A new story based on information The Guardian got from Edward Snowden shows that the British equivalent of the NSA snooped on delegates from the 2009 G20 top in London. Blackberry traffic was cracked and monitored real-time to get an advantage in the economic negotiations while internet cafes were set-up to intercept log-in codes.
An attempt in collaboration with the NSA to crack the encrypted satellite traffic between the Russian prime-minister and Moscow seems to have failed.
The Guardian is still only showing snippets of the information they have in their possession so stay tuned….
Meanwhile it´s clear that the British GCHQ and the American NSA don´t waste all that tax-payers money on wannabe terrorists. Listening to befriended delegates from other European countries is apparently a legitimate goal: the information was provided directly to ministers to gain an advantage in the economic negotiations.
I bet they will release next week some kind of document showing that the Brits forwarded info to the Americans on their citizens and vice versa.
The NSA might not be listening in on our calls but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that our allies have been 'helping" out as it were.
But who is watching the watchers?!?
Don't worry, if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide…unless you're a terrorist. /s
I'm sorry, but Snowden lied too much to be trusted anymore.
+Joren Van Severen So did the government.
Yes, but lying and exaggerating only helps the conspiracy theorists.
+Joren Van Severen What did he lie about? So far as I am aware there has been no evidence indicating he lied.
i think Mr. Snowden did the right thing.
So far lies can´t be found in Snowden´s documents. Remember that the Guardian doesn´t go by his words, but by the documents he took off the NSA servers.
The journos are scrutinizing them and using only small pieces so far, withholding stuff to check and to find new angles.
I am not too concerned about any government eavesdropping on a foreign government or potlitians. That is part of 'the game' and countries are aware of it and should take the necessary action. The morals of it may well be debated, but it goes on and may well be necessary.
Wholesale spying on its own ot other countries citizens is another matter though
+Joren Van Severen nice ninja edit to add exaggeration, the question remains what has he exaggerated?
+Paul Wooding I see it as akin to an assassination program, not in kind but in degree. These kinds of behavior stand in the way of global cooperation. Without the moral high ground we all end up wallowing in the mud.
+William Tatum Read +Lauren Weinstein's posts.
+Paul Wooding name of the game of course, but
The new revelations underline the significance of RAF Menwith Hill and raise questions about its relationship to the British intelligence agencies, and who is responsible for overseeing it. The 560-acre site was leased to the Americans in 1954 and the NSA has had a large presence there since 1966.
It has often been described as the biggest surveillance and interception facility in the world, and has 33 distinct white "radomes" that house satellite dishes. A US base in all but name, it has British intelligence analysts seconded to work alongside NSA colleagues, though it is unclear how the two agencies obtain and share intelligence – and under whose legal authority they are working under.
All +Lauren Weinstein does is vouch for the ethics of his comrades within Google. That doesn´t make Snowden or his information a lie +Joren Van Severen
I'm not talking about the PRISM documents nor about Lauren's friends at Google. It's about what Snowden said about them and himself. I'm too lazy to go and look for the correct posts as I have an exam tomorrow. Ill also be muting this topic to avoid distraction :).
calling someone a liar and then withdrawing is not exactly a brave move. Nobody pressed you in making a hit and run comment. (and it would have saved you the trouble of muting this topic)
Fascinating how many people fall for the "shoot the messenger" feint. Who or what Snowden is is irrelevant, what is important is that the American people have been lied to about the program, and that its scope demands public discussion to set boundaries.
+Max Huijgen Menwith Hill is not the only example of the UK ceding control of an installation, base or even island to the US. Typically the US get to do their secret stuff under their own jurisdiction and secrecy.
Let's say all this is true. Why the hell aren't governments doing a better job of securing their communications? If you leave your doors unlocked then you're going to get your stuff taken.
Back in 1929, Henry Stimpson shut down the US State Dept's Crypto Office, saying "Gentlemen don't read each other's mail".
Even he came around on this subject. Anybody who is surprised by this news hasn't paid attention for about 75 years, if not longer.
+Jeff Kasten The problem is that actual communications security is very hard to achieve, especially when you're talking about diplomats. Over on the military side, the usual solution is to provide Marines with live ammo, and orders to shoot if they see a security lapse, and they'll court marshal any pieces that are left. That's usually enough to make that airhead lieutenant follow procedures to the letter.
Unfortunately, it's generally considered a bad idea to shoot the ambassador when they screw up. So they get sloppy and screw up.
Seriously – doing security well is really hard, because you always hit cases where the security ends up getting in the way of getting legitimate work done. Tell a CIO that you can tighten security, but it will make payroll run a day late, and you will be told "If Payroll doesn't run on schedule on Tuesday, your resignation letter will be on my desk Wed morning whether you write one or not". So you're really left with no choice but securing it as much as your users will allow, and hope for the best.
Good point +Jeff Kasten outside of government focus would be "Who is incompetent enough to leave all this information so poorly secured? That's incompetent!"
But military/intelligence apparently has zero accountability .
I think this reaction is key:
Former top-ranking Russian spies, meanwhile, suggested the behaviour by their US and UK counterparts amounted to bad form. "From a technical point of view, spying on those negotiating on the territory of a country doesn't present any great difficulties," Nikolai Kovalev, the former head of the FSB, Russia's powerful domestic spy agency, pointed out. Kovalev added however: "To avoid diplomatic and international scandal security agencies are forbidden from doing this. And usually they don't do it."
Listening to befriended delegates from other European countries is apparently a legitimate goal: the information was provided directly to ministers to gain an advantage in the economic negotiations.
I don't extend legitimacy to betraying friends.