Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So other countries have the right to know what another country is doing in terms of espionage and covert ops?

I thought they were called covert ops for a reason. No, no other country has the right to know what the US government is doing in terms of espionage just as we don't have the right to know what other countries are doing.

We find out because we spy on them and they spy on us.

Imagine what would've happened if the details of the D-Day invasion had been leaked to the mainstream media. What would've happened is a called of landing and a protracted war. Governments need to hide espionage details in order to prevent other governments and radical groups from finding out what plans the government has.

If any information is leaked it should be after the situation it covers is over.

halonachos wrote:So other countries have the right to know what MY country is doing in terms of espionage and covert ops?

Doesn't seem to me like you're taking an impartial position here, from the rest of your post.

That aside, how can you say that? My take on it is that they don't have the right to spy on allies, except with a very valid reason - i.e. the country has a record of going against the US. Even then, it's not a diplomat's job. They abused their priviliged positions to gather information. Not saying that doing it "the ninja way" would be excusable, but these people need to have some credibility and they do represent their country, so they should have been more careful. They come off as double-dealing, and this will likely strain relations with other countries' diplomats.

I thought they were called covert ops for a reason. No, no other country has the right to know what the US government is doing in terms of espionage just as we don't have the right to know what other countries are doing.We find out because we spy on them and they spy on us.

This isn't military personnel. They are civilians who are vouched by their governments as being trustworthy. They are received with open arms in other countries, and enjoy various benefits because of that. They abused their power, so other allied countries should be aware that they're being spied upon. It isn't a question of having the right or not, but your country's diplomats were doing just that.

Imagine what would've happened if the details of the D-Day invasion had been leaked to the mainstream media. What would've happened is a called of landing and a protracted war. Governments need to hide espionage details in order to prevent other governments and radical groups from finding out what plans the government has.

It's neither here nor there regarding to what's being debated. This isn't a world war, this is a completely different scenario.

If any information is leaked it should be after the situation it covers is over.

I somewhat agree, like the "Pentagon Papers". However, the leaks do question the validity of that war, what (and who) is in for the US and those involved after the war (and before it) - and exposes the fact that things are not like national media cover them, almost world-wide.

You do realize that every country can(and incidentally does) "collect" DNA and biometric data, right?

It's not like people sterilize their trash before they throw it away.

I'm fairly certain that the DRC does not collect genetic data.

Kanluwen wrote:You do realize that every country can(and incidentally does) "collect" DNA and biometric data, right?

It's not like people sterilize their trash before they throw it away.

What was being under discussion here was the fact that the US do it through their diplomats. And it wasn't only DNA and biometric data.

http://www.dailymailtimes.com/?p=656

The United States has expanded the role of American diplomats in collecting intelligence overseas and at the United Nations, ordering State Department personnel to gather the credit card and frequent-flier numbers, work schedules and other personal information of foreign dignitaries, according to The New York Times, citing secret documents on Sunday.

While the State Department has long provided information about foreign officials’ duties to the Central Intelligence Agency to help build biographical profiles, the more intrusive personal information diplomats are now being asked to gather could be used by the National Security Agency for data mining and surveillance operations.

Ronald Neumann, a former American ambassador to Afghanistan, Algeria and Bahrain, said that Washington was constantly sending requests for voluminous information about foreign countries. But he said he was puzzled about why Foreign Service officers – who are not trained in clandestine collection methods – would be asked to gather information like credit card numbers.

“My concerns would be, first of all, whether the person could do this responsibly without getting us into trouble,” he said. “And, secondly, how much effort a person puts into this at the expense of his or her regular duties.”

Independent of what you claim (which can in no way be verified and I could dismiss a "conspiracy theory"), the fact is that it is a serious international problem for the US.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
And as to the legality of diplomats spying, for halonachos:

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un)

The UN has previously asserted that bugging the secretary general is illegal, citing the 1946 UN convention on privileges and immunities which states: "The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action".

The 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which covers the UN, also states that "the official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable".

So other countries have the right to know what another country is doing in terms of espionage and covert ops?

