This reminds me of Operation Gladio or Propaganda Due but domestic. Same playbook, different players.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_sc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben-Ami_Kadish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons_(rocket_engineer)
Then there's the time they stole nuclear material from us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apollo_Affair
Then there's the time they slaughtered several dozen US navy and NSA personnel with repeated attacks on an unarmed vessel because they didn't like that we were watching them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Again I don't have concrete proofs so I could be 100% wrong. But reading world history especially cold war history makes me be sceptical to certain things.
>because they didn't like that we were watching them
That is the American conspiracy theorist interpretation of the incident that (understandably) also gained traction among a few of the survivors. The Israelis disagree.
It was most likely a case of mistaken identity. Just like friendly fire incidents. Friendly fire incidents happen all the time, including between US forces in the recent Iraq and Afghanistan conflict.
> IDF war room to Israeli pilot: Yes, follow orders.
> Israeli pilot to IDF war room: But sir, it’s an American ship - I can see the flag!
> IDF war room to Israeli pilot: Never mind; hit it.
https://archive.md/KNYBR/again?url=https://www.haaretz.com/u...
On a related note, JFK was trying to shut down Israel's nuclear weapons program in the months before his murder.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kennedy-letter-to-ben-g...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_to_the_Secretary_on_the...
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2001/09/20/the-truth-about-...
As far as I know there are few (if any) restrictions on encryption R&D (and even publication) in the US.
What is restricted (due to encryption being classed as a 'munition') is the export of robust encryption products to specific countries.
Broadly speaking, circumventing the export controls wouldn't be in the interest of the US Intelligence Community, unless those products have backdoors or vulnerabilities known to the IC.
As for the USS Liberty, some do argue that it was intentional, but both the Israelis and Americans ended up agreeing that it was a mistake. The US is no stranger to such mistakes either, even more egregious ones like when they killed close to 300 civilians aboard a regular passenger flight following an approved route and in contact with ATC (Iran Air 655).
In the end both the US and Israel are amoral states that act only according to their economic and strategic interests and I feel that this unites them. I wish it didn't, though.
Given the general incompetence of governments in general (Europe is no exception) I doubt it is (b).
Reminder that France vacuumed up messages on Enrochat after deploying malware globally, and they have clear text messages from users in any arbitrary country and have not disclosed what they will do with it or what they have.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3aza95/how-police-took-over-...
Establishing mere capability is pretty trivial: they have diplomats in the United States who can talk to people.
You don’t think the French would love to have known about AUKUS submarine deal before it was made? It’s detrimental to not attempt to spy. The French were blindsided and I’m sure they don’t want to be blindsided again.
[1] https://www.space.com/arianespace-soyuz-rocket-launches-cso-...
The US spies on everyone because they can, and because they have prepared to do basically anything they think might be in their interests; when Germany discovers the US spying on them, what can they really do about it? Whereas if it was the other way, all hell would break loose.
How would the sailors on the ship being attacked be able to know anything like that (e.g. know if the Israeli pilots thought they were attacking an Egyptian ship or an American one)?
The sailors would know because they have access to the same information that you do, but a greater incentive to actually do the reading. The Israeli pilots knew it as a US ship, their radio traffic questioning their attack orders - after visually identifying the USS Liberty as a US ship, was recorded and the transcripts widely known about. This happened several times, so unless the Israeli command center had the memory of a goldfish - they intentionally kept sending attack aircraft until they eventually got a pilot to pull the trigger. Why would they do such a thing? Because the US wasn't onboard with the Israeli preemptive strike and they didn't want a signals intelligence boat tipping off the Egyptians. Israel doesn't appear to reciprocate the fond feelings expressed by American politicians - the mere idea of the "Samson Option" is proof enough of that.
