Brazilian president: US surveillance a 'breach of international law' | Hacker News Reader

Brazilian president: US surveillance a 'breach of international law'

theguardian.com

122 pointsthex8648 comments

Just another populist in South America,

It has to be clear that anonymity in Brazil is Forbidden by the Constitution. So it is strange that the brazilian president asks for 'democracy' and privacy when its own constitution does not allow anonymity. What she is saying is: "we are going to implement and force all gov. employees and others to use or OWN email, so we can snoop and guarantee 'our' democracy.... It will be bad if you did not get that job or contract.. Bad things happen To people Who do not agree with us.. Other 'privacy' fact about this govt is the mandatory GPS in each car in Brazil. To make surveillance AND check taxes.

Brazil is one of most intrusive state ask any reasonable brazilian if it rather have his data in 'Obama' hands or Brazilian Govt hands...

For all people I know they all better be in US datacenters than Brazilian Govt.

And it is strange that the Brazilian govt. is Always attacking the freedom os speech by requests to google..[1]

[1] - http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government...

(order by country)

I wander where did you get all this "serious data" and statements over Brazil ?

about Spying: NO one country has this mass surveilance state patronized by public money in the world. its proven.. its scary, and its US..

This must stop, period.

if every citizen take care of its own country actions.. so they do not interfere badly with the other countries.. we would be just fine..

Anyway.. this happening its a warning to all of us.. we should listen carefully, and take good measures about it.. cause in peace time, they might look harmles or like a joke.. but in war time, or with dictatorships, they might have severe consequences

It doesn't seem like you disproved the claim that Brazil aggressively spies on its own citizens and, thus, that this is hypocritical populist rhetoric.

> if every citizen take care of its own country actions.. so they do not interfere badly with the other countries.. we would be just fine..

The US's spy complex is a MUCH bigger threat to those of us here in the US than it is to those abroad, and anyway there is nothing we citizens can do to stop it anytime soon, so don't hold your breath.

>It doesn't seem like you disproved the claim that Brazil aggressively spies on its own citizens and, thus, that this is hypocritical populist rhetoric.

It can do whatever it want on it's own citizens. If they don't like it, they can vote them out of the office.

It's a third country spying on them (or on my country) I don't like.

But the US can't violate your rights unless you're here.

Not really.

For one, if I'm a business owner/scientist/engineer working on some stuff, they can do "industrial espionage" and give the stuff (or a heads up) to US companies/the army/whoever.

Second, they can use their spying on a country's politicians to influence that country's policy (like spying on a party they don't like in favor of a party that serve's their interests), do market and diplomatic moves against them, etc.

Third, who said foreigners never travel to the US?

I have serious objections the the NSAs domestic spying and foreign surveillance of civilians in other countries. Unfortunately, like any major power, US foreign surveillance is not going to go away because 1) everyone else does it and 2) there's no way to verify that other countries have stopped even if they did.

If you read the history of arms control talks between the US and the USSR, the only reason they worked was because both parties could verify that the other was honoring the agreement. The Russians could physically look at satellite photos and verify the US actually removed some of its ICBMs and vice versa.

There is no way to verify a country is not spying on you. As such, no country, no matter their rhetoric, is going to actually give up that ability for the hope that others do so as well. It's a suckers bet.

The solution to privacy in the face of foreign dragnet surveillance is cryptography.

> The solution to privacy in the face of foreign dragnet surveillance is cryptography.

I agree with you on that.. of course defensive matters must come to aid this dragnet environment..

We cannot put the genie back in the bottle anymore,once he came out..

But,together with preventive and defensive measures, politically we must make our governments and rule makers to stand in favor of privacy, writing more severe laws against mass surveilance, that do not obey any court order for particular citizens....

Even if they lie, and they tell us they do so.. once we catch them lying, like right now, we can do something about it, in the political sphere.. their political position are defenseless

For instance, Companies in US right now need to fight politically over this, because even the economy is in danger..

So i think this is a battle that should be fight in two fronts.. If we pick just one of them, we will lost in the long term

> 1) everyone else does it

I am from Slovenia, our entire GDP is lower than what CIA and NSA get.