I thought they were called covert ops for a reason. No, no other country has the right to know what the US government is doing in terms of espionage just as we don't have the right to know what other countries are doing.

My mind is fething blown.

You do realize that every country can(and incidentally does) "collect" DNA and biometric data, right?

It's not like people sterilize their trash before they throw it away.

I think you should review this post for wild, unsupported, non sensical and silly accusations Kan. I believe there might be a few in there.


This thread just keeps getting worse.

And one interesting tidbit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817

In addition, in November Mr Assange contacted US Ambassador in London Louis Susman asking for help redacting information that could put individuals at risk. When the US government refused, Mr Assange wrote he therefore concluded the risk of harm was "fanciful" while stating he had no interest in hurting US national security.

ShumaGorath wrote:

You do realize that every country can(and incidentally does) "collect" DNA and biometric data, right?

It's not like people sterilize their trash before they throw it away.

I think you should review this post for wild, unsupported, non sensical and silly accusations Kan. I believe there might be a few in there.

Sorry, do you sterilize your trash when you throw it away?

No?
Then there's a bunch of your DNA and biometric data floating around there. Ziploc bags with fingerprints, tissues you used to blow your nose, etc.

In addition, in November Mr Assange contacted US Ambassador in London Louis Susman asking for help redacting information that could put individuals at risk. When the US government refused, Mr Assange wrote he therefore concluded the risk of harm was "fanciful" while stating he had no interest in hurting US national security.

So he asked the U.S. to corroborate and assist with the dissemination of it's own classified documents, then when they refused he concluded that the harm was somehow "fanciful" (this is the part about him being a douchey idiot) because he didn't want to have to have his organization actually do some work vetting the documents and acting like a professional journalistic organization?

This doesn't exactly help his case, logically the U.S. is going to refuse that request, as would any nation, he should of hired a few people from intelligence or law fields to assist with doing it anyway because it's a fething important thing to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sorry, do you sterilize your trash when you throw it away?

No?
Then there's a bunch of your DNA and biometric data floating around there. Ziploc bags with fingerprints, tissues you used to blow your nose, etc.

No, I was stating that the idea that the government is rustling through my trash to get my hair follicles is a ridiculous and idiotic one.

Of course it's a ridiculous and idiotic one.

Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.

You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?

No, not really.

Define for me the "means" of a given person.

ShumaGorath wrote:So he asked the U.S. to corroborate and assist with the dissemination of it's own classified documents, then when they refused he concluded that the harm was somehow "fanciful" (this is the part about him being a douchey idiot) because he didn't want to have to have his organization actually do some work vetting the documents and acting like a professional journalistic organization?

This doesn't exactly help his case, logically the U.S. is going to refuse that request, as would any nation, he should of hired a few people from intelligence or law fields to assist with doing it anyway because it's a f-thing important thing to do.

He gave them the opportunity to review and avoid embarrasments. It was the US's best interest to edit those documents. If I had a "bomb" like that, I would leave to people with better judgement on the matter to evaluate them and say what and which content should be censored.

And that sounds like a good attitude out of him, actually. That he is or might be a douche or whatever is beyond the point - the US Gov would know better than anyone what they could've avoided, better than Assange or his group, so they still are responsible. Having prior knowledge and not acting on it, given the change, is another failure.

If they didn't even care about the fact that said documents would be released unedited by them, it stands to reason that they weren't that bad. It was the US's best interest to edit those documents.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817

Secretary of Defence Robert Gates has said the leaked diplomatic cables were embarrassing but would have only "modest" consequences for US foreign policy.

Good thing then. If I was spinning conspiracy theories, I could say that the US Gov knew that Assange's publishing of the unedited articles would serve to villify him later on at the expense of a few embarrasing secrets that had no consequence on the American public's view of the war and it's expenses, whether monetary or humanitary.

Of course it's a ridiculous and idiotic one.

It also stands alone as your idea and I certainly hope you don't draw an equivalence to something else to somehow "prove yourself right". Thats one of the logical fallacies. I would have to quote it... Oh god, I see it. It's coming.

Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.

Why did you have to go and do that..

An inconsistent comparison is a misleading argument popular in advertising. For example, an advertisement might say "product X is less expensive than product A, has better quality than product B, and has more features than product C". This is designed to give the impression that product X is better than products A, B, and C in all respects, but doesn't actually make that claim. In fact, product A may be the most expensive, product B may be the lowest quality, and product C may have the fewest features of the three. So, the original statement really only means "product X is not the most expensive, lowest quality, fewest feature product on the market". That would hardly be as effective of an advertisement, however.

You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?

Biometric data doesn't really assist with that..

Kanluwen wrote:Of course it's a ridiculous and idiotic one.

Just like the idea that the US is building some kind of "super databank" of information about every diplomat for nefarious purposes. There's far, far more practical purposes to having such information.

You can find which diplomats are living above their means and likely taking kickbacks from the private sector, for example. Helps expose corruption, now doesn't it?

Wouldn't it be far more likely to be for mediatic exposure, blackmail, and so on?

The fact is that they collected sensitive and private information, illegaly. So we're to trust they had the best intentions on it?

Tracking people down, knowing where they are going to travel to, etc, facilitates the creation of certain embarassing scenarios. Like the Assange case. Not saying this was the case (once again, conspiracies!), but it is a more plausible scenario.

He gave them the opportunity to review and avoid embarrasments. It was the US's best interest to edit those documents. If I had a "bomb" like that, I would leave to people with better judgement on the matter to evaluate them and say what and which content should be censored.

No government will assist in the dissemination of its own classified documents and an ambassador doesn't have the level of authority to make that decision regardless.

And that sounds like a good attitude out of him, actually. That he is or might be a douche or whatever is beyond the point - the US Gov would know better than anyone what they could've avoided, better than Assange or his group, so they still are responsible. Having prior knowledge and not acting on it, given the change, is another failure.

So the U.S. government is responsible for the unedited release of stolen documents by a foreign private company because it refused to both corroborate and asst in handing them out? Are you high?

If they didn't even care about the fact that said documents would be released unedited by them, it stands to reason that they weren't that bad. It was the US's best interest to edit those documents.

Somehow I don't think ONE fething U.S. DIPLOMAT HAS READ OVER TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DIPLOMATIC CABLES. Also, that one official doesn't have the authority to accept or refuse such a request as they don't have the authority to release classified documents to foreign civilian nationals. I think under technicalities if he had accepted he would have been guilty of espionage. Use your brain please.

Good thing then. If I was spinning conspiracy theories, I could say that the US Gov knew that Assange's publishing of the unedited articles would serve to villify him later on at the expense of a few embarrasing secrets that had no consequence on the American public's view of the war and it's expenses, whether monetary or humanitary.

Whelp, thats already been proven untrue, so you might as well just throw the bs conspiracies out the window.

I'd be skeptical as to the validity of biometric data that they could collect, too. That sort of stuff can degrade pretty quickly outside the body, if we're talking actual cells.

edit: nm Shuma already answered. Instead, have a taco.

Da Boss wrote:I'd be skeptical as to the validity of biometric data that they could collect, too. That sort of stuff can degrade pretty quickly outside the body, if we're talking actual cells.

You can collect DNA information from hair half a century after it falls off the head with a good level of accuracy so long as it hasn't been exposed to a lot environmental degradants.

ShumaGorath wrote:
So the U.S. government is responsible for the unedited release of stolen documents by a foreign private company because it refused to both corroborate and asst in handing them out? Are you high?

I might be, for trying to have a civilized discussion here. The documents were going to be released regardless, BUT the US were given the opportunity to minimize it's damage. They were only responsible for creating the embarassing scenario in the first place.

Somehow I don't think ONE fething U.S. DIPLOMAT HAS READ OVER TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DIPLOMATIC CABLES.

I DON'T THINK THE CONDITION WAS THAT ONE SINGLE FCKN U.S. DIPLOMAT HAD TO READ OVER TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DIPLOMATIC CABLES..

