Support NeoGAF

[Jest Chillin]

Ok. Now that this is revealed, I hope the countries of the world will react accordingly, which means hardening security and spying the shit out of the USA.

Bolded is already happening. The US is a power but let's not pretend that there aren't other countries in the world with access to the same knowledge, technology, and (similar) budgets.

I mean, I get that people are upset with the US over various things but this in particular is very much sort of the status quo among the most powerful nations be they allies or not.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

Countries like Russia and China are definitely doing that. Germany probably not so much, at least not on such a scale. As it shows they probably should do this, too.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

A lot of you should read Stanislaw Lem's Memoir Found in a Bathtub since it basically encapsulates the Cold War spy vs spy bureaucracy nightmare which this whole NSA thing reminds me of.

 

[davepoobond]

sounds like they dont have much better to do, so they just do everything.

 

[Valnen]

Most trusted allies, indeed. I kind of appreciate the chinese/russian stiffing a lil bit more now.

Everyone spies on everyone.

 

[Chichikov]

I have no idea how the interests of the US are being served by spying on EU officials, but maybe more importantly, I refuse to accept that the it's such an obvious beneficial thing that we're doing it without informing the people of this country so they can make their voice heard whether or not this is something they want to be done in their name and with their money.

 

[Zoramon089]

The naivete displayed in this thread by the people surprised by this is honestly ASTOUNDING. What did you think intelligence agencies did? Called up potential leads and yelled at them until they gave in like Batman? Geez

 

[maniac-kun]

I at least live in a constitutional democracy. And these actions that got revealed are not compatible with that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I have no idea how the interests of the US are being served by spying on EU officials, but maybe more importantly, I refuse to accept that the it's such an obvious beneficial thing that we're doing it without informing the people of this country so they can make their voice heard whether or not this is something they want to be done in their name and with their money.

Because information can be contained to only US citizens? The program is made public its not covert anymore.
Lets quote edward snowden:

< TheTrueHOOHA> that shit is classified for a reason
< TheTrueHOOHA> it's not because "oh we hope our citizens don't find out"
< TheTrueHOOHA> it's because "this shit won't work if iran knows what we're doing."

And how could you not really think US interests are not served? More information = better negotiations gives the US a leg up. Whether you feel you share interests with the US government is a different story and I think what you actually care about.

I wish european politicans would stop being afraid of bully america and stand up for once.

Doesn't this tell you something? They don't actually want it to stop.

 

[videogamer]

And how could you not really think US interests are not served? More information = better negotiations potions a leg up. Whether you feel you share interests with the US government is a different story

Negotiations won't be fair unless both sides are privy to the same information.

 

[Jest Chillin]

Negotiations won't be fair unless both sides are privy to the same information.

Again.. to think that other countries aren't doing to the same to the US is kind of putting your head in the sand. What exactly about the US separates it from other nations in terms of capability or desire to do the same? Especially considering that many nations and their citizens have problems with the way US has handled International Diplomacy for more than a decade?

 

[Gemüsepizza]

The naivete displayed in this thread by the people surprised by this is honestly ASTOUNDING. What did you think intelligence agencies did? Called up potential leads and yelled at them until they gave in like Batman? Geez

What are you even talking about? So the European Union and the UN are enemies of the USA?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Negotiations won't be fair unless both sides are privy to the same information.

Where have you ever been in a negotiation where you've hoped you weren't smarter than the other party?

What are you even talking about? So the European Union and the UN are enemies of the USA?

Spies don't only spy on enemies.

 

[videogamer]

Again.. to think that other countries aren't doing to the same to the US is kind of putting your head in the sand. What exactly about the US separates it from other nations in terms of capability or desire to do the same? Especially considering that many nations and their citizens have problems with the way US has handled International Diplomacy for more than a decade?

Well, it's not clear who has what information. It is possible that neither side would disclose how much information they know. However, countries with more sophisticated spying may know more. This may potentially lead to inequality in negotiation.

Where have you ever been in a negotiation where you've hoped you weren't smarter than the other party?

Can't think of a situation off hand.

 

[RELAYER]

This may potentially lead to inequality in negotiation.

