Brazil said it!

[thir]

Brazilian president: US surveillance a 'breach of international law'

Brazil's president, Dilma Rousseff, has launched a blistering attack on US espionage at the UN general assembly, accusing the NSA of violating international law by its indiscriminate collection of personal information of Brazilian citizens and economic espionage targeted on the country's strategic industries.


Rousseff had already put off a planned visit to Washington in protest at US spying, after NSA documents leaked by Snowden revealed that the US electronic eavesdropping agency had monitored the Brazilian president's phone calls, as well as Brazilian embassies and spied on the state oil corporation, Petrobras.

"Personal data of citizens was intercepted indiscriminately. Corporate information – often of high economic and even strategic value – was at the centre of espionage activity.

"Tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of international law and is an affront of the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations. A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country."

"Friendly governments and societies that seek to build a true strategic partnership, as in our case, cannot allow recurring illegal actions to take place as if they were normal. They are unacceptable," she said



"In the absence of the right to privacy, there can be no true freedom of expression and opinion, and therefore no effective democracy. In the absence of the respect for sovereignty, there is no basis for the relationship among nations."


It is time someone said it.

This problem raises some questions:

Is it ok for a country to spy on other countries - friend or foe - as it pleases?

Is it a threat to democracy?

Is it time for the countries to make their own IT net?

Will the WWW fracture if that happens?

Should the UN over guidelines for spying, and be equipped to see that they are followed?

[Thorne]

This problem raises some questions:

Is it ok for a country to spy on other countries - friend or foe - as it pleases?
I suppose you can say that it's okay for them to TRY. What's NOT okay is for a county to use technology to spy upon others, then bitch and moan when those others are found to be spying on them.

Is it a threat to democracy?
A tricky question. Is spying on Brazil a threat to democracy in the US? Probably not. In fact, spying on some countries (not necessarily Brazil) could be of benefit to democracy, not only in the US but in the rest of the world. BUT, spying on your own citizens is a threat to democracy, since a part of democratic freedoms is the freedom to remove incompetent or dangerous leaders through free elections. Spying on people in order to limit that freedom is a definite threat to democracy.

Is it time for the countries to make their own IT net?
I don't know about that. Half the politicians in THIS country don't seem capable of dealing with a postage stamp, much less the complexities of email.

Will the WWW fracture if that happens?
I think governments might fracture before the internet does. Hell, half the twelve year olds in the world can hack into just about any infrastructure, it seems. What makes them think that any such IT network would be safe from them?

Should the UN over guidelines for spying, and be equipped to see that they are followed?
The UN is a failed, ineffective, impotent organization, incapable of doing anything that any one member of the Security Council doesn't like. Any "guidelines" it might develop would be ignored whenever it suited those members to do so, and nothing could be done to stop it.

[leo9]

This problem raises some questions:

Is it ok for a country to spy on other countries - friend or foe - as it pleases?
I suppose you can say that it's okay for them to TRY. What's NOT okay is for a county to use technology to spy upon others, then bitch and moan when those others are found to be spying on them.

Nations routinely spy on their friends as well as their enemies, because their interests are never 100% aligned - if nothing else, their economies are in competition, and the line between state and industrial espionage is notoriously fuzzy. And the targets routinely complain if they catch them at it. What is making this more than just a routine exchange of diplomatic notes is the sheer scale of the operation; it's not one or two bought civil servants or microphones in offices, it's other nations' entire business potentially laid open.

The astonishing thing, and a sign of how much the US is still feared and/or admired around the world, is that there hasn't been a comparable outcry by all of Europe. I'd say it makes me despise my own government, if they could sink lower in my esteem.

Is it a threat to democracy?
A tricky question. Is spying on Brazil a threat to democracy in the US? Probably not. In fact, spying on some countries (not necessarily Brazil) could be of benefit to democracy, not only in the US but in the rest of the world. BUT, spying on your own citizens is a threat to democracy, since a part of democratic freedoms is the freedom to remove incompetent or dangerous leaders through free elections. Spying on people in order to limit that freedom is a definite threat to democracy.
It depends entirely on how the power that it gives the US is used. But Latin America has reason to fear US interference in the operation of its democracies. If I were a Latin American politician, I'd have on my wall Kissinger's justification for the overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government: "The US won't stand by and watch a country go Communist just because of the stupidity of its people."

Is it time for the countries to make their own IT net?
I don't know about that. Half the politicians in THIS country don't seem capable of dealing with a postage stamp, much less the complexities of email.
As so often demonstrated by their pronouncements on such topics as Wikileaks and online porn, yes, but it's not the politicians, thank Wayland, who would be building the new servers.

Will the WWW fracture if that happens?
I think governments might fracture before the internet does. Hell, half the twelve year olds in the world can hack into just about any infrastructure, it seems. What makes them think that any such IT network would be safe from them?
The biggest thing politicians don't understand about the Net is that it was designed to be decentralised and unblockable. The fact that all the big servers are in the US is an accident of history, not a necessary part of the architecture, and it would certainly be an improvement if there were more elsewhere.

But breaking it up would mean rolling back twenty years of industrial and commercial progress. There is WAY too much money invested for that to happen. On a smaller scale, we see this in countries like Egypt where the gov't tries to shut down the Net because it's being used by rebels, and has to switch it on again because the entire business community is screaming.

