NSA hacked into encrypted UN communications, leaked documents show

Sadly if you keep stuff in secret you could try this justification - the person spies on terrorists - so you have connection to them. S/He is connected to you so is only two hops away. So is legitimate person of interest.

After the revelations about spying on other G8 attendees, a portion of posters on HN and elsewhere proved their worldly, jaded cynicism and acceptance of the status quo with posts saying "of course they do" and "everyone knows that" and "no news here". In this very discussion there's a poster saying "The real surprise is everyone is shocked".

These people won't care about the UN story - but the stalking love interests they might care about.

While I agree with the sentiment, I would rather have people caring about the NSA spying for the "wrong" reasons than not caring at all.

I once had a dog, he liked to urinate on things, I didn't see the point in getting worked up and cynical about the fact that he was simply doing what was in his nature. Then again I didn't ask him to vote on my major life decisions either, so there's that.

Humans really aren't that much different at a macro level. Maybe it's not humans that are the problem but the assumptions of our political systems.

Well the "love interest" story is much worse. The stasi maintained the authoritarian political and psychological control over the german population through blackmail and spying.

Invading the privacy of (innocent, or incidentally guilty) citizens turns the NSA from a national security agency into a secret police.

Their auditing sounds weak. They seemed to have no idea what documents Snowden had taken.

While I don't have the source handy, I read recently that most of these LOVEINT "discoveries" were actually caused by the people admitting to it before a polygraph test

Unauthorized access to profiles has been a fireable offense at FB for several years.

No, the NSA can intercept communication between "non-U.S. persons" at either end.

If you spy on the UN, you own it. You have a disproportionate advantage in all negotiations (unless other countries are also effective at spying[1]). You might think that it is fine that the US effectively owns the UN, but its credibility is ruined.

The compromised UN is effectively a body for representing and legitimizing the wishes of the cabal of US allies as if they were the actual consensus of all UN member states.

[1] But it is still not possible for any nation to be more effective at spying than the US, given the UN's location.

Oh please. China hacked into the JSF project at Lockheed twice, and the US did its best to avoid confrontation at all cost.

Allies spy on each other all the time. Alliances are simple two dimension structures, counties align themselves will all sorts of interests that sometimes seem contradictory. Look at the Israelis for example, they spy on the US. But they clearly benefit from the US's support. nevertheless, it makes sense for them to spy on the US, first they need to know what the US really thinks to protect their interests (the US isnt always publicly stating its true ntetions) and sometimes the US may have intel the Israelis do not). thats just one example of allies spying.

In general terms, any intelligent government is going to want to know what's happening in the world to its interests because people, and countries, lie and withhold information. So in general terms, everyone spies on everyone.

Who is your ally in one matter may not be in another. For example, China is neither an ally nor an enemy to the US. US Sino relations are complicated, sometimes the two agree and work together, sometimes they do not. If two countries cooperate on some things, but not others should they blindly trust each other? Of course not. What if they mostly agree? Should they still blindly trust each other? I would hope not. Again, consider how allies sometimes to lie to each other to get them to support their cherished positions. Nations have a duty to their citizens, and shouldn't blindly follow their allies statements of so-called fact. How else does a nation meet this duty if it doesn't cast a wary eye on its allies? It spies on them.

Equally, sometimes traditional allies are opposed on certain things, or may be lying as the Greeks were about their national finances. Im sure the EU wishes it knew that earlier.

The word ally isn't the same thing as "always on my side". These are nations we're talking about, that operate in their own interests, lie to each other and dont always operate in their friends interests. It seems reasonable for allies to be a bit wary of each other and to not assume allies will just always act in their allies best interests. And alas, spy on each other find out what's really going on.

So Germany should close the US bases there?

That's because after all the headlines about the Chinese doing this, nobody cares about that any more. But the U.S. made such a brouhaha about the Chinese doing it that when it turns out they were doing the same - but to a far greater scale, it turns out that there's one rule for the U.S. (which is "the rules don't apply to us"), and one rule for everyone else (which is "the rules still apply to all you lot, because it's our playground, and we make the rules").

Besides, this will blow over just as quickly as it blew up just like everything else did/does in the U.S. - the president will do something dumb that everyone can get up in arms about, like cheating on his wife with a pretty white intern who strips on the side to "pay her way through college" and all will be forgotten while the bible belt attempts to sacrifice him on the alter of Republicanism. Why? Because the U.S. loves their witch hunt... as long as they're huntin' witches, they're happy. The problem is, when they run out of witches to hunt, what are they going to do with themselves?

Meanwhile, I'll sit back and roll my eyes because history has shown us that the U.S. is just that predictable.

Indeed, "According to the documents leaked by Edward Snowden, on one occasion when the Americans were breaking into UN communications, they discovered the Chinese had tried to do the same."

