I don't remember so much excitement and fury when it became known that the NSA was spying on us common folk. "Espionnage? Against le prolétariat? Who gives une merde?" But suddenly it turns out that the Americans were not only spying on the unwashed masses, but also our unwashed elite, and it's midnight meetings at the Elysée and general outrage all round.
To be honest it really should be part of the NSA remit to spy on as many world leaders as possible (friend or foe) I expect GCHQ & whatever the French equivalent is to be doing exactly the same.
I'd be very surprised if GCHQ weren't at least trying to spy on the US president and NSA weren't doing the same to the UK prime minister whenever possible. I'd guess security committee members would also be spied upon as well.
I don't know how far they would go though in terms of breaking and entering to plant bugs etc but they've only got to make look it's a hostile powers work to get away with it.
It's probably only the difficulty of the denials if they get caught that would affect the likelihood of five eyes members spying on each other.
Given the French supposedly bugged Concorde it's seems a bit rich of them to complain.
Although I disagree about spying on your allies at this kind of level, I did find it more outrage-worthy that the NSA was spying on the ordinary population than that they were bugging politicians and officials.
That's part and parcel of democracy. If you want to pretend that those politicians and officials are accountable to the people, then the people are a legitimate target for espionage, just like the king would be in a monarchy.
Spying on citizens part and parcel of democracy? In what definition of democracy?
>If you want to pretend that those politicians and officials are accountable to the people, then the people are a legitimate target for espionage, just like the king would be in a monarchy.
First, if officials are accountable to the people, then the officials are legitimate target of espionage (or transparency). The people is the master, not the officials.
Also, following your logic, are people also a legitimate target to terrorist attacks? It is after all a democracy, and in that sense they are responsible for the actions of their government, right?
Or we could take the logical conclusion that what we have is far for a democracy...
In the definition that says the ultimate source of government power is the people. You seem to agree that this is a reasonable definition of democracy. This means that they are a legitimate target when it comes to espionage or terrorism, yes. If you don't like it, move to a dictatorship.
"Ultimate source" in parliamentary democracy just means that people vote (and once in several years).
They don't influence the government in its day to day operations, nor they have any special power or significance for the various policies as individuals (outside of their function as a voting majority).
So while this might make them a "legitimate" target for terrorism (in the sense: they voted for the government so they are ultimately responsible for its foreign policy etc) it doesn't make any sense at all regarding to espionage.
Of course it does. Although you did miss quite a bit, you at least realize that they vote in elections. You don't see the value in knowing and influencing election results?
With the Five Eyes agreement there's pretty much a statement that France is outside the proper list of US allies. Any foreign security agency worth its salt would view that as a statement of intent that those outside the group are likely to be spied on by those inside.
France has always had a divergent geopolitical strategy that sets it apart from the USA/UK alliance.
I heard about such things decades ago and surprised anyone thinks it doesn't happen, even among friends. I am positive there are some spies sitting around a table somewhere saying to themselves, "Well, duh. And the sky is blue!"
When the US president invites allies to the white-house, I would assume there to be quite of an outcry if guests were found to plant bugs on phones and network switches. I would expect headlines to include "human lives are put at risk" and "we expect invited allies to behave according to national treaties" in all of the large news papers.
I would not expect to see a shrug and a "owell, thats what spying is for, right?".
I would. Last week there were lots of stories that indicated that elements within the Chinese government were responsible for the OPM break in. That is, a foreign government allegedly hacked the US governments computers.
The outrage was that the US let it happen, not that China tried it, because of course they are going to try that, because "thats what spying is for, right?"
Firstly, I wouldn't be surprised if things like this are quietly ignored for the sake of diplomacy.
Secondly, this fairness isn't the objective here, it's being ahead. The perfect situation, as far as any reasonable spy agency is concerned, is we can spy on others but others can't spy on us.
What you write may be true: spy agencies feel like they can spy on everyone else, but everyone else can't spy on their country. Or something.
But that position is illogical: according to USA laws NSA can spy on everyone else, according to UK laws, GCHQ can spy on everyone else, etc. And everyone points fingers at everyone else for "breaking the law". That position leads to immediate contradictions. Also, it's a "Well, they're right because they're OUR guys" sort of thing.
Once you take the "OUR guys are RIGHT and YOUR guys are WRONG" position, there's no limits, just insufficient imagination to justify anything weird, dangerous, unethical and in a larger sense, immoral.
> I would not expect to see a shrug and a "owell, thats what spying is for, right?".
The French secret service is infamous for its espionage. They have even been accused of bugging hotel rooms and airline flights to gain classified US information.
