Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjc50 | Hacker News Reader

Intelligence and counterintelligence among the allies of NATO is a complex business. It can't be stopped entirely and it's too lucrative to renounce, but at the same time there have to be invisible barriers of "norms" that prevent it getting out of hand. Especially now there's a president who wouldn't recognize a norm if he fell over it in the street.

France spy on Boeing and pass it to Airbus, while the NSA do the same for Boeing, but would France tolerate CIA interference in its elections? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32542140

View on HN

This has not much to do with NATO, but much more with Five Eyes [0]. You either with 'em or you are one of their targets.

Out of curiosity: Do you have any evidence for France spying on Boing and passing it on to Airbus? I mean, where's France's equivalent of ECHELON? [1]

Especially in the context of US dominance of the social media sphere, it's hard to imagine any other country having similar access and capabilities to the US's.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/820758.stm

Supposedly Frenchelon:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenchelon https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenchelon

Industrial espionage is old news:

France v. US, 1993: http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=199...

The bungled outcome of the US tit-for-tat, 1995: http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-11/news/mn-55816_1_cia-o...

>but would France tolerate CIA interference in its elections?

https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012/

The CIA have been known to try to influence the elections in foreign countries. Declassified documents show they were doing it in the 1960s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende#US_involvemen...

Obviously, things require a more subtle strategy these days.

Even before that (in 1953) they seem to have been directly responsible for the trouble they're now getting from Iran, by deposing a democratically elected government and installing a friendly puppet (to whom they supplied the nuclear technology that is now frowned upon) that quickly got overturned by the current regime: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_ajax

There’s actually quite the list here[1] but basically we’ve been very prolific at that:

> The U.S. has executed at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections during the period 1946–2000

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...

>France spy on Boeing and pass it to Airbus, while the NSA do the same for Boeing, but would France tolerate CIA interference in its elections?

Yes, undoubtedly. From postwar Operation Gladio to 2012's revelation that they were spying on elections[1], the CIA has maintained a hand in French elections.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58a75f43e4b0fa149f9ac5a3

I'm having trouble tying Operation Gladio[0] to election interference. Also, spying is not the same as interfering.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

Staging terrorist operations against the standing President's policy and employing an influential figure on the left for fourty years isn't interference?

Spying on all the candidates serves what purpose that doesn't involve interference? To maintain a nice database of their positions? At best, they didn't interfere as things were already going their way.

I can call something bad without also calling it election interference.

Regarding spying, of course that serves purposes other than interference. Think of insider trading - you get the insider info not so that you can change the outcome if you don't like it, but so that you can make a profit on that outcome when it actually occurs.

>I can call something bad without also calling it election interference

That doesn't stop it from being interference. Major events like terrorist actions change voter opinion, and someone in control of a party's platform and agenda has a massive influence on an election.

What information are they profiting on? Does it seem like politicians spend the election period preparing their policy for when they win?

It’s actually not that unusual for allies to spy on each other.

Which doesn't stop it from being interference. Having that kind of information on every candidate makes it difficult for someone to support any position the CIA dislikes.

You have yet to prove the interference claim. You’re just hand waving away the gap between spying and interfering, and it’s not convincing.

The spying is interference, they don't have to do anything else. Having access to that information alone is enough to limit the potential positions any politician can hold. This isn't hand waving, people change their actions when they know they are being watched.

No, that’s hand waving. You’re asserting that spying = interference because reasons. Politicians always know they’re being watched by friend, foe, and constituent alike, because they’re politicians.

If you really believe that spying is interference, then you also believe that there’s never been a fair election ever.

Blackmail isn't unambiguous reasons, and you only need to look at the CIA's actions throughout the world to understand the threat. Very few elections even include anti-American candidates, and the few times that those candidates have won have led to regime change like the 1953 Iran coup, or constant threats of regime change, like post-Chavez Venezuela.

And no, I don't think many elections are overly fair.

Okay, blackmail is absolutely interference. But you need to actually prove that blackmail is happening. There are plenty of other reasonable explanations for why so many of our allies elect pro-American politicians: namely that we're their super power buddy that carries the burden of dealing with other super powers. Even when we go off the reservation a bit (like Iraq), it's still much easier for places like France to stick with us than ditch us.

>their super power buddy that carries the burden of dealing with other super powers.

"Do what we say, if you don't we'll punish you or you'll be forced to do what they say."

None of what you're describing particularly sounds like "free choice by the people." It's just been normalized so you don't see it as unusual or call it interference. As you say, the US is a super power. They aren't tasked with the burden of dealing with other super powers, they exert their power to maintain and further their position.

Oh, and when you look at the sheer volume of regime changes the CIA has been involved with, the blackmail becomes obvious. You know they're spying, you know what they're capable of and willing to do.

Another thing it’s going to take decades to fix.

It's hard to have soft norms around new things.

"Interference in its elections" is a new thing. It existed, of course, as a thing intelligence does. There was "Freedom Radio," for example. That was an old war time propoganda mission which continued after.

Obviously, there were more secretive versions of that. They may have involved info/intel landing on selected deaks, at select times, that promote one of the US' goals. Maybe there were even journalists/public figures recruited as "assets" in attempt to sway public opinion.

These days though... two big new things are on the agenda. The first is leaks. Leaks play a very big part of political journalism, and did so especially during the last US elections. This isn't just happening in the US, but it's a good example. The second, is social media. Social media is effectively wide open to manipulation. Social Media manipulation seems to have played a significant role in the last US elections. It also plays a big part in any sub-war conflict. Russia-ukraine, israeli-palestinian, basaue separatism... It works especially well during a frenzy (like an election) when there's a ton of buzz, many sources and information/misinformation spreads fast within various social media bubbles.

For example. Take Germany this week. There is an upcoming election. Germany's "alt right" is very active, expecting strong support. A recent murder of an ethnic German by a migrant has brought protesters out onto the street. Counterprotesters. Subsequent violent incidents. Think of Ferguson, for an American context.

Details, photos, political statements are all actively informing people's political stances. All this is happening on social media. Its not hard to impact this stream of information to an agency's benefit.

Maybe Trump would like to see the far right strengthened. Maybe Macron, Erdogan or May do... all NATO allies. I'd actually bet they all have specific dogs in this race.

These sorts of activities (as opposed to eg gaining detailed knowledge of Germany's air defence systems) are/were considered "soft" intelligence. How much damage could one CIA asset writing for Der Spiegel do? That's no longer the case. A a solid social media "operation" could really change political outcomes in 2018. There are no norms for this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com