Okay, maybe not a divorce yet, but a trial separation.
QuoteBrazil was not bluffing last year, when it said that it wanted to disconnect from the United States-controlled internet due to the NSA's obscenely invasive surveillance tactics. The country is about to stretch a cable from the northern city of Fortaleza all the way to Portugal, and they've vowed not to use a single U.S. vendor to do it.
At first glance, Brazil's plan to disconnect from the U.S. internet just seemed silly. The country was not happy when news emerged that the NSA's tentacles stretched all the way down to Brazil. And the country was especially not happy when news emerged that the NSA had been spying on the Brazilian government's email for years. But really, what are you gonna do?
Brazil made a bunch of bold promises, ranging in severity from forcing companies like Facebook and Google to move their servers inside Brazilian borders, to building a new all-Brazilian email system—which they've already done. But the first actionable opportunity the country was presented with is this transatlantic cable, which had been in the works since 2012 but is only just now seeing construction begin. And with news that the cable plan will not include American vendors, it looks like Brazil is serious; it's investing $185 million on the cable project alone. And not a penny of that sum will go to an American company.
The implications of Brazil distancing itself from the US internet are huge. It's not necessarily a big deal politically, but the economic consequences could be tremendously destructive. Brazil has the seventh largest economy in the world, and it continues to grow. So when Brazil finally does divorce Uncle Sam—assuming things continue at this rate—a huge number of contracts between American companies and Brazil will simply disappear. On the whole, researchers estimate that the United States could lose about $35 billion due to security fears. That's a lot of money.
We knew there would be backlash to the Snowden leaks, but it's not just political; Edward Snowden cost the United States a lot of money, even if that wasn't his plan. Yet here we are, waving goodbye to information technology revenues from one of the world's largest countries. Still, that's a small price to pay for knowing just how little privacy we've had all along.
http://gizmodo.com/brazils-keeping-its-promise-to-disconnect-from-the-u-s-1652771021?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow
Good, too many goddamned Brazilians with their pidgin Portuguese on the Playstation network as it is. Good luck with MangoNet.
And they will still get spied on.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:54:45 PM
Good, too many goddamned Brazilians with their pidgin Portuguese on the Playstation network as it is. Good luck with MangoNet.
That was my first thouht too. :D
A cable that only connects Portugal and Brazil is not even a trial separation.
I've not heard of this before. I've only heard of the potential trouble with Russia's moaning about the data of Russian citizens only being on Russian servers (its a good time to invest in the hosting business in Russia).
The separate email system in particular is interesting.
But still, good news, lets hope the internet decentralises even more.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 01:10:49 PM
A cable that only connects Portugal and Brazil is not even a trial separation.
It depends on how big the pipe is and if they plan on cutting their other connections.
If they were planning on going full Pyongyang I think they would have mentioned it.
How is this going to work? Won't Brazillians want the same access to content they had before? Only, now everything will be routed through Portugal? :hmm: Not sure what practical impact this will have, other than creating a massive data choke-point: if anything fucks with/taps into that cable, all of Brazil is screwed.
Strikes me that, if they would otherwise have used (presumably superior) US vendors if the projects were put to competitive tender, the impact will be two-way - that is, it will cost the Brazilians as well as the Americans.
How exactly laying a comm cable is "disconnecting from the US"? We have plenty of comm cables in Europe that don't involve the US, you know.
Quote from: celedhring on October 30, 2014, 01:54:02 PM
How exactly laying a comm cable is "disconnecting from the US"? We have plenty of comm cables in Europe that don't involve the US, you know.
Maybe all Brazilian data previously went via the US?
But yes, saying it is divorcing the internet is a huge leap.
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 01:46:34 PM
Strikes me that, if they would otherwise have used (presumably superior) US vendors if the projects were put to competitive tender, the impact will be two-way - that is, it will cost the Brazilians as well as the Americans.
that's the problem with thinking that stories like these are real news; they ignore little things like TANSTAAFL, and so pretend that the loss is all on one side. I dare say that the Brazilian people lose a lot more than American companies when their government ignores the lowest bidder in favor of the best-politically-connected one, no matter how much it dresses it up as Yanqui-bashing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 01:42:51 PM
If they were planning on going full Pyongyang I think they would have mentioned it.
