Nsa Contractor Identifies Himself As Source

[F430murci]

You can make silly statements about my law training all you want, but the fact remains that I am sitting behind my desk as a managing partner in a large law firm representing Fortune 500 and international companies on an international level. Other than you taking a business law class in undergrad, what are you doing today?

You try and distinguish, but the fact remains that there was no mention of Merkel's privacy rights being violated. Whether the tap emanated from an embassy or from US soil would be of no consequence if Germany privacy laws truly prohibited the NSA from tapping German residents inside Germany. That is the issue.

You evade the issue and still have not cited any law or statute that unequivocally prohibits US or NSA from tapping or collecting data related to German residents inside Germany.

Candidly, your little analysis reflects that you have zero legal training and reflects how absolutely clueless you are about the subject matter. I quoted multiple case blurbs and provided parentheticals in this thread back in July or August addressing the legality of foreign wire tap. Your "in theory, hacking of foreign systems is also illegal under US Law" statement is contrary to that law.

Thank you for that post - it explains so much about how the US view the world and the conceptual problems the US have in understanding "territoriality".

Privacy of communications and telecommunications is a civil right granted by article 10 of the 1949 constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany:

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_10.html

It specifically stipulates that exceptions can only be granted based on a Law (either by a court, or in the case of intelligence services, by the G10 commission).

Breaches of this article are sanctioned in German Criminal Law as well as in the German Law on Telecommunications:

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__206.html

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tkg_2004/__148.html

The above collection of articles is unequivoquial and explicitly bans spying on the content of commincations as well as spying on metadata.

Bans who. Problem is Germany perhaps has no ability to pass any law prohibiting US or NSA from doing anything, but it can prohibit actions of its own government or those acting under color of state law. This is why the UN is getting involved in trying to come up with a resolution.

Germany's solution is simple from a political stand point if what the NSA is doing violates German privacy laws. Anyone in Germany could seek injunctive relief. May not work, but it would be evidence that the acts are illegal or prohibited. This has not been done because there is no prohibition and it is not illegal.

the law explicitly bans "anyone". there is no room for speculation.

Your not listening and your not reading. You cite the 1949 constitution written in German, that has subsequently been amended, and make a cursory statements without any authority or understanding how Constitutions work

(1) As I said above, the German Constitution would only be applicable to actions of the German government or any entity acting under the color of state (German law). See (German Const., Art. 1) ("The following basic rights bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly enforceable law"). There is no mention or reference of foreign sovereignties in the operational clause contained in Article 1. Just as Germany is not bound by the terms of the US Constitution, the US government is not bound by the German Constitution. The same is true for State Constitutions (California is not bound by the terms of the Florida Constitution and the inverse is true); and

(2) As noted above which you also ignored . . . ("In 1955, just a decade after the end of World War II, the young Federal Republic of Germany received the status of a sovereign state through the General Treaty with the US, the UK and France. At the same time, the German government also granted the Allied forces various special rights. According to the findings of historian Josef Foschepoth, the government of the day allowed extensive secret service operations on German territory and agreed to the surveillance of the West German postal and telecommunications services. "These arrangements are still valid today and binding for every successive German government," Foschepoth told DW in an interview.")

Under (2), Germany provided the US, UK and France with sovereign rights for surveillance of German telecommunication services and those "arrangements are still valid and binding" today.

Edited December 20, 2013 by F430murci

[Sing_Sling]

Here's a good reason to pat the NSA on the back for a job well done:

Brazil Chooses Saab Jet Deal For Air Force After NSA Spying Sours Boeing Bid

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/brazil-saab-jet-deal_n_4469386.html?utm_hp_ref=world

That's a minimum of four billion down the drain.

[F430murci]

Here's a good reason to pat the NSA on the back for a job well done:

Brazil Chooses Saab Jet Deal For Air Force After NSA Spying Sours Boeing Bid

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/brazil-saab-jet-deal_n_4469386.html?utm_hp_ref=world

That's a minimum of four billion down the drain.

