U.S. spy agency bugged U.N. headquarters: Germany's Spiegel | Hacker News Reader

U.S. spy agency bugged U.N. headquarters: Germany's Spiegel

reuters.com

78 pointsSuraj-Sun84 comments

The US really could stand to learn a few things from Henry L. Stimson, who held many important political positions related to foreign policy during the first half of the 20th century. Here are two choice quotes:

    "The only way to make a man trustworthy is to trust him; 
    and the surest way to make him untrustworthy is to 
    distrust him and show your distrust."

and

    "Gentlemen don't read each other's mail."

The US Government doesn't act with trust and goodwill towards anyone and therefor should not be surprised that no one else shows us trust and goodwill back.

Given this news, it would be most fitting if the UN decided to move its headquarters elsewhere. My vote is for Berlin.

Stimson was talking about people. Nations aren't people (they "have no friends, only interests", as the saying goes), and it's a mistake to anthropomorphize them.

I disagree. What made US so great and so loved by the world were its values, and being a role model (a good one that is) for every other country.

Being just as bad as China or Russia and showing complete distrust in partners and allies, and forcing their hands to do what they want is a good way to ruin that whole image for US, and create an environment that is hostile towards US internationally, instead of everyone wanting to cooperate with US (without being threatened or blackmailed, that is).

People have interests, too. They just learned to cooperate with each other in a harmonious environment to be as productive as possible. Double crossing and being conflictual at every turn is not productive for people, nor for nations. Besides, it's people that create those relationships between nations.

No, what makes the United States so great and loved by the world is the opportunity it provides.

How can you say this and then proceed to distrust the government and show it your distrust?

Maybe because they've lied on numerous occasions. Every 2 or 4 years the nation chooses to trust another group of people, many of which quickly lose the trust of those they are supposed to be representing.

A government is not a single entity, but it made of individuals. I trust some of those individuals more than others.

Hiding one of the biggest surveillance programs without ever getting consent for it, is a complete and utter betrayal of trust. I trusted them to respect the 1st and 4th amendment. That trust was betrayed when they choose to play fast and loose with those two constitutional rights. Now that we are demanding to know what is going on, they retreat to more lies as opposed to opening up and trying to earn that trust back.

Stimson was also the Secretary of War during WW2, which saw the creation and explosive growth of signals intelligence. As Secretary of War, he would have overseen the bulk of American signals intelligence and cryptanalysis, which let us view the Japanese and German thoughts in real-time and gave us an incredible advantage. ULTRA and related efforts saved convoy shipping across the Atlantic, gave the Allies North Africa, and won Midway (among many other victories).

The irony is that he said "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail" as the Secretary of State, when he was made aware of the American Black Chamber. The Black Chamber was the one of the first "production line" signals intelligence units in the US government, and Stimson had it shut down due to his ethical concerns. This set the US at a signifigant disadvantage entering WW2, as we had to start on signals intelligence from scratch and learn a lot from the British (and what was left of the French and Polish signals intelligence units). It is telling that when it became truly necessary, these earlier ethical concerns were discarded in the face of military necessity.

Nowadays, of course, the US is eternally at war with a ever-changing and indistinct enemy, the terrorist, and so military necessity requires ignoring those ethical concerns permanently.

Nations that act like gentlemen are wiped out. Even the most cursory perusal of non-revisionist history makes this clear.

Nations aren't people. If you're a nation, you read even your allies' mail.

"Citing secret U.S. documents obtained by fugitive former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, Der Spiegel said the files showed how the United States systematically spied on other states and institutions."

So you mean, the very purpose for which the NSA exists?

They are most likely referring to allies of the U.S, who may not expect being targeted by the NSA.

All countries are aware of each other's foreign intelligence services, though they are most likely not aware of specific intrusions. Smaller countries like to pretend they're outraged at even the thought of foreign intelligence, however that is the nature of the game.

