France To Open Preliminary Investigation About PRISM Program 98
An anonymous reader writes "Paris' prosecutor office opened a preliminary investigation after a complaint by two human rights associations who hope to determine the roles played by companies in the PRISM program. Two million communications (phone calls, SMS and mails) are said to have been intercepted in France by U.S. agencies."
It's a farce (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't this just for show, or getting some benefits from the USA? I'm under the impression that a lot of earopean members are already using intel from prism and in exchange the USA gets access to the network. The only shocking thing is that they also listen in on political and businesss conversations.
Re:It's a farce (Score:4, Insightful)
They might be using the information, but that doesn't mean the court system won't find it to be illegal.
Basically the best end result of this would be if MS, Google, et al. get hit with huge fines. Then pressure to stop or limit the programs would come from someone with real power over the US government.
Re:It's a farce (Score:4, Funny)
They might be using the information, but that doesn't mean the court system won't find it to be illegal.
Basically the best end result of this would be if MS, Google, et al. get hit with huge fines. Then pressure to stop or limit the programs would come from someone with real power over the US government.
Brilliant! We force them to do illegal things, then fine them for doing it! THIS THING PRINTS MONEY!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's a farce (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm under the impression that a lot of earopean members are already using intel from prism and in exchange the USA gets access to the network.
The may be the first impression, but nothing is that simple. As everything is under the veil of secrecy (which is now open with the leaks), those using the information or ordering the use of information had most likely no idea how this information was obtained. They had probably as little idea on how the information they exchanged in return was acquired as well.
Its possible that they were in position where they could have known, but secret information is not release on a "per you might want to know this basis", but on a "need to know basis". That means that the person ordering the exchange or use of information, even if he has the correct security clearances, won't have a clue how the information is acquired unless that person specifically asks for it. And then the person asking would probably get obfuscated details not giving any useful info, unless again the right questions are asked. In the end, it's easier not to ask and act with the eyes closed.
And don't even think about asking how the information from another intelligence service was obtained.
This is a very complex synergy between intelligence organization and deciders. The intelligence organization do what they do probably not even because they are asked to, but because they feel they need to. On the other side, the people receiving the intelligence are happy with what they get and they probably never asked for anything specific or for the use of any specific source and might keep their eyes closed further under the thought "they have probably done the thing they do the right way".
This presumption goes through all levels up and up to the exchanges between intelligence organization. Its quite naive I would say.
And its not really a defensible attitude when the information you have for you can't possibly be acquired legally.
The only shocking thing is that they also listen in on political and businesss conversations.
Schocking, put predictable. Once you have broken the most basic laws and conventions, why stop at "terrorist"? You're already over the line. You've been over the line on a regular basis and you know the mean are not justifiable by the needs every time you cross this line.
It's like being shocked after learning that a hit man that killed dozens of Russians for the Italians had killed a police office for the Italian. Suddenly its an outrage and something has to be done. Its shocking.... but it's just another step of over that same line.
Re: (Score:3)
It's like being shocked after learning that a hit man that killed dozens of Russians for the Italians had killed a police office for the Italian. Suddenly its an outrage and something has to be done.
He killed them for Matilda, not for the Italian [imdb.com], but yes, it caused quite a reaction from the police force. And first strong imprint of Natalie Portman in all geeks' brains, although it was just a collateral damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's a farce (Score:5, Interesting)
No. There are a lot of things - like medical information - that must be kept confidential, by law.
There's no excuse, no "but terrorists" claims, that get around this: If you've obtained (and, worse, stored) such confidential information, you've broken the law.
It's black and white, and even if the US just shrugs and ignores any verdict, no European organisation will be able to do so: If it's proved that confidential data is being snooped on by the USA, then there's no alternative but to switch to a system that they can't eavesdrop on.
This is something I keep trying to highlight about the whole PRISM thing: It doesn't matter if public opinion is mostly "I have nothing to hide so the NSA doesn't matter", the number of European organisations that are going to have to take action to put their data where it can't be snooped on is going to be *massive*. Whether out of desire for their own privacy, or out of a legal duty to maintain confidentiality, if PRISM doesn't go away, a huge chunk of internet traffic will have no choice but to pull entirely out of the USA. It could even be big enough to require a "second Internet" outside of US control just to get some semblance of privacy back.