Insulting me, using caps, trying to turn this into another flame war... if you're tired of discussing it, don't read it.

Also, that one official doesn't have the authority to accept or refuse such a request as they don't have the authority to release classified documents to foreign civilian nationals. I think under technicalities if he had accepted he would have been guilty of espionage. Use your brain please.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817

the US government refused

So it wasn't up to the official. Please, do read before insulting someone or embarassing yourself. I held you in higher regard, though.

To your side, though, it might be said that the US GOV was represented by that individual, as nowhere it says that anyone higher than the ambassador was informed.

Whelp, thats already been proven untrue, so you might as well just throw the bs conspiracies out the window.

Funnily enough, it was proven untrue in this thread and nowhere else. And I'm not, as I said in all previous posts, spinning conspiracy theories. I presented an angle, I didn't say I thought it was 100% true, 50% true, or whatever.

Kanluwen wrote:You do realize that every country can(and incidentally does) "collect" DNA and biometric data, right?

It's not like people sterilize their trash before they throw it away.

A. That's not true.

B. If it were, it wouldn't make it right.

C. It has been introduced in some countries by the pressure of the US.

D. There is strong opposition to it.

E. The UK criminal DNA database has been found to breach human rights.

Da Boss wrote:I'd be skeptical as to the validity of biometric data that they could collect, too. That sort of stuff can degrade pretty quickly outside the body, if we're talking actual cells.

Quiet you, no one wants to hear from people educated in biology.

Unless you come bearing tequila....

dogma wrote:No, not really.

Define for me the "means" of a given person.

Define for me how Internal Affairs investigates officers for taking bribes?

We know what they're paid. We can get their financial information and a general idea of how much money they have available to them through their spouses, or if they've gotten any inheritances, things of that nature.

Da Boss wrote:I'd be skeptical as to the validity of biometric data that they could collect, too. That sort of stuff can degrade pretty quickly outside the body, if we're talking actual cells.

Hey now, let's not facts get in the way of a good conspiracy

Kanluwen wrote:
Define for me how Internal Affairs investigates officers for taking bribes?

See how stupid you look when you try to force jokes into sentences that won't bear them?

In any case, answer the question, don't deflect.

Nurglitch wrote:
We know what they're paid. We can get their financial information and a general idea of how much money they have available to them through their spouses, or if they've gotten any inheritances, things of that nature.

No, we don't know that they're paid. At least assuming "they" is definitive of "WikiLeaks contributors".

Stop going on emotion, it makes you look dumb.

I might be, for trying to have a civilized discussion here.

A civilized discussion had in ignorance isn't one that honors the idea of civility.

The documents were going to be released regardless, BUT the US were given the opportunity to minimize it's damage. They were only responsible for creating the embarassing scenario in the first place.

The U.S. government was responsible for creating the scenario in the first place? Explain that one please.

I DON'T THINK THE CONDITION WAS THAT ONE SINGLE FCKN U.S. DIPLOMAT HAD TO READ OVER TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DIPLOMATIC CABLES..

And yet he asked one ambassador then herp derped into the belief that because they would't help him out he clearly had no responsibility to the thousands of people written about in the documents. Sounds like he asked one person their opinion concerning something they would have no idea about and then abdicated responsibility. I agree that shouldn't have been the condition, but it was the one that he created.

Insulting me, using caps, trying to turn this into another flame war... if you're tired of discussing it, don't read it.

I'm tired of the tirade of conspiracy and ignorance, not of the thread. I made an effort to silence one and add to the other, as I continue to do now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11952817

I was talking about the ambassador, not assange. That was very clear in my choice of grammar.

So it wasn't up to the official. Please, do read before insulting someone or embarassing yourself. I held you in higher regard, though.

Who is "The U.S. government" in this instance? Given that this is a story stemming from Assange himself and we have no view into the inner workings of that consulate the sounding is that Assange asked one man, was quickly rebuffed, then went on his merry way. A response from an ambassador is a response from "the U.S. Government".

Funnily enough, it was proven untrue in this thread and nowhere else.

