| First off it says in that article also says: "The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence said it does collect information about economic and financial matters, and terrorist financing. "What we do not do, as we have said many times, is use our foreign intelligence capabilities to steal the trade secrets of foreign companies on behalf of - or give intelligence we collect to - U.S. companies to enhance their international competitiveness or increase their bottom line," it said in a statement." Secondly have you noticed there have been no additional news articles about this since 2015 when the story first broke? Don't you think if there was an actual violation that occurred that Airbus would still be looking out for its shareholders and there would be more legal cases and formal complaints? If you look at PPD-28 you'll see that it strictly forbids economic espionage. I can think of lots of reasons why US Spy Agencies might be interested in looking at the network activity - "spying" - on companies such as Airbus, but one of those reasons isn't for economic advantages because it is banned by law. Executive order 12333 is also largely the legal basis for SIGINT and PPD-28 is a public policy directive that adds further legal and regulation nuance to how that executive order is done in practice. However 12333 clearly authorizing things on the basis that it is of importance to national security only. It is clear enough from reading it the authorization is not for economic advantages. So even without PPD-28 which confirms that is true and explicitly states it, even without it there has never been a legal basis in 12333 to do such a thing. This is a quote from lawfareblog in an article linked below from 2014, also they did have some criticisms of PPD-28 when it was announced, however it states: "Third, it forbids economic espionage for non-national security purposes like advantaging US industry." In one of the most positive aspects of the author's analysis of PPD-28 they also stated how remarkable it is that the US even has a policy directive on SIGINT, because no other country states what they do with regards to SIGINT. You can read more about PPD-28, what it says along with what I think is fair, informed and well researched analysis here: From 2014: https://www.lawfareblog.com/presidents-speech-and-ppd-28-gui... From 2019: https://www.lawfareblog.com/revisiting-legacy-restrictions-i... |
> Secondly have you noticed there have been no additional news articles about this since 2015 when the story first broke? Don't you think if there was an actual violation that occurred that Airbus would still be looking out for its shareholders and there would be more legal cases and formal complaints?
I expect that this was hush-hushed over diplomatic backroom dealings.
And there have been other legal cases and formal complaints. [1] [2] [3] As it turns out, complaining that the US spies on you, and steals your secrets accomplishes... Pretty much nothing.
> If you look at PPD-28 you'll see that it strictly forbids economic espionage. I can think of lots of reasons why US Spy Agencies might by looking at the network activity - "spying" - on companies such as Airbus, but one of those reasons isn't for economic advantages because it is banned by law.
As we've all discovered a few years ago, thanks to Snowden, the NSA is only somewhat constrained by the law when it operates domestically, and is not at all constrained by it when it operates internationally.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enercon
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage#Germany
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/820758.stm