9 ms·

I don't remember so much excitement and fury when it became known that the NSA was spying on us common folk. "Espionnage? Against le prolétariat? Who gives une

by socket0 11y ago

I don't remember so much excitement and fury when it became known that the NSA was spying on us common folk. "Espionnage? Against le prolétariat? Who gives une merde?" But suddenly it turns out that the Americans were not only spying on the unwashed masses, but also our unwashed elite, and it's midnight meetings at the Elysée and general outrage all round.

peteri 11y ago
To be honest it really should be part of the NSA remit to spy on as many world leaders as possible (friend or foe) I expect GCHQ & whatever the French equivalent is to be doing exactly the same. I'd be very surprised if GCHQ weren't at least trying to spy on the US president and NSA weren't doing the same to the UK prime minister whenever possible. I'd guess security committee members would also be spied upon as well. I don't know how far they would go though in terms of breaking and entering to plant bugs etc but they've only got to make look it's a hostile powers work to get away with it. It's probably only the difficulty of the denials if they get caught that would affect the likelihood of five eyes members spying on each other. Given the French supposedly bugged Concorde it's seems a bit rich of them to complain.
- pluma 11y ago
  Although I disagree about spying on your allies at this kind of level, I did find it more outrage-worthy that the NSA was spying on the ordinary population than that they were bugging politicians and officials.
  - 9872 11y ago
    That's part and parcel of democracy. If you want to pretend that those politicians and officials are accountable to the people, then the people are a legitimate target for espionage, just like the king would be in a monarchy.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      Spying on citizens part and parcel of democracy? In what definition of democracy? >If you want to pretend that those politicians and officials are accountable to the people, then the people are a legitimate target for espionage, just like the king would be in a monarchy. First, if officials are accountable to the people, then the officials are legitimate target of espionage (or transparency). The people is the master, not the officials. Also, following your logic, are people also a legitimate target to terrorist attacks? It is after all a democracy, and in that sense they are responsible for the actions of their government, right? Or we could take the logical conclusion that what we have is far for a democracy...
      - 9872 11y ago
        >In what definition of democracy? In the definition that says the ultimate source of government power is the people. You seem to agree that this is a reasonable definition of democracy. This means that they are a legitimate target when it comes to espionage or terrorism, yes. If you don't like it, move to a dictatorship.
        coldtea 11y ago
        "Ultimate source" in parliamentary democracy just means that people vote (and once in several years). They don't influence the government in its day to day operations, nor they have any special power or significance for the various policies as individuals (outside of their function as a voting majority). So while this might make them a "legitimate" target for terrorism (in the sense: they voted for the government so they are ultimately responsible for its foreign policy etc) it doesn't make any sense at all regarding to espionage.
        9872 11y ago
        Of course it does. Although you did miss quite a bit, you at least realize that they vote in elections. You don't see the value in knowing and influencing election results?
  - cmdkeen 11y ago
    With the Five Eyes agreement there's pretty much a statement that France is outside the proper list of US allies. Any foreign security agency worth its salt would view that as a statement of intent that those outside the group are likely to be spied on by those inside. France has always had a divergent geopolitical strategy that sets it apart from the USA/UK alliance.
- justwannasing 11y ago
  I heard about such things decades ago and surprised anyone thinks it doesn't happen, even among friends. I am positive there are some spies sitting around a table somewhere saying to themselves, "Well, duh. And the sky is blue!"
- belorn 11y ago
  When the US president invites allies to the white-house, I would assume there to be quite of an outcry if guests were found to plant bugs on phones and network switches. I would expect headlines to include "human lives are put at risk" and "we expect invited allies to behave according to national treaties" in all of the large news papers. I would not expect to see a shrug and a "owell, thats what spying is for, right?".
  - kasey_junk 11y ago
    I would. Last week there were lots of stories that indicated that elements within the Chinese government were responsible for the OPM break in. That is, a foreign government allegedly hacked the US governments computers. The outrage was that the US let it happen, not that China tried it, because of course they are going to try that, because "thats what spying is for, right?"
    - mike_hearn 11y ago
      When reports of China hacking first came up in 2010 the White House objected to China strongly. I think they still do.
  - PJDK 11y ago
