I am from germany and I hope most of americans don't have this point of view.
1. give up freedom for some stupid terrorist attacks? why should we? We've lost the keystone of freedom when we do this and they have already won.
2. Do you really think these extensive intelligences do stop terror? (maybe they do sometimes, but terrorists will find new ways)
3. IS and others are the result of the Iraq war which was a offensive war from the US justified by a lie (Sadam had no weapon of mass destruction). Do you still think that America is the world police? The reputation of the US has gone rapidly down in the last decade. For the most here in germany the US are not the good ones any more. Other countries have their own way of life. America has to accept that.
> "give up freedom for some stupid terrorist attacks?"
What level of freedom is lost here? We're NOT talking about mass surveillance generally but the targeted access described by the OP. It's the difference between the police parking a van outside a suspected gang hideout (hopefully after getting a warrant), and parking a van outside every home in America. Most Americans are OK with the former and NOT OK with the latter. And, IMHO, that's a valid trade-off to make in a democratic society.
You might object to a particular surveillance target (Merkel), which is understandable. But would you object to spying on Putin? I suspect even Germany (especially Germany) would be okay with the NSA conducting targeted surveillance of senior members of the Russian military with ties to Eastern Ukraine.
In an ideal world, there would be no surveillance or any surrender of liberty in any scenario. But the world is not ideal and compromises are made. Germany is not immune to this. Case in point: Hate speech is illegal in Germany, which is understandable given German history, but a violation of free speech rights in the U.S. The challenge is not to reject all infringements of freedom wholesale but to identify where lines can be drawn between what can be tolerated and what must not.
They excluded a few countries and two usernames. Medium-level infection reached 18 countries.
I think it's foolish to defend alleged NSA operations when the NSA won't even acknowledge such operations.
If the government wants to have a debate about the rules of digital warfare (or a particular war), then let's. If they don't, then why should we defend their secret tactics? We have no idea what the motives and objectives are of these operations. And we have little knowledge about how they've affected people, innocent or otherwise.
Your casual analogy to parking vans outside homes seems reasonable. Until you consider what that actually means in our real life. For instance, vans outside homes has been a large part of the war on drugs which has imprisoned a staggering number of black youth. What do you think is the analogous fallout of this malware? Drone strikes? Defend those.
The notation that a debate on the rules of digital warfare will do anything is questionable.
Arms control limitations (SALT,START), the hague convention, etc, work because there are means of verifying countries adhere to what they agree on (and ostensibly punishing those who don't).
Given the difficulty of attributing cyber attacks (e.g. Sony), much less cyber espionage, there's little reason to think this is possible in this case. And that's just for direct action.
If we're talking about tactics and capabilities, it's impossible. How are you going to make sure there aren't 30 people somewhere writing malware for a government? You can't, at least absent far more invasive spying or some kind of DRM that makes writing malware illegal.
My point was mostly that I will not defend secret war/aggression/cybercrime especially in light of recent history. I'm surprised so many people here defend this malware claiming that it's (1) justified and (2) targeted. Since, we have no idea what it's for and it's heavily infected 18 countries. I'd guess they also support targeted torture and rectal hydration too. Just as long as it's not citizens. Except for just the really bad citizens.
No one in this thread has said they support torture. This malware has nothing g to do with torture. What was the point of that fake argument? Supporting targeted malware is not supporting torture.
There was some sarcasm in my comment above and I didn't fully detail what I meant.
The point was that something doesn't become ok just because it's targeted at non-citizens or the targets are more limited than simply everyone. (Unless other context can justify it... but we're being kept in the dark). It's still dragnet surveillance. Similarly torture is wrong and no amount of "targeting" can change that. So I think there's a disconnect in people who oppose mass surveillance but approve of this. I presume many people ok with this malware are opposed to torture; it wasn't to be taken literally.
If so, then it's hard to imagine how you could distinguish between those in such a way that labels the methods described in the article as dragnet surveillance, rather than non-dragnet.
