France summons U.S. ambassador over spying report(reuters.com)
reuters.com
France summons U.S. ambassador over spying report
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/21/us-france-nsa-idUSBRE99K04920131021
9 comments
Yes, cry me a river. Supposedly "allied" governments have no qualms spying on each other, or engaging in "economic intelligence" for the military-industrial lobby. Would the French DGSE (or other western intelligence agencies) engage in large-scale surveillance of their own citizens, let alone foreigners, if they believed they could get away with it? You bet.
>Would the French DGSE (or other western intelligence agencies) engage in large-scale surveillance of their own citizens
They most certainly do:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/04/france-electron...
They most certainly do:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/04/france-electron...
In an interview of Larry Ellison Charlie Rose this past summer, Larry described the French blatantly going through all his electronics when he traveled over there.
Disappointingly and not surprisingly he didn't have a problem with the allegations against the NSA.
Something to consider is that points of interest differ within governments. For example, fugitive Marc Rich was believed to have been aided by the US State Department even as the DOJ continuously attempted to kidnap him. In other countries you even end up with military coups when one group really is unhappy with another. On the other hand, there is a lot of noise making in countries with representative elections, which means little.
Edit: I would not be surprised if we start seeing criminal indictments against executives of US internet companies in some countries.
Disappointingly and not surprisingly he didn't have a problem with the allegations against the NSA.
Something to consider is that points of interest differ within governments. For example, fugitive Marc Rich was believed to have been aided by the US State Department even as the DOJ continuously attempted to kidnap him. In other countries you even end up with military coups when one group really is unhappy with another. On the other hand, there is a lot of noise making in countries with representative elections, which means little.
Edit: I would not be surprised if we start seeing criminal indictments against executives of US internet companies in some countries.
They do. If you can read French, check out http://reflets.info/.
Really suspicious looking site, bro.
it's actually serious, one of the guys got published in the Canard Enchaîné and for example revealed some FBI files on US citizens 8 years before the Washington Post did.
What exactly do you find suspicious?
It's understandable, and it's something that Reflets.info editors acknoledge: use of memes (lolcats for instance) does not look "pro", and there are opinion and rant posts along with very profound and detailed in-depth investigation articles.
You know, don't judge a blog by its cover ;-).
You know, don't judge a blog by its cover ;-).
What he said.
[deleted]
Same hypocrisy in Germany with Merkel preemptively and officially refusing Snowden any potential request for asylum, a few months back.
All this makes it so terribly obvious that Europe literally is not entitled to and can not have or grow a pair of balls anymore. Europe's role is pretty much reduced to hosting the military bases and NSA spying facilities of the US.
All this makes it so terribly obvious that Europe literally is not entitled to and can not have or grow a pair of balls anymore. Europe's role is pretty much reduced to hosting the military bases and NSA spying facilities of the US.
Don't count Germany out. Merkel has preserved German strength at the cost of South Europe's pain. The Euro is managed to protect Northern economies, not mitigate the Southern pains. "Bailouts" and rescue plans are heavily biased towards preserving the North's separation from the fallout. All of this strengthens Germany and the northern countries at the expense of the EU as a whole.
As the worldwide balance of power continues to shift over the next decade or two, I believe Merkel's Germany is poised to be extremely relevant, even if it is so at the cost of the cohesion of the EU.
It also reaffirms to me why the UK seems to have very little interest joining the party like their neighbors. Why compete for first fiddle against a self-serving Merkel?
It'll be interesting times but I don't think it's as simple as Europe being relegated to America's extended states.
As the worldwide balance of power continues to shift over the next decade or two, I believe Merkel's Germany is poised to be extremely relevant, even if it is so at the cost of the cohesion of the EU.
It also reaffirms to me why the UK seems to have very little interest joining the party like their neighbors. Why compete for first fiddle against a self-serving Merkel?
It'll be interesting times but I don't think it's as simple as Europe being relegated to America's extended states.
I counted Germany out the moment the boundless informant information revealed the number of NSA intercepts in Germany was on the order of the number in China (despite the massive population difference and presumable difference in the number of linguists NSA employees for each country).