Think about it - Governments, health organisations, insurance companies, banks... the number of really big organisations that are legally obliged to keep at least some data confidential is huge. They cannot ignore PRISM, they *have* to keep their data from being spied on.
Re: (Score:2)
If the problem is that serious, there will just be an informal agreement formed between governments: The US agrees to pretend they aren't monitoring everything, and the EU agrees not to take action against companies exposing confidential non-military information to monitoring. The alternative would be trade isolation costing both economies billions.
Re: (Score:3)
There can't be any "informal agreement" - not since Snowden. Information that is *legally obliged* to be kept confidential can't just ignore the existence of PRISM.
Sure, the EU can change the law to add an exception for government spying. So long as they can get it passed, which is not an easy task.
The one thing organisations can't do is go on as they were now that they know confidential data isn't confidential.
And the alternative isn't trade isolation, it's a massive investment in technologies like end-to-
Re: (Score:3)
I said an informal agreement. Formal agreements are bound by consistant law. An informal agreement consists of a few off-the-record statements behind closed doors where a suitably high-up politician says to his US counterpart 'Yes, this is illegal, but I'll tell my underlings not to bring any prosecutions so long as you tell your people to do the same.'
Re: (Score:2)
You think they'd be dumb enough to keep records? One thing this PRISM business and the older diplomatic cables should have taught is that the conspiracy-filled, back-room-deal world of the spy novel is actually a lot less fantasy and more reality than people thought. There really are shadowy departments spying on people, there really are blanket wiretaps and secret submarines splicing undersea cables. And diplomats really do make agreements in meeting, verbally and off-the-record, on matters that both sides
Re: (Score:2)
If the problem is that serious, there will just be an informal agreement formed between governments
We already have such an agreement, it's called Safe Harbor. The EU already has strong privacy laws; to store information with US companies they have to be Safe Harbor registered.
It's arguably pretty meaningless because it's self-certified - it has one purpose and one purpose only. To enable European companies to tick the box that says "We're keeping data safe".
Thing is, while we can all wring our hands and say "Ah, but PRISM changes everything" - it doesn't. It doesn't change a single damn thing until such
It's a long running farce (Score:2)
Not just the USA since carriers have admitted to have been compromised on network links that go nowhere near the USA (eg. the Telstra ones in Asia).
However it's just a wake up call to get people to pay attention to the obvious with outsourcing. If no lawyer in the city your company is based in can do anything about the people that are hosting your companies data then you have outsourced it to t
Re: (Score:3)
That land or base deal was a short post ww2 list and third party status was only really one way for a Germany, the Netherlands, France, Belgium and Denmark.
There was no protection for any third party communications traffic just the offer to give to the US. Keeping third party status might secure US help in other areas over time.
The US air strike on Tripoli went around France, Italy and Spain. France
Re: (Score:2)
The USA had a few huge diplomatic fuckups in Europe at that time and even managed to seriously piss off the rusted on ally of the UK twice (invading a British commonweath country without informing the UK (Grenada) and some early assistance to Argentina when they were at war with the UK). Today I think things would play out differently.
Re: (Score:3)
The US has never cared about pissing on the UK since we won our freedom. But then, we don't care about pissing on anyone, except maybe China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I look at the actions of the USA throughout history and I see little more than blind bravado, a lot of quick decisions which were apologized for later. (Aside from actual independence; we have a lot of documentation from before it which discussed it at length.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure which bombing you are refering to. France was part of the later war on Gadaffi in 2010(?). It did not participate in the post-Lockerby action, but I doubt it actively tried to disrupt it.
Re: (Score:2)
The Chad reference was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Chad [wikipedia.org] (~France and USA)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this just for show, or getting some benefits from the USA? I'm under the impression that a lot of earopean members are already using intel from prism and in exchange the USA gets access to the network.
I wouldn't be surprised to find the British in bed with the Americans... But I find France and in particular Germany to very unlikely...
:)
I'm sure the intelligence service in Denmark cooperates with the US and maybe they even know when not to ask how the US came about that information... But I have trust that my socialist government isn't selling me out the Americans...