When the state conducting torture and assassinations without due process of its own citizens is the one making the calls about who to round up or kill via metadata they are vis a vis.
> Case in point: Hate speech is illegal in Germany, which is understandable given German history, but a violation of free speech rights in the U.S.
Germany gave up that part of their free speech because of the horrors they inflicted upon the world, they wanted to prevent happening ever again no matter what. I've yet to see the USA make any kind of adjustment for the atrocities, torture, murders, war crimes they pulled.
Point is, the USA doesn't have any more slack left over. So yeah targeted surveillance that might otherwise considered fine and just if it were done by the "good guys" or even just a responsible party, is going to be met with a large amount of suspicion. And for good reason. These are powerful capabilities the USA doesn't even seem to be able to keep in check internally, who knows what it'll be used for (at the very least it'll show up in economic/corporate espionage, that's a certainty).
> Germany gave up that part of their free speech because of the horrors they inflicted upon the world, they wanted to prevent happening ever again no matter what. I've yet to see the USA make any kind of adjustment for the atrocities, torture, murders, war crimes they pulled.
This comparison really isn't apt or constructive. Not only has none of the top US leadership been indicted for war crimes in the ICC or by the UN, but the German state and quite a number of the German people knowingly participated in the extinction of at least 12 million people. Whether you think that the Iraq War was right or legal or not doesn't matter unless there is an indictment and conviction. In addition, the sum total of the crimes-- whatever they may be-- do not add up to total societal or national culpability.
There is this Bush guy, easily the most hated US president to date by rest of the world (ie those +-95% of human race outside US). Let's not get too much into his lackey Rumsfeld...
If in some ridiculous alternate reality Iraq would defeat US & UK and would actually went on and conquer them as nations, theye guys (joined by UK PM for examlpe) could easily end up in similar trial and be hanged.
As you know, rules and history are written by vinners ;)
There is this Bush guy, easily the most hated US president to date by rest of the world (ie those +-95% of human race outside US). Let's not get too much into his lackey Rumsfeld... If in some ridiculous alternate reality Iraq would defeat US & UK and would actually went on and conquer them as nations, theye guys (joined by UK PM for examlpe) could easily end up in similar trial and be hanged.
That really doesn't matter to my argument above, though, does it? Whether or not the world hates the guy doesn't make him a war criminal. And whether or not he's hated doesn't change the fact that there hasn't been an indictment, much less a conviction, outside of Malaysia.
To briefly comment on your alternate scenario it's important to point out that Victor's Justice is not the same as a War Crimes trial.
As you know, rules and history are written by vinners ;)
History PhD here and I can say with confidence that this isn't true. In the US there is and was an enormous amount of literature by former Confederates and neo-Confederates defending the antebellum American South and the American Civil War. Similarly, in the aftermath of the Second World War there was a large number of exculpatory memoirs by German generals. These more or less informed the historical literature in the aftermath of the Second World War for an entire generation.
Re-read the comment chain. Was not denying the existence of mass surveillance. But the comment at the top of this chain states that targeted malware (the subject of the OP) is distinct from mass surveillance. Which seems to be mostly true.
The difference between the NSA and German Intelligence is that the reach of NSA is larger than that of the BND. Other than that the BND also is not required to afford foreign nationals any privacy protections and is known to regularly intercept metadata in Germany. Unrestricted surveillance of foreign nationals is regulated in the G10-law, named after the article in the Grundgesetz it circumvents, but the BND has simply overreached its power and also collects data on German nationals. The control committees are also secret, just like the US FISA courts.
So before we get all high and mighty, we should probably clean up our own act here in Germany. Of course the G10 laws were dictated by the Military control committee, when they relinquished direct control in the 70s. For that reason it will be somewhat hard to simply change, especially because our interior ministers have had an unblemished record in support of more mass surveillance.
I think if you start with the assumption that it would be unacceptable for the US government to do nothing about protecting the American people from terrorist attack, the kinds of targeted cyber-espionage described in the article sound pretty reasonable.