One of the few plausible explanations for this is that the NSA was doing this surveillance minimally with the cooperation of the German government and likely at the behest of the BND/German government.
With probably no place in Germany that's more than 250km away from an US/UK military base, and the "extraordinary rendition" program in mind, I'd also refuse asylum in Germany to someone who wants to flee the US.
Especially in a high profile case like Snowden's.
I guess a plane ticket to a non-NATO country through back channels might be better help for people seeking protection from the US than granting refugee status.
Especially in a high profile case like Snowden's.
I guess a plane ticket to a non-NATO country through back channels might be better help for people seeking protection from the US than granting refugee status.
> With probably no place in Germany that's more than 250km away from an US/UK military base, and the "extraordinary rendition" program in mind
To which several European governments, mostly the UK, but also Italy, happily cooperated. The other ones have been lucky enough not to be caught red-handed but I have little doubt that they knew perfectly what was going on (at best) or were actively providing support.
To which several European governments, mostly the UK, but also Italy, happily cooperated. The other ones have been lucky enough not to be caught red-handed but I have little doubt that they knew perfectly what was going on (at best) or were actively providing support.
It also happened on German soil (Ramstein Air Base is said to be involved) and to at least one German citizen (but not with Germany as a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri) - even if the German government wasn't actively involved, at least it wasn't able or willing to prevent that from happening here.
Preventing the issue on formal grounds was probably the easiest way to avoid having to protect someone in Germany from the USA - which is obviously futile.
Preventing the issue on formal grounds was probably the easiest way to avoid having to protect someone in Germany from the USA - which is obviously futile.
As far as I remember they said that Germany can't consider asylum request from Snowden if he isn't on German soil, according to the law, and if he gets there and files an asylum request they'll consider it.
I don't remember Merkel, or anyone else, saying that they won't even accept asylum request or that they'll refuse the request if it's made according to the law.
I don't remember Merkel, or anyone else, saying that they won't even accept asylum request or that they'll refuse the request if it's made according to the law.
Slightly off topic, but what frustrates me about all this is that there is absolutely no outrage in France about the DGSE's absolutely heinous practices in this domain. Complete domestic surveillance without ANY legal framework whatsoever, not even some stage court like FISA court.
There's a huge difference between being spied upon by your own government and being spied upon by some manifest-destiny-following foreigner.
And what if, due to collaboration, they both spied on you together?
Well you still blame America because they probably forced them to do it.
Non-Americans shouldn't assume that the US is the only country that feels justified in spying on them or that necessarily their country only cooperates with the US because of fear or extortion.
It's also likely every nation shares the motive, but it just happens that the US provides the means.
It's also likely every nation shares the motive, but it just happens that the US provides the means.
Not entirely fair. French citizens should still hold their own government accountable for caving to US demands.
And that would be?
One ostensibly controls (through the ballot box) a domestic outfit. Ostensibly being the operative word.
Plus, it's hard to storm the Bastille if it happens to be overseas.
Plus, it's hard to storm the Bastille if it happens to be overseas.
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I call your bluff on both of those.
At this point, it appears that our elected representatives all have the same means in mind, regardless of the ends they seek (I would also argue that the sought-ends are the same, too, but I get into a tin-foil hatty area with that). That is across all nations and all parties. Whether it is a domestic or foreign outfit, the means are the same, and I would argue that fact outweighs whatever the theoretical end would be.
Also, with the military might of modern 1st world countries, I don't really believe that it matters if you have to cross an ocean first if you are going to literally storm the Bastille; and with the internet age, the distance doesn't really matter for a figurative storm, either.
At this point, it appears that our elected representatives all have the same means in mind, regardless of the ends they seek (I would also argue that the sought-ends are the same, too, but I get into a tin-foil hatty area with that). That is across all nations and all parties. Whether it is a domestic or foreign outfit, the means are the same, and I would argue that fact outweighs whatever the theoretical end would be.
Also, with the military might of modern 1st world countries, I don't really believe that it matters if you have to cross an ocean first if you are going to literally storm the Bastille; and with the internet age, the distance doesn't really matter for a figurative storm, either.
