This is precisely what the likes of GCHQ and the NSA are for.<p>I would imagine that any G20 host and it allies would use the opportunity to gather intelligence. I would also assume that where ever it is hosted, many intelligence agencies would be active.<p>If not, then what are these agencies for? They were never designed for crime fighting or mass surveillance of populations. There were and still are for spying on nations. G20 summits are a prime and legit target.<p>IMHO, this is a proper use of such agencies.
As a software engineer and fan of Tom Clancy novels, I find this fascinating. As an American who would like to be able to do business with people outside the country, I find this worrisome. This type of thing will increase the distrust of Americans (while this occurred in the UK, it was done in conjunction with the NSA). It paints us as diabolical geniuses running around spying on everyone and everything. Many international companies may decide that buying technology or related services from American companies simply isn't worth the risk that there will be some kind of monitoring going on.
Not to excuse the interception, but did a "top 20" nation's diplomats <i>really</i> use an Internet cafe to check and send email? Fake cafe or not, that seems like an awfully irresponsible act for what should be sensitive diplomatic traffic. Note that Russia was not nearly so inept; Medvedev's phone calls were encrypted, though NSA tried to decrypt (it's unspecified whether they did).<p>I wonder what Snowden is thinking by leaking the real cloak-and-dagger stuff though. Diplomacy has been at least somewhat adversarial since the world's "second oldest profession" came about, and the flipside to advancing your own citizens' negotiating position by spying is to allow the other nations to <i>conspire against you</i> behind your back.<p>Diplomacy is a dangerous, dangerous game to insert yourself into, Mr. Snowden, and will never have clear friends <i>or</i> enemies.
Reminds me of Clare Short's statement about the British government spying on Kofi Annan[1] in the run up to the Iraq war.<p>[1] <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3488548.stm" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3488548.stm</a>
There's a companion story about the NSA targetting Russian President Medvedev at the G20 summit: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/nsa-dmitry-medvedev-g20-summit" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/16/nsa-dmitry-medve...</a>
I wonder how many more G* meetings will be hosted in the UK or US.<p>On a more serious note, perhaps this will spur further investment in open, reliable encryption technologies around the world. After all, governments can put vast amounts of money into this, that individuals and most companies cannot.<p>And on a further note, I hope that these revelations keep coming, keep the outrage up, and force politicians to realise that they're in the crosshairs too.
It's impossible for business to continue as usual as more of this apparatus is revealed. Both legal changes and more secure technologies are imminent. Let's get working on easy, ubiquitous encryption and secure logon.
I love the timing on this. Just exactly when Putin is visiting the UK. So totally deliberate. The Guardian is having fun, but I imagine there are spies out there who are having no fun at all tonight.
"The September meeting of finance ministers was also the subject of a new technique to provide a live report on any telephone call made by delegates and to display all of the activity on a graphic which was projected on to the 15-sq-metre video wall of GCHQ's operations centre as well as on to the screens of 45 specialist analysts who were monitoring the delegates.<p>"For the first time, analysts had a live picture of who was talking to who that updated constantly and automatically," according to an internal review."
The fact that they talk about how this is nearly routine now would make me expect that the UK might not be a premier destination for international diplomatic conferences for much longer.
If you want to go exploring the rabbit hole regarding spying on diplomatic communications, read about Crypto AG: <a href="http://rense.com/politics2/crypto.htm" rel="nofollow">http://rense.com/politics2/crypto.htm</a><p>That drunk Swiss guy that Snowden knew about may be some distant echo of this exploit.
I'd love to hear more information on what they mean by "penetrated Blackberry's security". Given BlackBerry's current troubles, and their certifications for Government use, this could cause them quite a bit of brand damage.
Pointed observation from the article:<p><i>The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of surveillance by GCHQ and its American sister organisation, the National Security Agency, whose access to phone records and internet data has been defended as necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime.</i><p>So, are the diplomatic and political representatives of allied powers suspected criminals or suspected terrorists then?<p>I'm not sure how they can possibly wriggle out of this one without much egg on face, and possibly some significant consequences for diplomatic standing too, with the G8 summit taking place this week.
Is this legal? I mean they aren't uk nationals so they aren't protected by the normal laws. I'd like to know what, if any, laws were broken or whether this is simply an ethical issue.
I've always found it odd as hell that G20 summits aren't done by teleconferencing with one time pads. It's not like it'd be difficult, given the resources they have, to securely exchange a few TB of stuff for when you wanted really secure chats.
This shouldn't be a concern to countries because if they are in any way competent, they'd be securing their channels of communication regardless.