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.
Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:Well that's new (Score:5, Insightful)
We've crossed a threshold in human history. We are going from an existence where it was simply not financially or physically feasible to monitor every person 24/7. In less than two decades, the practical limits on surveillance have basically died. This is a massive and fundamental change in the structure of society and how we deal with this now, is going to shape the future of world society and culture.
Really, it's already past time to start addressing these issues, and more complacency is just going to ensure the most sociopathic systems possible will be cemented into our future. The 4th Amendment needs its own unyielding ideologically pure NRA type organization because if there are no limits on government power, eventually it will start brutalizing people.
Re:Well that's new (Score:5, Informative)
The 4th Amendment needs its own unyielding ideologically pure NRA type organization because if there are no limits on government power, eventually it will start brutalizing people.
Hello, this is the ACLU [aclu.org] calling, how can we help you?
*BEEP*
Howdy, this is the EFF [eff.org], how can we help you?
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the ACLU and EFF include in their missions, protection of the 4th Amendment. That is not however, their sole purpose so they aren't exactly like an NRA for the 4th.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
For one thing I'm very surprised that a slashdot post criticizing anti-NSA activists got down-modded for being redundant. Flamebait, or troll I would have understood. I would have disagreed with it, but I could have seen the logic. But it's not like there're a lot of other slashdotters criticizing the EFF.
For another, you don't seem to understand how flexible the NRA is ideologically. When people who scare society are using guns in ways that normal gun-owners don't they will be at the forefront of the lynch
Re: (Score:2)
What war is that? The war on US liberty?
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Same war I was talking about.
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: (Score:3)
Why does censorship have to be official? When it becomes well known that all communications are being sucked up, self censorship quite quickly happens, sources and journalists have to go to extremes most people cannot (recent examples demonstrate this, Snowden fleeing to Russia) to remain safe. What we have now is far more insidious and intractable than an overt war. That you see the current situation as demonstrating liberty winning is perfect example of the double speak and mental gymnastics required to
Re: (Score:2)
Police are not above the law. Their actions are not completely hiddent from the public eye. You have too much faith in your fellow man. If you give 90% of people the right mix of motivation, rationalization, personal benefit, and risk mitigation, then they will be more than wiling to look past their morals and do the wrong thing. In this case we can be 100% sure that the NSA capabilities are being used to spy on the interests and enemies of powerful individuals. This generally means that they are used to sp
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point of the NSA is to spy on foreign leaders. That is their job. Generally when they talk about in press releases they emphasize Colonels from countries like Korea, but they are also supposed to intercept and decode signals from the higher ups in every country. It's not like they would have refused to decode transmissions from relatively Democratic Axis states like Finland or Romania during WW2 just because they thought those transmissions were directly from the Head of State.
As for spying on CE
Re: (Score:3)
It's especially ballsy to try and argue that the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction.
Emphasis mine:
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Although in that case they gave a ruling, and Bad Things Happened as a result of it . . .
Re: (Score:2)
[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]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
"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: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The US withdrew from its compulsory jurisdiction decades ago. There isn't much of an avenue for that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't just a question of standing before any court, but a bigger problem before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction for a limited scope of issues.
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.”
Original Jurisdiction [heritage.org]
The Court has been assiduous in protecting the Constitution's core grant of original jurisdiction from congressional expansion. The Court explicitly declared in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that Congress cannot add to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction.
As a Mexican... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:As a Mexican... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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 v
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
careful what you wish for (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
A snowballs in hell chance. If USA's says "jump" our president's answer is "how much?"
NSA doing its job (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
it's still illegal
Really? What law is being violated? Who could make or enforce such a law?
I'm not sure whether you're incredibly naive, or just trolling.
Computer hacking is illegal. On both sides of the border. Don't be intentionally idiotic.
Not quite (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Countries don't have 'friends' they have 'allies'. Allied countries have always spied on each other.
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
What the AC said.
Study _any_ period of history in depth. Please.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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: (Score:2)
Exactly. We're not enemies with Mexico, but it's not a perfectly safe and stable relationship given the amount of violence on both sides of the border. If the US wants to check for drug cartel influence at the highest levels of the Mexican gov't, I don't care. NSA can spy outside our borders all it wants - go for it.
I am trying to undertand something.
Is it ok for US agencies to do illegal/criminal acts (that are dovered by domestic and foreign laws), on a daily basis and never be held responsible for it?
Would you like me to explain you where that leads?
Re: (Score:3)
It is not legal, but I doubt we will see any U.S. agent being extradited to Mexico, even for crimes considered as such by both countries.
First the U.S. got angry because a known drug lord [huffingtonpost.com] was released from prison in Mexico on a technicality. Caro Quintero was accused of murdering a U.S. agent (Kiki Camarena) and running drugs to the U.S.
Then, three U.S. agents came forward declaring to a national magazine (Proceso [proceso.com.mx]) that the guy supposedly killed by Caro Quintero, was actually executed by U.S. intelligence a [foxnews.com]
Re: NSA doing its job (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Are they that naive or arrogant or stupid .. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
"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.
IN NO SENSE EXCUSING THE US GOVT, but (Score:2)
...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.
Supreme court lacks authority (Score:2)
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?
No jurisdiction? (Score:2)
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?
Reverse question (Score:2)
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].
Re:First leaked email from Mexican president (Score:5, Funny)
We dont have "Taco" Bell in Mexico, we have real tacos.
