The thing that I realized when reading this article title today is that my internal reaction was something like "Ok, nothing new." Whereas 10 or 15 years ago, my reaction would have been, "another tinfoil hat article."
In the last several years I have been surprised how many Der Spiegal articles accurately (apparently) documented things that embarrassed the U.S. government.
Too bad U.S. news media does not do as thorough of a job with their reporting.
The Pentagon Papers were broken by the New York Times. The "Deep Throat" espionage controversy with President Nixon's administration was broken by the Washington Post. American filmmaker Linda Poitras introduced the person responsible for the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history (Snowden) to an American journalist Glenn Greenwald, who previously wrote opinion pieces for various American newspapers, including the Cato Institute. At the time, Greenwald was writing for UK newspaper The Guardian, which at the time and still does maintain a significant office in the U.S. [1]
Further pieces based off of the NSA leaks were written by journalists at the Washington Post. Only after a few months did Der Spiegel write any articles. Oh, and the source of Der Spiegel's leaked documents? American software developer and activist Jacob Appelbaum. Hell, he even wrote their most prominent NSA articles. [2]
American journalism is the most robust source of sunlight for U.S. government secrets.
I get it, one can find all sorts of individual cases of American news outlets letting the public down. But in aggregate, no other country's news organization comes close.
>American filmmaker Linda Poitras introduced the person responsible for the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history (Snowden) to an American journalist Glenn Greenwald, who previously wrote opinion pieces for various American newspapers, including the Cato Institute.
Now both Poitras and Greenwald are afraid to go back to US, though. I wonder why would they avoid the most journalist-friendly country on Earth?
They both live outside of US now and have mentioned their reasons countless times. Laura Poitras explained why she's staying in Germany and how she does not take any materials with her during her trips to US, for example, at the last CCC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmKqdMDastM
They might not have feared for their lives, but they obviously are afraid to have any information on them when crossing the borders and they are simply afraid to do their job as a journalists in US.
"Crossing the borders" being the operative phrase there. You have fewer rights at border crossings than living your life within the confines of the border, unfortunately. This says nothing about the quality of US media (whatever the state of said quality is).
>You have fewer rights at border crossings than living your life within the confines of the border, unfortunately.
Now you'll say that location of Guantanamo Bay prison outside of US jurisdiction is an 'unfortunate accident' as well. Both seem quite purposeful decisions to me.
And yes, the fact that two probably most important journalists of modern times have both chosen to go into exile just to do their job, even though both love their country, - I think this actually says quite a bit about the freedom of press in the said country.
Others have already mentioned that they don't carry their work into the US, but they, themselves, still travel to the US. This is hardly the "exile" that you want it to be (to prove your point).
The difference in the 70s, newspapers were independently owned, competitive companies that made not loads of money.
Today is different, papers are struggling, ownership has dramatically consolidated, and reporters are very vulnerable to influence, as their access to future stories and future employment (ie. On the staff of a politician or agency) can be cut off by officials.
It's really obvious at the state level. In the 80s, 30+ reporters covered the NY state Capitol. Now, maybe a half dozen full timers.
It's not at all my impression of the NY Times, and I read it often. Certainly they print some things supporting the 'war machine' and sometimes print unofficial government statements without challenging them enough (in the same article), but I would bet they also print plenty of articles that challenge the 'war machine', I would bet as much or more than any other major publication.
The articles they printed by Judith Miller before the Iraq War are unforgivable, however.
Looking at the original emails,[1] it seems legitimate to me. The CIA seemed to want to know if something classified was being leaked. I expect and hope any publication would make careful, informed decisions about releasing information that potentially could harm people.
It makes sense that US Intelligence is spying on foreign entities -- that's their job. Foreign entities are not protected by the US constitution and are not covered by the Fourth Amendment and have no right to privacy from the NSA, CIA, etc.
> It makes sense that US Intelligence is spying on foreign entities -- that's their job.
By your own standards the NSA by isn't doing their job, as they have been shown to be spying on US entities.[1]
> Foreign entities are not protected by the US constitution and are not covered by the Fourth Amendment and have no right to privacy from the NSA, CIA, etc.