Cutting other connections isn't going full Pyongyang, they'd still be connected. It would just force all the Brazilian traffic through this new line.
Quote from: frunk on October 30, 2014, 02:14:09 PM
Cutting other connections isn't going full Pyongyang, they'd still be connected. It would just force all the Brazilian traffic through this new line.
Then what's the point? Presumably they can't reach an Amazon or Google server through this new line alone.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: frunk on October 30, 2014, 02:14:09 PM
Cutting other connections isn't going full Pyongyang, they'd still be connected. It would just force all the Brazilian traffic through this new line.
Then what's the point? Presumably they can't reach an Amazon or Google server through this new line alone.
As I understand it, the NSA arranged to have backdoors put in on undersea fiber optic cables which allowed them to have access to all that data.
The point of installing their own cable, and cutting out any and all American companies, is to remove that ability.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: frunk on October 30, 2014, 02:14:09 PM
Cutting other connections isn't going full Pyongyang, they'd still be connected. It would just force all the Brazilian traffic through this new line.
Then what's the point? Presumably they can't reach an Amazon or Google server through this new line alone.
I'm wondering that myself.
It would not surprise me if the "point" turned out to be 'well-connected bidders on planned Brazillian cable work find politically acceptable way to exclude cheaper and better American competitors from bidding against them, by tapping into current controversy'.
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 02:31:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: frunk on October 30, 2014, 02:14:09 PM
Cutting other connections isn't going full Pyongyang, they'd still be connected. It would just force all the Brazilian traffic through this new line.
Then what's the point? Presumably they can't reach an Amazon or Google server through this new line alone.
I'm wondering that myself.
It would not surprise me if the "point" turned out to be 'well-connected bidders on planned Brazillian cable work find politically acceptable way to exclude cheaper and better American competitors from bidding against them, by tapping into current controversy'.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/07/nsa-brazilians-globo-spying
What do non-US companies have super NSA avoiding powers?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
Then what's the point? Presumably they can't reach an Amazon or Google server through this new line alone.
If the line is hooked into the European network through Portugal, why not?
Theoretically this could stop data taps on the lines, which are one of the ways the NSA is spying on the world. In practice it isn't terribly difficult for them to apply an after install snooper (or just as likely bribe a contractor to gain access at some point). So, yeah, this is probably pretty dumb except as a way of increasing capacity/reliability of the Brazilian international connection.
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 02:31:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: frunk on October 30, 2014, 02:14:09 PM
Cutting other connections isn't going full Pyongyang, they'd still be connected. It would just force all the Brazilian traffic through this new line.
Then what's the point? Presumably they can't reach an Amazon or Google server through this new line alone.
I'm wondering that myself.
It would not surprise me if the "point" turned out to be 'well-connected bidders on planned Brazillian cable work find politically acceptable way to exclude cheaper and better American competitors from bidding against them, by tapping into current controversy'.
Or "American competitors blame loss of contract to better and cheaper non-US companies on current controversy".
Quote from: celedhring on October 30, 2014, 01:54:02 PM
How exactly laying a comm cable is "disconnecting from the US"? We have plenty of comm cables in Europe that don't involve the US, you know.
And how long has this been going on?? :angry:
Quote from: celedhring on October 30, 2014, 02:37:53 PM
Or "American competitors blame loss of contract to better and cheaper non-US companies on current controversy".
Well, fair enough, only this seems (if the OP article is to be accepted) to be a pre-emptive policy on the part of Brazil.
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 02:40:41 PM
Quote from: celedhring on October 30, 2014, 02:37:53 PM
Or "American competitors blame loss of contract to better and cheaper non-US companies on current controversy".
Well, fair enough, only this seems (if the OP article is to be accepted) to be a pre-emptive policy on the part of Brazil.
Am I on your ignore list Malthus?
I gave you a link. There's nothing pre-emptive here. NSA has been snooping on Brazillian internet traffic.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 02:34:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 02:31:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: frunk on October 30, 2014, 02:14:09 PM
Cutting other connections isn't going full Pyongyang, they'd still be connected. It would just force all the Brazilian traffic through this new line.
Then what's the point? Presumably they can't reach an Amazon or Google server through this new line alone.
I'm wondering that myself.