    I find comments like this really strange. Firstly, I wouldn't be surprised if things like this are quietly ignored for the sake of diplomacy. Secondly, this fairness isn't the objective here, it's being ahead. The perfect situation, as far as any reasonable spy agency is concerned, is we can spy on others but others can't spy on us.
    - bediger4000 11y ago
      What you write may be true: spy agencies feel like they can spy on everyone else, but everyone else can't spy on their country. Or something. But that position is illogical: according to USA laws NSA can spy on everyone else, according to UK laws, GCHQ can spy on everyone else, etc. And everyone points fingers at everyone else for "breaking the law". That position leads to immediate contradictions. Also, it's a "Well, they're right because they're OUR guys" sort of thing. Once you take the "OUR guys are RIGHT and YOUR guys are WRONG" position, there's no limits, just insufficient imagination to justify anything weird, dangerous, unethical and in a larger sense, immoral.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  > To be honest it really should be part of the NSA remit to spy on as many world leaders as possible (friend or foe) I expect GCHQ & whatever the French equivalent is to be doing exactly the same. This canard seems to be dragged out as a response to any abridgement of civil liberties (of course the FBI should have a agent in every environmental group! Of course Uber should be paying Lyft executives secretly for access to their trade secrets! Of course the NSA should listen in on every phone call! To do otherwise would be stupid and incompetent, and I don't want a stupid incompetent government/company/father.) What happens when you spy on everyone is that when you get caught, your diplomacy breaks down all over the world and you can't get anything done without direct threats. Also, no one lets anyone connected with you get close to anything important, because you are untrustworthy i.e. when you say you're going to send weapons inspectors, Iraq says: don't send any Americans, they only send spies. A lot of people who studied at American universities and return home get imprisoned and/or executed. Intelligence gathering is something you do because you want to gain leverage, not lose it. Instead, in the US, it's become another teat for huge incompetent contractors to suck the taxpayer dry.
  - kasey_junk 11y ago
    This seems an odd article to express this sentiment on. Whether or not the canard is used in other contexts to whitewash civil liberties abuses, in this specific example, it is being used correctly. If your spy agencies are not going to gather intelligence on foreign world leaders, who precisely should they be gathering intelligence on? If your answer is that there is no acceptable use of intelligence gathering facilities, that is fine, but that is a much more extreme belief than the one that says it is ok for the NSA to spy on the leaders of France.
- seren 11y ago
  What I find disturbing is the disconnect between the mission statement of the NSA, i.e. counter terrorism and military threats, and what is actually done. From https://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml https://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml >The Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations. This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties. I mean how spying on your ally head of state is preventing "terrorism" or supporting "military operation". Do you believe that there is a terrorist cell in l'Elysée ? This is disingenuous at best, but looks more like dishonest.
  - rtpg 11y ago
    Eh? It's right there in the mission statement: >intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes "Intelligence purposes" i.e. knowing as much as possible about ,say, trade negotiations.
    - seren 11y ago
      Read the following description of SIGINT : https://www.nsa.gov/sigint/faqs.shtml https://www.nsa.gov/sigint/faqs.shtml > 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. Again the focus is on "threat", "crime", "combat" and at the end the very vague "important national objectives". Don't you feel the strong cognitive dissonance between the missions that are put at the forefront and what it is really done ?
      - jonnybgood 11y ago
        National objective isn't vague at all. A national objective is an actual mandate by the president to the Sec. of Defense for some operation to occur. For example, a national objective would be "Degrade ISIS operations in Iraq." The Sec. would take this down the chain of the DoD through all the planning (which typically involves intelligence at this point) until finally seeing bombs dropping on ISIS in Iraq. Notice your quote says "many other national objectives". Everything listed prior are national objectives set by the president.
- eis 11y ago
  That's something I don't get. Why should intelligence agencies be expected/allowed to spy on allies and friendly nations? What does it tell you about that "friendship"?
  - adestefan 11y ago
    Ever play the game Diplomacy? Friendship means jack shit.
    - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
      Yeah, okay, foreign policy is not a board game.
      - adestefan 11y ago
        You're right. Board games have rules.
    - eis 11y ago
      Thanks for downvoting for disagreeing. But that's not it's supposed to work on HN. You must have a sad life when friendship means nothing. But each to their own.
      - Sharlin 11y ago
        You cannot equate friendship between individual humans and "friendship" between nation-states. They are very different concepts.