The strongest justification, IMHO, for limiting spying to clear, identifiable enemies of the state that represent real threats - as opposed to blanket, dragnet surveillance of everyone, everywhere - does not come from the Constitution. The strongest argument comes from the basic principle that hypocrisy is bad, and we shouldn't engage in it on a personal or social or governmental level. By surveilling everybody, we lose the moral high ground on which to stand when criticizing the various dictatorships, tyrannies, and theocracies around the world that engage in massive surveillance in order to maintain their power. In short as the world's supreme military power, we owe it to the rest of humanity to do the right thing, act like adults and set a good example. Right now the NSA and the rest of the intelligence community makes our government look like a pack of lying hypocrites.
Yup. And it's simpler even - when China hacks in to Google, we get very, very upset. We puff our chests and Washington goes into a fury with Senators posturing all over the place.
Are you kidding me? It's almost comical, the straight face with which they act hurt that a foreign entity is spying on us and intruding in our networks.
Reading through that paper, it seems pretty clear that the author is discussing the rights of foreigners inside the US. The idea that the US should be upholding US constitutional rights for non-US citizens residing in another country's sovereign territory is not something that legal scholars are arguing.
I posted paper to answer blatant "according to Constitution foreigners don't have any rights at all". Regarding other countries - they obviously have their own bills, laws and regulations. The idea that US citizens residing in other countries are exempt from local laws just on the basis that they are doing service to US is ridiculous.
You seem to be arguing against an assertion I never made. Not sure what to clarify. Maybe I wasn't clear somewhere, or maybe you've taken something out of context, I don't know. Might help to go read the thread from the top.
Let me know if you can't figure out where our wires got crossed and I'll try and clarify.
> According to the US constitution, foreigners don't have any rights at all.
Only if you read things like "no person" (as in, among other places, the Fifth Amendment) to mean "no citizen", which isn't what the text says, isn't likely what was intended by the original authors, and isn't how legal scholars or courts have interpreted the language since its been written.
Now, there are rights in the Constitution that belong to citizens as such rather than persons in general, such as voting rights protected under, among other provisions, the 15th Amendment. But to say that foreigners don't have any rights under the Constitution is incorrect.
Regardless of what US laws might or might not say about spying overseas, people and organizations that are operating there are expected to follow local laws. Since Germany doesn't have any provisions that would allow (some) foreigners to spy on German journalists, it's obvious that CIA spying on them is illegal.
> Whenever there is one of those types of articles there is always several people claiming that whatever NSA is doing is exactly what they should be doing, and at any point its what everyone else is doing too.
It's not that what intelligence agencies do is morally OK, it's that it's practically necessary for a country not to be at a terrible disadvantage economically.
> So is there something which would not be appropriate if NSA did? Assassinate leaders, murdering school children, causing nuclear meltdowns... where is the line so we in the future can point to that whenever this kind of news pops up?
NSA does signals intelligence, not assassinations. I don't know what rules are in place as to what's OK in spying/sabotage and what isn't, but I imagine it's something not super unreasonable...
* it's that it's practically necessary for a country not to be at a terrible disadvantage economically.*
Fair enough. That means we should never have to take any talk of "free market" or its merits seriously. The whole "magic of the free market" always irritated me anyway, since there's never any account of information asymmetry. Clearly, large, multi-national corporations have a better idea of supply and demand than an isolated consumer does, even without help from a government spy agency.
Well, there can be a free market within a state and enforced by the state. Not free in the anarchy "do anything you want" sense, but in the sense that people are free to enter into contracts and make decisions within a framework where the restrictions are well justified and often reviewed.
That's a legally free market, but if the NSA is pirating "intellectual property" and someone in the government is deciding to give that information to particular entities in the market, it's not economically free. It's exactly the same as a government propping up some corporation because that corporation is part of the "defense base", or fixes prices or something.
No, what I'm describing is a free market inside of a single state protected by a single an intelligence community. You'll have to be a little more specific about the IP scenario - where are they hypothetically getting the IP? Is it from another lawfully operating US company, or somewhere else? The former I see no justification for, the latter is a little more complicated...