The release of operation Eagle Shield and covert military operations in Yemen alone have and likely will damage foreign relations and the causes of both war and peace. It's been proven out in reality, not just here. So these documents are not "harmless".

I presented an angle, I didn't say I thought it was 100% true.

You post something as a belief I'm going to take it as such. I don't really care for internet personas as I don't know you in reality.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Define for me how Internal Affairs investigates officers for taking bribes?

See how stupid you look when you try to force jokes into sentences that won't bear them?

In any case, answer the question, don't deflect.

There was no deflection there, smartass. Maybe you need some glasses because I think you're going blind.

dogma wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
We know what they're paid. We can get their financial information and a general idea of how much money they have available to them through their spouses, or if they've gotten any inheritances, things of that nature.

No, we don't know that they're paid. At least assuming "they" is definitive of "WikiLeaks contributors".

Stop going on emotion, it makes you look dumb.

Why are we talking about WikiLeaks here?
You wanted me to answer why and/or how "gathering information about diplomats" could help expose corruption.
The financial information for a diplomat isn't a state secret. We can request it, provided we have enough evidence to make the request.

All talk and no facts. Laughable, if it wasn't so infuriating.

Go read about civism, firstly. You seem to be missing some of it's finer points.

The U.S. created the scenario when they did everything that was leaked. I thought that one was easy to understand.

*sigh* and I was talking about the official. I highly doubt that the ambassor took that decision without contacting the Government. Still, the news source reported "the government refused". This could mean the ambassor, representing the US. Or this could mean the US, whom the ambassor contacted - which is more likely. We don't know the details of the conversation, but I doubt that he was given any ludicrous conditions, like you do say and do not even bother to fundament.

And do read my posts with a bit more care.

If I was spinning conspiracy theories, I could say that the US Gov knew that Assange's (...)

I thought it was obvious I wasn't posting conspiracy theories, God knows this thread has had enough of that.

Shuma: The methods are reliable enough to be good, and as you say, it varies depending on what's in the environment. But for individual level identification I'd still be a bit skeptical (this crops up in DNA profiling cases too). I'm also not sure what they'd use DNA information for.
Fingerprints and retinal scans, maybe. But not DNA, it hardly has any security applications.

I'm not a molecular biologist though. (I know a few, but I'm not trained above undergraduate level at molecular techniques.) (And I'm completely off topic at this stage)

Kanluwen wrote:
There was no deflection there, smartass. Maybe you need some glasses because I think you're going blind.

You're deflecting again.

I'll just assume that you cannot answer the question without impugning your assumed position.

Not a bad assumption, considering that my initial point was to illustrate what I just described.

Kanluwen wrote:
Why are we talking about WikiLeaks here?

Thread title?

Kanluwen wrote:
You wanted me to answer why and/or how "gathering information about diplomats" could help expose corruption.
The financial information for a diplomat isn't a state secret. We can request it, provided we have enough evidence to make the request.

That word you used, "provided", it indicates the presence of a state secret..

I mean, I can have access to Top Secret information provided that I have Top Secret clearance.

After some digging up.

http://wfol.tv/analysis/asia/5872-operation-eagle-guardian-natos-plans-for-war-with-russia.html

Operation Eagle Guardian's tactical details were worked out under Admiral James Stavridis, NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe, and are understood to have been leaked to Poland's Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper independently of WikiLeaks

I don't know how credible this was, and searched a bit more. EDIT: but only found something on the same site. Can't find anything on BBC at the moment.

http://wfol.tv/stop-nato/5880.html

One didn't have to wait for WikiLeaks or the Guardian to learn the above facts. And more.

On November 4 the Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza reported extensively on Eagle Guardian. The paper has a history of breaking crucial, and accurate, information earlier than other sources.

So, a bit redundant, the part about Eagle Shield, though I can't find BBC's stuff on it. I've been reading way too many articles, and some of them are a bit dodgy.

Speaking as a liberal, I say hang the witch.

feth around with top secret information, letting enemies of multiple states know gak that can aid them?

witch witch witch.