Er det for svært for den øvrige presse at forstå det her? Og få taget røret og ringe til nogen ministre og spørge om de stadig ikke mener, der sker noget ulovligt???

Og er det for sent at tage en afgørende vigtig debat om hvilken verden vi vil leve i? Som det ser ud lige nu, er vi tilsyneladende styret af et folketing, der stiller sig tilfreds med, at ‘der ikke foregår ulovlig overvågning i Danmark’ – sandsynligvis vel vidende, at det BEHØVER der heller ikke – data opsnappes alligevel i et andet land og så – simsalabim – er der ikke noget ulovligt ved det…På EU siden spørges der hyklerisk til, om Snowden gerne ville have asyl i EU – han gør opmærksom på at han HAR søgt flere steder – men fik det her svar: ‘As for asylum, I do seek EU asylum, but I have yet to receive a positive response to the requests I sent to various EU member states. Parliamentarians in the national governments have told me that the US, and I quote, “will not allow” EU partners to offer political asylum to me, which is why the previous resolution on asylum ran into such mysterious opposition. I would welcome any offer of safe passage or permanent asylum, but I recognize that would require an act of extraordinary political courage’.

Herunder en udvalgt række svar fra Edward Snowden til EU Parlamentet, som har bedt ham svare på en række spørgsmål i forbindelse med en undersøgelse af ‘Electronic Mass Surveillance of EU Citizens’ – flere af dem har Danmark som eksempel:

OM DATAUDVEKSLING OG LOVLIGHED
‘The result is a European bazaar, where an EU member state like Denmark may give the NSA access to a tapping center on the (unenforceable) condition that NSA doesn’t search it for Danes, and Germany may give the NSA access to another on the condition that it doesn’t search or Germans. Yet the two tapping sites may be two points on the same cable, so the NSA simply captures the communications of the German citizens as they transit Denmark, and the Danish citizens as they transit Germany, all the while considering it entirely in accordance with their agreements. Ultimately, each EU national government’s spy services are independently hawking domestic accesses to the NSA, GCHQ, FRA, and the like without having any awareness of how their individual contribution is enabling the greater patchwork of mass surveillance against ordinary citizens as a whole.´ – Snowden til EU – http://site.d66.nl/intveld/document/testimony_snowden/f=/vjhvekoen1ww.pdf

HVAD BURDE EU GØRE?
‘The Parliament should ask the NSA and GCHQ to deny that they monitor the communications of EU citizens, and in the absence of an informative response, I would suggest that the current state of affairs is the inevitable result of subordinating the rights of the voting public to the prerogatives of State Security Bureaus’
‘The NSA not only enables and guides, but shares some mass surveillance systems and technologies with the agencies of EU member states. As it pertains to the issue of mass surveillance, the difference between, for example, the NSA and FRA is not one of technology, but rather funding and manpower. Technology is agnostic of nationality, and the flag on the pole outside of the building makes systems of mass surveillance no more or less effective’

OM HVORFOR VI BØR RÅBE OP: INDUSTRISPIONAGE OG AFPRESNING
‘We learned only days ago that the GCHQ compromised a popular Yahoo service to collect images from web cameras inside citizens’ homes, and around 10% of these images they take from within people’s homes involve nudity or intimate activities
(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/27/gchq-nsa-webcam-images-internet-yahoo).
In the same report, journalists revealed that this sort of webcam data was searchable via the NSA’s XKEYSCORE system, which means the GCHQ’s “light oversight regime” was used not only to capture bulk data that is clearly of limited intelligence value and most probably violates EU laws, but to then trade that data with foreign services without the knowledge or consent of any
country’s voting public. We also learned last year that some of the partners with which the GCHQ was sharing this information, in this example the NSA, had made efforts to use evidence of religiousconservatives’ association with sexually explicit material of the sort GCHQ was collecting as a grounds for destroying their reputations and discrediting them (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/nsa-porn-muslims_n_4346128.html).
The “Release to Five Eyes” classification of this particular report, dated 2012, reveals that the UK government was aware of the NSA’s intent to use sexually explicit material in this manner, indicating a deepening and increasingly aggressive partnership. None of these religious conservatives were suspected of involvement in terrorist plots: they were targeted on the basis of their political beliefs and activism, as part of a class the NSA refers to as “radicalizers.” I wonder if any members of this committee have ever advocated a position that the NSA, GCHQ, or even the intelligence services of an EU member state might attempt to construe as “radical”?
If you were targeted on the basis of your political beliefs, would you know? If they sought to discredit you on the basis of your private communications, could you discover the culprit and prove it was them? What would be your recourse? And you are parliamentarians.
Try to imagine the impact of such activities against ordinary citizens without power, privilege, or resources. Are these activities necessary, proportionate, and an unquestionable matter of national security?

A few weeks ago we learned the GCHQ has hired scientists to study how to create divisions amongst activists and disfavored political groups, how they attempt to discredit and destroy private businesses, and how they knowingly plant false information to misdirect civil discourse (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/).
To directly answer your question, yes, global surveillance capabilities are being used on a daily basis for the purpose of economic espionage. That a major goal of the US Intelligence Community is to produce economic intelligence is the worst kept secret in Washington’.

LÆS OGSÅ:
Retskendelse? Ikke for FE…
Han, Hun og Bagdøren