I believe that is the point.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Well, it's not clear who has what information. It is possible that neither side would disclose how much information they know. However, countries with more sophisticated spying may know more. This may potentially lead to inequality in negotiation.

And if you are the country with the advantage, the problem is? That's the point of this.

 

[videogamer]

And if you are the country with the advantage, the problem is? That's the point of this.

Um... then it's still unfair. The point is to create inequality?

 

[Jest Chillin]

Well, it's not clear who has what information. It is possible that neither side would disclose how much information they know. However, countries with more sophisticated spying may know more. This may potentially lead to inequality in negotiation.

But who is to say who has more sophisticated spying? Obviously the nature of spying prevents this kind of question from ever being answered unequivocally but when all things are considered every nation has access to the same general technology and knowledge base, even if that includes importing great minds from other nations. The only outlier that I can think of off the top of my head is budget but even then, budget balancing can allow for leeway in that area.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Um... then it's still unfair. The point is to create inequality?

If your trying to extract a better deal for your country why would you want fair negotiations? Yes the point is to create information inequality.

 

[RELAYER]

Um... then it's still unfair. The point is to create inequality?

It's unfair?
Are you 5 years old?

 

[videogamer]

But who is to say who has more sophisticated spying? Obviously the nature of spying prevents this kind of question from ever being answered unequivocally but when all things are considered every nation has access to the same general technology and knowledge base, even if that includes importing great minds from other nations. The only outlier that I can think of off the top of my head is budget but even then, budget balancing can allow for leeway in that area.

Can't say who has better spying capabilities. That's the problem with the opacity and secrecy of spying--it is difficult, if not impossible, to objectively study it.

If your trying to extract a better deal for your country why would you want fair negotiations? Yes the point is to create information inequality.

I think it is also a good goal to get a fair deal.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Can't say who has better spying capabilities. That's the problem with the opacity and secrecy of spying--it is difficult, if not impossible, to objectively study it.

That's kinda the point. Its not supposed to be easy to discertain

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think it is also a good goal to get a fair deal.

What world are you living in?

Say your negotiating a trade deal with quotas or something and you know the other persons limit you can undercut them or better extract deals for yourself? Why would you give things up to be fair? that would be stupid

edit: sorry for the double post, ment to edit it in

 

[videogamer]

What world are you living in?

Say your negotiating a trade deal with quotas or something and you know the other persons limit you can undercut them or better extract deals for yourself? Why would you give things up to be fair? that would be stupid

Well, an excessively good deal for one side can lead to bad deal for another and result in resentment. See: Delian League, WWI reparations

 

[Gemüsepizza]

It's unfair?
Are you 5 years old?

Why don't you keep your insults to yourself? This raises a very obvious question: If negotiations are not fair, if one side is trying to cheat, then why have negotiations in the first place? Is it in the interest of American people to not have any negotiations because of this?

 

[Chichikov]

Because information can be contained to only US citizens? The program is made public its not covert anymore.

Considering the got caught NSA lying to congress repeatedly I'm not sure how you can speak in confidence about what they do and don't do.
And we only really know about those things because of leaks.

And how could you not really think US interests are not served? More information = better negotiations potions a leg up. Whether you feel you share interests with the US government is a different story

I really don't see how.
I kinda doubt the NSA give that information to US officials negotiating trade agreement with Europe, but let's say that they do, how would reading emails between Merkel and heir foreign minister helps the US get better results?
Like technically, how would that happen?

Because I can show you how this cloak and dagger hurt American interests around the world (and I'm sure you can to too).

Also, as far as I know, all of that stuff is authorized as part of the terrorists surveillance program, I'm not aware of congress (or anyone) authorizing those things so we can negotiate a better NAFTA.

Whether you feel you share interests with the US government is a different story

The US government represents the people of the US, they should not have interests that aren't those of the people of the US.
I'm talking here about the interests of the country.

 

[videogamer]

It's unfair?
Are you 5 years old?

Why resort to personal attacks?

 

[RELAYER]

Why don't you keep your insults to yourself? This raises a very obvious question: If negogiations are not fair, if one side is trying to cheat, then why have negotiations in the first place?

I will communicate in the manner I choose. How about you write your posts and I'll write mine. He's naive to the point of the bizarre.

