James Clapper: We Totes Shoulda Told You About Section 215

from the does-not-compute dept

Ever since Edward Snowden leaked information about the massive government surveillance being done both domestically and abroad by the NSA, the refrain that such leaks have put people in danger and harmed national security have been ongoing. Supporters of the NSA have specifically noted that leaks about section 215, the PATRIOT Act section that the NSA believes gives it the power to collect all telco traffic records, will prove to be absolutely catastrophic to our safety. Spy bigwig James Clapper himself wrote to Ron Wyden that section 215 leaks "will do significant damage to the intelligence community's ability to protect the nation."

Now, in a move that will surprise nobody, since Clapper is a proven liar, he has reversed course and says that the government should have told the American people about section 215.

“What did us in here, what worked against us was this shocking revelation,” he said, referring to the first disclosures from Snowden. If the program had been publicly introduced in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, most Americans would probably have supported it. “I don’t think it would be of any greater concern to most Americans than fingerprints. Well people kind of accept that because they know about it. But had we been transparent about it and say here’s one more thing we have to do as citizens for the common good, just like we have to go to airports two hours early and take our shoes off, all the other things we do for the common good, this is one more thing.”

Unbelievable. So the very same disclosure that turned Edward Snowden into a traitor and was going to do so much harm to American security is something Clapper says he should have done in the first place? With such an admission, where is the backlash against the continued prosecution of Snowden in the court of public opinion? Where is the embarrassed apology for lying to Americans about the dangers of the disclosures made previously? Lies, I might add, designed to scare the living hell out of people and chill speech, disclosures, and journalism.

I typically try to find some humor in every situation, but this kind of flip-flopping is bullshit on a level hitherto unseen. The credibility gap between Clapper and his ilk versus Edward Snowden might as well be the Grand Canyon. I'm a bit amazed the man has been allowed to keep his job, never mind his still being allowed to make media statements.

Filed Under: edward snowden, james clapper, nsa, privacy, section 215

Snowden's Lawyer Interrogated By UK Authorities At Heathrow Airport

from the not-a-one-off dept

One of the most chilling moments so far in the Snowden saga was when Glenn Greenwald's partner David Miranda was held and interrogated for nine hours at London's Heathrow airport by the UK authorities, in a series of moves worthy of a tinpot dictatorship. And in case you thought that was a one-off, they've done it again -- this time, to Jesselyn Radack, a lawyer who represents Snowden and has spoken on his behalf several times. Here's what happened, as described by Kevin Gosztola on his Firedoglake blog:

Jesselyn Radack told Firedoglake she was directed to a specific Heathrow Border Force agent. He "didn’t seem interested" in her passport. She was then subjected to "very hostile questioning."

After asking what she would be doing in London, and establishing that she would be meeting with Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy, the border agent moved on to other issues, and showed a surprising knowledge of her recent movements:

"Why have you gone to Russia twice in three months?" Radack said she had a client in the country. "Who?" She answered, "Edward Snowden."

"Who is Edward Snowden?" asked the agent. Radack said he is a whistleblower and an asylee. Then, the agent asked, "Who is Bradley Manning?" To this, she answered, "A whistleblower."

For whatever reason, the agent asked, "Where is he?" "In jail," Radack told the agent. (Now, she is known as Chelsea Manning.)

The agent said, "So he's a criminal?" Radack corrected the agent, "He's a political prisoner." The agent asked if she represented Manning and she said no. Then he followed up, "But you represent Snowden?" She replied, "Yes, I'm a human rights lawyer."

The questions are clearly concerned with one topic -- whistleblowers -- and give the impression that the person asking the questions already knew the answers, but just wanted to put pressure on Radack:

She was "stone face cold" during the interrogation but afterward was shaking and in tears. "How did he know to bring up those names?"