- tormeh 11y ago
  Yeah, I totally agree that leaders of state must expect to be spied upon - much as they must expect media attention. What I'm less enthusiastic about is the spying on people who are unlikely to ever have any strategic significance.
espadrine 11y ago
> Espionnage? Against le prolétariat? Who gives une merde? They always considered that ok, even as it was illegal. The NSA spying on its citizens was discussed in France, partially because unlike the USA which has a number of laws on counterterrorism and espionage, France is lacking — spy activities are a grey area of the law, which is another way to say they were illegal. I remember a Le Monde article to this effect, citing someone at the DGSE. After the events at Charlie Hebdo this year, the government felt confident enough to admit that those activities target French citizens and decided to make mass surveillance lawful, which caused a large backlash (notably on Twitter with the hashtag #PJLRenseignement). But every country spies on every country it interacts with. The difference is that, there, the government does not set the rules; diplomacy does. So they try to make it a big deal to get leverage for the next negotiation. Also, appearing like a protector of the people is a politician's dream.
- bad_user 11y ago
  You know, all over the world people die, the only reason the events at Charlie Hebdo were so significant even for us non-French folks is because this was an act of intimidation against freedom of expression. But it's pretty sad that these events have been used to push for making surveillance lawful. This is very like what happened with the Patriot Act after 9/11. The irony is, because of the ensuing erosion of freedom, those terrorists have won.
  - fwn 11y ago
    Either it was significant because it was an act of intimidation against the freedom of expression or it was because it happened in Europe and targeted Europeans. If you intimidate someones freedom of expression in parts of the Middle East or Africa, nobody is impressed in the slightest.
- yodsanklai 11y ago
  > decided to make mass surveillance lawful, which caused a large backlash That wasn't my impression. I don't know about twitter, but there were little discussion about this law on popular media (especially compared to other unimportant issues that are debated for months, and I'm not even talking about the gay marriage that led to huge protests). Sadly, most politicians supported this law, and so did most French people.
odiroot 11y ago
It's only a loud buzz. Holande will do nothing about it, just like Merkel.
- globuous 11y ago
  Honnestly, I wouldn't be surprised if both knew about it. They just have to appear to care and to do something about it ("hey Obama, this isn't cool, stop spying on us") because if they didn't, the opposition would us that against them and the general public would be disapointed (to say the least). Why would they let themselves being spied on ? I honnestly have no idea, maybe it's a way to share confidential communications between [ally country] president and [not ally country] president with other allies without having to break the confidential communication between [ally country] and [not ally country]. Again, I have not thought about this at all, that's just a reason that came up to mind. Maybe it's not even a practical reason. Maybe Hollande/Merkel didn't know they were being spied on by the NSA. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if they both knew, and yelled a bit at the US now that the world knows they were being spied on, et voila. Interestingly however, until very recently (last year) and maybe still as of today, a lot of high profile French poloticians (ministers for eg) use(d) their private smartphones for (some) government communication. This, this is so absurd.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >* Honnestly, I wouldn't be surprised if both knew about it.* Surprised? Of course they knew about it. This has been happening ever since the end of world war II (even before, but the means weren't as advanced then).
a3n 11y ago
Because us common folk don't have a voice.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
That's fine by me. Nation states should be spying on each other. Its within my interests to spy on the French, regardless of whatever bullshit political relationship we have. France is busy building carriers for Putin to oppresses Eastern Europe with, for example. We're not all buddy-buddy in the real world. The only reason those carriers aren't being used to shoot at Ukrainian civilians is because of US pressure to temporarily hold them. >and it's midnight meetings at the Elysée and general outrage all round. Except this is political theater and face-saving nonsense, just like Merkel's cellphone or the million other things before it. We're still spying on them as we should as its within our interests. They're spying on us, except we don't have a German or French Snowden, or at least not yet. The Five Eyes share intel and spy on each other as well. Being at an information disadvantage is stupid. France, Germany, etc are an election away from assaulting US interests. We have every right to spy on them. Looks like millennials are starting to learn what Realpolitik means, or are going to once they start to learn how the real world works.
Rondom 11y ago
Same thing happened in Germany. Spying on citizens was not a big problem but tapping Merkel's mobile was...