In fact, one of the countries that spies on the United States consistently is Israel, one of our biggest allies. Mossad has repeatedly spied on the U.S. since the creation of that agency.

It's safe to say that "bugging our allies" probably isn't in the NSA mission statement.

Spying on allies is a time-treasured practice. Countries have no allies, just frenemies.

If it's not part of the mission statement, it's off mission. I don't consent to rogue intelligence agencies at the heart of my government.

It's not "rogue" at all. The NSA's explicit purpose is to do intelligence gathering and analysis on foreign threats. That's its core competency - data mining. If you look at the mission statement, it says its goal is to do intelligence gathering.

It would be rogue if it decided to, say, give crucial information to a foreign country at the expense of the United States.

The NSA is spying on American citizens. It's off mission and thus rogue.

Hm. I don't know. The vibe that I get from talking to the people around me is that spying happens among enemies and prospective enemies. And being downgraded into the prospective enemies category comes with a bit of emotional trauma for us Europeans.

But what does that make us? Are we now the bitter EX of the US?

No your governments are getting the data as well.

Spying happens among friends at least as often as among enemies and prospective enemies. Maybe even more so, because it is commonly used for back-channel diplomacy.

Off nsa.gov: "The NSA/CSS core missions are to protect U.S. national security systems and to produce foreign signals intelligence information."

So yes, actually, it is. On the front page. Explicitly.

The US is bound by treaty in this respect. That means that all arms of the US government including the NSA are bound in the same way. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of your government are or are not bound by certain treaties. Either they all are, or none are.

That's why treaties trump national law in the first place.

In the U.S. treaties do not trump national law. In fact, in the U.S. treaties have no legal effect at all unless they are either 1) implemented by Congressional legislation; or 2) written so it is clear that the intent is for the treaties to be "self-executing" (see Medellin v. Texas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas). And even if a treaty is effective, it has the status of ordinary law. With ordinary law, a subsequent act of Congress that is inconsistent with a prior act is given precedence over that prior act. So if the U.S. passes a treaty saying it won't do X, then Congress passes a law allowing the President to do X, then the law, being latest in time, overrides the treaty.

American courts are fairly hostile towards treaties (something which I think is under the surface of Medellin). Basically treaties are un-democratic. They are written by unelected diplomats and are necessarily the product of foreign influence. It doesn't help that one of the motivating factors for the treaty provisions of the U.S. Constitution was the status of the U.S. as a precarious winner of the Revolutionary War. One of the conditions of the Treaty of Paris was that debts on both sides would be recognize. Of course, in most cases Americans were the debtors. The British were very concerned about states passing laws to abolish debts owed by their citizens to the British. Hence the provision elevating treaties of the U.S. above state law.

It's not all that clearcut as you make it out to be:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment#Legal_backgro...

The key here is that the 'last bit counts'.

I assume you're talking about Missouri v. Holland? Subsequent to that case, the Court decided Reid v. Covert ("a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate"); and Medellin v. Texas ("a United States Supreme Court decision that held that even if an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is 'self-executing'").

Missouri v. Holland, nor any subsequent case of which I'm aware, did not disturb the holding of the Cherokee Tobacco Case ("The Supreme Court decided against the men, stating that a law of Congress can supersede the provisions of a treaty."). See: http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/18-treaties-... ("Treaties Versus Prior Acts of Congress.—The cases are numerous in which the Court has enforced statutory provisions which were recognized by it as superseding prior treaty engagements.")

Another thing that led to the status of treaties in the U.S. is that the Court spent much of the 1800's looking for ways around the various treaties the U.S. entered into with the Indian tribes.

Treaties are dangerous and anti-democratic. They put legislative powers in the hands of diplomats. They represent the words of a man binding a nation of people. Europe is learning this the hard way, with ACTA, etc.

The idea is that you elect a representative and that that representative is then able to bind you.

