back to article United Nations to grill US over alleged NSA bugging of its HQ – report

The United Nations has said that it plans to contact the US over a report that the NSA had bugged its New York headquarters. Germany's Der Spiegel, citing secret documents leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, reported on Sunday that the US had "cracked the encryption" of the internal video conferencing system at the UN …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

      1. Benjol
        Alert

        Re: Move out?

        They've been selling off military bunkers recently in Swissland, could be handy?

        <a href="http://www.mount10.ch/english/index.php">Check this out for a bit of fun</a>

  1. Desk Jockey

    It is a big club

    Which big/major power with a seat in the UN doesn't attempt to hack and eavesdrop on the UN's calls? Will all the true innocents please put their hand up! Nope, don't see any hands. Will any of the UN staff who are surprised by this put their hands up. No don't see any hands there either!

    This is not exactly a well kept secret. Everyone just pretends they are being good. I think the NSA would do it just to keep in practice and to make sure there are very few systems they cannot crack if they need to. Come on, they even put a lot of effort into trying to crack their own systems.

    Planting a bug in the General Secretary's office would be seriously bad form however. Best not get caught doing that...

    As for the Americans stealing trade secrets, nooooo, it is those pesky commies that do it, American capitalism is so good it does not need to stoop so low. Honest!

    1. Robert Helpmann??
      Childcatcher

      Re: It is a big club

      Planting a bug in the General Secretary's office would be seriously bad form however.

      No good ever comes from breaking the 11th Commandment.*

      * Thou shalt not get caught.

    2. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

      Re: It is a big club

      Best to not get caught and, better still, not to get caught lying.

      It was lying designed to make the US look so much better and more righteous than everyone else which makes it so bad. It turns out they weren't equally as bad as everyone else, they were worse because of those lies.

  2. Miek
    Linux

    The Transcript ...

    UN: Er, have you been spying on us?

    US: Yes

    UN: Okay, great, thanks.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Really?

    I'd tell the Useless Nations to go to Hell.

  4. silent_count
    Happy

    News to nobody

    "... associate spokesperson for UN secretary Ban Ki-Moon, said the body planned to get in touch with the "relevant authorities".

    Of course there was a phone call from the US, to assure Mr Ki-Moon that the NSA doesn't listen in on UN meetings, long before the UN told anyone that they were going to call to enquire if the NSA... erm... hang on.

    1. Irony Deficient

      Mr Ki-Moon?

      silent_count, the “surname” of the current UN Secretary-General is Ban, so he would be more accurately referred to as Dr Ban.

  5. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

    "This is getting embarrassing....

    ...it's a pity we haven't got something to divert attention."

    "How about a war?"

    "The very thing! Syria looks nice at this time of year...."

  6. Hoe

    FFS...

    America to China: DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DO!

    See You Next Tuesday's!

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So SSL is up the creek too I guess?

    I've been thinking that SSL is worthless for a while now - what's interesting with the recent bunch of revelations is what's not being said given that we can assume that only the most innocuous breaches are being discussed.

  8. Chris G

    Peace keeping

    " the USA has always been the largest financial contributor to the UN, and always the largest military contributor for peacekeeping. That is really ironic considering the lack of thanks the US usually gets."

    In recent years the US has identified where it should go and then gets the UN to ratify it's occupation of a country.

    The US 'keeps the peace' only where there is a likelyhood of gaining control of a market of vital importance to national security ( keeping a plentiful supply of relatively cheap fuel and related products to maintain a standard of living that keeps the population quiet.) Much more important than preventing injustice being heaped on some poor third world people that have nothing of current commercial value.

    Middle East? still has oil and parts of it are the gateway to further supplies to the East!

    Ethiopia? Has gold, oil/gas and potentially a lot of rare earths.

    Mali? does have some gold and potential for other things but none of it is developed and is some way off from being worth democratising just yet, so let the frogs in there we can always get them out when it's worthwhile.

    Haven't seen much peace happening in Iraq or Afghanistan and parts of the Palestine/Israel region and maybe the Lebanese border could do with a bit of peace but I don't think the US is about to shake up those hornet's nest with a bit of altruism.

    Syria is looking to be a good candidate though especially since Israel granted oil exploration rights in the Golan Heights region to Murdoch and Rothschild among others, they will need a bit of back up I expect.

    1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Chris G Re: Peace keeping

      ".....The US 'keeps the peace' only where there is a likelyhood of gaining control of a market of vital importance to national security ( keeping a plentiful supply of relatively cheap fuel and related products to maintain a standard of living that keeps the population quiet.) Much more important than preventing injustice being heaped on some poor third world people that have nothing of current commercial value....." So, don't tell me, there was oil in Kosovo? Major fail!