It would not surprise me if the "point" turned out to be 'well-connected bidders on planned Brazillian cable work find politically acceptable way to exclude cheaper and better American competitors from bidding against them, by tapping into current controversy'.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/07/nsa-brazilians-globo-spying
The US spies on everyone, and not using cable companies based in the US isn't I think going to stop them - they could just as easily suborn whoever is hired to do the installing, for one; or use another method, for another.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 02:42:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 02:40:41 PM
Quote from: celedhring on October 30, 2014, 02:37:53 PM
Or "American competitors blame loss of contract to better and cheaper non-US companies on current controversy".
Well, fair enough, only this seems (if the OP article is to be accepted) to be a pre-emptive policy on the part of Brazil.
Am I on your ignore list Malthus?
Of course not! :console:
QuoteI gave you a link. There's nothing pre-emptive here. NSA has been snooping on Brazillian internet traffic.
You misunderstand what I mean be "pre-emptive". In context, what I meant was that the Brazilians were putting the exclusion policy in place - so it dosen't make much sense to argue that US cable companies will simply use this as an excuse for losing competitively; any actual competition is being "pre-empted" by the policy.
Quote
The point of installing their own cable, and cutting out any and all American companies, is to remove that ability.
I have a hard time buying that all American Companies are NSA tools and zero foreign companies are but hey if it works good on them. Maybe I will move to Brazil.
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 02:34:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 02:31:44 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 02:22:51 PM
Quote from: frunk on October 30, 2014, 02:14:09 PM
Cutting other connections isn't going full Pyongyang, they'd still be connected. It would just force all the Brazilian traffic through this new line.
Then what's the point? Presumably they can't reach an Amazon or Google server through this new line alone.
I'm wondering that myself.
It would not surprise me if the "point" turned out to be 'well-connected bidders on planned Brazillian cable work find politically acceptable way to exclude cheaper and better American competitors from bidding against them, by tapping into current controversy'.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/07/nsa-brazilians-globo-spying
The US spies on everyone, and not using cable companies based in the US isn't I think going to stop them - they could just as easily suborn whoever is hired to do the installing, for one; or use another method, for another.
The most likely situation here is some combination of the Brazilian government being foolish and the Brazilian government playing to foolish voters.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 02:34:49 PM
What do non-US companies have super NSA avoiding powers?
They are possibly less susceptible to putting in backdoors for the NSA?
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 02:54:06 PM
I have a hard time buying that all American Companies are NSA tools and zero foreign companies are but hey if it works good on them. Maybe I will move to Brazil.
My guess is that it's less about moving from 100% vulnerability to US spying to 0%, but more about signalling to both domestic and international audiences that Brazil is still pissed off about the spying and they're going to be cranky about it for a while.
What effect it actually has is probably beyond our ken to accurately estimate.
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 02:31:44 PM
It would not surprise me if the "point" turned out to be 'well-connected bidders on planned Brazillian cable work find politically acceptable way to exclude cheaper and better American competitors from bidding against them, by tapping into current controversy'.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
See let's say as a country you want to prevent contractors from surreptitiously cooperating with foreign Intel agencies. What you do is pass laws that require contractors to disclose any such arrangements and applies severe criminal and civil penalties for violations. If you are really paranoid, you can give it extra teeth by requiring foreign contractors for certain size/type contracts to establish domestic subs with required levels of assets and staff.
Now let's say as a country you want to give domestic contractors a leg up on the competition. Then you do something like this.
Okay that's a fairly convincing argument.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:54:45 PM
Good, too many goddamned Brazilians with their pidgin Portuguese on the Playstation network as it is. Good luck with MangoNet.
No shit, it will be a better place without all those BRs.
huehuehue
Hey Brasil, how about doing something about crushing poverty and extrajudicial killings of children first, and then worrying about personal data protection?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
See let's say as a country you want to prevent contractors from surreptitiously cooperating with foreign Intel agencies. What you do is pass laws that require contractors to disclose any such arrangements and applies severe criminal and civil penalties for violations. If you are really paranoid, you can give it extra teeth by requiring foreign contractors for certain size/type contracts to establish domestic subs with required levels of assets and staff.
Now let's say as a country you want to give domestic contractors a leg up on the competition. Then you do something like this.
Lets say Brazil had such laws in place. And then the Snowden disclosure hits.