And until Snowden, the collective reaction was indeed "meh." Well, Germany did call France the 'evil empire' of industrial espionage, but nobody cared. Apparently the US only ever confidentially complained when it became too overt.
So France screaming about US spying is rather like the pot calling the kettle black. It's done for political reasons, not because the French government really believes it's wrong.
> To be honest it really should be part of the NSA remit to spy on as many world leaders as possible (friend or foe) I expect GCHQ & whatever the French equivalent is to be doing exactly the same.
This canard seems to be dragged out as a response to any abridgement of civil liberties (of course the FBI should have a agent in every environmental group! Of course Uber should be paying Lyft executives secretly for access to their trade secrets! Of course the NSA should listen in on every phone call! To do otherwise would be stupid and incompetent, and I don't want a stupid incompetent government/company/father.)
What happens when you spy on everyone is that when you get caught, your diplomacy breaks down all over the world and you can't get anything done without direct threats. Also, no one lets anyone connected with you get close to anything important, because you are untrustworthy i.e. when you say you're going to send weapons inspectors, Iraq says: don't send any Americans, they only send spies. A lot of people who studied at American universities and return home get imprisoned and/or executed.
Intelligence gathering is something you do because you want to gain leverage, not lose it. Instead, in the US, it's become another teat for huge incompetent contractors to suck the taxpayer dry.
This seems an odd article to express this sentiment on. Whether or not the canard is used in other contexts to whitewash civil liberties abuses, in this specific example, it is being used correctly.
If your spy agencies are not going to gather intelligence on foreign world leaders, who precisely should they be gathering intelligence on? If your answer is that there is no acceptable use of intelligence gathering facilities, that is fine, but that is a much more extreme belief than the one that says it is ok for the NSA to spy on the leaders of France.
What I find disturbing is the disconnect between the mission statement of the NSA, i.e. counter terrorism and military threats, and what is actually done.
>The Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations. This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.
I mean how spying on your ally head of state is preventing "terrorism" or supporting "military operation". Do you believe that there is a terrorist cell in l'Elysée ?
This is disingenuous at best, but looks more like dishonest.
> They then use the information to help protect our troops, support our allies, fight terrorism, combat international crime and narcotics, support diplomatic negotiations, and advance many other important national objectives.
Again the focus is on "threat", "crime", "combat" and at the end the very vague "important national objectives".
Don't you feel the strong cognitive dissonance between the missions that are put at the forefront and what it is really done ?
National objective isn't vague at all. A national objective is an actual mandate by the president to the Sec. of Defense for some operation to occur. For example, a national objective would be "Degrade ISIS operations in Iraq." The Sec. would take this down the chain of the DoD through all the planning (which typically involves intelligence at this point) until finally seeing bombs dropping on ISIS in Iraq.
Notice your quote says "many other national objectives". Everything listed prior are national objectives set by the president.
I would say it depends of the context. Negotiating a ceasefire in Ukraine and making sure the other party is not only trying to buy time sounds OK in my book. On the other trying to get the upper hand in a trade treaty is not so great. And the European case it is probably more of the later.
You have to take into account, that a trade deal is something your enter voluntarily between partners/allies in the hope it will be a win-win for both sides. If there is an information asymmetry, you don't negotiate as equal, but rather as dupe and knave.
Would you sit at a poker table if you knew the cards where marked ?
In regards of the revelation, even if there are a few years old, at the time of tense TIPP negotiation, it makes a bad impression.
Given the shenanigans that the French have caused within NATO over the years I'd suggest that it would be useful from a strategic perspective to know the views of the French President. Not saying right or wrong, just able to fit broadly into the mission statement.
Yeah, I totally agree that leaders of state must expect to be spied upon - much as they must expect media attention. What I'm less enthusiastic about is the spying on people who are unlikely to ever have any strategic significance.
> Espionnage? Against le prolétariat? Who gives une merde?
They always considered that ok, even as it was illegal.
The NSA spying on its citizens was discussed in France, partially because unlike the USA which has a number of laws on counterterrorism and espionage, France is lacking — spy activities are a grey area of the law, which is another way to say they were illegal. I remember a Le Monde article to this effect, citing someone at the DGSE.
After the events at Charlie Hebdo this year, the government felt confident enough to admit that those activities target French citizens and decided to make mass surveillance lawful, which caused a large backlash (notably on Twitter with the hashtag #PJLRenseignement).
But every country spies on every country it interacts with. The difference is that, there, the government does not set the rules; diplomacy does. So they try to make it a big deal to get leverage for the next negotiation. Also, appearing like a protector of the people is a politician's dream.