Must be tiring carrying that big chip on your shoulder. It happens. Boeing will be okay.

-----

The Brazilian defense minister, Celso Amorim, told reporters at a news conference in Brasilia that Saab was selected over Boeing because it had agreed to share more technology with contractors and because many parts for the new jet, the Gripen NG, would be made in Brazil.

The decision took into account performance, the effective transfer of technology and costs, not only of acquisition, but also of maintenance, Mr. Amorim said in a statement. He was accompanied by Gen. Juniti Saito, the Brazilian air forces chief of staff. The decision was based on these three factors.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/business/international/brazil-snubs-boeing-in-jet-deal.html

-----

Richard L. Aboulafia, an aviation analyst at Teal Group in Fairfax, Va., said that while Brazils disenchantment over the N.S.A.s spying could have played a role in the decision, costs were probably a bigger factor.

Youre talking about a military service that doesnt need a heavyweight front-line fighter and has suffered a budget squeeze and hasnt been able to fly the planes that it owns, he said.

He added that a basic version of the Saab jet might cost about $45 million, compared with $55 million for Boeings basic F/A-18 Super Hornet.

And the Gripens fuel costs would be half of that for the Boeing plane. Both jets use the same engine, but the Super Hornet has two engines and the Gripen one.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/business/international/brazil-snubs-boeing-in-jet-deal.html

Edited December 20, 2013 by F430murci

[F430murci]

The sad part is the people of the US are not necessarily our government. I am sure there are many good people at Boeing that could potentially be impacted by loss of a large project, although I would imagine costs and operational costs played a larger role given Brazil's needs. Nevertheless, why revel in another's suffering who gave done no harm to you?

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed.

[manarak]

Your not listening and your not reading. You cite the 1949 constitution written in German, that has subsequently been amended, and make a cursory statements without any authority or understanding how Constitutions work

(1) As I said above, the German Constitution would only be applicable to actions of the German government or any entity acting under the color of state (German law). See (German Const., Art. 1) ("The following basic rights bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly enforceable law"). There is no mention or reference of foreign sovereignties in the operational clause contained in Article 1. Just as Germany is not bound by the terms of the US Constitution, the US government is not bound by the German Constitution. The same is true for State Constitutions (California is not bound by the terms of the Florida Constitution and the inverse is true); and

(2) As noted above which you also ignored . . . ("In 1955, just a decade after the end of World War II, the young Federal Republic of Germany received the status of a sovereign state through the General Treaty with the US, the UK and France. At the same time, the German government also granted the Allied forces various special rights. According to the findings of historian Josef Foschepoth, the government of the day allowed extensive secret service operations on German territory and agreed to the surveillance of the West German postal and telecommunications services. "These arrangements are still valid today and binding for every successive German government," Foschepoth told DW in an interview.")

Under (2), Germany provided the US, UK and France with sovereign rights for surveillance of German telecommunication services and those "arrangements are still valid and binding" today.

(1) to clarify your example, a citizen of Florida would not be allowed to go to California to commit acts breaking California Law (derived from California's Constitution). That's the point.

(2) I didn't know about these secret protocols. I now read a bit about them, and it really appears that these protocols authorize the NSA to spy on German territory. But these protocols were an executive decision that was re-endorsed by every successive government and was never challenged at the constitutional court. So we have another case of a law allowing something that the constitution theoretically bans.

Article 10 of the German constitution has been amended to allow for spying under certain provisions - I doubt these provisions were met in the case of Merkel's phone.

In any case, international treaties can be made valid under German Law by an "application order" by parliament, which no doubt has been the case for the NATO treaties. So these treaties are valid under German Law - but they do not supercede existing other laws, because they receive the rank of normal national laws and conflict with other laws. Since the constitution ranks higher, the proper application of these laws could be challenged at the constitutional court.

The chances of this happening are of course very slim.

Edited December 20, 2013 by manarak

[lomatopo]

Officials’ defenses of NSA phone program may be unraveling

From the moment the government’s massive database of citizens’ call records was exposed this year, U.S. officials have clung to two main lines of defense: The secret surveillance program was constitutional and critical to keeping the nation safe. But six months into the controversy triggered by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the viability of those claims is no longer clear.