If all you have is the internal laws of countries and no international framework to work within then you are actively advocating for isolationism and war.

Just so you realize where that reasoning leads to.

Except that the US apparently has a specific treaty with the UN that says that the US will NOT spy on the UN headquarters on their soil...

Let the U.N. enforce it then.

No, instead of expect others to deal with the US foreign policy when it comes to spying, fix the offending foreign policy.

US is at the blame here, not UN or those which US spies upon.

It was a joke, to point out how ridiculous it is to talk about "treaties" with the U.N., which is not an entity that can enforce anything against the U.S. Not when the U.S. is a permanent member of the security council and provides 22% of the U.N.'s budget: http://globalsolutions.org/united-nations/funding.

A "treaty" or "law" that can't be enforced doesn't merit the name--it's just lip service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidious_Albion

What international agent has the power to enforce anything on the U.S.? Clearly none. So it follows from what you're saying that the U.S. doesn't have any treaty obligations at all. I thought even the hardest-nosed realists didn't argue that. Maybe neocons do?

Remember where Snowden went for shelter? Obviously his job taught him, that the only 2 countries that USA cannot enforce anything on, are Russia and China.

Essentially you are saying 'fuck you' to any other country but the US short of engaging in war. Do you realize that treaties exist with the express purpose of avoiding that?

The fact that the US can bully its way wherever it wants and can afford to ignore every treaty it is signatory to is setting a fine example. I'd hold a tinpot dictator to a higher standard than this. It is recognized that some parties are stronger than others. That does not give the stronger parties the right to ignore their treaties, which count as solemn promises rather than lip-service.

Dumb shit like this is what got us into plenty of wars in the past.

If the United States does not want to be party to treaties then it should simply not sign them. (See: the ICC).

>If the United States does not want to be party to treaties then it should simply not sign them.

That naivete ignores the fact that from a thug's perspective, it is entirely advantageous to sign treaties, and then secretly ignore them.

Sure, but on that note we might as well ignore any treaty and just disband the UN. I think a forum where nation states can gather in relative peace is a good thing and I think that nation states once bound by treaty should abide by that treaty, even the largest, especially the largest.

>I think a forum where nation states can gather in relative peace is a good thing.

Of course, I agree, but I'm not sure it can exist.

>I think that nation states once bound by treaty should abide by that treaty, even the largest, especially the largest.

Well, the US has demonstrated that it is not to be trusted. Move the UN HQ to... umm... I don't know where.

.ch or .be

In a way I agree with you. The U.S. generally should not enter into treaties. Treaties are tools you use when you don't have the leverage of force. The U.S. will never take any action that's not in its interest, regardless of what a treaty says, so it should avoid being duplicitous and just not sign on to treaties. But whenever who do that (re: Kyoto, ICC, etc), the left throws a huge fit. So duplicity it is.

More generally, I think the U.N. serves a valuable humanitarian purpose. It serves as a great vehicle for coordinating international efforts. I think it's a total failure as a political organization. I'd have no problem disbanding the General Assembly and just preserving the useful agencies (UNICEF, ICAO, WHO, etc). It's unfortunately not politically practical in the U.S., because a certain segment of the country fetishizes world government.

You're in good company:

http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/platform.shtml

'Because Fuck You, that's why' works as a foreign policy when we're the biggest 800 pound gorilla in town. But it could turn out pretty badly for us (the US) later.

It's not just being the biggest 800 pound gorilla, but also, through NATO, subsidizing the national defenses of the major European powers.

I bet they could survive, and it worked better when the major European powers had a big scary USSR to fear. Now? Europe fears winter-time natural gas shortages (still a Russia problem, but a much nicer one to have), and gets some oil price benefit out of our mid-east intervention, but we take the lion's share so I'm not sure that subsidy means as much as we need it to.

It would be interesting to see the fallout, though. How seriously are other countries going to take things? Could they apply sanctions against the US? Enough to get companies to effectively lobby against spying?