This blatant attempt to intimidate Snowden's lawyer, who was informed that she was on an "inhibited persons list," comes in the wake of news that a US law firm was spied upon as it advised the Indonesian government in a trade dispute with Australia. It confirms that for the US and UK governments, nothing is exempt from their total surveillance, not even information traditionally covered by attorney-client privilege.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: david miranda, edward snowden, heathrow, jesselyn radack, uk

Latest Leak Shows NSA Spied On A US Law Firm Representing A Foreign Government In A Trade Dispute

from the the-business-of-the-spy-business-is-apparently-business dept

Remember the limitations imposed on the NSA by the administration's minor reform efforts? Recently, ODNI director James Clapper "released" a copy-paste job on a month-old presidential directive that included this paragraph:

“in no event may signals intelligence collected in bulk be used for the purpose of suppressing or burdening criticism or dissent; disadvantaging persons based on their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion; affording a competitive advantage to U.S. companies and U.S. business sectors commercially;” or achieving any purpose other than those identified above.

As I noted then, the NSA must be following these guidelines going forward because the most recent leak published at the New York Times shows the agency using its powers to "afford a competitive advantage to US companies/business sectors."

A top-secret document, obtained by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, shows that an American law firm was monitored while representing a foreign government in trade disputes with the United States…

The government of Indonesia had retained the law firm for help in trade talks, according to the February 2013 document. It reports that the N.S.A.’s Australian counterpart, the Australian Signals Directorate, notified the agency that it was conducting surveillance of the talks, including communications between Indonesian officials and the American law firm, and offered to share the information.

This gives the agency a bit of deniability, depending on how it phrases its response (or if a specific response ever arrives -- it only offered boilerplate earlier). It didn't spy on the US law firm, another agency did. It's just when the Australian agency offered to share the info, the NSA didn't say no. Instead, it offered "guidance" and recommended Australian intelligence keep intercepting attorney-client communication.

The Australians told officials at an N.S.A. liaison office in Canberra, Australia, that “information covered by attorney-client privilege may be included” in the intelligence gathering, according to the document, a monthly bulletin from the Canberra office. The law firm was not identified, but Mayer Brown, a Chicago-based firm with a global practice, was then advising the Indonesian government on trade issues.

On behalf of the Australians, the liaison officials asked the N.S.A. general counsel’s office for guidance about the spying. The bulletin notes only that the counsel’s office “provided clear guidance” and that the Australian agency “has been able to continue to cover the talks, providing highly useful intelligence for interested US customers.”

The paths towards plausible legality are twofold. Attorney-client communications are not specifically protected from NSA surveillance by US law and the agency is more than welcome to intercept communications involving a foreign intelligence target, like Indonesian officials. At this point, minimization is supposed to kick in and remove information related to non-targeted US persons. The NSA's canned answer deliberately avoids the specifics of the leak.

In a statement, Ms. Vines, the agency spokeswoman, said: “N.S.A. works with a number of partners in meeting its foreign-intelligence mission goals, and those operations comply with U.S. law and with the applicable laws under which those partners operate. A key part of the protections that apply to both U.S. persons and citizens of other countries is the mandate that information be in support of a valid foreign-intelligence requirement, and comply with U.S. attorney general-approved procedures to protect privacy rights.”

This would seem to be an admission by omission. If there's no immediate answer or plausible deniability, simply pass along the agency's mission statement as a "response."

This isn't the first time the agency has performed surveillance on behalf of US trade entities. As we've covered earlier, evidence of economic espionage in Brazil had previously been exposed and the New York Times is apparently in possession of other documents showing more trade-related spying.

A 2004 N.S.A. document, for example, describes how the agency’s intelligence gathering was critical to the Agriculture Department in international trade negotiations.

“The U.S.D.A. is involved in trade operations to protect and secure a large segment of the U.S. economy,” that document states. Top agency officials “often rely on SIGINT” — short for the signals intelligence that the N.S.A. eavesdropping collects — “to support their negotiations.”