They're better than launching entire wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people, cost unfathomable amounts of money, and last for over a decade, without really achieving the objective of making the country safer.
They're better than torturing people.
They're better than mass surveillance of the entire population of the country - if not the world.
Of all the things the government could be and should be doing, spying on people that in high likelihood are a threat to the US sounds like the one I'm OK with them continuing. You have to admit, slowing down another country's nuclear weapons program with a computer virus is vastly preferable to pretty much any other option on the table - even including "peaceful" sanctions which end up having a human cost.
It's almost as if there's some mutually beneficial relationship going on between US and European intelligence and military agencies, and the anger of Europe's governments is mostly political sideshow...
The USA works very hard to radicalize anti american factions within a country. If the choices are US backed dictator, or religious nutjob, its not much of a hard choice.
I can understand feeling morally opposed to it, but a realist might tell you that it's important to spy on the German government simply because it's a powerful actor, even if it's an ally of the United States.
That realist would be a fool who takes the exasperated statements of politicians at face-value. Were any long term trade agreements threatened? Embargoed in a way where they actually did it, not just talked about it? Was military cooperation withdrawn, diplomatic ties severed?
Absolutely none of this happened. A lot of words happened. Mysteriously, for exactly as long as Snowden was in the news right up till Russia invaded the Ukraine.
It is unreasonable to do nothing to stop the loss of innocent lives.
However the war on terror is a media beat-up that sells papers, keeps eyes glued on tv's and serves to support the agenda of politicians who capitalise on the state of fear to get elected.
This is particularly evident in the United states- as a visitor there over the past several years the level of discourse on terrorism is completely out of keeping with the actual threat, or the level of fear in my own country (australia) despite our proximity on all cultural datapoints
how many terrorists in a cave have the sort of it infrastructure that require the equivalent of a Manhattan-project of cyber-espionage? (I mean, re-writing manufacturers hdd firmware?! Wow!)
> They're better than launching entire wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people, cost unfathomable amounts of money, and last for over a decade, without really achieving the objective of making the country safer.
So is doing nothing at all.
> They're better than torturing people.
So is doing nothing at all.
> They're better than mass surveillance of the entire population of the country - if not the world.
So is doing nothing at all. We have three horrible solutions, and one that's just terrible. Maybe we should look for a good solution instead.
Most Americans are apathetic. Of those of us not apathetic, those opposed to the widespread espionage of the three letter agencies are in the minority.
It's been heartbreaking watching the American reputation decline worldwide while also watching the inverse rise of the amoral and unrepentant technocrat here in America. It's a Golden Age for technology and a Dark Age for culture.
Most Americans probably have no idea what the NSA is, even now. I'm sure most of my college friends who weren't computer science majors couldn't say what it was or what it did.
Soviet citizens probably knew more about what was going on than Americans do now.
Many Americans are uninformed and many are apathetic. But Thucydides said the same thing about Athenians. I don't believe it's as simple as blaming American citizens.
Americans get information about the world through substandard education, uninvestigated journalism and high-fructose entertainment. The reporting on American policy outside America is far better than the reporting on it inside the country. Yes, Americans inherit this government, but as long as America is a superpower, so does the rest of the world.
1. I don't think the scope of these efforts are based solely around terrorist activity. They are very wide-ranging in scale, and seem to be a natural extension of the USA's foreign policy. In an ideal world it would be nice if neighbours didn't spy on each other, but in the real world, everybody spies.
2. Yes, clearly they do, and also alter the course of some very dangerous activities a la Stuxnet and Iran's nuclear program. Just because it's possible to circumvent these measures, doesn't mean they shouldn't be use either. Firstly, you've made it more difficult for terrorists and other parties to communicate effectively, which is already a win. Secondly, they will of course be updating their methods as well. I doubt very much that what we're seeing here is the be all / end all of NSA's capability. This is implied in the article, where the group hands down certain exploits / technologies for actual implementation, but tends to keep things back. A blow, to be sure, but I doubt we've seen it all yet.