> Also, with the military might of modern 1st world countries, I don't really believe that it matters if you have to cross an ocean first if you are going to literally storm the Bastille; and with the internet age, the distance doesn't really matter for a figurative storm, either.
A history lesson - storming the bastille [1] is not done by a military, but by pitchfork wielding mobs. Yes, it's going to be tougher to "throw out the bums" if they happen to be a distant country with modern armaments.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Bastille
A history lesson - storming the bastille [1] is not done by a military, but by pitchfork wielding mobs. Yes, it's going to be tougher to "throw out the bums" if they happen to be a distant country with modern armaments.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Bastille
[deleted]
The whole thing's just awkward. All of these agencies understand and know that this is going on. But when concrete evidence is given to the public they have to call in ambassador's and do this whole "this is terrible!" song and dance. Then it's back to normal.
You do have love "trying to play it down" reporting like this though...
> The NSA's targets appeared to be individuals suspected of links to terrorism, as well as those tied to French business or politics, Le Monde wrote.
...setting up the "we accidentally all your powerful people while hunting terrorists honest" defense.
> The NSA's targets appeared to be individuals suspected of links to terrorism, as well as those tied to French business or politics, Le Monde wrote.
...setting up the "we accidentally all your powerful people while hunting terrorists honest" defense.
We should have stuck to our beloved Minitel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
> Le Monde's revelations that 70.3 million pieces of French telephone data were recorded by the NSA between Dec 10, 2012 and Jan 8, 2013
Fun fact about that : this number is actually bigger than french population (~ 66M).
Fun fact about that : this number is actually bigger than french population (~ 66M).
"pieces of telephone data" is not very specific but it could mean "x called Y at T for D seconds". And it's over a period of nearly a month. Many people do phone calls at least once a day. So 70M records for a population of 66M is not unrealistic for widescale surveillance.
What the number makes clear though is that it can't be for targeted terrorism-suspect surveilance. Unless you have something like a million suspects in France.
And in any case they should ask the french authorities/spies for help if they want to know something about french residents.
I wonder how the USA would react if other governments started openly surveilling US citizens/companies/politicians. That'd be one fun thing to watch.
What the number makes clear though is that it can't be for targeted terrorism-suspect surveilance. Unless you have something like a million suspects in France.
And in any case they should ask the french authorities/spies for help if they want to know something about french residents.
I wonder how the USA would react if other governments started openly surveilling US citizens/companies/politicians. That'd be one fun thing to watch.
I read oelmekki's comment as putting the number of monitored calls in context, not questioning its correctness.
Indeed, it was purely factual.
Of course, I'm not implying every french was spied on - it won't make sense since a good part are just kids.
But when your records count for a country exceed their population, you can't be expected to only watch a few bad guys, that's a sign of massive surveillance - or strategic surveillance over tactical surveillance, as Assange would put it.
Of course, I'm not implying every french was spied on - it won't make sense since a good part are just kids.
But when your records count for a country exceed their population, you can't be expected to only watch a few bad guys, that's a sign of massive surveillance - or strategic surveillance over tactical surveillance, as Assange would put it.
Yea, I think one can read it either way.
What I was trying to point out, is that the number makes it clear what the surveillance is about (and that's nothing related to terrorists).
What I was trying to point out, is that the number makes it clear what the surveillance is about (and that's nothing related to terrorists).
To be faire, the "openly" part was entirely unfortunate as far as the NSA is concerned, they were really happy when "openly" was "secretly".
Absolutely. But as a reaction the others could do it openly and then be astonished when the US government objects :)
I think either this or getting as much seperated/independent from the US will have any kind of proper effect.
Though I fear nothing really will change since the other countries have spy agencies as well which they want to keep. So a few "outrageous!" will be communicated to the media and business as usual continues.
I think either this or getting as much seperated/independent from the US will have any kind of proper effect.
Though I fear nothing really will change since the other countries have spy agencies as well which they want to keep. So a few "outrageous!" will be communicated to the media and business as usual continues.
Might still be possible, if you take the number of professional phones into account too. :)
[deleted]
French foreign minster "I'm shocked, shocked to find that spying is going on in here!"
