Even if you are a govt that likes Trump, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the he and his administration are very much not "clean on opsec".
We have had, in no particular order: the boxes in the bathroom at mar-a-lago, the Chinese lady wandering around the property unescorted, the casual tweeting of classified satellite imagery, the adding of journalists to group chats, the use of unsecured phone messaging picked up by photographers. Then we have people in the presidential orbit demonstrably funded by adversaries (Tim Pope, Maria Butina). Oh and the obvious conflict of interest around the leaderships investments. Amd we havent even got to the blackmail risk posed by materials alleged in the Epsteim files.
If you were a regular civilian whose employer was looking to get you a clearance, any of these kinds of things would put your application in the shredder.
Given these facts, I would not expect any of the EU or FiveEyes partners to share everything they learn.
WarOnPrivacy•3mo ago
> I would not expect any of the EU or FiveEyes partners to share everything they learn.
I've been scraping hard to find something positive from this administration. Anything about intelligence services "sharing less information" is likely to be one.
This is tied to US IC's long history of (near exclusively) surveilling people not suspected of a crime and rarely (if ever) telling a public truth about it.
halJordan•3mo ago
One point of clarification, the IC has never been about law enforcement, so complaints about surveilling people not suspected of a crime is a non-sequitor.
WarOnPrivacy•3mo ago
> One point of clarification, the IC has never been about law enforcement, so complaints about surveilling people not suspected of a crime is a non-sequitor.
It is true that IC and LEO are distinct groups and ought to be considered that way.
Regarding surveillance and specifically the points I raised, I belive the similarities (of LEO and IC) matter more than their differences. Here we can consider them in the same light.
By way of example: While the FBI utilizes IC collected data, they also run their own surveillance units - which present the same issues raised by IC collections. The vast majority of individuals who appear in FBI data are not suspected of a crime and the FBI rarely (if ever) tells meaningful public truths about their collections.
mmooss•3mo ago
> Even if you are a govt that likes Trump, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the he and his administration are very much not "clean on opsec".
Also, Trump adopts the tactical position of arbitrary power: He asserts the power to do whatever he wants, and to disregard your interests. That tactic has some advantages but also means even his allies can't rely on him not turning on them.
Most expect Five Eyes to share with the US, especially now the UK has abandoned the EU. No one expects the EU to, they are unable (or unwilling, hard to tell) to even defend their prospective member states like Ukraine. What could the EU possibly provide the US or Five Eyes outside European affairs? No one talks about the security blunders of the EU so neither I, nor anyone else, would know, not because they don't happen but because no one cares.
mcv•3mo ago
"Now"? Were they still sharing as much as usual until now? Trump blabbing Israeli intelligence to Iran's biggest ally during his first term should have been a massive warning to everybody to be incredibly careful about what you share with the US.
So the Amsterdam InterXion does not mirror everything directly to the NSA anymore but now only to the GCHQ, which then mirrors everything to the NSA and the other four parties.
kjellsbells•3mo ago
We have had, in no particular order: the boxes in the bathroom at mar-a-lago, the Chinese lady wandering around the property unescorted, the casual tweeting of classified satellite imagery, the adding of journalists to group chats, the use of unsecured phone messaging picked up by photographers. Then we have people in the presidential orbit demonstrably funded by adversaries (Tim Pope, Maria Butina). Oh and the obvious conflict of interest around the leaderships investments. Amd we havent even got to the blackmail risk posed by materials alleged in the Epsteim files.
If you were a regular civilian whose employer was looking to get you a clearance, any of these kinds of things would put your application in the shredder.
Given these facts, I would not expect any of the EU or FiveEyes partners to share everything they learn.
WarOnPrivacy•3mo ago
I've been scraping hard to find something positive from this administration. Anything about intelligence services "sharing less information" is likely to be one.
This is tied to US IC's long history of (near exclusively) surveilling people not suspected of a crime and rarely (if ever) telling a public truth about it.
halJordan•3mo ago
WarOnPrivacy•3mo ago
It is true that IC and LEO are distinct groups and ought to be considered that way.
Regarding surveillance and specifically the points I raised, I belive the similarities (of LEO and IC) matter more than their differences. Here we can consider them in the same light.
By way of example: While the FBI utilizes IC collected data, they also run their own surveillance units - which present the same issues raised by IC collections. The vast majority of individuals who appear in FBI data are not suspected of a crime and the FBI rarely (if ever) tells meaningful public truths about their collections.
mmooss•3mo ago
Also, Trump adopts the tactical position of arbitrary power: He asserts the power to do whatever he wants, and to disregard your interests. That tactic has some advantages but also means even his allies can't rely on him not turning on them.
add-sub-mul-div•3mo ago
esbranson•3mo ago