda that is fairly obvious at times. Now, that said, Der Spiegel is a totally valid news organization...so can someone provide something directly from that, instead of interpretation by people with their own agenda regarding this?
Ah, never mind: here you go: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSBRE97O08120130825 [reuters.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
so can someone provide something directly from that,
That would be here [spiegel.de], translated here [google.com].
Unless I'm not following the Translationese though, I can't see any mention of the Chinese in the network.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, except for American media. They're still sucking up to the soundbites coming out of the oval office.
But every nation's media is biased, whether government owned or not -- including Canada's. The only way to get a comprehensive picture of what's really going on in the world is to read media from around the world, including sources that many would claim are "propaganda machines." Remember that the propaganda machines are what the people in those countries access, so it is a picture of what the "ev
Fuck the (Score:5, Insightful)
USA.
First you make bribing politicians legal, destabilize the entire world's banking industry and start war after war in 3rd world countries so your military industrial complex can get more tax payer money. And now new private contractors show up and bribe some politicians who in return give them the right and money to spy on whoever they want.
And do you even protest or riot? No you assholes whine on /. I think there have been more protests here in germany over that than in the US
Re:LOL, a German bragging about social protests (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh give it up. How about early European settlers wiping out 12 million indigenous Americans by smallpox and influenza within a decade of landing on shore? Yes, we should remember the Holocaust during WWII. And Rwanda. And Nanking. And godknowswhatelse. Nobody's ancestors have much of a moral high ground.
Move along.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Past vs. present. You dig?
Seriously: 'The Germans' are out, the Turks are out, the french, the British, the Spanish, the Dutch, the Japanese... All those nations with a history (sic)... oh, never mind.
It's sat, btw.
Re:LOL, a German bragging about social protests (Score:5, Informative)
Read at least a little history. The SDP and German Communist party fought valiantly against Hitler, right up until the enabling acts were forced through parliament (and that only succeeded because the Communists were evicted before the vote). The German left fought street battles against the brown shirts trying to prevent their rise to power.
The Nazis were way more committed to what they were doing than the US Government is. If the dissenters in the US (I'm looking at you, Occupy) showed a fraction of the resolve that the Weimar left showed, we'd have cleaned house by now.
Even after Hitler came to power, leaders in the one place there was still some free speech -- the independent churches -- continued to voice and rally dissent. German intellectuals fled the country and loudly protested the Hitler regime from around the world.
The first concentration camps were set up to detain Nazi political opponents, they were only turned to the purpose of ethnic cleansing in 1938.
You frankly don't know what you're talking about.
So much for the US Tech Industry (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd assume they wouldn't. Chances are anything the NSA thought they were getting was just misinformation deliberately handed to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would any country trust a closed-sourced product produced by a US Technology firm?
Why would any country trust a closed source product produced by anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But at least it was not built compromised, they had to work for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe among a minority. But public confidence in the Soviet leadership when its repressive mechanisms were working best was remarkably high, and the vast majority of the Chinese population supports its government even though they are aware of censorship and monitoring. If a government can convince the people that the state, warts and all, is better than the alternative (collapse and civil war, or foreign invasion), then dissidents a
Re: (Score:3)
Enough with the "everyone is doing it" defense. Taking into account the scale of spending on military and intelligence, comparing the USA to any other nation is a bit like H-bomb to slingshot. And that's just the unclassified spending -- I think it was Rumsfeld who basically made the Pentagon officially unaccountable.
So even if the argument weren't inherently immoral, the comparison is meaningless.
Hold the Phone Here (Score:2, Interesting)
Was the encryption cracked, or was it just bypassed?
Very worrisome if it's the former.
I can't tell if they just disabled encryption on one of the end points.
the chinese (Score:2)
This is their job (Score:2)
From their Mission Statement:
The Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations.
Cheers,
Bruce.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Who else are they bugging (Score:2)
Hold up. (Score:4, Interesting)
No - the presence of the UN on US soil messes this (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And you, Sir|Ma'am|Fido, could stand to improve your vocabulary.
Re: (Score:3)
A state spy agencies first objective is to find information helpful in protecting their state.
Here we see a spy agency not knowing who is their enemy.
Please remember the UN was for a significant part set up and is still financed by the US.
Re:News? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a great point, and a perfect analogy! The NSA is just trying to help US win the war against the UN !!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Impressive. You just presented both "Just doing my job" and "Everyone else does it" arguments in a single post. Well done.