You know, all over the world people die, the only reason the events at Charlie Hebdo were so significant even for us non-French folks is because this was an act of intimidation against freedom of expression. But it's pretty sad that these events have been used to push for making surveillance lawful. This is very like what happened with the Patriot Act after 9/11. The irony is, because of the ensuing erosion of freedom, those terrorists have won.
Either it was significant because it was an act of intimidation against the freedom of expression or it was because it happened in Europe and targeted Europeans.
If you intimidate someones freedom of expression in parts of the Middle East or Africa, nobody is impressed in the slightest.
> decided to make mass surveillance lawful, which caused a large backlash
That wasn't my impression. I don't know about twitter, but there were little discussion about this law on popular media (especially compared to other unimportant issues that are debated for months, and I'm not even talking about the gay marriage that led to huge protests). Sadly, most politicians supported this law, and so did most French people.
Yes, that's my point. It caused little concern beyond a certain tech savvy community. That's why I wouldn't go as far as calling this a "large backlash" (even though I wish it was). Overall, my feeling is that the French don't react differently than the Americans on these issues.
I think your fear is entirely justified. The problem is compounded by the lack of tech-savy lawmakers, many of whom give the impression of voting on something they don't really understand to "do something against terrorism".
Honnestly, I wouldn't be surprised if both knew about it. They just have to appear to care and to do something about it ("hey Obama, this isn't cool, stop spying on us") because if they didn't, the opposition would us that against them and the general public would be disapointed (to say the least). Why would they let themselves being spied on ? I honnestly have no idea, maybe it's a way to share confidential communications between [ally country] president and [not ally country] president with other allies without having to break the confidential communication between [ally country] and [not ally country]. Again, I have not thought about this at all, that's just a reason that came up to mind. Maybe it's not even a practical reason. Maybe Hollande/Merkel didn't know they were being spied on by the NSA. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if they both knew, and yelled a bit at the US now that the world knows they were being spied on, et voila.
Interestingly however, until very recently (last year) and maybe still as of today, a lot of high profile French poloticians (ministers for eg) use(d) their private smartphones for (some) government communication. This, this is so absurd.
>* Honnestly, I wouldn't be surprised if both knew about it.*
Surprised? Of course they knew about it. This has been happening ever since the end of world war II (even before, but the means weren't as advanced then).
That's fine by me. Nation states should be spying on each other. Its within my interests to spy on the French, regardless of whatever bullshit political relationship we have. France is busy building carriers for Putin to oppresses Eastern Europe with, for example. We're not all buddy-buddy in the real world. The only reason those carriers aren't being used to shoot at Ukrainian civilians is because of US pressure to temporarily hold them.
>and it's midnight meetings at the Elysée and general outrage all round.
Except this is political theater and face-saving nonsense, just like Merkel's cellphone or the million other things before it. We're still spying on them as we should as its within our interests. They're spying on us, except we don't have a German or French Snowden, or at least not yet. The Five Eyes share intel and spy on each other as well. Being at an information disadvantage is stupid. France, Germany, etc are an election away from assaulting US interests. We have every right to spy on them.
Looks like millennials are starting to learn what Realpolitik means, or are going to once they start to learn how the real world works.
I find it amusing that you are opposing on one side a population and on another a country.
So let me rephrase it for you : France will pretend to be upset ... It's part of the game.
As a french, I just don't give a s US spying our officials, I'm much more worried any foreign secret service achieving it. It just shows how much our defense and digital security is weak. If I'm angry, it's towards our own services which can't prevent this kind of stuff.
They'll huff and puff about this for a little while to give the illusion of surprise and indignation, but after the dust has settled and any offences have been swept under the rug, it'll be back to business of taking orders from the NSA while hoping their dirt stays hidden and no challenges to their legitimacy are posed. Same as Germany.
> The fact is that the French and US intelligence services enjoy a degree of cooperation and interdependence that no government in Paris would ever dream of jeopardising.
Well, but France isn't one of the Five Eyes. I can't imagine that the French have intercepts from President Obama. But from what I've read, it's conceivable that Israel does.
I find it incredibly suspicious that one of the most powerful institutions in the world, one which controls congressmen, are trusted to regulate their own industry, and has a vital interest in secure communications, is not raising a stink about this.
I'm talking, of course, about Wall Street. Why wouldn't they care that their communications are being intercepted and analyzed by a government agency?
Yes, yes, it's not very gentlemanly to read each other's mail. We know, Mr. Stimson.
And the world will go on, with diplomats and heads of state spied on, like they have been for the past 60 years, because that is how the Great Game works these days.
Not saying that it excuses any of the actions, nor am I trying to be inflammatory, but I have a serious question.