They are way too crazy to keep a secret like that, and for that I love them
Note, our former Minister for business and growth is an ol
Re: (Score:1)
Madsen named seven EU countries that have been substantially engaged in communications intelligence gathering alongside the US. These are Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy. Those seven countries have formal second and third party status under the NSA’s signals intelligence agreements, and are contractually bound to the US.
Under international intelligence agreements – most of which remain secret – nations are categorised according to their trust level. In the western world the US is defined as First Party while the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are Second Party (trusted relationships). All others are third party (less trusted) or fourth party (secret) relationships.
Maybe not the best source :) (Score:2)
Madsen named seven EU countries that have been substantially engaged in communications intelligence... US
The article you refer says Madsen has
hmm, rather “out there” views
And later quotes Madsen for:
Wayne Madsen: I don’t believe the attacks were planned by the FBI. I believe they were an operation carried out by Mossad, Saudi intelligence, ...
I'm not saying that European countries don't collaborate with US intelligence agencies, it's their job to do so.
They probably also share information, but at request, and with a court order to collect the information.
Madsen said the countries had “formal second and third party status” under signal intelligence (sigint) agreements that compels them to hand over data, including mobile phone and internet information to the NSA if requested.
Emphasis mine...
Also warrantless wire tapping on a large scale wouldn't be legal here.
All of that said, if the Snowden revelations have taught us anything, it's that we're not paranoid...
So yeah, maybe things are as bad as we c
Human Rights voliations (Score:4, Informative)
The actions of the NSA and GCHQ are clear human rights violations in Europe. I hope both are pursued for this crime. Presumably the French are investigating GCHQ as well as the NSA.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not "retarded" to limit the government's power
No, it's retarded to believe that the constitution magically does limit the government's power.
or ask that it obey the very document that grants it any power to begin with
The constitution doesn't grant the government any power. Governments exist solely at sufferance of the governed. If the people wish to limit the power of the government (and are willing to accept the costs of doing so) then they can. If they wish to grant the government total authority, then they can. The constitution simply enumerates the compromise that a group of people a couple of hundred years ago were wi
Re: (Score:1)
In before the, now, stereotypical US response of "your governments do it too!"...
1) No, we have liberty and freedom in Europe.
2) How would that justify it?
I hope European countries nail both the NSA and GCHQ to the floor for this.
I hope Europeans boycott the companies responsible for violating their own ToS.
I hope it wakes up the placated, complacent US public and motivates them to take action against their government rather than perpetuating the archetypical apathy and tongue clucking that defines them --
Re:Human Rights voliations (Score:5, Informative)
I dunno about other European countries, but in Sweden we definitely have a counterpart to NSA (FRA) that does similarly all-encompassing surveillance, all of course under the guise of "anti-terrorism". As an added "bonus" the laws regulating FRA explicitly says that they're allowed to exchange the information with foreign nations (read the US).
To dupe citizens into believing that the information isn't abused (of course the mere fact that the information is collected is abuse, but...) a special group has been set up to monitor the use of the information. But despite finding a lot of violations of the (already very permissive) regulations, FRA does not rectify any of their so called mistakes.
One example is that they're not allowed to save the information more than a certain time period (I believe it's 6 months). "Oh, but we copied the information to a different database! Now it's not raw data anymore, it's refined intellgence reports that aren't covered by that time limitation".
But other than that I agree. Two (or many) wrongs doesn't make a right.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, firstly the GCHQ are *in* Europe, and secondly every European nation has its own counterpart of the American agencies -- sometimes close analogues of the NSA like GCHQ are, sometimes amalgamations of parts of the NSA and FBI. Genuinely, everyone *is* at it. The difference is the extent to which the agencies are held to account, but by their very nature it's hard - and indeed extremely counter-productive - to have public exposes and analysis of their activities.
Re:Human Rights voliations (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, people are the same everywhere. And this new trend to just lay down and take it has become almost universal. Once a nation becomes industrialized enough and people have enough comfort they will never fight back for fear of losing that comfort. It's really the best way to enslave humans. Just let their own natural lethargy keep them in check. Sure there will be chest beating and spin doctors will cry outrage... but in the end, the people will just go home, turn on the tube and tune out the life they have.