To that point, it's worth noting here friendly fire incidents happen all the time in war, as well as attacks against neutral parties. For instance: the US has bombed its own troops probably more times than anyone can count, and it also bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and shot down an Iranian airliner. Why would they do such things? Honestly, it's plausible they they may actually have had the memory of a goldfish, at least occasionally.
Because an imputed motive is not proof of anything, and there's no way "accounts on the ship" could provide the information you claim they do (knowledge of the attackers mental state).
I don't think anyone disputes that the Israelis attacked the ship intentionally, but you can say the same about most friendly fire incidents. The question is if the people who made the attack deliberately decided to attack what they know to be an American ship.
It gives you an idea how powerful their lobby is.
NSO should be declared a terrorist organization.
For some reason I feel like the US government officials probably share the sentiment of their Icelandic colleagues of old. These immoral activists that obviously step out of line, but the only thing that bothers the US officials is that they got caught. But even then it is not such a big deal.
1: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/19/nsa-surve...
There's nothing wrong with the phrase "deep state". If you're concerned about associations with Trump (which I think you should not be), you can use a former Obama official's favored term, "the blob". Both, and many other similar phrases, are common in the foreign policy literature.
I think the first time I heard the phrase "shadow government" was in connection to Iran-Contra, where it described Oliver North and the small group in charge or those operations, but it's a phrase with many uses. I can't remember when I first heard of the "deep state", but I'd be fairly certain it was before Trump or anyone connected to him started using it.
"The Government" isn't really a single institution, but a surprisingly loose collection of various institutions that all have some level of momentum guiding the direction they move in. It's critical to note that these institutions may have interests that harshly conflict with one another. Even the intelligence community, insular as it is, cannot be thought of as a monolith, but as various institutions with various priorities, some which conflict with the interests of other government institutions.
When the government does something we dislike politically, or does something we don't understand, it's "the deep state" or "the shadow government" which betrays a deep misunderstanding of what the government is. There's no central, shadowy cabal controlling the affairs of "the government" from behind the scenes, the various institutions that comprise the government maintain momentum and do what is in furtherance of their particular interests.
J. Edgar Hoover was a perfect example of what people are talking about with the deep state. You can claim that’s just “institutional inertia”, but it’s still some unelected official with massive power wielding it in nefarious ways.
It's a very imprecise term covering bureaucratic norms and blindspots, to unsanctioned domestic and international terrorism, so it's not really useful except as shorthand with ideological bedfellows, so-to-speak, and you're right that it's often used to mean "the government guys I don't like but am too lazy/ill-informed to describe". But OP mentioned Gladio -- I think that's context enough for this thread. Do some reading on the topic (beyond Wikipedia) if you haven't already, and you might get a sense of what this non-centralized deep state can do.
And I didn't make it clear, but I brought up the North et al "shadow government" as an example far on the small-scale end of the spectrum of meaning of "deep state/shadow government". It _was_ a centralized shadowy cabal doing a now-documented conspiracy. People argue about how much authority they "seized" and how much was delegated by Reagan (and how much capacity he had to delegate much of anything), but regardless, it was not democratic to illegal go around Congress. What I've described as the "deep state" is the more common usage, and it's on the "amorphous, non-centralized, competing institutions, largely free of any democratic accountability" end.
To me, 'deep state' implies an illegal conspiracy against democracy. 'The blob' is a large organization that is hard to change, which describes every such organization. Ask an executive at a Fortune 500 company about blobs. The executive branch has the added complication that the CEO has limited powers and doesn't make the rules, Congress does. At work, you follow the boss's instructions. In the executive branch, you follow the Constitution first, then the laws made by the American people via Congress (accumulated over centuries), then the President's instructions - including instructions of prior presidents that haven't been changed.
Maybe 'deep state' was used before Trump, but the meaning has changed.
This is a very new, post-Trump/QAnon interpretation. The “deep state” has, for at least many decades prior, meant those aspects of government which persist from administration to administration, largely unaffected by those in power. E.g. the CIA keeps doing its thing regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican is in office.
