Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanielBMarkham | Hacker News Reader

Er, isn't the NSA supposed to be doing this exact thing? Signals interception to assist in the intelligence efforts of the U.S.?

Did I miss out on something? This is what they're paid for. If they're monitoring diplomatic, political, and military information worldwide, I'm happy about that. Might keep us out of another war. Helps us make better decisions. And so on.

Once again, there's nothing wrong with nations having intelligence agencies. Overall they help keep the peace. It's the monitoring of the civilian population -- which in a democracy is where the real political power is supposed to be -- that's insane.

View on HN

> Did I miss out on something?

Yes. The United Nations seat is where it is because it is agreed that this is extraterritorial and inviolate. Think of it as bombing a church or a hospital. (not that those things aren't done, but they're considered more than just bad form).

The United Nations headquarters relies on the host country to play nice and to be trustworthy otherwise the United Nations will lose its ability to operate and that is worth more than the secret services of any one country, even the US.

That's amazingly naive, Jacques. The same argument could be used for embassies worldwide: they are considered part of another country and so on. Yet embassies are routinely tapped by everyone. Been that way for decades.

The UN is a treaty organization, not a world government. It has as much sanctity as any other treaty organization -- not much. If folks want to construe this as being something to do with them being hosted in the US, then I'm at a loss as to how to continue the conversation. The Chinese would be okay tapping the communications but the U.S. not? Doesn't make any sense.

A little bit of context here is all I ask. Intelligence agencies are supposed to find out things about diplomatic, political, and military matters. They break and bend all kinds of rules doing so. This will continue whether or not you or I agree to it, whether it's the US or the Russians, and whether the UN is in New York or Botswana. I'm fine with that, mainly because the more each country knows about the inner workings of the others, the better they can predict reactions to political moves. That makes the world safer.

I think we've just reached the point where somebody says "NSA" and the mob all gets out the pitchforks and torches. That's a shame, because there is a very serious problem here, and it has nothing to do with the U.S. or the NSA. It has to do with technology making the entire life of the civilian population available to anybody with the appropriate political power. Not limited to NSA. Not limited to the U.S.. It's a worldwide problem based on the tech we create everyday.

We should really get off the NSA jag and on to actually solving problems instead of this emotional overreaction to any story with NSA in the title business the MSM is pushing us into.

Yes, I got it. The US can not be trusted under any circumstances and treaties are meaningless.

Call me naive but I expected better, I'd be just as surprised if the Swiss were caught bugging the Geneva assembly or if the Belgians were caught bugging the EU Headquarters. Note the 'caught'.

Who knows, they might even do it. But for now we only have proof about the US and the UN mission in New York and if you can't see why that's a bad thing (even if it was to be expected by all but the naive people in the world) then I can't help that. Trust is fragile.

It's like cheating on your wife: you can do it, plenty of people do. But don't get found out or there will be consequences that you might not be willing to pay.

treaties are meaningless

Are there actual treaties that have been broken through any of this? While it does seem naive to expect nations to be "trustworthy" or not to spy, breaking a formal treaty is surely another matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Headquarters

That's not nearly precise enough to answer my question. The article refers in passing to a treaty granting UN headquarters extraterritorial status. Obviously, extraterritoriality as such doesn't preclude spying.

The question is whether a specific treaty was specifically broken. That's an interesting question for two reasons: it presumably has an exact answer, and it would have consequences beyond just the media, general outrage, etc.

Edit: But this looks like it might count: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6272729

You're further along than I am. I read that the UN headquarters were declared 'inviolate', but don't recall where. Searching.

Edit: found it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_the_United_Nations

Edit2: and I see you have an even better reference now.

Anyway, I think that the 'inviolate' from my original comment stands and that - at least according to the UN - this is not just a breach of decorum but illegal.

Yes, that's got to be the most relevant Wikipedia article. Since it starts with two examples of spying on the UN that appear to have had zero consequences, I guess I was wrong.

I don't think there will be consequences but that does not mean it isn't illegal. Technically this is the same kind of breach that is against article 22 of the Geneva Convention on Diplomatic Relations (a pretty long document). That everybody does it all the time and that it should be expected is one thing, that the host country does it makes it something a bit more serious imo.

After all if the most powerful country in the world uses the fact that UN has a residence inside its own borders (but legally speaking outside of them) to achieve home-court advantage then it might be time to relocate.

But that will likely not happen.

Does "illegal" really mean anything in the international system? Certainly governments cite "international law" to score propaganda points, but to show that it really means something, it's not enough to show cases where weak nations were punished for violating it—one would need an example of a strong nation being punished for violating it. Without that, it isn't the rule of law, only the rule of the strong. Has there been any such case? (Certainly there are many examples of strong nations violating so-called international law with impunity.)

I think we'll know the answer to that question when oil finally really does run out.

There is too much uncertainty past that point to make any predictions at all but I figure as soon as the ability to project power short of ICBMs goes out the window and the geopolitical map drawn up around one particular resource gets redrawn there will be a big push for something more stable in the longer term. And trade embargoes are a lot easier to maintain when it isn't as easy to move around. Until then it will be status quo with bigger countries ignoring the treaties they've signed and ratified whenever they feel like.

    That's a shame, because there is a very serious problem here, and it
    has nothing to do with the U.S. or the NSA. It has to do with technology [...]

The NSA has been giving domestic phone records to the DEA. Are plain old telephones what you meant when you referred to technology?

    We should really get off the NSA jag [...]

I'll get off it when Clapper is in prison.

They are expected to do it (bug), but not be found out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com