Dutch spies helped Britain's GCHQ break Argentine crypto during Falklands War
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
In 2014 AIVD hacked the office network of Russia's APT29, and maintained access at least through the 2016 DNC hack. The best part was they also had access to the security cameras and were able to watch the attacks in real time.
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/new-d...
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch...
The timing was also amazingly convenient.
It was in there. Pretty interesting read as well. Lots of stuff on FoxIT and the guy behind it.
I'd be sceptical of any "revelation" from such agencies...
Curious if you have evidence that it's fabricated? Other than your distrust of intelligence agencies in general.
What happened to the burden of proof?
Especially from professional liars like intelligence agencies...
A fun exercise is applying with the AIVD or NFI (involved in spying on home soil). You may meet someone who can tell you some good war stories. Of course, you'll be bound not to speak of it outside company walls ;)
Including making up claims for specific foreign countries people have no way of substantiating...
In fact, according to a recent release the entire basis for the US intelligence appartus' opinion was totally unproven.
CrowdStrike never conclusively proved Russia was behind the hack, and in fact didn't even conclusively prove a hack even occurred.
https://www.itwire.com/security/crowdstrike-chief-admits-no-...
The trouble is, I see no way forward for citizens of the 5-eyes states to address this issue, other than either a) revolution to uncover and dissolve the control networks that have been covertly put in place, or b) sedition - leaving the state, and not contributing (taxes) to its continued economic development.
As we have seen with Wikileaks and Julian Assange, its not enough to just reveal the covert secrets that underpin this inner state-within-a-state - there have to be actual repercussions for those involved, and this isn't happening at any rate near well enough for my needs.
So, it appears that sedition is the only option - and indeed, that is what I have done: I no longer participate in the economies of any of the 5-eyes states, directly, and I"m about to give up my citizenship in my birth nation over the issue.
But we know this isn't a solution. Do we have to start a brain-drain revolution which moves the economic power of an intelligent class from state to state? Or, do we just let mother nature do its thing, and 'hope' that things will 'change' in the 5-eyes super-state somehow? Too many people I trust and respect in the crypto-anarchist sphere are responding to this appeal with "well, covid-19 will sort it out" for my liking .. but what other options are there, really? Journalism is utterly dead and decrepit in the West, this is not an avenue. Violent revolution makes no sense whatsoever. So, brain-drain it is ...
I don't think this is a good thing. We have seen that the USA has, essentially, co=opted the intelligence-gathering communities of the peer states in its coalition - and only seems to be 'acceptable' because its being done by 'our side'. But I think the state issue is such a large problem that such circumstances can only lead to further catastrophes in the future, when these extra-sovereign entities, not bounded by any local state laws, decide that they need to justify their continued existence by exerting that covert power in order to create conditions conducive to the prosperity of the secret apparatus, itself.
Are Australians okay with not being spied on by their own intelligence agencies, while being spied on by the CIA, which then shares that information with Australian spy agencies as an extra-sovereign economic exchange? Perhaps they are - but I hope this is not the case elsewhere in the 5-eyes world.
What it indicates to me is that we civilians will always have to work hard to get ahead of the military sovereign and lessen the dependencies they put in place to continually justify their existence - i.e. we need to make peace faster than they can make war. Would that we had another Lennon around to assist that process...
Do you understand what an 'ally' is? They're allies. Helping each other is what allies do. You make it sound like it's some bizarre underhand agreement. They're just allies. I'm sure the UK would return the favour to the Dutch if Aruba were invaded (don't actually know about their defence agreements but you get the idea.)
> without civilian oversight
This article is about civilian agencies, and discusses civilian politicians talking about them. Talking about civilian oversight doesn't make any sense here. What were you trying to mean?
> Would that we had another Lennon around to assist that process...
The pop singer?
Helping allies route around local legislation designed to protect the rights of citizens in one state, by using another states surveillance apparatus to violate those rights, as is the case with the 5-eyes war coalition: this is the end of sovereign state-hood and the beginning of a new world order where the 'intelligence' community ends up having more rights than the citizens they're "sworn"^Wsupposed to protect...
I don't think we should be so easily swayed into accepting this state of affairs.
>This article is about civilian agencies, and discusses civilian politicians talking about them. Talking about civilian oversight doesn't make any sense here. What were you trying to mean?
That's the state of affairs now, but it was not the case in 1982, during the conflict, and it was a long road until we, the citizens who paid for these actions, found out just how it all went down.
>The pop singer?
Yes, he was a pop singer, and he also was the founder of one of the most effective Peace Movements, which deflated with his assassination. We need more individuals like him, now more than ever.