I am pretty sure that our government spying doesn't come even remotely close to what USA (and others in 5 eyes) does.

Maybe Russia and China have similar ambitions, nobody else comes close (France is probably envious, but their capabilities are limited).

So out of nearly 200 countries maybe half a dozen have similar programs. I would't call that everybody.

(Most other countries limit their spying to relevant local threats.)

PS: That doesn't mean that various spies in other countries don't have wet dreams about having similar capability to US, but that's all they have dreams.

Hacker News's hipsterism, consisting in necessarily the top comment being about how everything about the link is bullshit, is really getting old.

In this case, it is just ridiculous. The speech is serious and articulate, it touches a lot of important points, and defines a set of actions going forward.

And, it makes me want to do business with brazilian-based companies, once the announced more autonomous technologies are put in place. The internet needs to be decentralised again, and this is exactly the kind of step that can lead there. If the technological alternative offered in brazilian soil holds, I would definitively move all of my cloud footprint there.

" it makes me want to do business with brazilian-based companies, once the announced more autonomous technologies are put in place."

ONCE.... Please do not wait do now... I am still waiting for speed rail here in Brazil, Cheap gas or electricity and Less than 44% of my GDP in Taxes.

But please do not take my 'hispterism' because I live in a bubble here in Brazil (native) and lived 3 years in US and 1 year in Middle East. I just came to the terms that after 35 years here we are STILL blaming US for 'everything' and we do not have nothing to blame us....strange..

"here in Brazil (native)"

Ah, that explains your negativism against the Brazilian president.

For the benefit of the foreign audience: President Dilma faces fierce opposition from the Brazilian elite, because of her party's socialist reforms, in a country that historically always catered to the elites. Anything that the president does (good or bad) faces opposition, pretty similar to the opposition President Obama faces in the US.

Note how the commenter above does not say a word about the speech itself. It's all about paying so much taxes and not getting the speed rail.

(also a native-Brazilian here who lived 8 years in the US and 2 in China)

So only foreigners can complain?

I did not get the speed rail or electricity But I did get 12 SOCCER STADIUM that will do no good to the country..

If I am 'elite' damn... this country is in very baaaaad shape

Now comes our 'nationalists' team... Glad you learn in China

We hear you and believe you are correct about the problems in Brazil. However, its not really the point of this discussion... why I think you're receiving some negativity.

No, I never said only foreigners can complain. And I am far from nationalist: Like I said, I am normally the first one to criticize Brazil, and I was accused of being "unpatriotic" on every country I lived, so I am pretty sure my views are balanced.

I am just explaining to the (mostly foreigner) audience that your comments are connected to the local Brazilian politics, but this is not the point of this discussion.

According to some interpretations, anonimity is not forbidden, it's "just" that it's not considered protected speech. [1]

In any case, it's true that Brazil doesn't really have real free speech in the sense Americans do. We have a nominal right to free speech per the Constitution, but there are so many loopholes: draconian slander laws, protection to candidates before elections, etc.

[1] http://www.conjur.com.br/2013-set-06/rodrigo-dornelles-veto-... (in Portuguese)

Wrong AGAIN.... Please read the CONSTITUTION[1]

A.G.A.I.N Constitution

In portuguese: "IV - é livre a manifestação do pensamento, sendo vedado o anonimato; "

Translation : - Freedom of speech but anonymity is vetted

[1] = http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituic...

--Edited to do not appear arrogant --

The anonymity concept is one of pillars of privacy and democracy there are several articles about that but this sums up well [1]

So before our 'leader' bashes US to get some popularity votes can we fix our house first?

[1[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/01/right-anonymity-matter...

The parent commenter is correct: This is specific to speech, and not in general. You also have not explained how your argument invalidates President Dilma's UN speech.

(side note: you don't need to be arrogant like that to defend your point. The parent commenter was respectful in his/her response)

Many other countries also do not have free-speech in the strict sense that the US guarantees in its Constitution. For example, in Germany one cannot protest in favor of neo-nazis, and in South Korea one cannot praise the North Korean regime. In the US any kind of speech is allowed, except for rare libel cases (which are extremely difficult to prove in court).