So, the new guidance (as of January 17th) supposedly prevents the NSA from deploying surveillance for economically-motivated reasons. That's of small comfort considering the agency has denied performing this sort of surveillance in the past, continually asserting that its interest is solely in national security, even as more evidence mounts that its intelligence "customers" include US businesses and trade groups.

Even if the NSA did nothing more than "offer guidance," there's still an object lesson in this story: no matter who you are, no matter where your country of origin, you'll always be someone else's "foreigner," and afforded none of the minimal protections that your own country grants you.

Filed Under: edward snowden, indonesia, james clapper, leak, nsa, odni

European Parliament Committee Says No To TAFTA/TTIP Deal Without Respect For Data Privacy, But Fails To Offer Snowden Asylum

from the talking-tough dept

Earlier this week we mentioned that Edward Snowden has agreed in principle to contribute to the European Parliament's inquiry into the mass surveillance of EU citizens. The body leading that is the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) committee, which has been interviewing many other witnesses in order to formulate what the EU's response should be. Yesterday the LIBE committee met and agreed its final recommendations, which include some pretty dramatic demands -- like this one:

Parliament's consent to the final Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal with the US "could be endangered as long as blanket mass surveillance activities and the interception of communications in EU institutions and diplomatic representations are not fully stopped and an adequate solution for data privacy rights of EU citizens, including administrative and judicial redress is not found", MEPs say.

Parliament should therefore withhold its consent to the TTIP agreement unless it fully respects fundamental rights enshrined in the EU Charter, the text adds, stressing that data protection should be ruled out of the trade talks.

If the European Parliament agrees, that could be a big problem, because on the US side, there is an equally strong insistence that data protection must be included in any TAFTA/TTIP text. But the LIBE MEPs don't stop there; here are more potential bombshells:

MEPs call for the "immediate suspension" of the Safe Harbour privacy principles (voluntary data protection standards for non-EU companies transferring EU citizens' personal data to the US). These principles "do not provide adequate protection for EU citizens" say MEPs, who urge the US to propose new personal data transfer rules that meet EU data protection requirements.

The Terrorist Finance Tracking Programme (TFTP) deal should also be suspended until allegations that US authorities have access to EU citizens' bank data outside the agreement are clarified, say MEPs. The EU-US data protection framework agreement to be struck in spring 2014 must ensure proper judicial redress for EU citizens whose personal data are transferred to the US, they add.

Without the Safe Harbor program, it will be illegal under European law for companies like Google and Facebook to take EU citizens' personal data outside the EU, which would make it hard to run those services there. Presumably this threat is designed to encourage the US authorities to come up with something better than the current Safe Harbor system, which essentially offers no protection for the personal data of EU citizens when it is transferred to the US.

One interesting proposal concerns whistleblowers:

The resolution urges the European Commission to examine whether a future EU law establishing a "European whistleblower protection programme" should also include other fields of EU competence "with particular attention to the complexity of whistleblowing in the field of intelligence". EU member states are also asked to consider granting whistleblowers international protection from prosecution.

But a big omission is the lack of any formal call to offer political asylum to Edward Snowden, something many people had hoped for. However, Euronews reports that the Rapporteur (subject expert) for this report, Claude Moraes, believes that offering asylum is not possible because of the way that political powers are apportioned between the European Union and its member states:

"The European Union does not have the power to grant asylum as the European Union, so this is something for individual member states," he told euronews. "And the issue of asylum within this report therefore does not become a relevant issue for the European Union."

Finally, the LIBE committee rapped a few national knuckles for complicity in the NSA's global surveillance activities:

The UK, France, Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Poland should clarify the allegations of mass surveillance -- including potential agreements between intelligence services and telecoms firms on access to and exchange of personal data and access to transatlantic cables -- and their compatibility with EU laws, it says.

Other EU countries, in particular those participating in the "9-eyes" (UK, Denmark, France and the Netherlands) and "14-eyes" arrangements (those countries plus Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Sweden) are also urged to review their national laws and practices governing the activities of intelligence services, so as to ensure that they are subject to parliamentary and judicial oversight and public scrutiny and that they comply with fundamental rights obligations.