Maybe you know more than me here, but I think GCHQ, CIA, AIVD, BND, were all civilian in 1982 as well.
Most of the time that the islands were inhabited the people that lived there were British.
While the Spanish hold no colonies in South America anymore, the British do.
The Argentines would have been the logical successors to the Spanish and Britain invaded Argentina as well.
It’s hard to find the good guys in this story but it would be really hard to the people that currently live on the islands to become part of Argentina
I think it’s pretty hard to argue that Argentina did anything but invade here, not liberate, given the disposition of the actual people who live there.
It was uninhabited before the French and Brits settled there, but soon the French and later the Brits were replaced with Spanish settlers. It had been a Spanish colony for decades before the British invaded and kicked the Spanish settlers out. Of course replacing the original inhabitants with you own works, it's the oldest trick in the book.
> the Falkland islanders themselves hated the idea.
Well apart from nationalism and resentment after the invasion joining Argentina is also a bad move in economic terms because it has a severe crisis every other decade.
I don't think you can ask them to join a country that does such a poor job managing itself and Argentina should focus on economic and legal stability before talking about it again.
It's not easy, just take a look at Hong Kong.
The Falklanders certainly considered themselves part of the UK
Nevertheless, the point still stands: should we be so willing to allow our intelligence apparatus, as citizens, to be sold on an open market of economy for subterfuge and covert action?
I would argue, definitely not. To allow this to occur, creates a super-state - as we have seen - which answers to nobody but itself, and is thus an usurpation of democracy.
But, I'm afraid we don't have a choice because we are living in a zero-sum game. And the irony is that the more we play non-cooperative, the more reasons we give to each other to play non-cooperative.
I guess the best thing to do is to continue to fight covert manipulation at all costs, using any means necessary beyond violence. This seems to not be so much of a zero-sum game as capitulation.
So America shouldn’t have tried to crack the Enigma? Or keep an eye on Soviet missiles?
All surveillance is bad is a fairly-extreme stance.
Or defining it. Nobody declares wars anymore. And a large part of intelligence is oriented towards preventing wars through deterrence.
The Dutch aren't part of 5-eyes.
You're dramatizing an intelligence-sharing agreement. Something allies have always done. The entities, the spy agencies, are decidedly of sovereign creation.
Maximator: European signals intelligence cooperation, from a Dutch perspective
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02684527.2020.1...
Many countries were helping with intelligence. Norway helped by stealing Soviet satellite imagery.
And by attacking first they could not invoke the Rio Pact.
Argentina did have an air to air refuelling capability, and its availability or not was crucial in a number of instances. Likewise, the Gurkhas went out at battalion strength near the end of the war. The exocets weren't so much sabotaged as much as all the French simply returning home leaving the kit unfitted and unconfigured. The stuff that had been set up already was used to great effect.
You're right though that they did not set themselves up for success when they did not make the most of their first mover advantage and build up the island with supplies, equipment, and well trained soldiers rather than conscripts.
At the time, they hoped that domestic events meant that the UK simply wouldn't care is all. They didn't come for a fight.
Ironically, if they had not attacked the Falklands might be Argentinian or under joint sovereignty now because, indeed, no-one really cared about the Falklands. But their actions ended up guaranteeing that the UK would never even discuss the issue for at least a century...
Was a desperate last move from the Military Junta to get some approval.
The Argentinian attack worked fine for M. Thatcher popularity, but not so good for them.
The stuff that had not been set up still worked too. The exocet that hit HMS Glamorgan was fired from an improvised platform that had been built by the Argentinian Navy.
The Super Étendards operated by the Argentine Navy (x4) were. Super Étendards can also refuel each other.
The aerial refueling was a significant problem for the Argentine air force. It shortened the amount of time they could spend near the islands.
Many have enough power to leverage a) or b), but very few choose to do so. Why?
Because if you somehow manage to disolve the current status quo, you'd need to rebuild a similar status quo, probably with your group deeply plugged into the newest surveillance / society control system.
> ultimatelly you would probably have accomplished very few changes, though you could obtain more power / money, but
If you're capable / resourceful enough to make happen a) or b), you probably already have lots of power / money.
Therefore, the current status quo works quite well for you, and there are easier ways to change some things (not all of them though), than going right to a revolution.
That's something you can see in most empires through history: very few were intentionally brough down by internal players. Most players just wanted to get in charge (by any means), but they were not fundamentally changing anything in the current social order.
Going against the state was (and it is), almost certainly not the best path of action.