We don't actually even know which US companies were involved in tapping the fibre cables. We just know that it happened.
Who exactly would Brazil prosecute? Aren't any and all suspects living in the US? Is the US going to co-operate with extradition requests? I know there's an independent judiciary, but the alleged Brazillian criminal actyivity was all done at the request of the US government.
Now that being said, I made the mistake of accepting a couple of Facebook friend requests from some of my brothers in-laws, and now my inbox is full of portuguese election posts... :mad:
Quote from: Tyr on October 30, 2014, 01:39:06 PM
I've not heard of this before. I've only heard of the potential trouble with Russia's moaning about the data of Russian citizens only being on Russian servers (its a good time to invest in the hosting business in Russia).
The separate email system in particular is interesting.
But still, good news, lets hope the internet decentralises even more.
They will still be on the Internet. They will still be spied upon.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2014, 03:53:16 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 02:31:44 PM
It would not surprise me if the "point" turned out to be 'well-connected bidders on planned Brazillian cable work find politically acceptable way to exclude cheaper and better American competitors from bidding against them, by tapping into current controversy'.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!
Yeah.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 04:24:18 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
See let's say as a country you want to prevent contractors from surreptitiously cooperating with foreign Intel agencies. What you do is pass laws that require contractors to disclose any such arrangements and applies severe criminal and civil penalties for violations. If you are really paranoid, you can give it extra teeth by requiring foreign contractors for certain size/type contracts to establish domestic subs with required levels of assets and staff.
Now let's say as a country you want to give domestic contractors a leg up on the competition. Then you do something like this.
Lets say Brazil had such laws in place. And then the Snowden disclosure hits.
We don't actually even know which US companies were involved in tapping the fibre cables. We just know that it happened.
Who exactly would Brazil prosecute? Aren't any and all suspects living in the US? Is the US going to co-operate with extradition requests? I know there's an independent judiciary, but the alleged Brazillian criminal actyivity was all done at the request of the US government.
The idea is to hammer the company with big fines, not necessarily put execs into prision cells.
If they are involved in Brazillian enterprises, they have assets in Brazil; even if the US won't cooperate with recognition and enforcement of Brazillian judgments, those assets - being actually physically present in Brazil - are available for seizure.
As to which company - well, presumably it will not be *that* difficult to figure out, after a big leak. There can't be a plethora of companies involved.
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 04:31:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 04:24:18 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
See let's say as a country you want to prevent contractors from surreptitiously cooperating with foreign Intel agencies. What you do is pass laws that require contractors to disclose any such arrangements and applies severe criminal and civil penalties for violations. If you are really paranoid, you can give it extra teeth by requiring foreign contractors for certain size/type contracts to establish domestic subs with required levels of assets and staff.
Now let's say as a country you want to give domestic contractors a leg up on the competition. Then you do something like this.
Lets say Brazil had such laws in place. And then the Snowden disclosure hits.
We don't actually even know which US companies were involved in tapping the fibre cables. We just know that it happened.
Who exactly would Brazil prosecute? Aren't any and all suspects living in the US? Is the US going to co-operate with extradition requests? I know there's an independent judiciary, but the alleged Brazillian criminal actyivity was all done at the request of the US government.
The idea is to hammer the company with big fines, not necessarily put execs into prision cells.
If they are involved in Brazillian enterprises, they have assets in Brazil; even if the US won't cooperate with recognition and enforcement of Brazillian judgments, those assets - being actually physically present in Brazil - are available for seizure.
As to which company - well, presumably it will not be *that* difficult to figure out, after a big leak. There can't be a plethora of companies involved.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. "Figuring it out" isn't going to be good enough. Besides what are you going to do - subpoena Snowden to give evidence?
Look criminal law is an awesome thing :menace: but it's not the be all and end all. We have laws against theft and B&E. If someone breaks into your house and steals your stuff we'll probably catch him. But I'd still recommend locking your doors and putting in a security system so your stuff doesn't get stolen in the first place.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 04:34:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 04:31:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 04:24:18 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2014, 04:03:56 PM
See let's say as a country you want to prevent contractors from surreptitiously cooperating with foreign Intel agencies. What you do is pass laws that require contractors to disclose any such arrangements and applies severe criminal and civil penalties for violations. If you are really paranoid, you can give it extra teeth by requiring foreign contractors for certain size/type contracts to establish domestic subs with required levels of assets and staff.