    2. Dave Stevens
      FAIL

      Re: largest peacekeeping contributor

      "As of June 2013, 114 countries were contributing a total 91,216 military observers, police, and troops to United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. Pakistan contributed the highest number, with 8,230 personnel, followed by Bangladesh (7,986), India (7,878), Ethiopia (6,502), Rwanda (4,686), Nigeria (4,684), Nepal (4,495), Jordan (3,374), Ghana (2,859), and Egypt (2,750). In January 2004, BBC described the highly disciplined Bangladeshi UN Force as The Cream of UN Peacekeepers." -Wiki

      Most of what the US did in Kosovo wasn't peacekeeping. Peacekeeping does not involves dropping bombs or launching cruise missiles.

      About 4.5% of the troops and civilian police deployed in UN peacekeeping missions come from the European Union and less than one percent from the United States.

      1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Dave Re: largest peacekeeping contributor

        ".....Most of what the US did in Kosovo wasn't peacekeeping. Peacekeeping does not involves dropping bombs or launching cruise missiles....." Yeah, because the other members of the UN are so quick to volunteer forces for actual peace enforcement, right? Like the African Union in Somalia - lots of pledges, lots of promises, but all dragging their feet until the US bankrolled them (and Shabab militants started appearing in Northern Kenya and AQ bombed Nigeria). And the Pakistani contributions like Sierra Leone, where they were caught smuggling blood diamonds and supplying arms to the RUF militants that were killing other UN peacekeepers? The problem with the majority of UN contributors is they are only willing to send troops AFTER peace has been declared, and not when people actually need protecting. The massacres in Rwanda exposed exactly how useless the UN is without US muscle. Srebrenica was another perfect example of the toothless and gutless UN needing NATO to do the job for them, using those bombs and cruise missiles you so despise to force the Serbs to the negotiation table and then hunting down the Serbian war criminals.

        1. Roo
          Mushroom

          Re: Dave largest peacekeeping contributor

          "The massacres in Rwanda exposed exactly how useless the UN is without US muscle."

          Why did the US/NATO fail to step up to the plate on that occasion ?

          Somalia didn't work out very well, the US bailed out and left the UN to struggle on, that was a bit of a poor show from team Matt Bryant

          "Srebrenica was another perfect example of the toothless and gutless UN needing NATO to do the job for them, using those bombs and cruise missiles you so despise"

          NATO did the job differently to the UN because they had a different job to do. In case you haven't noticed the UN and NATO are two different organisations with different purposes.

          "using those bombs and cruise missiles you so despise to force the Serbs to the negotiation table and then hunting down the Serbian war criminals."

          Ah yes, I remember how that worked: The US check-points positively identified the "war criminals" and then waved them on their way as a matter of policy on multiple occasions until the rest of NATO found out what was going on and ensured that the job was done properly.

          The tone of your post suggests that you resent the UN getting in the way of killing people and destroying countries that you know absolutely fuck all about. If you like blowing shit up so much do it in your own backyard on your own dime, big man.

          1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Roo Re: Dave largest peacekeeping contributor

            "....Why did the US/NATO fail to step up to the plate on that occasion ?....." The problem with Rwanda was that the UN had a fixation not with interfering with civil wars or internal affairs as long as there was no genocide involved. This left far too much room for those trying to stop the UN interfering (such as Uganda, who backed the Hutus) until the genocidal action had happened. But one of the main reasons for the US not getting involved was European pigheadedness - the Belgians saw Rwanda as their ex-colony and resisted outside pressure for an American involvement, despite an informer having given the Belgians detailed info on the plans for the genocide which had been in turn reported back to the UN.

            ".....Somalia didn't work out very well...." Yes, exactly because there was no set objectives beyond Bill Clinton wanting to be seen to be "doing good". It is the perfect example of scope-creep and exactly what needs to be avoided in Syria. An half-arsed rush into a civil war could leave NATO embroiled in a protracted war that could spill over into Lebanon and Iraq (and even Turkey) with no set objectives.

            "....NATO did the job differently to the UN because they had a different job to do. In case you haven't noticed the UN and NATO are two different organisations with different purposes...." Yeah, I notice none of that disagrees with the point I made - duh!

            "....Ah yes, I remember how that worked: The US check-points positively identified the "war criminals" and then waved them on their way as a matter of policy on multiple occasions until the rest of NATO found out what was going on and ensured that the job was done properly....." And your evidence of this is.... Oh, you don't provide any! What a surprise - not.

            "....The tone of your post suggests that you resent the UN getting in the way of killing people and destroying countries...." The tone of your post suggests you would be shrieking at the UN as "lackeys of The Man" if they did approve action against Syria.

            "....that you know absolutely fuck all about....." I'll just choose to smile at that as I can virtually guarantee i know more about Syria than you, even if your post hadn't already exposed you as a shrieking ignoramus.

            "....If you like blowing shit up so much do it in your own backyard on your own dime, big man." <Sigh>. So you were too quick to froth and bleat you didn't bother to read my original post? What a surprise - again, not. If you had bothered to read it you would have seen that I did not want a loose and non-explicit granting of action, I would prefer a very detailed scope of exactly what is being authorized, so exactly the opposite of what you accused me of. Next time please try engaging your brain before bleating.