>I don't know what rules are in place as to what's OK in spying/sabotage and what isn't, but I imagine it's something not super unreasonable
Yeah, but you see, when it comes to regular blood-and-flesh people, we (as a society, through courts) don't judge them based on whether their actions have been reasonable or not. We could, but the world would be very different. Having different standards for different people/organizations is plain hypocritical, undermines democracy and weakens civil society.
I think we very much judge people on whether their actions are reasonable, even at the extremes of when a person takes another's life.
Having different legal standards for what a CIA agent operating in Pakistan can do and a civilian working in the US has absolutely nothing to do with democracy and civil society.
Well, I guess it depends on the country, but I don't imagine a US president could order the NSA to spy on an German ex-lover just because he's curious what she's up to.
Yet they do scoop up the full take on what they can get on cables. And yes, a US president could order exactly that. NSA is mil and POTUS is the head of the military.
Yes, he could order the NSA to do it in the same sense that he could order her assassinated by the CIA. I don't think anyone would fulfill those orders, though.
Signed to order? I would be pretty surprised if there were organizational approval and justification for someone spying on an ex-lover.
If you're talking about people violating organizational rules and abusing the tools provided to them to do their jobs, that's an issue that absolutely needs to be addressed, but it doesn't mean we should remove all situations where we trust anyone with power. People with power they might abuse are literally everywhere - sysadmins at telecom and tech companies have even more power than NSA agents to go through your personal affairs unnoticed (and probably go through fewer background checks). On-the-street LE officers have even more power than that by some measure, because they can physically detain and harm you with the tools provided to them by the state. Of course abuse is an issue that needs to be addressed, but taking away power for anyone that might abuse it is simply not a feasible answer at this point.
>The fact that the CIA and NSA were prepared to reveal an ongoing surveillance operation to the Chancellery underlines the importance they attached to the leaks, say sources in Washington. The NSA, the sources say, were aware that the German government would know from then on that the US was spying in Berlin.
I'm sure that the Germans were shocked, shocked, to find that an intelligence agency was spying in Berlin.
Well, given that Germany officially hosts huge amounts of NSA and CIA staff, US military, US Airbases, US military commands, ... nobody is shocked.
The US lost a lot support in public opinion and people are increasingly demanding that the US removes these installations, troops and intelligence groups from Germany. Also the US will have a hard time to sell communication services, IT services and IT hardware in Germany (and Europe).
Why host the NSA in Germany, when it acts against our interests?
What shocks Germans is this: how very little their own government acts against the threat to our freedom created by our 'friends' and 'partners'.
>What shocks Germans is this: how very little their own government acts against the threat to our freedom created by our 'friends' and 'partners'.
That does not shock me at all. It makes me sad, that these days, there is simply no time for justice. There are so many complex scandals the average citizen cannot understand coming up after each other, by the time a scandal is investigated it is not interesting any more. So the public has largely just given up caring. There is some outrage but overall the sentiment seems to be: "Well, that's what politicians do."
Merkel hired those genius consultants, who taught her how to act, dress and hold her hands so that she is immune to public outcry. We know she is brilliant but she comes across as being just as stupid as we are but totally upright. She would never enrich herself or get caught being openly corrupt. She is just to boring for that, which is exactly what the German people want their leader to be. Every other politician would have lost his job so many times by now, but that woman can get away with everything. She is made out of teflon, these scandals just bounce of of her. And it is not, that we do not notices this: She famously destroyed all her political enemies a few years ago - after all the number two is 72 years old now. It makes me sad, that it works nevertheless.
The biggest political scandal in recent years was the fall of president Wulff [0]. There have been minor but simple accusations that the public could understand and was outrageous about. No complex monetary system, no difficult cold-war conflict, no highly technical espionage stuff. He was corrupt, but on a scale that the average person is corrupt. Take a small present here and there, take photos with people you should not take photos with. You cannot get away with something simple like that, especially when you handle the crisis badly.