Re:Human Rights voliations (Score:4, Insightful)
They won't actually do anything about it. No one ever does anymore. It's not just the States either.
Sadly, people are the same everywhere. And this new trend to just lay down and take it has become almost universal. Once a nation becomes industrialized enough and people have enough comfort they will never fight back for fear of losing that comfort. It's really the best way to enslave humans. Just let their own natural lethargy keep them in check. Sure there will be chest beating and spin doctors will cry outrage... but in the end, the people will just go home, turn on the tube and tune out the life they have.
So this is your excuse for not doing anything?
Re: (Score:1)
So this is your excuse for not doing anything?
Hypocritical fool! How about YOU? What you are doing?
Re:Human Rights voliations (Score:5, Insightful)
How about you? What's your excuse for not getting off your fat ass?
Re:Human Rights voliations (Score:5, Insightful)
For the real changes to come there must be a small percentage of unhappy "elite", like bourgeois in France or "intelligentsya / intellectuals" in Russia. Then they can lead masses to the revolution that will bring real changes. Problem is, our current elites are trying to use and even exploit existing systems of government, instead of trying to change it completely. So, yes, we won't have any real revolutionary changes in the foreseeable future, but not because of the "tubes". It's because everybody with the real power (even "middle class") are really happy with the current state of things.
Re:Human Rights voliations (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's very difficult to get people to risk that comfort now. It's nearly impossible actually. A paranoid person may think that it's designed that way to keep it all on the side of those in power. Hell, even the unhappy elite as you point out are not unhappy enough anymore to take that risk. They've been given too comfortable a leash.
If just one group in the USA said NO tomorrow and stopped working you could cripple the entire country in under two weeks. If just all the sales people, or all the nurses, or all the IT support staff... I'll give you an ideal group: Semi-truck drivers. There are less than 100k. And if they stopped driving and took their distributor caps when they went home there would be no food, water, gas, heat, or power in the entire US in about two weeks. I'd imagine if they had a list of just 10 reasonable demands those would be met in no time. If they were willing to risk it.
But... they'd get the phone calls to tell them go back to work or I'm sharing your online history with your wife. Or one of them would have their money frozen over a dodgy tax return and he'd post it on FB. And then the rest would cave because they would not want to risk it.
We've been trained to believe that individual comfort in the short term is more valuable than anything else. And we're unwilling to risk it to find out if the altruistic idyllic fantasy could become real. This is directly opposite of previous groups who did affect change.
Re: (Score:2)
But for me and my friends (30+ y.o.) it's now just a game of finding a "zone of least discomfort". BTW, your sig sounds really great with your post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even with an "independant" judge, this case has little change of going anywhere as the French Government does not want the public get all stirred up on US snooping in fear that we will take a closer look at the DGSE's snooping. Wouldn't want to draw any more attention to the Minister who said that "our snooping is legal because we have laws that say that we can snoop on people".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's only because we french expect our government to spy on us & to control the press as much as they can. We find it normal that Pompidou asked Kennedy "how to you control the country if you don't control the press" & having a President outright lie about his having a cancer before an election isn't considered a breach of journalistic ethics when we learn the press knew.
Except for a few rare exceptions the only people claiming to be outraged about the NSA's data gathering are clowns like Melencho
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, people are the same everywhere. And this new trend to just lay down and take it has become almost universal. Once a nation becomes industrialized enough and people have enough comfort they will never fight back for fear of losing that comfort.
Thus has it always been. Eventually the system breaks down, people have nothing left to lose, and they pick up their torches and pitchforks. Only meritocracies can be successful and they always turn into something else eventually, then fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes they do, a lot. They already closed the airspace from a diplomatic flight suspected carrying Snowden.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-02/airplane-bolivian-president-denied-passage-over-french-portuguese-airspace-due-snowd [zerohedge.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The actions of the NSA and GCHQ are clear human rights violations in Europe. I hope both are pursued for this crime. Presumably the French are investigating GCHQ as well as the NSA.
They went after google for the wifi data capture, and that isn't as serious as purposely capturing telephone and communications.
Of course, google just got fined, so what will they do to the USA if found guilty? Fine them?