MEPs deem bilateral "anti-spying" arrangements concluded or under negotiation between some EU countries (the UK, France and Germany) and the US as "counterproductive and irrelevant, due to the need for a European approach to this problem".

It's worth emphasizing that all these demands are only recommendations at this stage: the final vote in the European Parliament will take place on 12 March, and could see amendments to any of them, as well as deletions and additions (for example, the EU Greens have said that they will try to get the European Parliament to offer asylum to Snowden then.) Nonetheless, the report sends a very strong signal that MEPs on the LIBE committee are extremely unhappy about the revelations of mass surveillance being conducted across Europe. What exactly that translates into as far as real-world actions are concerned, remains to be seen.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: edward snowden, eu, european union, privacy, tafta, trade agreements, ttip

The NSA Offers Up Three Possible Contributors To Snowden's Leaks To Its Congressional Oversight

from the please-stop-asking-what-we're-doing-about-it-because-we-really-have-no-idea dept

The question has often been asked, but without a satisfactory answer: how did Snowden end up with so many sensitive documents? Further, how did he manage to do this undetected? There has been a lot of speculation, but the recent Official Leak (as compared to Snowden's "unofficial" work) confirmed what nearly everyone already suspected: Snowden used readily available tools to harvest a ton of documents while escaping detection by the NSA.

The supposedly shocking "leak" about Snowden's "web crawler" only served to make the agency look worse. How did it fail to detect this sort of activity? Once again, the question has not received a direct answer. Instead, the agency has offered up three people who may have been indirectly involved in Snowden's document scraping: a civilian NSA employee (who conveniently resigned), an active duty military member and a contractor. (The agency actually uses the word "may" in its official letter to the House judiciary and intelligence committees, suggesting it's still uncomfortable with confirming or denying anything.)

This seemingly confirms an answer given by Keith Alexander at a hearing late last year.

“Has anybody been disciplined at NSA for dropping the ball so badly?” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., demanded of NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander at a Dec. 11 hearing. Alexander at the time replied that the agency had three “cases” that “we’re currently reviewing.”

(NBC sought further comment on this, but again met with a refusal from an NSA spokesperson to confirm or deny whether these cases were the same cases Alexander was referring to.)

Here's the details on the civilian employee's assistance of Snowden's scraping efforts.

On 18 June 2013, the NSA civilian admitted to FBI Special Agents that he allowed Mr. Snowden to use his (the NSA civilian's) Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) certificate to access classified information on access that he knew had been denied to Mr. Snowden. Further, at Mr. Snowden's request, the civilian entered his PKI password at Mr. Snowden's computer terminal. Unbeknownst to the civilian, Mr. Snowden was able to capture the password, allowing him even greater access to classified information. The civilian was not aware that Mr. Snowden intended to unlawfully disclose classified information. However, by sharing his PKI certificate, he failed to comply with security obligations.

The other two will face whatever the military and the unnamed corporation choose to dispense as discipline. All well and good, if a little too late. And yet, what's being detailed here feels a lot like sacrificial lambs with a small side of Snowden smearing.

Snowden has denied tricking other analysts into giving him their credentials. Whether or not you find his claim believable, there's no denying the agency's overriding concern. It has stated repeatedly that it has no idea how much Snowden took and it has no real idea how he managed to get so much in the first place.

The overseers are demanding answers and they're not getting anything concrete in response. Instead, they get a lot of murmuring about the "damage" the leaks have done and a token effort to root out additional culprits. Using this one to portray Snowden as a malevolent social engineer helps the NSA's PR efforts but still doesn't address the core issue.

The NSA still hasn't figured out how to prevent the "next Snowden," something that should be at least as horrifying (to the agency) as the current Snowden. This is perhaps the world's largest and most well-funded national security agency, but a single systems administrator managed to outwit its internal protections and walk away with 10-50,000 documents, and the most substantial "answers" the agency has provided to the "how" question is three supposed leak enablers (only one of which was a direct NSA employee) and the troubling admission that its system can easily be subverted by common software tools.