by socket0 11y ago

peteri 11y ago

To be honest it really should be part of the NSA remit to spy on as many world leaders as possible (friend or foe) I expect GCHQ & whatever the French equivalent is to be doing exactly the same. I'd be very surprised if GCHQ weren't at least trying to spy on the US president and NSA weren't doing the same to the UK prime minister whenever possible. I'd guess security committee members would also be spied upon as well. I don't know how far they would go though in terms of breaking and entering to plant bugs etc but they've only got to make look it's a hostile powers work to get away with it. It's probably only the difficulty of the denials if they get caught that would affect the likelihood of five eyes members spying on each other. Given the French supposedly bugged Concorde it's seems a bit rich of them to complain.

pluma 11y ago
Although I disagree about spying on your allies at this kind of level, I did find it more outrage-worthy that the NSA was spying on the ordinary population than that they were bugging politicians and officials.
- 9872 11y ago
  That's part and parcel of democracy. If you want to pretend that those politicians and officials are accountable to the people, then the people are a legitimate target for espionage, just like the king would be in a monarchy.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Spying on citizens part and parcel of democracy? In what definition of democracy? >If you want to pretend that those politicians and officials are accountable to the people, then the people are a legitimate target for espionage, just like the king would be in a monarchy. First, if officials are accountable to the people, then the officials are legitimate target of espionage (or transparency). The people is the master, not the officials. Also, following your logic, are people also a legitimate target to terrorist attacks? It is after all a democracy, and in that sense they are responsible for the actions of their government, right? Or we could take the logical conclusion that what we have is far for a democracy...
    - 9872 11y ago
      >In what definition of democracy? In the definition that says the ultimate source of government power is the people. You seem to agree that this is a reasonable definition of democracy. This means that they are a legitimate target when it comes to espionage or terrorism, yes. If you don't like it, move to a dictatorship.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        "Ultimate source" in parliamentary democracy just means that people vote (and once in several years). They don't influence the government in its day to day operations, nor they have any special power or significance for the various policies as individuals (outside of their function as a voting majority). So while this might make them a "legitimate" target for terrorism (in the sense: they voted for the government so they are ultimately responsible for its foreign policy etc) it doesn't make any sense at all regarding to espionage.
        9872 11y ago
        Of course it does. Although you did miss quite a bit, you at least realize that they vote in elections. You don't see the value in knowing and influencing election results?
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  With the Five Eyes agreement there's pretty much a statement that France is outside the proper list of US allies. Any foreign security agency worth its salt would view that as a statement of intent that those outside the group are likely to be spied on by those inside. France has always had a divergent geopolitical strategy that sets it apart from the USA/UK alliance.
justwannasing 11y ago
I heard about such things decades ago and surprised anyone thinks it doesn't happen, even among friends. I am positive there are some spies sitting around a table somewhere saying to themselves, "Well, duh. And the sky is blue!"
belorn 11y ago
When the US president invites allies to the white-house, I would assume there to be quite of an outcry if guests were found to plant bugs on phones and network switches. I would expect headlines to include "human lives are put at risk" and "we expect invited allies to behave according to national treaties" in all of the large news papers. I would not expect to see a shrug and a "owell, thats what spying is for, right?".
- kasey_junk 11y ago
  I would. Last week there were lots of stories that indicated that elements within the Chinese government were responsible for the OPM break in. That is, a foreign government allegedly hacked the US governments computers. The outrage was that the US let it happen, not that China tried it, because of course they are going to try that, because "thats what spying is for, right?"
  - mike_hearn 11y ago
    When reports of China hacking first came up in 2010 the White House objected to China strongly. I think they still do.
- PJDK 11y ago
  I find comments like this really strange. Firstly, I wouldn't be surprised if things like this are quietly ignored for the sake of diplomacy. Secondly, this fairness isn't the objective here, it's being ahead. The perfect situation, as far as any reasonable spy agency is concerned, is we can spy on others but others can't spy on us.
  - bediger4000 11y ago