None of that invalidates President Dilma's point. I am actually the first one to criticize Brazil's lack of democracy, for example in the favelas (which are areas controlled by the drug traffickers and not by the state, and thus without real democracy), but in the international sphere she is absolutely right to raise the issue, as Brazil is an US ally and there was no reasonable explanation for the espionage whatsoever, especially to top-level officials. Furthermore, Petrobras is a oil exploration company -- This is effectively industrial espionage.

GPS in cars is an interesting one. Where does the Brazilian government mandate that the data is stored/transmitted, then?

You have to note that if you carry a mobile phone the state has easy access to equivalent data anyway (even when you're not in a car), so the reality is most people are providing it regardless of car GPS-related rules. (Co-presence of other device, movement time, and a rudimentary analysis of movement speed would be adequate information to determine one's probable mode of transport and activity profile ... habitual commute, unexpected deviation from established norm, etc.)

I was in Denmark recently and was reliably advised that the government tax department needs no warrant to access mobile phone location records for validation purposes. No warrant. On top of that, ATMs are curiously hard to find and businesses cannot spend over 10,000DKR/year in cash without triggering a government audit. Brazil is clearly not alone.

The sad fact is that most people are unaware, and the majority of the world is either sleepwalking in to totalitarianism or is there already.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that as system designers, builders or more (in-)directly as promoters of tech-fetishism, we in this community are equally at fault. We each have a responsibility to resist the construction and use of easily corrupted centralized systems and to educate those around us about their dangers.

Jeez! I can't believe the number of HN folks - people waaay above the average Internet commenting monkeys and nutjobs - attacking the messenger while completely missing the message.

Heck if all Rousseff said was just these two sentences, I'd still applaud her:

> A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another country.

Now just apply that logic to individuals, and you'll be called a nutjob libertarian.

> Jeez! I can't believe...

I concur.

> attacking the messenger while completely missing the message

Yes, but who cares about some president of some South American former colony? Obviously a shady individual. If it was, say, Chancellor of Germany, now that's a serious matter and human rights are at stake :)

Yes, it's just a common view among US's elites; one poster called her, "Just another populist in South America". There's a context behind this.

The article mentioned, "She was imprisoned and tortured for her role in a guerilla movement opposed to Brazil's military dictatorship in the 1970s." The US supported the 1964 military coup, which put in place the Nazi-like security state which tortured her. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9t...)

(And there's dissident lit from people who lived through these times, pointing out the domino effect this had for US intervention against other Latin American countries, emboldened by our success against Brazil. http://www.chomsky.info/talks/19850319.htm)

"Just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies, with the privacy concerns that all people share."

Notice how Obama said nothing about neutral parties, let alone civilians who are citizens of hostile countries. The "either you're with us or you're against us" philosophy is alive and well! Who really knows the definition of "with us" in a war on an emotion?

The sad thing is that, were the entire UN unified in condemnation of U.S. spying, nothing could come of it. The UN is, be design, absolutely toothless when it comes to permanent security council members. It's impotent enough even when it comes to countries like Syria! The only way to make the UN effective is to grant it real power, but that can never happen as long as some of the citizens it represents are more equal than others.

Not happy about the surveillance, but also not expecting China (or other less obvious states) to fight for the cause.

The term "international law" doesn't mean very much if we don't have a functioning international police force.

It probably is a violation. I'd like her and her staff to state exactly what laws, or what principles and precedents that imply a law, were violated, and then take that charge to the appropriate court. Or introduce a resolution to the UN, to force the US the embarrassment of blocking it.

The ironic thing is that incidents like this are exactly why we need to spy on our allies. Relationships change and we need to be prepared.

Good luck to Rousseff making her argument, but I am not sure how spying on embassies violates anybody's "fundamental human rights." Is Brazil willing to stop spying itself?

It was not just embassies.. it was the president, ministers, comercial companies, and thousands of civilians..

Also, privacy IS a fundamental human right

You may dont feel it now, since your government doesnt make any movement against you, or your freedom.. and maybe its not that bad, right now.. but you ever wander.. if a hitler-like figure get elected to president of US, do you think anyone would be safe?

Imagine if you tell a joke about your government, and policeman jump right at your door to put you in jail for that, without a fair trial..