>It would be interesting to see the fallout,

We're so smugly confident of the security of our position at the top of the heap that we can bemuse idly about how interesting it will be to watch foreign affairs in the near future. BTW, I'm not trying to mock you, any more than I mock myself for the same thoughts. But it worries me that so few people seem to even consider the possibility that our prospects for the future might be anything other than world dominance.

>How seriously are other countries going to take things?

Diplomats from the countries involved have known or been aware to some degree, but now they can publicly rebuke US/NATO policy initiatives. For that matter, anyone may now criticize UN policy on the basis that it lacks independence.

>Could they apply sanctions against the US?

Well, maybe not through UN resolution! But, sure; it may not have an effect if it isn't unilateral to some degree. The US still holds a lot of cards in that respect, but fewer each day it seems. When, (not if) consensus turns against the US, it will turn quickly.

>Enough to get companies to effectively lobby against spying?

The pessimist in me thinks that by the time public opinion in the US (even among the businessmen you're referring to) turns against gov't policy, the damage will already have been done. Arguably/Possibly a good thing for the world.

The rest of the world holds enough of the US debt that no one would have to fire a shot for parts of the world to retaliate. Looking at the rise in Tbill yields, it may have already started on some level.

That sword cuts both ways. I think we're betting that the other side is less willing to tolerate global impoverishment than the others, and to what degree. I hope we don't push it to the degree that China decides to call our bet.

It would be wonderful to see the US reaction if Canada was found to systematically spied on the united states. Being an other country and all, it surely doesn't matter if US phone lines was tapped, US internet cables was intercepted, and data centers was encourage to give up emails about US citizen.

And... how wrong would it really be if diplomats from Canada planted a bug in the Whitehouse. Surely nothing wrong with that.

Wait -- do you believe Communications Security Establishment Canada never spies on Americans?

If they don't, someone in the motherland isn't doing their job.

Yeah. Canada does spy on the United States. And the United States spies on Canada. This really should be incredibly obvious.

> how wrong would it really be if diplomats from Canada planted a bug in the Whitehouse.

Not much worse than when they burned it down.

Anyway, Front street 151 in Toronto carries a substantial amount of US traffic. Maybe someone should check the place for taps.

I never saw anything obvious last time I was there.

CSIS HQ is a stone's throw from there, but that's probably unrelated.

Technically that was Britain. Canada didn't exist in 1814.

What has changed is that public morality seems to be shifting to regard their official job as unacceptable behaviour.

Yes, this is a ridiculous story both in general and for HN. We've reached the point where you can't separate parody from serious articles with anything NSA-related.

So now we're stuck trying to educate very well-meaning, yet angry people that no, simply because something says "NSA" on it doesn't mean it's evil. Spying has been around since the Romans, and probably before. Spying happens all the time between friendly governments even. It's a legitimate function of any government, and when done well prevents people from being hurt -- a very good thing. Each country needs an intelligence service.

Or we could just all ramble around online with a chip on our shoulder, no idea what the fuck we're talking about, and ranting while never giving up the moral high ground.

I know one thing: if you want spying on civilians to continue, then keep confusing the legitimate use of spying with the terrible illegitimate use that we now have. Then you'll force pragmatic libertarians like myself to choose between some farcical simpleton's future in which there exists no state intelligence, or letting the government do what it wants. And I don't want to be forced to make that choice.

The public discussion on the NSA has taken a turn for the worse for freedom-loving people everywhere.

"Spying has been around since the Romans, and probably before"

The Romans were out for world conquest. I'd like to believe as somebody from the Netherlands, that yes, we really are allies with our neighbours and the days of war are past us.

Glorifying some Machiavellian competing states scenario is not of this time. Not only that, it's naive. The real benefit of this NSA information on it's allies is purely economic.

> I'd like to believe as somebody from the Netherlands, that yes, we really are allies with our neighbours and the days of war are past us.