    What you write may be true: spy agencies feel like they can spy on everyone else, but everyone else can't spy on their country. Or something. But that position is illogical: according to USA laws NSA can spy on everyone else, according to UK laws, GCHQ can spy on everyone else, etc. And everyone points fingers at everyone else for "breaking the law". That position leads to immediate contradictions. Also, it's a "Well, they're right because they're OUR guys" sort of thing. Once you take the "OUR guys are RIGHT and YOUR guys are WRONG" position, there's no limits, just insufficient imagination to justify anything weird, dangerous, unethical and in a larger sense, immoral.
pessimizer 11y ago
> To be honest it really should be part of the NSA remit to spy on as many world leaders as possible (friend or foe) I expect GCHQ & whatever the French equivalent is to be doing exactly the same. This canard seems to be dragged out as a response to any abridgement of civil liberties (of course the FBI should have a agent in every environmental group! Of course Uber should be paying Lyft executives secretly for access to their trade secrets! Of course the NSA should listen in on every phone call! To do otherwise would be stupid and incompetent, and I don't want a stupid incompetent government/company/father.) What happens when you spy on everyone is that when you get caught, your diplomacy breaks down all over the world and you can't get anything done without direct threats. Also, no one lets anyone connected with you get close to anything important, because you are untrustworthy i.e. when you say you're going to send weapons inspectors, Iraq says: don't send any Americans, they only send spies. A lot of people who studied at American universities and return home get imprisoned and/or executed. Intelligence gathering is something you do because you want to gain leverage, not lose it. Instead, in the US, it's become another teat for huge incompetent contractors to suck the taxpayer dry.
- kasey_junk 11y ago
  This seems an odd article to express this sentiment on. Whether or not the canard is used in other contexts to whitewash civil liberties abuses, in this specific example, it is being used correctly. If your spy agencies are not going to gather intelligence on foreign world leaders, who precisely should they be gathering intelligence on? If your answer is that there is no acceptable use of intelligence gathering facilities, that is fine, but that is a much more extreme belief than the one that says it is ok for the NSA to spy on the leaders of France.
seren 11y ago
What I find disturbing is the disconnect between the mission statement of the NSA, i.e. counter terrorism and military threats, and what is actually done. From https://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml https://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml >The Signals Intelligence mission collects, processes, and disseminates intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes and to support military operations. This Agency also enables Network Warfare operations to defeat terrorists and their organizations at home and abroad, consistent with U.S. laws and the protection of privacy and civil liberties. I mean how spying on your ally head of state is preventing "terrorism" or supporting "military operation". Do you believe that there is a terrorist cell in l'Elysée ? This is disingenuous at best, but looks more like dishonest.
- rtpg 11y ago
  Eh? It's right there in the mission statement: >intelligence information from foreign signals for intelligence and counterintelligence purposes "Intelligence purposes" i.e. knowing as much as possible about ,say, trade negotiations.
  - seren 11y ago
    Read the following description of SIGINT : https://www.nsa.gov/sigint/faqs.shtml https://www.nsa.gov/sigint/faqs.shtml > 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. Again the focus is on "threat", "crime", "combat" and at the end the very vague "important national objectives". Don't you feel the strong cognitive dissonance between the missions that are put at the forefront and what it is really done ?
    - jonnybgood 11y ago
      National objective isn't vague at all. A national objective is an actual mandate by the president to the Sec. of Defense for some operation to occur. For example, a national objective would be "Degrade ISIS operations in Iraq." The Sec. would take this down the chain of the DoD through all the planning (which typically involves intelligence at this point) until finally seeing bombs dropping on ISIS in Iraq. Notice your quote says "many other national objectives". Everything listed prior are national objectives set by the president.
eis 11y ago
That's something I don't get. Why should intelligence agencies be expected/allowed to spy on allies and friendly nations? What does it tell you about that "friendship"?
- adestefan 11y ago
  Ever play the game Diplomacy? Friendship means jack shit.
  - fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
    Yeah, okay, foreign policy is not a board game.
    - adestefan 11y ago
      You're right. Board games have rules.
  - eis 11y ago
    Thanks for downvoting for disagreeing. But that's not it's supposed to work on HN. You must have a sad life when friendship means nothing. But each to their own.
    - Sharlin 11y ago
      You cannot equate friendship between individual humans and "friendship" between nation-states. They are very different concepts.
tormeh 11y ago
Yeah, I totally agree that leaders of state must expect to be spied upon - much as they must expect media attention. What I'm less enthusiastic about is the spying on people who are unlikely to ever have any strategic significance.