Why resort to personal attacks?

That's a "personal attack"? Give me a fucking break.

 

[videogamer]

That's a "personal attack"? Give me a fucking break.

It sounded like you were implying that I was a 5 year old. It's not a nice thing to say.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

I will communicate in the manner I choose.

Really?

How about you write your posts and I'll write mine. He's naive to the point of the bizarre.

Have you read the rest of my post? I brought up an argument which shows why this is not "naive" in the slightest way.

 

[Chichikov]

It's unfair?
Are you 5 years old?

You really see no value in being honest with your friends and allies?
Not to mention that if you screw countries too bad they're going to walk out of the bad treaties they signed with you (and not to mention they're going to be significantly less likely to get into new negotiations with you).

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I really don't see how.
I kinda doubt the NSA give that information to US officials negotiating trade agreement with Europe, but let's say that they do, how would reading emails between Merkel and heir foreign minister helps the US get better results?
Like technically, how would that happen?

Because I can show you how this cloak and dagger hurt American interests around the world (and I'm sure you can to too).

Trade examples wasn't the best but whose to say they don't? There are also possibilities the Europeans in this example don't share everything in regards to cybercrime (say a the German's knew a criminal was in their country), corporate espionage, or even terrorism. The NSA's mission is to give the US information to make decisions. I don't see this going above and beyond.

SIGINT involves collecting foreign intelligence from communications and information systems and providing it to customers across the U.S. Government, such as senior civilian and military officials. They then use the information to help protect our troops, support our allies, fight terrorism, combat international crime and narcotics, support diplomatic negotiations, and advance many other important national objectives.

And I'm sure you could show examples of this stuff hurting US interests but also helping it. The debate seems to be centered around what people believe are US interests.

You really see no value in being honest with your friends and allies?
Not to mention that if you screw countries too bad they're going to walk out of the bad treaties they signed with you (and not to mention they're going to be significantly less likely to get into new negotiations with you).

None of this goes against having a leg up. I can see the goal of a fair outcome desirable but having an information advantage? How on earth could that be a bad thing (obviously this is under the assumption the other party doesn't know you have this information, hence it being secret)

And its not like having this information only gives the US a better position, the EU could be withholding things that would make the process more 'fair'

This is why Snowden has moved beyond just leaking things in the public's interest, this isn't whistle-blowing because no "wrongdoing" has been found. This is snowden injecting his personal opinions into his leaks, his desire to change policy. He's even said it himself, some of these leaks aren't for the US public to make decisions based off of but for people in other countries to make decisions around. That's moved beyond whistle blowing and why charges under the espionage act are fair IMO. He's intentionally trying to cripple the US intel community from doing its job where he doesn't agree.

 

[RELAYER]

It sounded like you were implying that I was a 5 year old. It's not a nice thing to say.

Ironically, the only type of person whom I can imagine being bothered by something like that is an actual 5 year old.

Have you read the rest of my post? I brought up an argument which shows why this is not "naive" in the slightest way.

I don't think your argument makes any sense. I think the real problem is that some of you believe that "fairness" is always a good thing, when in fact it's counterproductive to many efforts, for instance, negotiating.

You really see no value in being honest with your friends and allies?Not to mention that if you screw countries too bad they're going to walk out of the bad treaties they signed with you (and not to mention they're going to be significantly less likely to get into new negotiations with you).

There's a difference between getting a leg up and pounding someone into the ground.
I really don't see how the art of negotiation is a novel concept for you people.

edit: and I'm not even talking about the spying anymore, I'm simply addressing the notion that negotiations should be "fair" (whatever that means)

 

[videogamer]

Ironically, the only type of person whom I can imagine being bothered by something like that is an actual 5 year old.

I encourage you to take into account how people older than that can also be offended by your condescension.

I don't think your argument makes any sense. I think the real problem is that some of you believe that "fairness" is always a good thing, when in fact it's counterproductive to many efforts, for instance, negotiating.

In what way is it counterproductive?

There's a difference between getting a leg up and pounding someone into the ground.

Is that what he actually said?