Guess it was not only an "attempt", they probably succeeded, they are rather skilled.

I wonder what two spies talk about when they stumble upon each other ? "Oh Hello, you're already there ? Am I late ? What did they say until now ?"

Up yours

A couple of milliseconds ago I presume.

Why bother hacking in? The majority of it is transmitted around the world on open lines for all and sundry to see - if you know what you're doing, which the NSA does.

It doesn't say spying on other countries is against international law, it says spying on the UN is. The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations[1] says "UN premises shall be inviolable, and UN property shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation etc."

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Privileges_a...

That's amazingly naive, Jacques. The same argument could be used for embassies worldwide: they are considered part of another country and so on. Yet embassies are routinely tapped by everyone. Been that way for decades.

The UN is a treaty organization, not a world government. It has as much sanctity as any other treaty organization -- not much. If folks want to construe this as being something to do with them being hosted in the US, then I'm at a loss as to how to continue the conversation. The Chinese would be okay tapping the communications but the U.S. not? Doesn't make any sense.

A little bit of context here is all I ask. Intelligence agencies are supposed to find out things about diplomatic, political, and military matters. They break and bend all kinds of rules doing so. This will continue whether or not you or I agree to it, whether it's the US or the Russians, and whether the UN is in New York or Botswana. I'm fine with that, mainly because the more each country knows about the inner workings of the others, the better they can predict reactions to political moves. That makes the world safer.

I think we've just reached the point where somebody says "NSA" and the mob all gets out the pitchforks and torches. That's a shame, because there is a very serious problem here, and it has nothing to do with the U.S. or the NSA. It has to do with technology making the entire life of the civilian population available to anybody with the appropriate political power. Not limited to NSA. Not limited to the U.S.. It's a worldwide problem based on the tech we create everyday.

We should really get off the NSA jag and on to actually solving problems instead of this emotional overreaction to any story with NSA in the title business the MSM is pushing us into.

That completely crosses the line from whistleblower to espionage. There would be serious jail time involved for anyone involved in that scheme from both the person providing the money and the person selling the information.

hahahahha!!

Of course their ability has taken a hit. Congress now has their eye on the NSA and they'll be looking to put a new set of policies into place so that they can look good to their voters. Even Snowden said that all the NSA's activities were dictated by policy. So yeah, maybe at the moment everything is running as normal, but that won't be the case for long. Just remember, if you're a senator banging 14 year olds, you don't want the NSA snooping through security cameras in your office. So in addition to the above point, congress will want to put a leash on the NSA out of self-preservation.

I think if the citizens stays complacent of its government actions than they should be equally liable. I have always tried to distinguish difference between not liking or disagreeing with the government of USA and having the same attitude towards the citizens of USA. But you can only drag it for so long.

What will it take for you go to the street against your government? Governments of other countries have fallen for much less crime, yet the american government gets away with killing thousands of people and violating national and international laws under false pretence. And the USA citizens gets to wash their hands from any responsibility by simply arguing that the government did it.

It's almost like there is a reason for the hate of USA from some people and a reason to be scared!

UPDATE nsa_no_flight_helper SET confidence = confidence+0.23 WHERE person = 'hnha';

A world where governments covertly spy on each other (even in violation of promises/treaties) is likely a nicer, safer, more peaceful world than the alternative.

It's a form state-to-state transparency, helping states independently confirm either that another state's other statements and commitments are trustworthy, or not. State-vs-state spying makes bluffs, threats, and deception in international relations relatively harder, and helps prevent destabilizing surprises or betrayals.

And I suspect all the major states understand this, and know any surface agreement not to covertly seek extra information (especially signals information) really just means, "we'll all just be really sneaky about it".

>This finding is a violation of trust and could result in the UN moving its seat from New York

Which is unfortunately the most that will possibly be done for this, if anything is done. It will be a slap on the wrist when the US is going to need its economy threatened to actually do anything about the NSA.

There is this in there:

"Some weeks later the tone of these and other discussions changed. There was, by mid-July, an explicit threat that the government would, after all, seek to stop the Guardian's work and prevent publication of further material by legal means. To have resisted such action would have involved handing over ultimate control of the material to a judge and could have meant that no stories could have been published for many months, if at all. The first amendment of the American constitution guarantees its press protections of which British editors can only dream. For more than 40 years − since the publication of the so-called Pentagon papers in 1971 − it has been accepted that the state will not succeed in trying to obtain prior restraint of the press. So we will in future report this story from New York. We have shared some material with, and will collaborate with, the New York Times."

So that was the reason why the Guardian moved the reporting on the story out of the UK.

Again - that is what they are designed to do. The system is based on trust and espionage . . . it is a complicated relationship there, but again not news just the job description.