We never now... so in any case.. no government should try to achieve this kind of power..

And worse yeat, if you think they do it with the money you pay them in taxes..

so you pay, to empower them to crush you whatever they want..

Democratic governments are not so strong as one might think.. there are sereval politician in anyone country just waiting to something like that to happen.. think about that

I realise this is a bit trolly - but:

> .... privacy IS a fundamental human right

"Rights" are not universal. Individual rights are not universal. It feels a bit like exporting a Western style thinking on the world and saying everyone should agree with it.

> It feels a bit like exporting a Western style thinking on the world and saying everyone should agree with it

You are completely right, it should not "export" and force this kind of values all over the world

But at least we got two countries that agree with this values, so they might speak about those values as equally shared and agreed by both parties, as written in their own democratic constitutions of rights

So it might be at least universal between them :)

[edit: deleted the last line as irrelevant]

I am not sure where you are getting your information. Where did you hear that the NSA was spying on commercial companies? I am just arguing based on the linked article. It only mentions one company, Petrobas, which is the state-owned oil company (a minority share is public). The president, ministers, embassies, Petrobas---these are all parts of the government. Spying on other governments is why we have spies. Can you tell me that Brazil is willing to stop spying on foreign governments? (Do you really believe that?)

Furthermore, I am not sure that spying on commercial companies is wrong. If information learned is redistributed to American companies, then that seems wrong to me. (Because it would invite retaliation, introduce unfair competition, etc.) But if the information is kept within the US government, then what exactly is wrong about that? Are you arguing that privacy is a fundamental right for corporations, too?

Hitler, etc.: This is all a strawman. I am only talking about spying on Brazil. But I'm sure it will get you upvotes, so feel free to bring up Mussolini, too.

> "Furthermore, I am not sure that spying on commercial companies is wrong. If information learned is redistributed to American companies, then that seems wrong to me."

Thats was exacly my the point; Once the information was collected, we never know exactly in what hands (harmless or not) they will pass by.. not now, and not in the future.. it gets out of control.. (chinese hackers might breach security somewhere and enter the party.. and on.. and on..)

We dont know all of this.. what we know its that, its too much dangerous that all that data be flying around.. it doesnt matter if its about you, me, the president of whatever.. it has unpredictable results.. (and probably none of the good ones)

(My point by using the Hitler example, was to point out an archetipical example of any one with dictatorship intentions, that might surprisingly subvert the democratic system and do whatever he likes with the country.. its just easy to think about him first, as such an example.. sorry about that)

> "Thats was exacly my the point; Once the information was collected, we never know exactly in what hands (harmless or not) they will pass by.. not now, and not in the future.. it gets out of control.. (chinese hackers might breach security somewhere and enter the party.. and on.. and on..)"

We might not know exactly where the information goes, but we have a very good idea about it. And if Chinese hackers break into the NSA data centers and discover secrets about Petrobas oil, that's the least of our problems! I'm not sure what you are worried about exactly. Are you opposed to spying on any other states, or are you just opposed to spying on state-owned oil companies, or what?

I understand your concerns about surveilling citizens, but that is very different from spying on governments and companies. Good information, earned from spying, can prevent horrible misunderstandings and wars between countries, save people's lives, etc.

Captain Obvious to the Rescue! Does the Brazilian president have a response to the American president's implied statement of: 'What are you going to do about it, Brazil'?

A part of me thinks just like you. If she is so mad about it - as she should be -, why didn't she offer asylum to Snowden?

The other part of me thinks it is prudent to keep an amicable relationship with the most powerful nation on earth. In those terms, I think it is very welcome that she expresses her angry through words. She is not hiding it or playing along with the USA by diminishing the impact of the surveillance.

No one is in a position to tell US to "stick it", so no.

As a brazilian, I see that even though the speech is based on legit concerns, the bravado will end up more useful to secure Dilma's position in leadership (her popularity dropped this year, and by taking a jab at US she'll recover popularity with a portion of the electorate, who have a hatred for america) and make Brazil look like a beacon of freedom and transparency to the international community (or at least, strengthen it's multilateral diplomacy with the anti-US crowd).