Does anything really think that France, or Germany, or any other nations is not doing the exact same thing to the US? All governments spy on each other, even allies. That is how its been for probably the entirety of human history, and probably will be for foreseeable future.
Ok, very valid point. But if everyone is doing it to everyone else and everyone knows it, then what does 'getting caught' actually do? Why bother feigning outrage at it?
70 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 143 ms ] threadI'd be very surprised if GCHQ weren't at least trying to spy on the US president and NSA weren't doing the same to the UK prime minister whenever possible. I'd guess security committee members would also be spied upon as well.
I don't know how far they would go though in terms of breaking and entering to plant bugs etc but they've only got to make look it's a hostile powers work to get away with it.
It's probably only the difficulty of the denials if they get caught that would affect the likelihood of five eyes members spying on each other.
Given the French supposedly bugged Concorde it's seems a bit rich of them to complain.
>If you want to pretend that those politicians and officials are accountable to the people, then the people are a legitimate target for espionage, just like the king would be in a monarchy.
First, if officials are accountable to the people, then the officials are legitimate target of espionage (or transparency). The people is the master, not the officials.
Also, following your logic, are people also a legitimate target to terrorist attacks? It is after all a democracy, and in that sense they are responsible for the actions of their government, right?
Or we could take the logical conclusion that what we have is far for a democracy...
In the definition that says the ultimate source of government power is the people. You seem to agree that this is a reasonable definition of democracy. This means that they are a legitimate target when it comes to espionage or terrorism, yes. If you don't like it, move to a dictatorship.
They don't influence the government in its day to day operations, nor they have any special power or significance for the various policies as individuals (outside of their function as a voting majority).
So while this might make them a "legitimate" target for terrorism (in the sense: they voted for the government so they are ultimately responsible for its foreign policy etc) it doesn't make any sense at all regarding to espionage.
France has always had a divergent geopolitical strategy that sets it apart from the USA/UK alliance.
I would not expect to see a shrug and a "owell, thats what spying is for, right?".
The outrage was that the US let it happen, not that China tried it, because of course they are going to try that, because "thats what spying is for, right?"
Firstly, I wouldn't be surprised if things like this are quietly ignored for the sake of diplomacy.
Secondly, this fairness isn't the objective here, it's being ahead. The perfect situation, as far as any reasonable spy agency is concerned, is we can spy on others but others can't spy on us.
But that position is illogical: according to USA laws NSA can spy on everyone else, according to UK laws, GCHQ can spy on everyone else, etc. And everyone points fingers at everyone else for "breaking the law". That position leads to immediate contradictions. Also, it's a "Well, they're right because they're OUR guys" sort of thing.
Once you take the "OUR guys are RIGHT and YOUR guys are WRONG" position, there's no limits, just insufficient imagination to justify anything weird, dangerous, unethical and in a larger sense, immoral.
The French secret service is infamous for its espionage. They have even been accused of bugging hotel rooms and airline flights to gain classified US information.
http://articles.philly.com/1992-10-24/news/25999062_1_aerosp... http://www.nytimes.com/1991/09/14/news/14iht-spy_.html
And until Snowden, the collective reaction was indeed "meh." Well, Germany did call France the 'evil empire' of industrial espionage, but nobody cared. Apparently the US only ever confidentially complained when it became too overt.
So France screaming about US spying is rather like the pot calling the kettle black. It's done for political reasons, not because the French government really believes it's wrong.
Yes. Do you have any reason to think things have changed?
This is a game that's been played by every nation against every nation for six thousand years.
This canard seems to be dragged out as a response to any abridgement of civil liberties (of course the FBI should have a agent in every environmental group! Of course Uber should be paying Lyft executives secretly for access to their trade secrets! Of course the NSA should listen in on every phone call! To do otherwise would be stupid and incompetent, and I don't want a stupid incompetent government/company/father.)
What happens when you spy on everyone is that when you get caught, your diplomacy breaks down all over the world and you can't get anything done without direct threats. Also, no one lets anyone connected with you get close to anything important, because you are untrustworthy i.e. when you say you're going to send weapons inspectors, Iraq says: don't send any Americans, they only send spies. A lot of people who studied at American universities and return home get imprisoned and/or executed.
Intelligence gathering is something you do because you want to gain leverage, not lose it. Instead, in the US, it's become another teat for huge incompetent contractors to suck the taxpayer dry.
If your spy agencies are not going to gather intelligence on foreign world leaders, who precisely should they be gathering intelligence on? If your answer is that there is no acceptable use of intelligence gathering facilities, that is fine, but that is a much more extreme belief than the one that says it is ok for the NSA to spy on the leaders of France.