Maybe more evidence will come forth in the next few months to prove this impression wrong, but right now it looks like more an attempt to stave off a little criticism rather than an indication that the NSA has its own systems under control.

Filed Under: edward snowden, leak, nsa

Snowden Says He Is Willing To Answer Questions From European Parliament, Which Also Wants Him To Go There In Person

from the would-that-be-wise? dept

European governments have shown themselves to be extremely reluctant to investigate the NSA and GCHQ surveillance of their populations -- probably because they knew about it and received information as a result. The European Parliament, by contrast, has been active here through its Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) committee, which is holding an "inquiry on electronic mass surveillance of EU citizens."

One person uniquely well placed to help any such investigation is, of course, Edward Snowden, and it appears he has now agreed to give evidence:

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden has confirmed in writing that he is prepared to answer questions from the European Parliament's inquiry into the revelations of mass surveillance by intelligence services. He will at least respond in writing, possibly also via a recorded video message.

That information is posted on The Greens | European Free Alliance site, which goes on to say:

"It is clear that Edward Snowden will only be able to give us comprehensive information if he can be guaranteed a safe stay in Europe for a later in-depth testimony. Next week, the EP's civil liberties committee will decide if the European Parliament will call on EU governments to grant such protection. The Greens have pushed for this and continue to urge all political groups to support the move."

Given that the Bolivian President's jet was re-routed in Europe purely on suspicions that Snowden could be on board -- presumably at the behest of the US -- promises of "protection" won't be worth much. In any case, they're unlikely to be given for the same reasons European governments don't want to investigate this matter.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: edward snowden, eu parliament, gchq, nsa, privacy, whistleblower

Committee That Grilled Guardian Editor Over Snowden Documents Won't Get To Question Intelligence Boss

from the of-course-not dept

We recently wrote about the ridiculous performance put on by the UK Parliament in quizzing the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, concerning the legality of reporting on the Snowden leaks. Now, it appears that the same committee sought to hold a hearing with the head of the British MI5 intelligence agency, Andrew Parker, in order to see if he could back up the claims that the Guardian's reporting had put UK citizens in danger. However, that's not happening. UK officials won't let Parker testify in front of the same committee. Why? Because.

The home secretary, Theresa May, told the home affairs committee chairman, Keith Vaz, that she had rejected the request for the spy chief to give evidence because his appearance would "duplicate" the existing oversight provided by the prime ministerially appointed intelligence and security committee.

And, indeed, it is true that the intelligence and security committee held a hearing on the topic not so long ago -- but, like the Congressional counterparts, it was almost entirely softballs allowing them to spew rhetoric, rather than answer serious questions concerning the intelligence community.

Even worse, it appears that the UK leadership is working extra hard to keep trying to pass a hot potato to make sure no one has to testify on this particular issue:

A similar request for Kim Darroch, the national security adviser, to give evidence to the committee's inquiry into counter-terrorism was also rejected in a letter from David Cameron. He said "it was not a good idea" because Darroch's role focused on providing private advice to him and the national security council and his appearance would "set a difficult precedent".

The prime minister said it should be left to the home secretary to give evidence to the MPs on their concerns about counter-terrorism and the Guardian's disclosures of mass digital surveillance by GCHQ and the US national security agency.

The decision prompted a furious reaction from Vaz, who said: "The prime minister has suggested that the home secretary should come before us to answer our questions and Theresa May is suggesting that it is a matter for the intelligence and security committee. We cannot play pass the parcel on the issue of accountability on these important issues.

While the US process has been something of a joke, at least Congress has been able to get James Clapper, Keith Alexander and others out to testify a bunch of times on these issues. Some in the UK, however, would apparently like to sweep the whole issue under the rug.