The government will probably try to push a top-down agenda for (unilaterally) legislating and regulating Internet usage in Brazil in the next months, using the opportunity to force IT companies to move inside the country and heat the economy.

All in all, the Snowden scandal has been blown out of proportion by the media, and will now be used by leaders for all kinds of power play and political agendas. Anyone who understands the fundamentals of the internet can tell espionage is a feature that comes for free, and it's not like, suddenly, all countries in the world can get outraged to know the NSA has been spying. In fact, espionage is central to the diplomatic game, it only gets harder to justify on domestic affairs. US citizens have more right to be outraged than anyone else.

> No one is in a position to tell US to "stick it", so no.

Of course we are.

A good start would be if a bunch of countries got together and stopped using a USD.

Also changing trade deals with the US would send a message.

Yeah, except it's pretty much a given that all govt's who can spy do spy as much as they can on each other, overtly and covertly.

She's just using this to foment fervor in her favor.

Who cares if other countries use the RMB or Euro as trade currency. And no country with significant trade with any other is going to commit economic self-inflicted wounds to "send a message". The US doesn't retaliate economically against any significant partner itself, neither does China. It'd be silly.

More reasons to use Bitcoin.

Its already doing..

The president cancelled a diplomatic presidents honorary visit to USA

Tough speech in ONU from a state chief against surveillance over civilians, companies, and the top state politicians, including the president

* International companies will need to keep the data of brazilian citizens in datacenters domestically located.

* More Infrastructure investments: Optical cables all over.. so what doesnt need to pass through US will not route there (also a bunch of satelites)

* When we have a choice, comercially we will probably avoid buying anything from US

* We are not in XX century anymore, the industrial age is gone, some other country will rise in this new age (information?), so USA will need to review its arrogant and interventionist movements, as it will lose more and more its position of top dog.. the seat is kind of empty now.

So the next USA president better watch out for its own attitude, cause you guys are more and more dependent of other commercial partner countries ;)

For historical reasons, brazil has a wound from the militar dictatorship (with the USA interventionism of the 60's helping on the cup-d'etate), with the current president(a woman) victim of torture by the military regime when she was a student (for fighting to free its country from dictatorship).. so thats why privacy is a pretty serious matter here, for every educated citizen..

Brazil is like they say over texas.. we are peaceful, and cool people.. but dont mess with Brazil

Tough Speech but soft actions.

If she was so 'tough' why she did not grant asylum to snowden??

I am very sure All us is scared about Brazilian almight Power.

and Sure the next president will mind to not 'offend' brazilian communist party..

>If she was so 'tough' why she did not grant asylum to >snowden??

This leak over the spy actions happened months after snowden has vanished in Russia..

Im sure if it was now, he may get it..

but also, dont know if it would be diplomatic proportional.. since i dont think any councious president, with a big country in hands at least, would risk commercial relations, because of that.. i dont think its very wise..

also its not a communisty party.. it has very little of the left wing.. its more like the french Hollande kind of left (literally none)

I was not saying that Brazil was something to fear about.. only, that the times are tough now.. everybody need every help they can .. even the richiest and independent countries

No It DID NOT.

Snowden Tried All south americas country. And only Bolivia tried to send a plane but was stopped at Europe.

Serious Do you really believe or you are paid to defend Our 'glorious' Govt.

Brazilian Here too

I dont need to get paid to defend what is right

It doesnt matter who is in charge, but at least in this particular event it was the only country who oficially stand against this mass surveillance...

Remember France and Germany? oh they were so quiet..

Defend what is right even if it has serious implications in international affairs with such important and powerful country..

This was actually good to watch, didnt you feel good about it? She said what every one of us think about it, but was afraid to say so..

(It was like watch that nerdy, skinny guy stand against the big bully one)

Im not defending a particular government, im defending a particular position, and it was the right thing to do!

Bolivia's plane was stopped on the way back through Europe under suspicion that it had been sent for Snowden. I don't think it has been shown that Bolivia was making an attempt.

Brazilian president: US surveillance a 'breach of international law'

Ummm, even if it is, no one cares. Brazil would spy on US in a heartbeat if they could and probably try to spy on the US Embassy there. The spying I'm worried about is different, not the reading a foreign leader's email kind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com