Re:Human Rights voliations (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You're counting chickens before they hatch. This suit will be buried one way or another as the French government does not want anyone looking any closer at the DGSE's data collection/mining activities. The Hypocrisy of trying to reproach the USA or US corporations for doing the same thing the French Government is doing (possibly with some of the same corporations like EMC) is too big to swallow, even for the current government.
Re:Human Rights voliations (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States [wikipedia.org] shows the "outcome".
PRISM will end up as a great read, fun for historical and computer science types (from the view of the US gov).
More interesting will be the reputations of the big US brands, their long term EU and French standing. Local reps trying anything to get in front of any new local press as daily details become public.
This is not tax or some other day to day detail that can be PR away via help from some US firm. France recalls the Vichy days, Indochina, French Algeria, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elf_Aquitaine#Fraud_scandal [wikipedia.org] and their public is educated and will enjoy the topics.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably any US companies like Google, Apple or Microsoft who have operations in Europe would be fined if found to have violated human rights, or possibly even prosecuted.
Re: (Score:2)
so what will they do to the USA if found guilty? Fine them?
Negative. Fine me. I will take full responsibility for the entire affair. I have written at length my musings of how simple it is to hoodwink humans. If you will only swear to live calm and logical lives afterwards, then I will take the blame of your wold's governments, the corporations, and all the people as well.
I will be your digital Jesus!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think GCHQ will be investigated. The problem is that whilst GCHQ was tapping cables in the UK itself, the NSA was ordering companies both US based and foreign to hand over data.
So for example, the NSA may have asked French telecomms companies to hand over data and the telecomms companies were obliging to retain access to the US market. In contrast GCHQ wasn't afaik doing this, it was just tapping cables only on it's home soil.
This is why the French authorities are investigating because in obliging F
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure that court cases won't set an extremely dangerous precedent; every major power is in a position to take every other major power to court, and no nation holds the moral highground on this. I'm fine to have the French investigate GCHQ and the NSA so long as everyone else has the right to investigate the DGSE and DSRI. (Same goes for Russian protests and the not-so-secret programmes of the FSB, who have been happily active in Britain and America over the last decade, let alone within Russia. And o
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, the DGSE's even wider scoped snooping on anything/anyone they like was neatly swept under the rug by the French government. Because, snooping by anyone else, like the NSA or the GCHQ is cause for inflated displays of moral indignancy, but when the the French Government does it, well that's normal.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, not for at least a couple hundred years?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Lady was quoted by Il Giornale newspaper in 2009 as saying: "I'm not guilty. I'm only responsible for carrying out orders that I received from my superiors."
When that's your best defence, you know you've been doing something wrong...
They're Jealous (Score:2, Insightful)
France constantly ranks up near the top in nations where the State facilitates or actively participates in corporate espionage.
They were one of the first countries to pass a "key disclosure law", allowing law enforcement to demand people decrypt data.
Encryption in France has always been tightly controlled and even today it is permitted only for authentication and integrity. Confidentiality is essentially at the whim of the gov't.
France ranks right up there with China as far as many U.S. gov't agencies are c
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a fact that using cryptography of ANY strength for personal information was until fairly recently an illegal act, WELL into the modern information age. I have a hard time believing that France has done a complete 180 since
Re: (Score:3)
While China tops the list of countries engaging in cyber-espionage, according to a report published February by the US secret services, France shares second place with Russia and Israel, leading Foreign Policy to describe Hollande's outrage as "pretty hilarious".
Colourful stories about the lengths the French secret services would go to emerged in the early 1990s, such as the bugging of seats on Air France planes to eavesdrop on American business leaders.
At the time, then-CIA director Stansfield Turner quali
Re: (Score:2)
Because - putain de la merde! (Score:2)
Surveillance of French citizens is a job for France!
I mean FFS!: the bloody word 'surveillance' is French!
Re: (Score:2)
Surveillance of French citizens is a job for France!
Yeah, in these times of crisis it's really rude to be stealing other peoples jobs :)
Of those intercepted communications: (Score:1)
50,000 about baguettes and other pastries.
150,000 complaints about having to work 5 days a week.
1,600,000 offering to surrender.