            1. Roo

              Re: Roo Dave largest peacekeeping contributor

              The thread thus far:

              "....Ah yes, I remember how that worked: The US check-points positively identified the "war criminals" and then waved them on their way as a matter of policy on multiple occasions until the rest of NATO found out what was going on and ensured that the job was done properly....." And your evidence of this is.... Oh, you don't provide any! What a surprise - not."

              Well, I did a quick search and I came up with a source I would never have dreamt of using, namely an article written by William Montgomery published online by the Jurist :

              "This attitude was strongest with regard to the apprehension of indicted war criminals. The U.S. military at that time fiercely refused to participate in any way in their capture" ... "So during this critical post-Dayton period, Ratko Mladic was giving TV interviews on the ski slopes of Jahorina (outside Sarajevo) and Radovan Karadzic was attending political rallies openly and going through military checkpoints with impunity."

              He goes on to say:

              "This changed in mid-1997"

              As for reading posts thing, I humbly suggest that you examine your own strengths and weaknesses in that department.

              As for who knows more about Syria, it's not entirely relevant to the issue at hand which is that your posts suggest that you are awfully keen to have shit blown up because you rail at length as to what's in the way of blowing shit up, but you have not presented a well reasoned coherent argument as to why blowing more shit up in Syria is necessary or even desirable.

              Dave Cameron ran into this credibility gap problem, but Obama has sidestepped it very deftly. Not the way I would have predicted it panning out - but then Obama appears to be a shrewd operator so I guess I should have expected something unusual.

              1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                Facepalm

                Re: Roo Dave largest peacekeeping contributor

                "....namely an article written by William Montgomery published online by the Jurist...." Which was not in your original post and you don't even provide a link to in your reply. Please try harder. Did you eman this article (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2008/08/arresting-radovan-karadzic-euphoria-and.php) which explains: "....The uniformed military and their civilian leaders were terrified that our troops would become targeted in a form of guerrilla warfare in Bosnia (pity that similar concerns weren't a factor several years later in the case of Iraq) and determined that there would be no "Mission Creep" which would keep them in Bosnia. This meant that the military narrowly defined its mission as only providing the overall security for Bosnia...." So US forces were not instructed to arrest Serb war criminals but to maintain the peace. Surely you should be celebrating that the Serbs eventually were presuaded to give up the criminals through diplomacy seeing as "blowing shit up" seems to upset your sooooo delicate sensibilities so much?

                "....your posts suggest that you are awfully keen to have shit blown up...." Incorrect, I am railing against the built-in inefficiency and corruption that is the UN system. It is equivalent to having a street mugging where the police have to stop and ask the opinion of everyone on the street if they can arrest the mugger, with it only taking one friend of the mugger saying no to derail the whole affair and ensure the mugger escapes.

                ".... because you rail at length as to what's in the way of blowing shit up...." Again, incorrect, I am saying I don't belief the current suggestion of "blowing shit up" is actually going to benefit the Syrian people, it is simply you are too obtuse to understand that. The only way to completely ensure Assad does not use chemical weapons would be to destroy them all (technically very difficult, and possibly with dangerous collatoral damage and pollution threats to the Syrian civilians) or seize them by force (which would be a massive and costly military action). And that then leaves the question of whether any chemical weapons have fallen into rebel hands and do we do the same to them? None of which was being discussed in the UK motion, which was effectively asking for a "blank cheque" of military action (probably cruise missiles and bombing) to slap Assad with. The only other option I can see is getting Assad to allow UN monitors (probably Russian) to take over control of all his chemical weapons until the civil war is settled, with the threat of bombing if Assad doesn't agree. Shall we see if you can summon enough concentration to suggest anything other than more shrieking?

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Scared

    I was going to post anonymously with some thoughts on this matter.

    To be honest I decided that it was not worth the risk.

    Make what you want of my decision, the Internet, and this site, are no longer safe.

    Going off grid shortly.

    b75949e4ec19c1233f39aafefbd3618e

  10. John Sanders

    Paranoia....

    Paranoia!!!!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Paranoia....

      just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't listening?

  11. asdf

    f__k the US but also f__k the UN

    So far of the revelations this one concerns me the least. The US is spying on a bunch of bureaucrats doing nothing but putting out grand meaningless water down statements. The only purpose of the UN is to force every other country in the world to ally itself with one of the countries on the security council. Otherwise all they are doing is spreading cholera in Haiti.

  12. raydpratt

    And What Will They Do About It? Snivel?

    So, they are going to ask the United States: "Is it true? have you been looking at my bum?"

    No matter what the response, what's the retort? It's lame: absolutely nothing will change except that the careless will be more careful.

  13. sirhan
    Thumb Up

    There certainly is such a thing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12810675

    It's the Presidential tin foil hat/tent.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like