3. ISIS are not the result of the Iraq war. It's very important to understand that ISIS are simply the most recent manifestation of a fundamentalist Islamic sect known as Wahhabism [1]. As convenient as it is to blame them on simple cause and effect, the reality is, as always, far more complex. Essentially this is a group of ultra-fundamentalist muslims, who have for a long time been part of Saudi's political structure. What we are seeing now is a return to their radical roots, backed by disenfranchised and poorly educated muslims across the Middle East. These are people who were left out of the massive oil money influx during Saddam's regime, and are now fighting tooth and nail against any and all transgressors - muslim and Westerners alike.
If anything this makes a case for the NSA's activities, not against it. It's not the US's meddling that caused these issues (although it certainly hasn't helped); these are deeply ingrained philosophies in Middle Eastern culture. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a very good understanding of their power structure and where they're putting out feelers, than not.
So killing hundreds of thousands of civilians had no effect whatsoever in allowing extremism and hatred of the US to thrive? How about our arming of the Syrian rebels, do you also believe our policy of handing out weapons like they're candy did nothing in assisting warmongers to engage in war?
No, I don't believe that handing weapons to people turns them into fundamentalist terrorists, and I don't believe the Iraq war created a group whose modus operandi has been the same since the 1800's.
Take a look at the article I linked above; this form of religious extremism has been a powerful ally to those seeking political power in the Middle East for a long time. Saudi Arabia was built on the back of Wahhabism, which it then tried to subvert into a conservative institution to ensure its rule.
In short, these guys like to play with fire to further their ambitions, and ISIS is the latest explosion. If you reduce ISIS to 'this happened because we did this', then you're missing a whole lot of narrative, not to mention understanding of the situation.
Why do you think they're so well-funded, and well-organised? This is not the result of a corrupt war that decimated Iraq's population, it's an ambitious power play that appears to be getting out of hand (again).
Religious extremism, and in fact extremists of all kinds, always exist everywhere. What the USA has done has been to topple organized states or regimes that were able to keep some order and rule of the law in their territories, fuel hatred and desperation by killing hundreds of thousands of people, bombing the cities and destroying any form of economy, also with the aid of a decade long and ferocious embargo (the estimates put to a million the victims of the embargo, mostly children), and finally providing weapons and training to "rebels" to produce internal revolts to weaken the "enemies". A myopic and downright evil strategy that is now fully showing its obvious results.
It's not just terror. We've got Mr. Putin out there, who at best can be described as someone willing to pursue his own interests no matter the cost. So, should we have no capabilities to defend against him. Sorry to say, but since Europe spends so little as a percent of GDP on defense, it effectively outsources defense to us, while simultaneously making fun of us for our low spending on social programs. You cannot pretend there is no tradeoff here.
Putin is no hero, but Russia's response to a USA sponsered coup of a Democratic Ukraine is hardly surprising. God-honest Nazis run Ukraine, i'm not joking, NEO-NAZIs, that is the sort of people US policy planners are willing to support in their idiotic attempts to create failed state on the border of Russia. What do you think US response would be if China or Russia or Iran tried that same bullshit in Mexico?
> "Do you really think these extensive intelligences do stop terror?"
I was under the impression that stuxnet had a demonstrably negative impact on the capacity of the Iranian nuclear program to enrich uranium. Of course, there's a whole different argument on whether or not that's in support of "terror".
1. give up freedom for some stupid terrorist attacks? why should we? We've lost the keystone of freedom when we do this and they have already won.
2. Do you really think these extensive intelligences do stop terror? (maybe they do sometimes, but terrorists will find new ways)
3. IS and others are the result of the Iraq war which was a offensive war from the US justified by a lie (Sadam had no weapon of mass destruction). Do you still think that America is the world police? The reputation of the US has gone rapidly down in the last decade. For the most here in germany the US are not the good ones any more. Other countries have their own way of life. America has to accept that.