 

[Gemüsepizza]

I don't think your argument makes any sense. I think the real problem is that some of you believe that "fairness" is always a good thing, when in fact it's counterproductive to many efforts, for instance, negotiating.

Now you are the one being naive. You don't think this will have any effect on future negotiations between the US and anybody else? Believe me, it will.

 

[Chichikov]

Trade examples wasn't the best but whose to say they don't? There are also possibilities the Europeans in this example don't share everything in regards to cybercrime (say a the German's knew a criminal was in their country), corporate espionage, or even terrorism. The NSA's mission is to give the US information to make decisions. I don't see this going above and beyond.

I'm not really sure I follow your cyber-crime example (is this something conrete or theoretical?) but generally, I believe that open diplomacy is a much better venue to deal with such things.

And I'm sure you could show examples of this stuff hurting US interests but also helping it. The debate seems to be centered around what people believe are US interests.

I think those things are hurting US interests as a whole, it's fine to argue against it, but I'm not sure those general broad statements are convincing me of anything.
Are you willing to accept in theory that there can be NSA programs that hurt the US?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

In what way is it counterproductive?

Fairness is subjective by the way. But really? International politics is often a zero-sum game. You can't expect your partner to be completely honest, its against the self-interest.

 

[RELAYER]

I encourage you to take into account how people older than that can also be offended by your condescension.

That doesn't really concern me.

In what way is it counterproductive?

What is the general goal of any negotiation?

Is that what he actually said?

"screwing countries over so bad they walk out of treaties and do not enter negotiations with you in the future"

I feel I adequately summarized his sentiment.

Now you are the one being naive. You don't think this will have any effect on future negotiations between the US and anybody else? Believe me, it will.

It may or may not. In any case that isn't my point. See edit.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think those things are hurting US interests as a whole, it's fine to argue against it, but I'm not sure those general broad statements are convincing me of anything.
Are you willing to accept in theory that there can be NSA programs that hurt the US?

Yes of course, but I'm gonna tend to say that most of them don't since its mostly signals intelligence. Most of the 'harm' is gonna come from decisions based on this intelligence and decisions to reveal these programs.

The CIA I think is a different story. And you have a much better case for harm.

I'm not really sure I follow your cyber-crime example (is this something conrete or theoretical?) but generally, I believe that open diplomacy is a much better venue to deal with such things.

Hypothetical example would be a German hacker targeting US targets. But say he's a folk hero and Germany doesn't want to help the US investigate or prevent the crime for political reasons the US would like to obviously know all the information the Germans know to better protect its own interests.

A better example of a ally withholding information would be switzerland and its banking system, or iceland openly discussing the possibility of holding a US fugitive

This is a really lazy 4am example and probably doesn't happen very often between allies (though look at swizerland) but its within the realm of possibility.

And I agree open diplomacy is preferable but there needs to be information if this falls through and if its covert and not known its pretty much harmless covering one's own ass.

 

[elostyle]

I don't think your argument makes any sense. I think the real problem is that some of you believe that "fairness" is always a good thing, when in fact it's counterproductive to many efforts, for instance, negotiating.

I believe this reveal has already set a halt in motion on negotiations of a free trade treaty. So, it's a risky gambit to put yourself into a position where you can get caught with your pants down by your partners which certainly will not improve your negotiation position.

 

[Bregor]

Those that find this astonishing should read up on the history of espionage more. Just one example: It was British tapping of US embassy telegraphs in WW1 that gave them their first intercepts of the Zimmerman telegraph, which when revealed to the US helped bring it into the war.

 

[Jest Chillin]

In what way is it counterproductive?

Not to say that the US is at the top of the pile but allies or not, people tend to want to be in the lead. Lying about or withholding information can give an advantage just as much as spying can. To expect complete and utter honesty in a world with fallible human beings is at the very least naive. Look to every country in the world's politics as an example. There are levels of deception, spying, and lies, but there isn't a single country that doesn't have dishonesty in it's own politics. And those are people who are supposed to be looking for the greater good of their own nation.

Now you are the one being naive. You don't think this will have any effect on future negotiations between the US and anybody else? Believe me, it will.

The connections between nations are delicate and complicated in many ways. There will no doubt be a lot of grandstanding but in the end, not much of consequence will change. Everyone is too interdependent on each other at this point.