espadrine 11y ago

> Espionnage? Against le prolétariat? Who gives une merde? They always considered that ok, even as it was illegal. The NSA spying on its citizens was discussed in France, partially because unlike the USA which has a number of laws on counterterrorism and espionage, France is lacking — spy activities are a grey area of the law, which is another way to say they were illegal. I remember a Le Monde article to this effect, citing someone at the DGSE. After the events at Charlie Hebdo this year, the government felt confident enough to admit that those activities target French citizens and decided to make mass surveillance lawful, which caused a large backlash (notably on Twitter with the hashtag #PJLRenseignement). But every country spies on every country it interacts with. The difference is that, there, the government does not set the rules; diplomacy does. So they try to make it a big deal to get leverage for the next negotiation. Also, appearing like a protector of the people is a politician's dream.

bad_user 11y ago
You know, all over the world people die, the only reason the events at Charlie Hebdo were so significant even for us non-French folks is because this was an act of intimidation against freedom of expression. But it's pretty sad that these events have been used to push for making surveillance lawful. This is very like what happened with the Patriot Act after 9/11. The irony is, because of the ensuing erosion of freedom, those terrorists have won.
- fwn 11y ago
  Either it was significant because it was an act of intimidation against the freedom of expression or it was because it happened in Europe and targeted Europeans. If you intimidate someones freedom of expression in parts of the Middle East or Africa, nobody is impressed in the slightest.
yodsanklai 11y ago
> decided to make mass surveillance lawful, which caused a large backlash That wasn't my impression. I don't know about twitter, but there were little discussion about this law on popular media (especially compared to other unimportant issues that are debated for months, and I'm not even talking about the gay marriage that led to huge protests). Sadly, most politicians supported this law, and so did most French people.

odiroot 11y ago

It's only a loud buzz. Holande will do nothing about it, just like Merkel.

globuous 11y ago
Honnestly, I wouldn't be surprised if both knew about it. They just have to appear to care and to do something about it ("hey Obama, this isn't cool, stop spying on us") because if they didn't, the opposition would us that against them and the general public would be disapointed (to say the least). Why would they let themselves being spied on ? I honnestly have no idea, maybe it's a way to share confidential communications between [ally country] president and [not ally country] president with other allies without having to break the confidential communication between [ally country] and [not ally country]. Again, I have not thought about this at all, that's just a reason that came up to mind. Maybe it's not even a practical reason. Maybe Hollande/Merkel didn't know they were being spied on by the NSA. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if they both knew, and yelled a bit at the US now that the world knows they were being spied on, et voila. Interestingly however, until very recently (last year) and maybe still as of today, a lot of high profile French poloticians (ministers for eg) use(d) their private smartphones for (some) government communication. This, this is so absurd.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >* Honnestly, I wouldn't be surprised if both knew about it.* Surprised? Of course they knew about it. This has been happening ever since the end of world war II (even before, but the means weren't as advanced then).

a3n 11y ago

Because us common folk don't have a voice.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

That's fine by me. Nation states should be spying on each other. Its within my interests to spy on the French, regardless of whatever bullshit political relationship we have. France is busy building carriers for Putin to oppresses Eastern Europe with, for example. We're not all buddy-buddy in the real world. The only reason those carriers aren't being used to shoot at Ukrainian civilians is because of US pressure to temporarily hold them. >and it's midnight meetings at the Elysée and general outrage all round. Except this is political theater and face-saving nonsense, just like Merkel's cellphone or the million other things before it. We're still spying on them as we should as its within our interests. They're spying on us, except we don't have a German or French Snowden, or at least not yet. The Five Eyes share intel and spy on each other as well. Being at an information disadvantage is stupid. France, Germany, etc are an election away from assaulting US interests. We have every right to spy on them. Looks like millennials are starting to learn what Realpolitik means, or are going to once they start to learn how the real world works.

Rondom 11y ago

Same thing happened in Germany. Spying on citizens was not a big problem but tapping Merkel's mobile was...