[hammock]

The US does not spy on Five Eyes government leadership or that of Israel. And perhaps more: in the wake of Snowden, which obliterated many diplomatic relationships the U.S. has with other countries, Obama issued a directive that the U.S. would not monitor heads of state and government of close friends and allies (even outside Five Eyes) unless there was a compelling national security reason. As far as we know that directive has remained in force with each successive administration as well.

They spy on most others though. Germany’s Merkel, successive French presidents etc all had their phones hacked by US there is widely reported news of.

[leonidasrup]

US does spy on Five Eyes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_espionage_in_Aus...

"In December 2010, leaked US diplomatic cables indicated senior New Zealand Defence Ministry officials had been spying for the United States, secretly briefing the United States embassy on Cabinet discussions about the Iraq War."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_espionage_in_New_Zeala...

[aetch]

That’s pre-Snowden

[MomsAVoxell]

Nothing has changed post-Snowden, other than that the general public have gone back into a state of apathy on the subject of reigning in their out of control surveillance state.

[aetch]

I didn’t say anything has changed, the 2010 example he mentioned is pre Snowden.

[matheusmoreira]

> The US does not spy on Five Eyes government leadership or that of Israel.

Doubt.

> unless there was a compelling national security reason

There always is.

[EA-3167]

Absolutely, and there's the same compelling reason for them to spy on the on the US in turn. I can't emphasize this enough, everyone is spying on everyone else. Close alliances give the impression that they don't because they tend to handle scandals in-house, it's for everyone's benefit to do so in most cases. Snowden's disclosure was a very unusual event and put everyone in a position of needing to act shocked, appalled, and put on a big show for the public; sweeping it under the rug was impossible. For all that many here would wish otherwise, Snowden wasn't a watershed though, it was a blip.

[hammock]

> Doubt

Can you substantiate your doubt with even one piece of hard evidence?

[matheusmoreira]

Sure. The NSA exists, and it routinely violates the rights of the USA's own citizens, the ones that actually have constitutional rights. The idea that it would suddenly draw the line on foreigners is just absurd.

[MomsAVoxell]

It violates everyones’ human rights - not just the US’ own citizens - because human rights are universal whether some American thinks it or not.

[hammock]

You can probably share specific evidence of NSA violating U.S. citizen rights. But can you share specific evidence if NSA spying on a five eyes nation or Israel post-Snowden?

[jonnybgood]

Yes, the US has an intelligence agency called the NSA, which works with intelligence agencies in the five eyes. There is something called the five eyes agreement that does draw that line.

[matheusmoreira]

> There is something called the five eyes agreement that does draw that line.

Believe such nonsense at your own peril.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_espionage_in_the_Unite...

> In 1951, Mossad and the Central Intelligence Agency agreed not to spy on each other and US and Israeli services cooperated closely since then.

> Nevertheless, there were strong indications afterwards of ongoing Israeli espionage against the United States, confirmed by the 1985 arrest of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard, one of the most damaging security leaks in US history.

> Israeli espionage reached a high-profile peak in the mid-1980s, shattering assumptions that allies "do not spy on each other".

[senordevnyc]

I'm curious what peril your cynicism about the five eyes agreement has saved you from.

[crewindream]

1. I think burden of proof is on the opposite side. (Previous legislations/directives were circumvented without problem)

2.Asking for hard evidence of top spies secretly spying on heads of other states is … (not sure if there is a word for it; some blend between: unrealistic, unreasonable and oxymoron’ish. If they do their job well, you will not find it out, also it might be illegal or punishable to present such evidence)

[Hizonner]

Can you substantiate your certainty with anything other than the public statements of people whose job is to lie about things like that?

[benjiro29]

> As far as we know that directive has remained in force with each successive administration as well.

People can state a lot, as long as your not caught.

Nothing prevent you from having the UK spy on the Germans, and feeding that intel back. Or Israel, or ... Hey, the US did not spy on a EU ally. Well, not directly and it neatly bypassed any official statements.

They might have simply gone to one of those secret court hearings and have it bypassed with a gag order in place. Officially its not done, unofficially, its been approved.

The whole "as long as you do not tell me your doing it" approach, and the politicians involve maintain deniability (even if they had the wink).

And you do not need to specific target the head off state. Plenty of side routes to still get information on meetings, that involve those heads of states. Even if your not "directly" spying on them.

So no, its a naïve way of thinking. Maybe in 20 years from now we find out, that they did spy on EU leaders. Maybe directly, maybe indirectly ... even with that directive in place. I will be amazed if they did not. Its the US we are talking about.

[codedokode]

> unless there was a compelling national security reason

But there never is a lack of compelling national security reasons.

[kakacik]

There is some directive (not law, not constitution - not that those are untouchable now) and we expect current us government to adhere to it, just because it would be nice?

Color me extremely sceptical.