The logical conclusion is, that we get borderline psychopaths and/or actors as politicians, who manage to build up an image of total boringness. They cannot be educated in any field, because their field actually is managing their own image. It makes me sad, that you are more likely to stay in office when you seem boring and stupid instead of intelligent and innovative. We ended up with a Kafkaesque bureaucratic system where everybody just maintains the status quo and tries to separate him- or herself as much from actual politics as possible. This of course leaves the actual decisionmaking to institutions like the intelligence agencies or big corporations and is how we end up with stuff like this.
Almost all discussions are focused inwards. That a foreign agency is trying to spy is no surprise. The big shock* comes from the details how german agencies were not only incapable of protecting anything but even helped foreign agencies to spy on our government and industry (obviously, spying on all citizens was not even a real topic for the governemt).
*) Unfotunatly, its mostly some media who even care about this stories. Most citizens are too lazy to even admit that this is a big scandal and Merkel uses her strategy of just doing nothing until media cannot earn enough money with the stories so that everyone just forgets. The only bigger outcry came from the industrial spionage allegations (media were like 2-3 weeks on it) because $$$.
1) The first half of the headline reads "An Attack on Press Freedom". How exactly was freedom of the press attacked? Did the US or German governments stop Der Spiegel from publishing something? Were they blackmailed into suppressing a story (but for some reason not so for this one)? As far as the story indicates, the only action that was taken was to move the person accused of leaking from one department to another. But, hey, "An Attack on Press Freedom" gets more people to view those 9 ad banners scattered throughout the article...
2) I just read this article twice over, and I can't actually see any evidence that US intelligence services were targeting Der Spiegel. Somehow the CIA station chief finds out that someone in the German Department Six is passing information to Der Spiegel, and informs the head of Department Six. They don't actually give any indication as to how the CIA got that information, but just state that it was most likely the NSA spying on Der Spiegel as if it were a foregone conclusion. How do they know this? I can think of a number of other situations where the CIA may have received this information...
- The CIA had a source inside Der Spiegel
- The CIA was spying on their source (not Der Spiegel)
- The NSA was spying on their source
- The CIA/NSA was spying on a third party that knew of the leaks
- The source was drunk at a bar and bragged about it to or within earshot of a CIA agent
- One of the journalists was drunk at a bar and bragged about it.
- The CIA/NSA was spying on Russian intelligence (or any other country in the region) and that foreign intelligence service was doing any of the above
- etc. ...
I accept that they don't want to reveal their source, but there's no mention of an anonymous source, or documents acquired by Der Spiegel, or anything else substantiate the US targeting the news outlet. As far as I can tell, this is the extent of their attribution:
Research conducted by SPIEGEL has determined the existence of CIA and NSA files filled with a large number of memos pertaining to the work of the German newsmagazine.
Really? That's it? They somehow know that documents exist which somehow make reference to a global news outlet known for breaking headlines concerning the work of these intelligence agencies? What kind of research was conducted, and what do these documents actually say? For god's sake - Der Spiegel is one of the few news agencies that has the whole Snowden trove and regularly releases documents from it, but they can't show anything from there proving their claim?
Not too long ago, the Sunday Times in England ran a story claiming that documents stolen by Edward Snowden were in the hands of Chinese and Russian intelligence services, relying solely on anonymous sources in the British government. They were rightly lambasted for it in a number of other media outlets. Der Spiegel is now doing almost the exact same thing.
How so? Der Spiegel didn't even know they were being spied on (that is, assuming they were). No one stepped in to prosecute them, no one threatened them, and no one interfered with their ability to publish any story. If anything, that fact that nothing has come of this since the leaker was discovered back in 2011 sends a clear signal that the German press can publish any story it likes and their government won't lift a finger to interfere.
>no one interfered with their ability to publish any story
How do you know it? What sort of interference would you expect these days anyway? The secret order signed by Angela Merkel herself ordering to stop the story or face lifetime in prison?
FOIA records on FBI and CIA show again and again that western governments are not ashamed to use misinformation, defamation, subversion and provocations. In fact, they have become extremely skillful at these hard-to-prove-yet-so-effective-against-civilian tactics.