In a three-day span, those rationales were upended by a federal judge who declared that the program was probably unconstitutional and the release of a report by a White House panel utterly unconvinced that stockpiling such data had played any meaningful role in preventing terrorist attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/officials-defenses-of-nsa-phone-program-may-be-unraveling/2013/12/19/6927d8a2-68d3-11e3-ae56-22de072140a2_story.html

N.S.A. Dragnet Included Allies, Aid Groups and Business Elite

Secret documents reveal more than 1,000 targets of American and British surveillance in recent years, including the office of an Israeli prime minister, heads of international aid organizations, foreign energy companies and a European Union official involved in antitrust battles with American technology businesses.

While the names of some political and diplomatic leaders have previously emerged as targets, the newly disclosed intelligence documents provide a much fuller portrait of the spies’ sweeping interests in more than 60 countries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/world/nsa-dragnet-included-allies-aid-groups-and-business-elite.html?_r=0

Exclusive: Secret contract tied NSA and security industry pioneer

(Reuters) - As a key part of a campaign to embed encryption software that it could crack into widely used computer products, the U.S. National Security Agency arranged a secret $10 million contract with RSA, one of the most influential firms in the computer security industry, Reuters has learned.

Documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden show that the NSA created and promulgated a flawed formula for generating random numbers to create a "back door" in encryption products, the New York Times reported in September. Reuters later reported that RSA became the most important distributor of that formula by rolling it into a software tool called Bsafe that is used to enhance security in personal computers and many other products.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/21/us-usa-security-rsa-idUSBRE9BJ1C220131221

[Basil B]

Here's a good reason to pat the NSA on the back for a job well done:

Brazil Chooses Saab Jet Deal For Air Force After NSA Spying Sours Boeing Bid

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/18/brazil-saab-jet-deal_n_4469386.html?utm_hp_ref=world

That's a minimum of four billion down the drain.

I just wonder how long before it is reveled that the NSA was spying on behalf of some of the USA biggest companies passing on commercial information giving the likes of Boeing an unfair advantage in tendering for contracts, etc?

National Security Spying Agency

Edited December 21, 2013 by Basil B

[lomatopo]

I just wonder how long before it is reveled that the NSA was spying on behalf of some of the USA biggest companies passing on commercial information giving the likes of Boeing an unfair advantage in tendering for contracts, etc?

Not long...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/21/world/nsa-dragnet-included-allies-aid-groups-and-business-elite.html?_r=1&

Also appearing on the surveillance lists is Joaquín Almunia, vice president of the European Commission, which, among other powers, has oversight of antitrust issues in Europe. The commission has broad authority over local and foreign companies, and it has punished a number of American companies, including Microsoft and Intel, with heavy fines for hampering fair competition. The reports say that spies intercepted Mr. Almunia’s communications in 2008 and 2009.

In a statement, the N.S.A. denied that it had ever carried out espionage to benefit American businesses.

“We do not use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of — or give intelligence we collect to — U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line,” said Vanee Vines, an N.S.A. spokeswoman.

But she added that some economic spying was justified by national security needs. “The intelligence community’s efforts to understand economic systems and policies, and monitor anomalous economic activities, are critical to providing policy makers with the information they need to make informed decisions that are in the best interest of our national security,” Ms. Vines said.

" the N.S.A. denied that it had ever carried out espionage to benefit American businesses."

Which in NSA-speak means they did it for other reasons.

[chuckd]

Perhaps this has something to do with the enhanced searches being performed by the NSA.

Maxine Waters Confirms "Big Brother" Database 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIA1lQBqH1s

[PeterSmiles]

Edward Snowden to deliver UK's 'alternative' Christmas address

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/24/world/uk-snowden-alternative-christmas-message/

[Scott]

Topic continues here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/691851-snowden-warns-future-generations-will-have-no-concept-of-privacy/

//Closed//