There are still people alive who remember a war in which Europeans killed 60 million of each other. Which came just a couple of decades after a war in which Europeans killed 15 million of each other. Which followed a century of violent European colonization of Europe and Asia. Which followed a few centuries of constant war (international and civil) in Europe (e.g. 30 years war, French revolution, etc). The history of Europe is a history of war.

There were a lot of people who thought World War I was the war to end all war, and that with the league of nations it would never happen again.

I'm sorry to pick you out from the crowd on this, but this is exactly what's so frustrating about civil debate on Hacker News.

You ignored the majority of the parent's point, instead electing to pick on one word ("Romans") and then strawman that half to hell.

If it pleases you, and you'll read the rest of his argument before bashing out an angry rebuttal, put in some other example of your choosing.

You literally missed his entire point about the purpose and necessity of intelligence gathering agencies in the global theater. People shouldn't have to worry about their exact word usage because someone -- like you -- will come along and nitpick it so the original point is buried under the burden of a disagreeable example.

You responded to his post either without really reading all of it or understanding it. Allow me to summarize his point:

Spying does not require nor dictate that two countries are enemies. Allies and spying are not mutually exclusive - your entire point about how you'd like to think about your allies as someone from the Netherlands is thus irrelevant.

Next, allow me to address your second paragraph. All states are always competing. We don't live in an idealistic world where globalization has renderd us kumbayah with everyone else. Again, let me reiterate - that does not mean we are enemies.

Finally, or course there is an economic benefit to all intelligence gathering agencies. This should be self-evident. But no, that's not the only one by any means. Intelligence gathering agencies also benefit their homelands with intelligence, which is obviously not just an economic benefit.

Steve Coll, of all people, did a great job with your ususal argument months ago:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/07/nsa-co...

I'd suggest finding a list of countries that haven't bugged the UN headquarters. It is probably shorter.

Given the location of the UN Headquarters, it isn't possible for any country to be more effective at spying than the US. Like I said in another thread[2], 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.

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272458

None of what you say refutes my assertion that spying on the UN is a common activity. If anything, it sounds like you're saying it's only wrong when the US does it.

It might make for a shorter list if we name the people and groups that the NSA hasn't spied on.

It's almost as if that's their whole purpose.

Could someone elaborate what for is such spying happening in the first place? What is it really needed for? What would happen without it?

Very generally I think spying happens because nations and non-state groups have interests that are often not aligned with each other, and nations protect their own interests by trying to understand the interests of other nations. Since very few nations are totally up-front about what their interest, goals and behind the scenes actions are, intelligence gathering becomes necessary.

In a perfect world, this wouldn't be necessary. Not only would countries be totally open with each other, but everyone would work together to further the best interests of all. Since we don't live in that kind of world, everyone gathers intelligence on everyone else.

I think it's worth mentioning that people have made the (reasonable, IMO) claim that spying in general actually makes the world a safer place since it removes a great deal of uncertainty in international relations. If countries had to deal with the rest of the world as a black box with uncertain motivations and potentially hidden actions, I think it's reasonable to suggest that mutual suspicion would significantly impede international cooperation.

The core basic legitimate reason is to verify what is said with what is actually happening; to discover the genuine intentions of the opposition. So, olde days, USSR says "we have no intention of starting WW3", and US spying would seek to verify that. If of both sides can convince themselves that the opposition is being honest, diplomacy can work. If you cant be sure of what is being said, you quickly end up in trouble. Both sides legitimately do this as much as they can. Its a confidence builder. It is why both the US and USSR tolerated spies and had a no assassination rule. They both new, in the olde days, that it was beneficial to both to allow each other to spy and gain confidence in each others position.

Trouble comes when nation states extend that to seek political or commercial advantage, or apply it to their own citizens and / allies, who expect to get the benefit of the doubt. Worse still when law enforcement and spy agencies start to combine. This is why I assert that the US, and UK governments treat their citizens as enemies. We have seen plenty of times what its like when intelligence agencies and secret services (SS) are turned on the population.