What would make a difference, and will surely happen, is the much wider adoption of open source high-level encryption (open source, because nobody can plant state-sponsored backdoors in it without being caught.) There was a time when the US government tried to make PGP illegal, for the usual reasons, but these days I would guess they can crack PGP if they want to badly enough. It will be interesting to see if they try to ban the new generation of encryptions.

Should the UN over guidelines for spying, and be equipped to see that they are followed?
The UN is a failed, ineffective, impotent organization, incapable of doing anything that any one member of the Security Council doesn't like. Any "guidelines" it might develop would be ignored whenever it suited those members to do so, and nothing could be done to stop it.
Agreed. Even gov'ts like Brazil can't do anything about this at their level. This is not a fight between gov'ts: more clearly than ever before in my life, it's a fight between rulers and the people, and friendly rulers can just hold our coats while we take on the other sort.

But we know the ground and hold the strongpoints. I'm hopeful.

[thir]

Ups - forgot the link to the article. Sorry, here it comes :http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/24/brazil-president-un-speech-nsa-surveillance

[thir]

Is it ok for a country to spy on other countries - friend or foe - as it pleases?
I suppose you can say that it's okay for them to TRY. What's NOT okay is for a county to use technology to spy upon others, then bitch and moan when those others are found to be spying on them.


Point.



Is it a threat to democracy?
A tricky question. Is spying on Brazil a threat to democracy in the US? Probably not. In fact, spying on some countries (not necessarily Brazil) could be of benefit to democracy, not only in the US but in the rest of the world. BUT, spying on your own citizens is a threat to democracy, since a part of democratic freedoms is the freedom to remove incompetent or dangerous leaders through free elections. Spying on people in order to limit that freedom is a definite threat to democracy.


I meant a threat to 1) the countries spied on and 2) a threat to US itself, since it is also spying on its own citizens on a grand scale.

I see this a no less than US being Big Brother to itself and most of the world besides.




Is it time for the countries to make their own IT net?
I don't know about that. Half the politicians in THIS country don't seem capable of dealing with a postage stamp, much less the complexities of email.


However, it is possible, and what would happen if some countries did that? They would be able to control their own citizens better, and would fracture the net as it is. Unless the several nets would work in parallel.



Should the UN over guidelines for spying, and be equipped to see that they are followed?
The UN is a failed, ineffective, impotent organization, incapable of doing anything that any one member of the Security Council doesn't like. Any "guidelines" it might develop would be ignored whenever it suited those members to do so, and nothing could be done to stop it.


The UN is criticized a lot, and probably justified. But such as it is, it is the only organ to impose some sort of morality on what countries do to each others that we have.

[Mathius]

This problem raises some questions:

Is it ok for a country to spy on other countries - friend or foe - as it pleases?
It is only illegal when the US spies on its citizens without a warrant. This is nothing new. We have been spying on our friends for years and they do the same to us, some we know of and some we don't.

Is it a threat to democracy?
This is a threat when the gov spies on its citizens as a form of repression and control. But when your gov gets to that point is it still a democracy?

Is it time for the countries to make their own IT net?
Most of the net runs through US servers, so if they did that they would have to start from scratch.

Should the UN over guidelines for spying, and be equipped to see that they are followed?
The UN is a joke and a waste of our tax dollars.

[thir]

What is making this more than just a routine exchange of diplomatic notes is the sheer scale of the operation; it's not one or two bought civil servants or microphones in offices, it's other nations' entire business potentially laid open.


Excatly. Big brother, together with all the rest of the surveillance.



The astonishing thing, and a sign of how much the US is still feared and/or admired around the world, is that there hasn't been a comparable outcry by all of Europe.


There has been complaints from EU, but I agree not nearly as much as one would expect. It is possible that the chock has not sunk in yet.



It depends entirely on how the power that it gives the US is used.


No, it doesn't. Taking freedom away from citizens and countries can only be BAD!



But Latin America has reason to fear US interference in the operation of its democracies.


Along with a number of other countries that might not do what the US thinks it should..



The biggest thing politicians don't understand about the Net is that it was designed to be decentralised and unblockable. The fact that all the big servers are in the US is an accident of history, not a necessary part of the architecture, and it would certainly be an improvement if there were more elsewhere.


Whatever it was designed to be be, it ca obviously be controlled - and is.



But breaking it up would mean rolling back twenty years of industrial and commercial progress. There is WAY too much money invested for that to happen.


Maybe. maybe not. Governments still have something to say - if their voters back them/push them. But I doubt that businesses are in favor of this industrial spying.



On a smaller scale, we see this in countries like Egypt where the gov't tries to shut down the Net because it's being used by rebels, and has to switch it on again because the entire business community is screaming.


And maybe because the freedom of the net can also be the best spying instrument ever invented.



What would make a difference, and will surely happen, is the much wider adoption of open source high-level encryption (open source, because nobody can plant state-sponsored backdoors in it without being caught.)


That would be great - at least it would be harder. But it takes much more than that.




Agreed. Even gov'ts like Brazil can't do anything about this at their level.


Why not?



This is not a fight between gov'ts: more clearly than ever before in my life, it's a fight between rulers and the people, and friendly rulers can just hold our coats while we take on the other sort.


I hope you are wrong. But it is not just rulers, it is also the multis, who will be the rulers in a not too distant future if we do not get off our hands.



But we know the ground and hold the strongpoints. I'm hopeful.

I am not, so much, I fear the lethargic of people who have too much, the too hard pressure on people who have too little, and the general propaganda of our societies: sleep on, buy, you deserve it (if you can pay) do not concern yourself...