Now let's say as a country you want to give domestic contractors a leg up on the competition. Then you do something like this.
Lets say Brazil had such laws in place. And then the Snowden disclosure hits.
We don't actually even know which US companies were involved in tapping the fibre cables. We just know that it happened.
Who exactly would Brazil prosecute? Aren't any and all suspects living in the US? Is the US going to co-operate with extradition requests? I know there's an independent judiciary, but the alleged Brazillian criminal actyivity was all done at the request of the US government.
The idea is to hammer the company with big fines, not necessarily put execs into prision cells.
If they are involved in Brazillian enterprises, they have assets in Brazil; even if the US won't cooperate with recognition and enforcement of Brazillian judgments, those assets - being actually physically present in Brazil - are available for seizure.
As to which company - well, presumably it will not be *that* difficult to figure out, after a big leak. There can't be a plethora of companies involved.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard. "Figuring it out" isn't going to be good enough. Besides what are you going to do - subpoena Snowden to give evidence?
Look criminal law is an awesome thing :menace: but it's not the be all and end all. We have laws against theft and B&E. If someone breaks into your house and steals your stuff we'll probably catch him. But I'd still recommend locking your doors and putting in a security system so your stuff doesn't get stolen in the first place.
This sort of law is reasonably common though - look at the US
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
Not sure that simply not using US firms is good "security". That's sort of like holding that you were once robbed by a Jamacan employee, so you won't hire any more Jamacans, thus guaranteeing you will not be robbed in future. Doesn't that just mean that the next time you will be robbed it will be by a non-Jamacan employee?
Quote from: Malthus on October 30, 2014, 04:40:30 PM
This sort of law is reasonably common though - look at the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
From which there has sprung a vast compliance industry, and a huge infrastructure of in house legal and compliance resources.
That's what makes this kind of amusing - if US-based multinats can be relied on for something comparatively it is having in place an internal compliance culture and resource allocation that actually focuses on complying with domestic regs.
That's not saying it is 100% bulletproof. But is opting for say a Chinese or Russian competitor really a lot safer?
For that matter if the NSA is really as powerful as the Snwodenites claim, what stops it from bribing a coercing a domestic Brazilian contractor to carry out its nefarious deeds?
Stop giving out our spying secrets there Minsky.
That is DG's job.
Quote from: lustindarkness on October 30, 2014, 01:07:55 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 30, 2014, 12:54:45 PM
Good, too many goddamned Brazilians with their pidgin Portuguese on the Playstation network as it is. Good luck with MangoNet.
That was my first thouht too. :D
You know it's bad when custom BF4 servers say "NO TKING NO BASERAPING NO BRAZILIANS"
Lolz
Crazy thought here: how about not breaking a gazillions laws, buttfucking everyone s privacy and generally pissing off everybody including your closest allies?
You can shit on the Brazilians and mock all you want but why wouldnt there be a response to clear acts of aggression like the NSAs/US gov?
Quote from: Zoupa on October 30, 2014, 06:35:01 PM
Crazy thought here: how about not breaking a gazillions laws, buttfucking everyone s privacy and generally pissing off everybody including your closest allies?
You can shit on the Brazilians and mock all you want but why wouldnt there be a response to clear acts of aggression like the NSAs/US gov?
That might be unamerican.
Brazilian porn is overrated.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 30, 2014, 06:35:01 PM
Crazy thought here: how about not breaking a gazillions laws, buttfucking everyone s privacy and generally pissing off everybody including your closest allies?
Excellent point but this thread is not about the DGSE.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 30, 2014, 06:35:01 PM
Crazy thought here: how about not breaking a gazillions laws, buttfucking everyone s privacy and generally pissing off everybody including your closest allies?
You can shit on the Brazilians and mock all you want but why wouldnt there be a response to clear acts of aggression like the NSAs/US gov?
If you have any advice on what I can do about it let me know.
I did not shit or mock the Brazilians I was curious if this plan was feasible.
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 06:37:23 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 30, 2014, 06:35:01 PM
Crazy thought here: how about not breaking a gazillions laws, buttfucking everyone s privacy and generally pissing off everybody including your closest allies?