Unless Obama and Camoron do something now to reign this in, some very dark days are ahead of us.

My guess is that economic and industrial espionage is a big part of it.

alan_cx has the best explanation that I've read on HN yet (though he's wrong about the "allies" part). It's essentially "trust, but verify". You might trust a business partner to not screw you, but you should still read the contracts you sign with them. That's why we tell you to "get it in writing".

Unfortunately, that kind of verification works because there's a legal system in place that you can invoke for punishment of contract-breaking, or at least compensation. At the nation-state level, that verification mechanism breaks down for several reasons. (1) There is no higher legal power to appeal to. The UN is a deal-broker, but it doesn't have the weight to throw around. (2) Things like the Great Firewall and propaganda will naturally make official news sources untrustworthy. You can see some of this on the stock market: most shareholders only have press releases and news reports to decide how the company is doing. But this is only half the story, which is why insider trading happens at all.

So how do you get around these problems? By finding out directly in ways that are harder to fake. Which is what spying is all about.

Is this link broken?

I'm taken to an article titled "U.S. spy agency edges into the light after Snowden revelations"

Another comment quotes the article as saying the following, which doesn't appear in the article I'm reading. "Citing secret U.S. documents obtained by fugitive former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, Der Spiegel said the files showed how the United States systematically spied on other states and institutions."

This is the link I'm being sent to http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-usa-security-ns...

I think this is the link that was intended http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/uk-usa-security-nsa...

I think the article text and headline has been changed! What's the name of that news article diff website?

This is what was at the link: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/uk-usa-security-nsa...

Now it is this: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-usa-security-ns...

EDIT: Newsdiff doesn't diff Reuters, I guess.

I don't see how Snowden can justify releasing top secret documents that DON'T show the United States spying on it's own citizens.

One of the goals of NSA is to gather foreign intelligence. The UN constitutes foreign intelligence. While it may not be popular opinion here, there is a distinction between NSA spying on United States citizens and NSA spying on foreign and international organizations. The former is illegal; the latter is expected.

Is it certain that these leaks actually came from Snowden? In light of the Independent's GCHQ story [1][2], it sounds like there may be State actors providing leaks in the name of Snowden that cast him in a negative light. Ideally, these news outlets would be able to confirm it's the real Snowden via GPG fingerprint or something.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-uks-...

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/uk-gove...

Ah! Interesting angle. It could certainly be possible, and if it were I definitely wouldn't hold it against Snowden.

In fact, the Der Spiegel article [1] fails to release the source document(s), so I'm fairly dubious about who provided this information.

[1] http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=...

There's an English version of the article now, co-authored by Greenwald/Snowden-related journalist Laura Poitras. Looks like the Snowden connection is solid!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/secret-nsa-documen...

In the past the State Department, under Hillary Clinton, also tried to do things such as steal the DNA of UN leaders.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cabl...

It's questionable [1] how much Hillary Clinton had to do with that order and I'm not sure "steal the DNA" is a fair characterization. Also, that order had its roots at least as far back as 2001.

[1] http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/hillary-clinton-di...

I'm not sure "steal the DNA" is a fair characterization.

Your National Journal link describes an order "to collect the 'biometric data'... including DNA". What's unfair about this characterization?

It's out of context. It suggests the memo is primarily about "stealing DNA" when, in fact, the letters "DNA" do not appear in it: http://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cabl...

f3, DNA, enter.

Earlier thread.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6271259

Because when you're keeping the American people safe, there are no rules - it's a jungle out there you know.

Pretending this is just an American problem actually benefits the US because the info sharing deals will continue uncontested as participating countries are given a pass. Never mind those military bases in Germany or the five eyes. The West is intertwined, hell the whole world is, but deceive yourself if you like.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com