Jorge, I appreciate your defense of the USA in this dialogue, but you 
are an ICT expert, and you know it is pretty obvious the immense 
distance between the USA and other countries in terms of surveillance 
capabilities (actually several countries rely on these capabilities for 
their own surveillance) -- and all revelations which keep coming only 
confirm this. Can you point to a country (or at least any of the largest 
economies) which does not maintain an intelligence service?

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 11/06/2013 10:08 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>
> Who can be judge of scale, based on the capabilities and intentions of each government ? And how some events have affected the psychosis, particularly of extreme right or left trigger happy. There is no difference in principle and all this BS is political noise to score points against each other.
>
> What is out of scale is the amount hypocrisy and ridicule talking going on. Similar situation when some countries at WCIT or other international forums raise the Human Rights flag.
>
> For Snowden, Greenwald and crew, you made your point, you have shown evidence, now stop spewing stolen information.
>
> -Jorge
>
>> On Nov 6, 2013, at 5:56 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Obviously every state keeps an intelligence service. The major difference between the duo USA+UK and the rest is the scale, persistence and pervasiveness of surveillance -- something orders of magnitude beyond what any other country does.
>>
>> This is what is motivating the scaling up of international reactions.
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>>> On 11/06/2013 09:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
>>> And this
>>>
>>> "GCHQ and European spy agencies worked together on mass surveillance"
>>>
>>> <http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/01/gchq-europe-spy-agencies-mass-surveillance-snowden>
>>>
>>> Brazil's surveillance -- isn't this the kind of spying we'd expect, as featured in almost every spy novel?  Also looks like the US might be leaking back, making itself look not quite so bad.
>>>
>>> Discussion at the IGF I think made pretty clear that it wasn't the act of surveillance that was a shock, spies spy, but the scale, the absolutely massive (massive) scale, that everyone was a target (or potentially so), that US administration had been clear they didn't care about rights of non-US citizens: this might not have come through as clearly in the sessions as it might, but that human rights were violated was emphasized over and over.
>>>
>>> Couple of sessions at the IGF discussed: the final morning "Main Session: Emerging Issues – Internet Surveillance" <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-transcripts/1439-taking-stock-emerging-issues--internet-surveillance>. And somewhat on the morning of the first day "Building Bridges – The Role of Governments in Multistakeholder Cooperation" <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-transcripts/1447-building-bridges-the-role-of-governments-in-multistakeholder-cooperation> (links are to full transcript)
>>>
>>> And there's a chairs summary on the IGF website that attempts to summarize things (clumsy stuff, and I was one of the pair who wrote it, a new version will be added later today).
>>>
>>> Adam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:03 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I guess the summit in Rio will include a discussion about this no ?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/5/5068024/brazil-admits-to-spying-on-us-russia-iran-diplomatic-targets-after-nsa-criticism
>>>>
>>>> -J
>>>
>