You can shit on the Brazilians and mock all you want but why wouldnt there be a response to clear acts of aggression like the NSAs/US gov?
That might be unamerican.
Americans exposed this you know.
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 06:49:41 PM
Americans exposed this you know.
Yeah, I'm aware. I have the impression that the Languish-Americans aggregate view of that exposure is pretty damn unfavourable though.
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 06:52:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 06:49:41 PM
Americans exposed this you know.
Yeah, I'm aware. I have the impression that the Languish-Americans aggregate view of that exposure is pretty damn unfavourable though.
Much to my disgust.
Lighten up Francis
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 06:53:52 PM
Much to my disgust.
Understandable. That's what I was commenting on, though.
I'm still waiting for definitive word on what exactly it is we're doing.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 07:12:16 PM
I'm still waiting for definitive word on what exactly it is we're doing.
What do you mean?
What is unclear? I'd prefer not to explain the post word by word.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 07:19:25 PM
What is unclear? I'd prefer not to explain the post word by word.
Your meaning is unclear.
"The definitive word" - what does that mean?
Conclusively. I'd like to know with a high degree of certainty.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 08:14:30 PM
Conclusively. I'd like to know with a high degree of certainty.
Well, I expect that spying on the emails and private conversations of top level government officials is one of them, but for conclusive word on what you supposedly did to trigger this response you'll probably have to ask the Brazilian government.
Spying on low level government officials is a poor use of assets. Nobody cares what the guy who stamps boat licenses thinks.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 30, 2014, 06:35:01 PM
Crazy thought here: how about not breaking a gazillions laws, buttfucking everyone s privacy and generally pissing off everybody including your closest allies?
You can shit on the Brazilians and mock all you want but why wouldnt there be a response to clear acts of aggression like the NSAs/US gov?
Because it is Brazil.
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 08:25:47 PM
Well, I expect that spying on the emails and private conversations of top level government officials is one of them, but for conclusive word on what you supposedly did to trigger this response you'll probably have to ask the Brazilian government.
I'm not just talking about Brazil.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 30, 2014, 06:46:01 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on October 30, 2014, 06:35:01 PM
Crazy thought here: how about not breaking a gazillions laws, buttfucking everyone s privacy and generally pissing off everybody including your closest allies?
Excellent point but this thread is not about the DGSE.
So clever!
Thank you for this garbonesque contribution.
Hey! :angry:
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 06:53:52 PM
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 06:52:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 06:49:41 PM
Americans exposed this you know.
Yeah, I'm aware. I have the impression that the Languish-Americans aggregate view of that exposure is pretty damn unfavourable though.
Much to my disgust.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: garbon on October 30, 2014, 09:34:47 PM
:rolleyes:
And thus why I do not really see the point of discussing it much around here.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 30, 2014, 07:12:16 PM
I'm still waiting for definitive word on what exactly it is we're doing.
Yi, there's been a lot of ink (both digital and real) spilled on this topic. How is it you're unaware of this stuff?
Look - I'm generally supportive of what western security agencies are doing, but it's not out of ignorance of what they're doing, and I can understand why some countries (like Brazil) are rather upset about it.
So really (and this isn't directed specifically at Yi) I think there's a lot more that can be discussed on the topic other than going "LULZ it's Brazil, they must just be stupid or corrupt".
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 06:52:32 PM
Yeah, I'm aware. I have the impression that the Languish-Americans aggregate view of that exposure is pretty damn unfavourable though.
My opinion is that although there were some revelations made by the exposure, for the most part the domestic spying isn't surprising to anyone who paid attention to the Patriot Act (the fake outrage from the politicians over it is particularly stupid) and the foreign spying on allies has been going since WW II. What is much more damaging is the fact that the leaker not only fled to the two most potentially dangerous countries, there's a decent possibility that the information leak has been driving the recent aggression of Russia.
If Snowden would have stayed in the US and revealed it here it would be a completely different story. A whistle blower who takes secret information and flees to his country's enemies is also a traitor.
Quote from: Barrister on October 30, 2014, 10:06:39 PM
Yi, there's been a lot of ink (both digital and real) spilled on this topic. How is it you're unaware of this stuff?
Of course I'm aware of it. It's that I'm having trouble sifting through the allegations.