Now in as much as these aspects of government are controlled by unelected officials who are willing to work against the elected representatives (think: J Edgar Hoover), that constitutes a shadow government.
It's often taught in political classes and it isn't a conspiracy that there exists a "deep state" or "shadow goverment".
For example, the roman elite troop, the Praetorian Guards, can be classified as a "deep state", as they had their own goals and if they were not meet, then they would just kill the emperor. At the same time, the emporer and the senat had almost no control over the Praetorian Guard.
Tinfoil hat territory? Sure. Plausible and possible? Sure.
So you can be #5 and I'll be #6 :-)
I seriously have no damn clue what those buggers have gotten up to that they’ve bullied the government into leaving them alone.
By that standard, we should post every conspiracy theory ever created.
What would shadow government regulation look like?
Congressional oversight used to be a thing.
Snowden showed the NSA lied to congress. No heads rolled.
Hiding this information is trading the wellbeing of the country for the NSA's own internal goals and power.
Depends on the dirt. Some of it might be private and personal stuff, such as infidelity. That type of stuff, while blackmailable, doesn't really benefit the public much.
Don't worry, you live in a world where a man with a well documented decades-long laundry list of scandals and faux-pas can brag on tape about how he can get away with molesting young women because of how rich he is and still get elected President.
I'm actually wondering what you could effectively blackmail an American politician with, given how little Americans seem to care about the morality of their leaders. Maybe just the eponymous "dead girl or live boy," but then you have the Kennedys...
Well, in general anything that would get them prosecuted for a felony should be an effective stick. Add in a carrot and now they're on the hook for bribery too.
Well lucky you, we have the exact 100% polar opposite of that system currently. I think it would be fine to move toward it a little.
I'm skeptical of the notion that outing public officials (when the blackmail material is personal in nature as posited by the GP) would move toward that goal.
I don't even think an exception should be made for material that would expose hypocrisy in policy-making (eg. 'pro-life' lawmakers that have had or facilitated an abortion).
Straight-up crimes though (bribery, corruption, theft, insider trading, etc.), sure.
They represent groups of interest. And being blackmailable is, in my opinion, a handy leash to keep them in check, for those groups which propose the candidates
The public is not concerned with corruption until they feel affected by it.
It would be better for us to maintain our high expectations of our leaders, even if those expectations are not currently being met. It doesn't mean that they cannot be met. It feels so damned gamed that I cannot imagine what a genuine political candidate would look like, a member of the public deciding, yes, I will run for office, and then speaking to their friends and neighbors about it, and submitting the paperwork to make it official.
Can you imagine if that's what politics was? Wouldn't it be amazing? Sometimes I feel like there's too many smart people with way too much time on their hands, and they create these political storms as a way to generate money. I hope they all go into the gaming industry and make a tone of money without undermining a functional democracy. The problems we have don't always have money behind them. In fact, it's usually a trade-off we want someone with money to take, that they don't want to take. And the way we coerce an organization is through legislation. So it makes sense for orgs to take that control back and spend on PR campaigns and pundits to argue in their favor. Payola for sophists. But I digress...
Sure it does. There is no longer leverage of whoever is holding that blackmail, who may easily have interests opposite the public.
Making it public benefits the public just because it’s no longer a secret.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/18/politics/cia-senate-dispute-f...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cia-senate-idUSKBN0KN2Q82...
But that these shadow organizations are maintaining power by surveiling and blackmailing congress people is a whole other ballgame and seems highly unlikely to me.
For one, it's likely that not every Congressperson has some deep dark secret that makes them blackmail-able. And pissing off the only group of people that could cut your funding and expose your shadow organization as well as bring oversight is not the group that you want to be pissing off.
I think game theory would indicate that your only chance of maintaining a shadow organization in the US gov for any length of time is going to be secrecy and maybe some heavily funded lobbying.
