The story put out by the government that the NSA had created and uses its massive spying powers purely to combat terrorism has been seen to be a joke. The US and UK are spying on everyone because they can and are willing to do it to gain any advantage in any area, even if it does the kinds of things that are condemned as criminal when done by others.
The latest revelation is that the NSA spied on recent climate talks in Copenhagen.
Developing countries have reacted angrily to revelations that the United States spied on other governments at the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009.
Documents leaked by Edward Snowden show how the US National Security Agency (NSA) monitored communication between key countries before and during the conference to give their negotiators advance information about other positions at the high-profile meeting where world leaders including Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and Angela Merkel failed to agree to a strong deal on climate change.
…The document shows the NSA had provided advance details of the Danish plan to “rescue” the talks should they founder, and also had learned of China’s efforts to coordinate its position with India before the conference.
The article goes on to say that some delegates from other countries had suspected that they were being bugged.
But one key negotiator for the G77 group of 132 developing countries, who asked not to be named, said at the time that he strongly believed that the US was eavesdropping on his meetings and would only talk in a secure back room that he thought was not bugged. “I was well aware that they seemed to know what our position was before we did,” he told the Guardian.
Earlier they had only suspicions. Now they have proof.
US climate activist and founder of 350.org, Bill McKibben, called the spying revelations “insane and disgusting”.
US diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks in 2010 showed that the CIA had sought intelligence from UN diplomats about the negotiations in advance of the summit, and Snowden documents published last year revealed the US had spied on Indonesia at the Bali climate summit in 2007.
The NSA spies on everyone because it can and wants to. No other reason is necessary except for the purpose of public relations. It is as simple as that.
I wonder what the reaction to that would have been from the Bill McKibbens if that had come out in 2009?
Considering that Climate Change is the number one threat to humanity, it seems sad, but reasonable for the President to spy on other countries, even friends, in order to ensure the best outcome for humanity.
They spy on everything. That’s what they are there for. The terrorism stuff is just a fig-leaf; it’s time to accept that the FBI/NSA/CIA comprise the most pervasive and empowered secret police, ever. The Gestapo would be green with envy.
If I remember correctly, the original mandate for the NSA was to ” intercept all electronic communications world wide” keyword ALL.
wtfwhateverd00d @ # 1 -- If you have evidence that Obama & Co were acting “in order to ensure the best outcome for humanity”, rather than for the short-term interest of US fossil fuel corporations, please present it.
Pierce,
Perhaps I should have been more explicit:
I wonder if the NSA spies present actually learnt anything from their spying and if so what?
It seems, kind of pointless -- most of the stuff discussed at Copenhagen and by climataologists was public anyhow and not exactly of immediate security concern surely?
One thing that might be an interesting question and good use for the NSA spooks though -- could they find and expose / arrest the hacker who stole the climatologists emails in the whole “climategate” manufactroversy?
wtfwhateverd00d @ # 5: Perhaps I should have been more explicit…
Possibly you still should be.
A search for that blockquote turns up only one hit: this thread. You.
Did you intend to imply McKibben felt that way about Obama’s efforts?!? He clearly doesn’t now…
Pierce, as I said “in 2009″.
When
A) Climate Change was touted as the number one threat to humanity and Copenhagen our last chance
and
B) there was an awful lot of Obama-apologism.
and
C) NSA malfeasance was largely unknown and unproved.
Can you explain this: ” rather than for the short-term interest of US fossil fuel corporations”
Maybe I need some coffee, but that seems even more conspiratorial than my nutball suggestions!
Or perhaps you should stop putting words into others’ mouths, in hypothetical situations and without a shred of evidence, in order to suggest they are being hypocritical in what they’ve actually said.
pls-keep-yr-sock-puppets’-nyms-straight @ # 8: … as I said “in 2009″.
Five years later, climate change still threatens the whole world, fools still try to pretend Obama has more to do with progressivism than stealing its catchphrases, and even those so dedicatedly naive as Chris Matthews recognize (some of) what us “conspiratorialists” knew long before.
As for the “short-term interests of US fossil fuel corporations”, the relationship between them and major US politicians has been both overt and blatant for decades now; so far nobody -- including you -- has shown any difference regarding the present WH incumbent.
@Pierce,
Yeah sorry about that. They are not socks, in the usual sense of using one to defend another surreptitiously. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)
it’s that on many FTB blogs, like this one, I had an id that didn’t require logins. While on other FTB sites logins are required. So it’s mainly just me forgetting to log out of Dana Hunter’s site before commenting here.
As I’ve explained before, due to the gravatar privacy leak, and other forms of tracking, I do make it a practice to switch up nyms from one site to another. Especially useful advice for anyone engaged in some form of online discussions about NSA tracking, or discussing their various health issues, or talking about many subjects you wish to keep an online privacy about.
I’d still ask you to ELI5 “As for the “short-term interests of US fossil fuel corporations”, the relationship between them and major US politicians has been both overt and blatant for decades now; so far nobody – including you – has shown any difference regarding the present WH incumbent.”
Are you saying that at Copenhagen, the NSA spied on communications of friendlies so that Obama could work to further the interests of US oil companies? … And that Obama was not/is not interested in slowing Climate Change for the sake of the people of the US, the World, and her environment?
wtfwhateverd00d @ # 11 -- Do you really think a change of ‘nym will cause Keith Alexander’s merry elves to lose your trail?
And yes, I do think “protecting” the immediate monetary interests of US-based fossil fuels corporations explains a great deal about Obama’s (and Shrub’s, and Clinton’s) climate policies (or lack thereof).