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 06:52:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 30, 2014, 06:49:41 PM
Americans exposed this you know.
Yeah, I'm aware. I have the impression that the Languish-Americans aggregate view of that exposure is pretty damn unfavourable though.
There's exposure and then there is how the exposure is done.
The latter is concerning to me and yet it doesn't seem to bother some, thus leading to this strange alliance between Western civil libertarians and a newly-minted pet of Putin's Russia.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2014, 09:04:53 AM
thus leading to this strange alliance between Western civil libertarians and a newly-minted pet of Putin's Russia.
There is no such alliance. The ones in Russia are super paranoid about the Russians spying on them.
Quote from: Zoupa on October 30, 2014, 08:55:57 PM
So clever!
Thank you for this garbonesque contribution.
Think of it as a public service announcement for the preservation of glass houses.
Quote from: frunk on October 31, 2014, 02:42:17 AM
Quote from: Jacob on October 30, 2014, 06:52:32 PM
Yeah, I'm aware. I have the impression that the Languish-Americans aggregate view of that exposure is pretty damn unfavourable though.
My opinion is that although there were some revelations made by the exposure, for the most part the domestic spying isn't surprising to anyone who paid attention to the Patriot Act (the fake outrage from the politicians over it is particularly stupid) and the foreign spying on allies has been going since WW II. What is much more damaging is the fact that the leaker not only fled to the two most potentially dangerous countries, there's a decent possibility that the information leak has been driving the recent aggression of Russia.
If Snowden would have stayed in the US and revealed it here it would be a completely different story. A whistle blower who takes secret information and flees to his country's enemies is also a traitor.
I think the connection between Snowden and the Ukraine aggression is strectching it, but otherwise agree.
Ah Minsky I remember back when GWB was President and you were on my side. At least something good will come from a Republican victory in 2016.
Quote from: Valmy on October 31, 2014, 09:20:23 AM
Ah Minsky I remember back when GWB was President and you were on my side. At least something good will come from a Republican victory in 2016.
The spy stuff didn't bother me so much. It was typical GWB admin stuff of cutting corners on the rules, but there were worse abuses. Like torture.
I do think the FISA process is broken and should be reformed, and yet it seems the Snowden affair, while shining light on the NSA as an agency, has not generated much momentum.
I wish Snowden's toothpaste would explode.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 31, 2014, 09:31:36 AM
I wish Snowden's toothpaste would explode.
they've got toothpaste in Russia now?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 31, 2014, 09:08:07 AM
I think the connection between Snowden and the Ukraine aggression is strectching it, but otherwise agree.
It's pure speculation on my part, there's no definitive evidence on something like this (not that there would be), but it seems like Putin's pushing much harder politically and militarily than it would be prudent to do. NATO was doing a nice job of gradually becoming irrelevant, the US was focusing on other areas. Why call attention now instead of waiting a few years when you've fully snuffed out free speech and everybody is that much more distracted? Something as time sensitive as a major intelligence leak like this could be a factor (even if it isn't the only reason).
Russia reacted to events in Ukraine when the country threatened to spun off their sphere of influence; linking Snowden's leak to it seems a bit paranoid imho. It wasn't a scenario of their choosing.
Quote from: celedhring on November 01, 2014, 06:26:16 AM
Russia reacted to events in Ukraine when the country threatened to spun off their sphere of influence; linking Snowden's leak to it seems a bit paranoid imho. It wasn't a scenario of their choosing.
It's not so much that they reacted, it's how they've reacted. At several points they could have deescalated, but chose to keep on pushing it. After grabbing Crimea (which certainly proved that they were willing to push their sphere of influence) the aggression in eastern Ukraine wasn't really "reacting to events". They cultivated a conflict with Ukraine even after they took a chunk (probably the most important chunk from the Russian perspective) out of it, in the process antagonizing every neighbor with a Russian minority. That's well beyond a conservative reaction, and was definitely the scenario they chose.
All of this it's perfectly explainable from a domestic front perspective without needing some secret intel. They were never going to deescalate over Ukraine. And they are still worse off than if their original plan (integrating Ukraine into their economic union on a path of turning it into another Belarus) had worked out.
I didn't say that it needed it, just that it would be another reason why Putin is being more aggressive than he might otherwise be.