I'd be more than willing to bet that they do. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." and that only covers "honest" men who wouldn't have illegal coordination with PACs, bribes with lobbyists, personal communications filled with racism, or evidence of sexual activities that might upset their base. When "6 lines" becomes a record of everything you've ever done online, all of your communications, your GPS coordinates and the data of anyone around you it's going to get easier to find a noose around your neck.
Even if there managed to exist a single person in congress who wasn't screwing over the American people somehow for personal gain, or didn't have some skeleton in their closet they didn't want exposed to voters/campaign contributors when a group is capable of compromising your system and inserting whatever offensive material they want to use against you it's incentive enough to back off.
Why is it so hard to believe that a few powerful indivisuals at the top, with common interests and agendas, are banded together?
There's no official organization but a few indivisuals that streer things their way because they can.
The funny thing is that the worst of it is already exposed, and no-one seems to care. money-in-politics, the most serious problem of our time, is a "meh" issue to most folks, even though money poisons discourse on literally every other issues! And we know the precise mechanism and how to stop it (a law overturning Citizens United), and yet we do nothing.
Many are very well meaning public servants, others careerists, some are… insane on various scales. Politics is a business with uncertain outcomes where “friends” are important and personal stakes are high.
From a blackmail perspective, you have people like the bartender turned member of congress who got their GED to run who are obvious puppets with a wheelbarrow of odious behavior behind them. But even the most boring congressman has a legal escrow account with irregularities, a kid with emotional problems that caused trouble, a campaign finance violation, etc.
I don’t think there is a shadow cabal, but some executive branch entities wield tremendous power.
I'd like to visit the Museum of Counterproductivity in the area of your brain that downgraded Bobert from business owner to bartender.
You don't need to control every congresscritter directly, just to control them by proxy is enough. The nomination committees have a lot of power on who stays and who goes, for example, and so do subcommittee chairs.
There's a long history of illegal domestic surveillance since at least the 1940s - why would it have stopped?
> For one, it's likely that not every Congressperson has some deep dark secret that makes them blackmail-able. And pissing off the only group of people that could cut your funding and expose your shadow organization as well as bring oversight is not the group that you want to be pissing off.
Secret blackmail files worked for J. Edgar Hoover[0].
[0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/fbi-director-hoovers-dirty-fil...
Well, if blackmail won't do the trick, there is always extortion…
Congress has blocked inquiries into their split loyalty as far as them having multiple citizenship in other countries. If you were McDonald's board of directors would you allow someone to be on both the McDonald's board and Wendy's?
Congress isn't personally harmed by a surveillance state unless you consider they may all be being blackmailed but that is another conversation. In fact mass surveillance widens the barrier to new entries into politics as they can use whatever dirty they find and give it to federally funded media mouthpieces.
This week we saw articles of sexual crimes against children being swept under the rug to "protect our country" do we really think that congress would actively pursuit this line of inquiry?
I tried, they sent men with guns to my house when I stopped paying taxes
Unfortunately, it seems intelligence is mostly immune from liability, and lack of consequences lets the rot fester.
You are asking way too much of people. "Normal" people can't fulfill any of those 3 requests. Not that they don't want to (most don't), or that they aren't taught to (this is conflicting through life)
They can't. #1 and #2 sound like something an autist would tend to do.
Israel has zero interest in spying on random embassy employees in Uganda who are working with protesters there. This is purely mercenary stuff, and the US is annoyed that a podunk nowhere country got its hands on first-rate tools.
It only takes 3 minutes of google searches or even a daily scan of Hacker News to see endless examples of government corruption and malfeasance. Government employees are only human after all, and there are millions of them. To think this sort of activity ends once you become an agent of the government is absurd.
This weekend I was traveling and I put the stray $20 from my pocket in the bin at the TSA checkpoint. An agent quickly pulled it out and handed it back to me. He then said "a lot of good people work here, but they're still human". It's kind of wild that we endure that level of complacency here in the States.