Filed Under: andrew parker, edward snowden, mi5, oversight, theresa may, uk parliament

UK Prime Minister Urges Investigation Of The Guardian Over Snowden Leaks; There Shall Be No Free Press

from the chilling-effects dept

While freedom of the press is fairly deeply engrained in the US, that's not so true elsewhere -- and that became abundantly clear with the absurd theatrics of UK officials forcing the Guardian to destroy a computer in the basement for no reason at all. And now UK Prime Minister David Cameron is ratcheting things up, urging Parliament to investigate The Guardian to see if it broke any laws:

David Cameron has encouraged a Commons select committee to investigate whether the Guardian has broken the law or damaged national security by publishing secrets leaked by the National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.

He made his proposal in response to a question from former defence secretary Liam Fox, saying the Guardian had been guilty of double standards for exposing the scandal of phone hacking by newspapers and yet had gone on to publish secrets from the NSA taken by Snowden.

I've read that statement over and over and over again, and I still don't see what the double standard is. Both involve reporting on things of public interest, which, last I checked, is exactly what news organizations are supposed to do.

Then it gets even more bizarre, with Cameron arguing that the above-mentioned computer destruction somehow "proves" that the news organization knew it was breaking the law.

Speaking at prime minister's questions on Wednesday, Cameron said: "The plain fact is that what has happened has damaged national security and in many ways the Guardian themselves admitted that when they agreed, when asked politely by my national security adviser and cabinet secretary to destroy the files they had, they went ahead and destroyed those files.

"So they know that what they're dealing with is dangerous for national security. I think it's up to select committees in this house if they want to examine this issue and make further recommendations."

That's a plainly ludicrous interpretation of what happened. First, it wasn't a "polite" request, but there was a very clear implied threat to the Guardian if it didn't comply. Second, using oppressive censorship on the one hand to argue in support of further oppressive censorship on the other hand isn't exactly a winning argument.

In the end, what Cameron is doing is making it clear that the UK can have no free press. It can only have stenographers. When the government threatens to have you investigated for reporting on the excesses of government, you've created massive chilling effects, and guaranteed much greater corruption and abuse, as you've wiped out a key factor in keeping those things in check. Cameron's statements reflect poorly on the wider UK and its supposed belief in free speech and a free press.

Filed Under: chilling effects, david cameron, edward snowden, free press, freedom of the press, gchq, investigation, surveillance, uk
Companies: the guardian

Germans Want To Give Snowden A Medal, French Want To Give Him Asylum -- And To Call Off TAFTA/TTIP

from the never-a-dull-moment dept

Although nobody seems to know what Edward Snowden is up to at the moment, there have been plenty of reactions from others to the earlier revelations about US spying in Europe. Alongside the outrage, there is also a certain gratitude towards Snowden in some quarters for providing information about what has been going on. For example, one of the local wings of the German Pirate Party has suggested that he should be awarded a Federal Order of Merit (original in German.) In France, a surprisingly broad spectrum of politicians are calling for him to be offered political asylum according to this report from France 24 :

"France must give this whistle blower and defender of freedom political asylum without delay," the Green Party, in coalition with the ruling Socialists, said in a statement. "It would serve to remind the US, as it enters into free trade talks with the EU, that France wholeheartedly rejects the US stance on data protection."

And in a rare show of cross-party unity, Marine Le Pen of the far right National Front and at the very opposite end of the political spectrum from Mélanchon's Left Party also said France had a duty to take Snowden under its wing.

If that offer were to become official, it might be welcome. Snowden has applied to 21 countries for political asylum, although he has since withdrawn his application to Russia because Vladimir Putin imposed a striking condition for offering it:

If he wants to stay here, there is one condition -- he must stop his work aimed at bringing harm to our American partners, as strange as that sounds coming from my mouth.

As this table from The Guardian shows, so far Snowden doesn't seem to be having much luck in finding a country willing to take him, although now that Ecuador has dropped him, Venezuela remains a possibility:

On a visit to Moscow, [Venezuelan] president Nicolás Maduro said he would consider an asylum request and said the whistleblower "deserves the world's protection".