The burden of proof rests on the person alleging it happened, not the person saying there is no evidence. You're asking me to concede that something must have happened in secret unless I can prove a negative. To top it off, Der Spiegel very strongly suggests that they just recently learned of the matter in the editor's note on the left hand of the page. Nowhere in their reporting (or, to my knowledge, anyone else's reporting) are they claiming that the government forced them to withhold a story.
> FOIA records on FBI and CIA show again and again ...
I'd like to think that discussions on HN ought to be a little more rigorous than dropping unexplained links to a pre-FISA purely domestic FBI program from half a century ago when discussing today's interactions between the CIA, German government and German press...
Well, German intelligence can't spy on Der Spiegel legally, so getting tips from a friendly intelligence agency as to who is leaking info to the press seems to make a lot of sense.
No for fucks sake, it does not make a lot of sense.
If we allow this shit to happen, we lose as a democracy. How on earth do you think it could be even remotely acceptable to spy on a journalistic outlet?
It's written in a wry, underhanded way, invoking the mindset of someone at the intelligence agencies. I really see no need for the OP to clarify. But if I'm wrong, and OP's true position differs from ours, what of it?
Edit: chinathrow is actually correct, I thought OP was being sardonic but they seem to be sincere based on their follow-up comments.
Not in the sense that intelligence agencies follow every law of every place they operate (does anyone think they do?), but in a more practical sense - there is no legal mechanism for enforcing rules on the IC externally, and while it's not outside of the realm of possibility, I'm not super convinced we need one.
What lawsuit? Would you like to wager how likely it is that an American will be convicted?
Treating the law as "a list of rules everyone follows or they get in trouble" is a model that works for when you have a state to judge and enforce the rules. It does not work when organizations like powerful nation states are interacting with one another. A similarly non-traditional-law model can be seen in banking, where fines and settlements are often reached without a judicial process.
Der Spiegel filed a complaint as stated within the article. Not a lawsuit but the start of one.
"As a target of the surveillance, SPIEGEL has requested more information from the Chancellery. At the same time, the magazine filed a complaint on Friday with the Federal Public Prosecutor due to suspicion of intelligence agency activity."
Fines and settlement by the way are in quite a lot of countries part of an actual judicial process.
Ah, a request and a complaint! How did it go, do you think? "Dear Chancellor, Snowden said the Americans spied on our paper and told you our source in your organization. Could you provide us with some more evidence so that we can make a legal case against them, please?". Even if the Chancellor wanted to pursue American spies, do you think she has enough evidence to prosecute anyone?
If you don't want to answer about the chance of conviction, what do you wager the chances of a prosecutor simply bringing a case to a German court are?
Fines and settlements negotiated without a case ever being made public is an example of the laws working differently than they do for most. The banking example isn't much like foreign intelligence activity, of course, but it's similar in that powerful organizations' relationships with laws is different than yours or mine.
>If you don't want to answer about the chance of conviction, what do you wager the chances of a prosecutor simply bringing a case to a German court are?
And rightfully so! I think forcibly kidnapping someone on the streets of Italy is different than an allied intelligence agencies dropping each other tips about leakers.
Whether allied or not, foreign intelligence agencies spying on German citizens in Germany are unlawful and occasional "help" in the form of informal tips should not make them above the law. NSA should not get preferential treatment over CIA in EU courts and US agencies in general should not get preferential treatment over say China.
I'm talking about what is, not what should be in some perfect world we have no practical way of achieving.
Intelligence agencies are above the law not because they offer tips to each other, but because they have the resources and practice to be careful and not to leave enough evidence to be used to charge anyone.
There's also something fundamental to the nature of dealing in information - you can send anonymous tips, or suggest something while maintaining plausible deniability. I'm sure the source here didn't hand German intel a notarized letter saying "I'm John Doe of the CIA and we've been tapping Der Spiegel phones and this dude's definitely their source on the inside".
Spooks are not gods, it's public's attitude towards them that makes them god-like. German gov't could have started investigation and at least informed Spiegel. They might have found some leads. If not, at least security audit would have made them more aware of threats. Surely the same (hypothetical) entrypoints that NSA/CIA used, could have been used by other organizations or governments. Spiegel covers a lot of international news and certainly has a lot of sources around the world to protect.