Re:First leaked email from Mexican president (Score:5, Funny)
Re: First leaked email from Mexican president (Score:2)
Re:First leaked email from Mexican president (Score:5, Funny)
"Shut the fuck up, two-million ID boy", thought by everyone who remembers when Slashdot was still relevant and not swarming with fuckwits.
Huh, must've been before my time!
Re: (Score:2)
Could I get a citation on Snowden claiming to know all about China's and Russia's intelligence?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not the same as claiming that "he claims to know all about China's and Russia's intelligence". He was saying that they didn't get the documents from him since he didn't have them after turning them over.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the same as claiming that "he claims to know all about China's and Russia's intelligence". He was saying that they didn't get the documents from him since he didn't have them after turning them over.
Re-read the quote. It said nothing about Russia.
What it said was that he knew the Chinese could not have gotten his document cache while he had it in Hong Kong because he knew exactly what they could do. Which means that even if he doesn't have an electronic copy of the document that told him how to beat the People's Republic's security, he has that info in his head somewhere.
I suspect he actually wants to to talk about that, but can't because the Russians probably made not talking about anybody's secrets c
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, I suspect one of Putin's conditions is that he stop saying anything. Putin's got a weird little love-hate relationship with Obama going on. It involves lots of posturing, but very few actually hostile actions. For example he could have really screwed Obama simply by secretly shipping Russian air defense units to the Russian military base in Syria, and blowing a few fighters out of the sky. Instead he negotiated a compromise that solved the Syria question. And if Ed Snowden is on Russian soil twee
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to read that again, and then I think you have a choice to make.
I don't need to read anything again. What you claimed he said is not what he said. You're just spreading more baseless FUD like in the last article.
Re: (Score:3)
On one hand his job was described as a system administrator and .....
I don't think I've ever heard of him describe himself as a system administrator. I've heard NSA & government bigwigs call him that, but they've been spreading FUD about him since day 1, so I'm more likely to believe what he says.
He's called himself an infrastructure analyst, and his job was to figure out new ways to break into protected systems.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese government is, by most people's perceptions, an enemy of the US people. There is no reason to expose that the US knows how to break into their networks.
The US government is supposed to be, by most people's ideals, the friend of the US people. This was not the case, as has been demonstrated by Snowden's revelations. This needs to change.
There is no reason to expose US tactical measures against an enemy government, but there is every reason to expose illegal US tactical measures against the ver
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So what is this about? (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess that's why he's keen on embarrassing the US rather than say Russia or China.
Well, since he worked for the USA and didn't work for Russa or China, I'd imagine the number of insider documents he has about the intelligence services of Russia and China is zero.
"But why doesn't Jeff Bezos talk about Google's operations, hmm? Why is it always Amazon that he wants us to think about? What is it that he has to hide? He's obviously a Google double agent, isn't he?"
Re:So what is this about? (Score:5, Informative)
Snowden turned all of his documents over to journalists whom he trusts to perform responsible disclosure.
He says he doesn't even have the documents any more.
Snowden hasn't disclosed anything publicly... Greenwald et. al are doing the disclosing.
Greenwald has disclosed lots of different things including spying on Brazil, the European Union, Mexico, etc. No doubt, he may get around to China and Russia some day (if the documents are in the pile).
Re:So what is this about? (Score:4, Insightful)
There's another reason, which I'm surprised nobody on /. has stated, due to the types of people who should frequent a joint like this.
In the IT industry, analytical personality types are over-represented. This personality type values integrity and competence. It also abhors hypocrisy.
Everybody knows taht China and Russia are dirtbags when it comes to human rights. That's not news to anybody who has been awake for more than 5 minutes of the past 2 decades.
The US government repeatedly condemns both Russia and China for various human rights abuses, including spying on their own people.
The fact that the US government has been doing the exact same thing in secret, is both completely lacking in integrity, and about as hypocritical as you can get.
I'm sure there was at least a little bit of "I'll get this hypocritical bastards!" in Snowden's mind when he released this information, and I wouldn't blame him. But that's why releasing information on China's abuses is irrelevant at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Analytical, anti-hypocritical types do tend to hate hypocrites.
A reason I get really annoyed at the anti-NSA stuff is that I think it's hypocritical for people to go on a fourth Amendment kick to protect their internet toys, while their Mayor engages in stop-and-frisk. And instead of /. and the EFF giving equal time to stop-and-frisk, they give it no time and then downvote you when you bring it up in the middle of a debate on the NSA.
I put up with official US hypocrisy because it's the least hypocritical go
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that they have plenty of euphemisms they use to describe oppression. The Russians, for example, probably won't cop to being spying human rights-violating bastards. But Russia's Russianness from evil illegal immigrants? Perhaps having "strong leadership,?" Or preventing hooliganism? They will also fail to condemn private lynch mobs against enemies of Putin.
The Chinese have a rich tradition of Communist euphemisms to borrow from.
Re: (Score:3)
The decision about what to publish or not is up to the newspapers. Obviously Der Spiegel, being a German newspaper, doesn't really give a shit about what the NSA thinks or whether its spy operations on its neighbours get busted. After all the USA didn't hesitate to hack foreign news firms, would it?
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: (Score:2)
You don't know what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
It was just a coincidence that Mexico went full on drug gang war at the exact time the ruling party was voted out.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point, my friend.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (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:With a friends like Americans, who needs friend (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
So how does that explain why the US needs to collect call information for most, if not all, American citizens? If the NSA wants to target foreign militaries for spying, fine. Enemy foreign governments, sure. That's what they're supposed to be doing. Domestic civilian spying, on the other hand, is inexcusable, even by your logic.
First Brazil, now Mexico, who's next ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ?
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.