NSA spook in black shades hands a usb stick to the Minister "your info on Angles strategy for the next eu summit"
French foreign minster (sote voce) "Oh, thank you very much."
NSA spook in black shades hands a usb stick to the Minister "your info on Angles strategy for the next eu summit"
French foreign minster (sote voce) "Oh, thank you very much."
It would be quite ironic (but sadly, not impossible) if the technologies (like 0days, massive traffic analysis tools, DPI tools, etc.) used by the NSA to spy on France were some of the numerous that are sold to them by French companies like Vupen, Amesys, Qosmos…
To paraphrase a famous line: I'm shocked, shocked that there's spying going on!
Snark aside: what may have riled French feathers is the fact that NSA spied on politicians too. I bet they have lots of blackmail stuff.
Snark aside: what may have riled French feathers is the fact that NSA spied on politicians too. I bet they have lots of blackmail stuff.
Possibly given how French politicians behave...
Please don't apply american fundamentalist puritan standards to everyone, please.
Yes, you're right. I don't know why I ever thought raping hotel maids, attempting to rape journalists, or going on trial for pimping would ever reflect badly on a politician [1]
Clearly only a fundamentalist puritan would object to those things. I'm so old fashioned.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn#New_York...
Clearly only a fundamentalist puritan would object to those things. I'm so old fashioned.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn#New_York...
1. Those are all allegations. In fact, the whole DSK mess is extremely unclear and the case presented against him is highly suspicious, although it is clear that he is a bit seedy. Some believe it to be a political machination for a number of reasons.
2. One politician's behavior means ALL politicians of that country behave wrongly?
2. One politician's behavior means ALL politicians of that country behave wrongly?
Frenches don't really worry about that, they are already building the next generation of personal cloud ;) http://cozy.io
I find it hard to take a security related project seriously that installs with:
$ curl http://cozy.io/install_cozy.sh | HOST=root@ip sh # sudoer required
Edit: even more annoying is that this script is only supposed to run on Debian/Ubuntu - so this script isn't even any more portable than .deb packages
Edit2 to be more constructive: would you accept contributions to build packages? Apart from this annoyance the project looks interesting!
$ curl http://cozy.io/install_cozy.sh | HOST=root@ip sh # sudoer required
Edit: even more annoying is that this script is only supposed to run on Debian/Ubuntu - so this script isn't even any more portable than .deb packages
Edit2 to be more constructive: would you accept contributions to build packages? Apart from this annoyance the project looks interesting!
> to be more constructive: would you accept contributions to build packages? Apart from this annoyance the project looks interesting!
Of course any contribution of this kind is greatly appreciated !
Of course any contribution of this kind is greatly appreciated !
How do you install new stuff on your machine without super user rights ? Do you have a specific user to run apt-get ?
apt-get doesn't run unsigned, unvetted shell scripts downloaded over unprotected channels.
About the signing part, we definitely have to improve that. Thank you for mentioning.
About the channel, the (real) install script is based on Fabric and use SSH. So you can refer directly to this: http://cozy.io/host/install.html
About the channel, the (real) install script is based on Fabric and use SSH. So you can refer directly to this: http://cozy.io/host/install.html
You also should be using HTTPS for these sort of situations.
Not that what you are suggesting is good in the first place.
Not that what you are suggesting is good in the first place.
Signed packages have at least two advantages:
1. they can be signed
2. they can be analyzed (also at a later date if you keep them around) to figure out if any "mis-feature" was added after the fact or came from upstream. Those scripts typically download all kinds of other things during the installation.
1. they can be signed
2. they can be analyzed (also at a later date if you keep them around) to figure out if any "mis-feature" was added after the fact or came from upstream. Those scripts typically download all kinds of other things during the installation.
Thank you for your feedback, we'll fix that. I open an issue about it.
I think it might have to do with http vs https.
It would be fun to build a list of projects that install this way, then build a tool that sits on open WiFi networks and automatically tacks on a "fun" payload whenever it sees someone request one of these scripts.
Voltaire said something like: "God, please protect me from my friends. I take care of my enemies."