"We think this young person has done something very important for humanity, has done a favour to humanity, has spoken great truths to deconstruct a world … that is controlled by an imperialist American elite," he said.

Although these questions of asylum are probably uppermost in Snowden's mind, in political terms the most important development in the last few days has been several of Europe's senior politicians warning that the latest information about the scale of US spying on them could affect the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations, due to begin next week. That's particularly the case in France, as the BBC reported:

French President Francois Hollande has said allegations that the US bugged European embassies could threaten a huge planned EU-US trade deal.

He said there could be no negotiations without guarantees that spying would stop "immediately".

The New York Times noted that many in the European Parliament felt the same way:

The European Parliament, which will vote on any free trade agreement, will debate the latest spying revelations in Brussels on Wednesday, with the Parliament's president, Martin Schulz of Germany, saying that he was "deeply worried and shocked." If the latest reports, which include American spying on the European Union itself, are true, he said, "it would be an extremely serious matter that will have a severe impact on E.U.-U.S. Relations."

European lawmakers across the political spectrum warned of a loss of confidence in the Obama administration that would make a free trade deal difficult. Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the Green Party floor leader, spoke for many when he said that the European Union "must immediately suspend negotiations with the U.S. over a free trade agreement."

Undoubtedly, there's a lot of posturing going on here. The most senior European politicians surely knew the NSA was active throughout Europe, and probably even benefitted from information it gathered. But the scale of the operations, and the fact that there seems to have been literally no limit to what could be gathered or from whom, does seem to have taken many by surprise.

That could be enough to encourage the European Parliament to make the Data Protection Regulation, currently being drawn up, impose far more stringent terms for companies that want to transfer personal data out of the EU -- and that would be a big problem for Internet companies like Google and Facebook. Since data transfers are also likely to be part of the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations, any such moves would complicate discussions there even more.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: asylum, ed snowden, edward snowden, europe, france, germany, russia, tafta, ttip

Ecuador Tells US To Take Its Trade Agreement And Shove It, After Threats Relayed Over Snowden

from the wow dept

One of the points that many people have made concerning most countries in the world is that they're loathe to challenge the US on many things, even when they're in the right, because they're so reliant on the US for trade. The US regularly lords this fact over countries in seeking to get its way. In fact, US officials had been very strongly suggesting to Ecuador that if it decides to take in Ed Snowden and grant him asylum, that there could be consequences for trade under the Andean Trade Preference Act that both countries are signed to, but which needs to be renewed next month. Specifically, US politicians suggested that they might not allow the renewal if Ecuador granted asylum.

In response, Ecuador has taken a stand: saying that it's breaking the trade agreement upfront as it doesn't appreciate the attempt by the US to blackmail it in this matter.

President Rafael Correa's government said on Thursday it was renouncing the Andean Trade Preference Act to thwart US "blackmail" of Ecuador in the former NSA contractor's asylum request.

Officials, speaking at an early morning press conference, also offered a $23m donation for human rights training in the US, a brash riposte to recent US criticism of Ecuador's own human rights record.

Furthermore, they made it quite clear that this is entirely about the US' actions in trying to pressure them about Snowden:

"Ecuador does not accept pressure or threats from anyone, nor does it trade with principles or submit them to mercantile interests, however important those may be," said Fernando Alvarado, the communications secretary.

"Ecuador gives up, unilaterally and irrevocably, the said customs benefits."

As the article notes, some of this is surely political. It is a bit of a populist move by the government, and many suspected that the trade agreement was unlikely to be renewed anyway by the US, so in some ways this is an attempt to get out in front of that story and pull something of a "you can't fire me, I quit!" move. Still, it highlights, once again, the way the US bullies smaller countries, and how that can backfire.

Filed Under: andean trade preference act, asylum, atpa, blackmail, ecuador, ed snowden, edward snowden, rafael correa, threats, trade agreements