From https://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml
>The Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations. This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties.
I mean how spying on your ally head of state is preventing "terrorism" or supporting "military operation". Do you believe that there is a terrorist cell in l'Elysée ?
This is disingenuous at best, but looks more like dishonest.
>intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes
"Intelligence purposes" i.e. knowing as much as possible about ,say, trade negotiations.
> They then use the information to help protect our troops, support our allies, fight terrorism, combat international crime and narcotics, support diplomatic negotiations, and advance many other important national objectives.
Again the focus is on "threat", "crime", "combat" and at the end the very vague "important national objectives".
Don't you feel the strong cognitive dissonance between the missions that are put at the forefront and what it is really done ?
Notice your quote says "many other national objectives". Everything listed prior are national objectives set by the president.
The NSA is pretty straightforward about spying on foreign governments it seems
What's wrong with that? Trying to get the best deal for your side is the entire point of a negotiation.
Would you sit at a poker table if you knew the cards where marked ?
In regards of the revelation, even if there are a few years old, at the time of tense TIPP negotiation, it makes a bad impression.
And I knew exactly how much or how little each of the other players knew about - the marking system - and the other players' knowledge of it
And I knew that I was the only one at the table with the power to punish any bad actors
And I knew that my family needed money I didn't have
Why on earth would I stay away?
What does it tell you about that "friendship"?
You must have a sad life when friendship means nothing. But each to their own.
They always considered that ok, even as it was illegal.
The NSA spying on its citizens was discussed in France, partially because unlike the USA which has a number of laws on counterterrorism and espionage, France is lacking — spy activities are a grey area of the law, which is another way to say they were illegal. I remember a Le Monde article to this effect, citing someone at the DGSE.
After the events at Charlie Hebdo this year, the government felt confident enough to admit that those activities target French citizens and decided to make mass surveillance lawful, which caused a large backlash (notably on Twitter with the hashtag #PJLRenseignement).
But every country spies on every country it interacts with. The difference is that, there, the government does not set the rules; diplomacy does. So they try to make it a big deal to get leverage for the next negotiation. Also, appearing like a protector of the people is a politician's dream.
If you intimidate someones freedom of expression in parts of the Middle East or Africa, nobody is impressed in the slightest.
That wasn't my impression. I don't know about twitter, but there were little discussion about this law on popular media (especially compared to other unimportant issues that are debated for months, and I'm not even talking about the gay marriage that led to huge protests). Sadly, most politicians supported this law, and so did most French people.
Interestingly however, until very recently (last year) and maybe still as of today, a lot of high profile French poloticians (ministers for eg) use(d) their private smartphones for (some) government communication. This, this is so absurd.
Surprised? Of course they knew about it. This has been happening ever since the end of world war II (even before, but the means weren't as advanced then).
>and it's midnight meetings at the Elysée and general outrage all round.
Except this is political theater and face-saving nonsense, just like Merkel's cellphone or the million other things before it. We're still spying on them as we should as its within our interests. They're spying on us, except we don't have a German or French Snowden, or at least not yet. The Five Eyes share intel and spy on each other as well. Being at an information disadvantage is stupid. France, Germany, etc are an election away from assaulting US interests. We have every right to spy on them.
Looks like millennials are starting to learn what Realpolitik means, or are going to once they start to learn how the real world works.
https://wikileaks.org/nsa-france/intercepts/#intercept1
So let me rephrase it for you : France will pretend to be upset ... It's part of the game.
As a french, I just don't give a s US spying our officials, I'm much more worried any foreign secret service achieving it. It just shows how much our defense and digital security is weak. If I'm angry, it's towards our own services which can't prevent this kind of stuff.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33106044
Well, but France isn't one of the Five Eyes. I can't imagine that the French have intercepts from President Obama. But from what I've read, it's conceivable that Israel does.
Given that information is power, who's in charge?
But otherwise, it arguably wouldn't matter.
I'm talking, of course, about Wall Street. Why wouldn't they care that their communications are being intercepted and analyzed by a government agency?
And the world will go on, with diplomats and heads of state spied on, like they have been for the past 60 years, because that is how the Great Game works these days.
Just like Merkel earlier, yet at the same time telling her prosecutors to stop investigating the US surveillance.
It's pretty much a bunch of people spying on each other.
Does anything really think that France, or Germany, or any other nations is not doing the exact same thing to the US? All governments spy on each other, even allies. That is how its been for probably the entirety of human history, and probably will be for foreseeable future.
https://securelist.com/blog/research/69114/animals-in-the-ap...