 

[videogamer]

That doesn't really concern me.

You do now know that adults can be offended by being compared to a 5 year old.

What is the general goal of any negotiation?

Per wikipedia;
Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests of two people/parties involved in negotiation process. Negotiation is a process where each party involved in negotiating tries to gain an advantage for themselves by the end of the process. Negotiation is intended to aim at compromise.

"screwing countries over so bad they walk out of treaties and do not enter negotiations with you in the future"

I feel I adequately summarized his sentiment.

And how does this have to do with pounding someone into the ground? It seems like you have engaged in hyperbole.

Fairness is subjective by the way. But really? International politics is often a zero-sum game. You can't expect your partner to be completely honest, its against the self-interest.

What evidence do you have that international politics is "zero-sum"? Links? How is honesty "against the self-interest"?

 

[Martian]

Yeah, I don't think NSA can keep up this : '' we do it to stop the terrorists'' acts any longer.

They just want to influence the world, which feels quite bad.

Then again, it's probably not only the USA but also loads of other countries.

 

[isoquant]

Gathering intelligence involves more than opening al-qaeda's mail.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What evidence do you have that international politics is "zero-sum"? Links? How is honesty "against the self-interest"?

Now your getting into International Relations theory but in my view, which is a bizarre mix of realism and liberalism, power in many aspects is a finite thing. If you don't have it someone else does. I can't get into the entire world of IR but a cursory look into the subject will be enough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations_theory

And I didn't say honesty as a whole was against self-interest but it often can in negotiations, you seem to be willfully ignoring this. I don't know anyone that would argue otherwise.

If I know something you don't know that enables me to get a better deal for myself, while staying "fair", how doesn't it not hurt me to give that information up?

 

[Neo C.]

It's time to cool down the relationship to the US. Actually, it has been happening for years, this report just accelerates the relationship of my country with the BRICS.

 

[Chichikov]

Hypothetical example would be a German hacker targeting US targets. But say he's a folk hero and Germany doesn't want to help the US investigate or prevent the crime for political reasons the US would like to obviously know all the information the Germans know to better protect its own interests.

A better example of a ally withholding information would be switzerland and its banking system, or iceland openly discussing the possibility of holding a US fugitive

This is a really lazy 4am example and probably doesn't happen very often between allies (though look at swizerland) but its within the realm of possibility.

And I agree open diplomacy is preferable but there needs to be information if this falls through and if its covert and not known its pretty much harmless covering one's own ass.

I'm going to give you a 4m pass and not give you shit you for suggesting that the NSA should look into random bank accounts.


But here's my bigger point, you need to justify those things, and you need to discus whether they're worth the loss in privacy, the enormous costs, the erosion of US international standing with its allies and other more specific harm it may do to US interests (I gave that example many times I know, but I can tell you for a fact that there are companies that don't host their data on US datacenters because of privacy concerns, that cost money to US businesses).
And you can't have this discussion when you do it all in secrecy,

 

[elostyle]

Spies don't only spy on enemies.

The naivety is not understanding the different contexts that people have around the world. As is evident in how your post seemingly address everyone here as if this board was a 100% homogenous US only echo chamber.

Germany was the core battleground in the cold war and the east has history of a governmental institutionalized and comprehensive systems of citizens spying on and denouncing each other. Sometimes the people that you trusted the most. Not to mention a history of government overreach resulting in the most terrible events. So yeah, we're really touchy on what has been revealed.

 

[videogamer]

Now your getting into International Relations theory but in my view, which is a bizarre mix of realism and liberalism, power in many aspects is a finite thing. If you don't have it someone else does.

And what is the point of accumulating even more power when both the EU and the US are well off developed regions?

And I didn't say honesty as a whole was against self-interest but it often can in negotiations, you seem to be willfully ignoring this. I don't know anyone that would argue otherwise.

It doesn't make sense to me that lying would be a good thing to do in negotiations. Why would people trust you if you lied?

If I know something you don't know that enables me to get a better deal for myself, while staying "fair", how doesn't it not hurt me to give that information up?

The differential in access to information in itself is unfair. Courts try to make sure that the evidence is available to both parties.