Certainly not gods, but immensely powerful organizations with varying moral frameworks and political interests all acting without the convenience of a global system of legal and moral guidance that you and I operate in. Have you ever had to hassle about what's fair to put in a lease? Probably not, since the legal system provides for a pretty rigid API between landlords and tenants. The world we live in is a large series of such APIs, which are constantly and modified via our political and legal systems. The space ICs operate in simply does not have such rules nor anyone to enforce them.
In a world where information is power and without a justice enforcer more powerful than the actors, an unknown leaker is significantly more of a threat than an allied IC. An ally will keep your secrets, and mutual secret-keeping reinforces alliances [1]. Journalists, on the other hand, are the gossip queens of the information trade, as they reap their rewards by telling secrets to everyone without much regard for when it's convenient. They are useful only as long as their access can be controlled.
The entry points NSA/CIA used are being watched by them, or maybe even honeypotted. The space of potential attacks is enormous and it's a waste of resources for the Germans to look for them (if that's even legal) as long as America remains an ally.
Please don't take what I am making as moral judgement of one way or another here, just as the practical analysis of the system I imagine these organizations to operate in.
1. Similar to high school cliques or criminals where mutual blackmail creates alliances where there is no access access to the normal judicial system, contracts, etc.
Have you followed what's happening in Germany right now at all? If not, please read up on it, it's worth it.
Fines and settlements can be reached for common people too - you can agree not to proceed with litigation and settle out of court. There is nothing wrong with that if both parties agree. Yes, I agree that sometimes it feels wired how the banks are treated, but you and I could settle out of court too if we wish.
Yes, I have, and I've clearly reached a very different understanding. Is there some point you're trying to make, aside from an ad hominem? What would you say are the chances that a prosecutor brings a case against an American for the tip-off about the leaker covered in the article?
Stop nitpicking words. Do you really disagree that banks who are negotiating with the IRS or DoJ have a different relationship with the law and prosecutors than the average prosecutee being offered a plea deal? The relationship between legal costs and settlement costs alone makes for a very different game.
Have you also followed the news, that there is a huge ongoing investigation running within the german government? I am not talking about only that Spiegel incident when I ask if you followed the news. There is a large uproar within the german people about what has been uncovered so far regarding dragnet surveillance, surveillance of politicians and now journalists.
I do not know the chances but I do hope that there will be more light what happened between the BND and the NSA. And I also hope that some folks at the BND will be put to jail for what they allowed to happen on german soil.
I am not nitpicking words. I do not disagree that banks have a different relationship, no. I see that as well. But I also see and accept that corps as well as private persons can settle out of court. (Thas has nothing to do with a plea deal). Settling out of court mostly is done on private terms, i.e. money or patents or whatever exchanges hands, where I think a plea deal is more about going to jail for less than what would be at risk with a trial.
Watch Citizenfour, the documentary about Edward Snowden.
As it is, the NSA is not permitted to spy on domestic data. How do they get around that? The data of US citizens is moved to a data warehouse abroad. Oh, it is not in the USA anymore, now it's fair game! It's a huge loophole.
There has been talk of foreign governments colluding with the US government to get around domestic spying laws going many years back. I'm pretty sure I heard about it when the tech community was abuzz with Echelon and Carnivore. The Echelon furor was back around 2000.
Did you read what I wrote? Getting around of not being able to spay on your own soil buy letting some other nation state collect all the thingsTM does not make it legal. Because that other nation state would break the law too.
My example was for Germany as this is the focus of this thread.
> Getting around of not being able to spay on your own soil buy letting some other nation state collect all the things does not make it legal
Not preventing someone from spying on your citizens, possibly encouraging them, and not prosecuting that entity once the matters become known, - looks certainly illegal to me.
Now that the entire planet is under East Germany style surveillance, I have only one question: where do I go to turn my neighbors in? They really piss me off with their loud music and I'm pretty sure they say forbidden jokes meant to undermine the establishment.
I believe that you just report them to the police and say that they are armed and dangerous. The police army then storm their house and throw stun grenades into the beds of toddlers.
