from the in-the-land-of-the-blind-the-five-eyed-man-is-king dept.
Sarasani writes:
"In a landmark decision by the International Court of Justice, Australia has been ordered to cease spying on East Timor and its legal advisers, and to seal files that ASIO, Australia's national security agency, had seized last year from a lawyer working for East Timor:
The court is of the view, the right of Timor Leste to conduct proceedings, negotiations, without interference, would suffer irreparable harm if Australia failed to immediately safeguard the confidentiality of the materials seized by its agents on December 3, 2013.
This raid, says the tiny peninsular country, targeted files alleging that its cabinet was spied on by Australia during negotiations between the two over oil and gas reserves in the Timor Sea. It claims that, with the information collected through espionage, Australia gained the advantage during the $40 billion negotiations. It asked the Court of Arbitration to overturn the treaty signed between the two.
This is the first time the court has imposed restrictions on an intelligence agency belonging to one of the so-called "five eyes" intelligence alliance countries (the US, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia). It comes at a time of international concern about over-reaching espionage by western countries."
(Score: 1) by clone141166 on Tuesday March 04 2014, @10:31AM
While I don't really condone all the espionage that ASIO is involved in, I think it's important to keep in mind the history of the region. It's only thanks to western military power, predominately spearheaded by Australia, that East Timor exists as a country at all. Indonesia has always been aggressive against East Timor - there were many atrocities committed by Indonesia against the East Timorese during the 1980's. When East Timor voted for independence from Indonesia in 1999, Indonesian troops practically tore Easy Timor apart.
All of these stories make Australia out to be the bad guy for wanting to keep an eye on what has previously been a fairly volatile region. I have issues with intelligence information being used for corporate profiteering, but personally I would rather that ASIO was keeping an eye on Indonesia than not...
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Popeidol on Tuesday March 04 2014, @11:01AM
But as you say, East Timor has had a tough time of it. We went in to help in 1999, when we could. I can understand some spying on Indonesia (thought not the scale we have been) purely because our relationship has been more distant, but East Timor?
East Timor is a new country. They had a violent birth, they have a huge immediate neighbour that would love to own them again, and they could really use some friends. We placed ourself as that friend, and then immediately spied on them during trade negotiations. This wasn't for military knowledge, this was for who gets the rights to oil and gas reserves and the subsequent economic benefits. I don't think that's a situation that requires our national spy agency nor raiding lawyer offices to confiscate possible evidence.
For international readers, this isn't from snowden's files - this has been going on for little while: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-East_Timor_ spying_scandal [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FuckBeta on Tuesday March 04 2014, @11:03AM
We either respect this concept or we don't.
This isn't about protecting the interests of Australia. The key part of the judgement is:
"the right of Timor Leste to conduct proceedings, negotiations, without interference, would suffer irreparable harm"
Since when did we recognise, in international law, the right of a state to interfere with the diplomatic relations of another state in a time of peace? Why are intelligence services spying on lawyers?
What has happened in the past is irrelevant. That would be like advocating the rights of the Japanese to conduct espionage against American nuclear facilities, due to how USA has used its nuclear arsenal in the past. Or that the Allies should be permitted to spy on every German chancellor just in case she has secret plans for a thousand year Reich.
You start by saying you don't condone the actions of the ASIO, and conclude by saying that you would rather they carry on. This doesn't make sense to me.
Quit Slashdot...because Fuck Beta!
(Score: 1) by boltronics on Tuesday March 04 2014, @12:46PM
Exactly this. May this judgement go down in history books later on, that Australia was yet another country wilfully using its powers to satisfy its own greed, against its neighbours.
The government has tossed basic morals aside and hurt diplomatic relations, in an attempt to grab some extra $$. As an Australian, I find the continuing reports of Australia using its intelligence services for spying for the purposes of trade negotiations and the like to be both saddening and extremely embarrassing.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 1) by SleazyRidr on Tuesday March 04 2014, @03:13PM
I feel bad about this. When East Timor voted themselves independent of Indonesia and Australia stepped in to enforce their decision I felt really proud that my country was doing something good in the world. Now it feels more like we just cleaved them off because they'd be easier to bully out of their oil rights. I still think that ASIO should be putting Australia's interests ahead of other countries' but this feels like we're picking on the smaller kids in the playground.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 04 2014, @02:10PM
Stop defending ASIO, you only make it look worse.
The way you describe sounds like: far from being a friendly helping hand in establishing the East Timor as an independent country, the Australian govt was exclusively protecting their interest (commercial included... nay, primarily commercial interest) against Indonesia; whoever thinks otherwise (including the Balibo five [wikipedia.org] and those who try to preserve their memory) are fools or delusional.
Is that what you intend to say? 'Cause this is how it sounds.
(Score: 1) by clone141166 on Wednesday March 05 2014, @12:04AM
I apologise, it wasn't a well worded comment at all. I wasn't intending to defend ASIO's actions. My intent was more just to point out that there is a counter viewpoint that should be considered as well. I agree with the vast majority of what the responses to my comment have pointed out. I would love nothing more than to see a proper international treaty preventing surveillance of private citizens (and of other governments/militaries?) between all countries. However, if previous attempts at nuclear-weapons ban and environmental treaties are anything to go by that is sadly, quite unlikely to happen in any meaningful way.
Just consider for a moment what the world would be like if the NSA, GCHQ, ASIO, etc. didn't exist *at all*. Have they overstepped their bounds and need to be reigned in? Yes, absolutely imho. Is the extent of Australian surveillance of the Indonesian region excessive, immoral and unethical? Again, yes absolutely imho.
Unfortunately people and nations with sinister intentions are generally quite diligent about hiding those intentions. In order to maintain peace you do need to have *some idea* of what your neighbours are up to, be they friendly or unfriendly. It should be possible (or perhaps mandated by law) to share or gather this information without violating the privacy rights (and any other rights) of the citizens of those countries though.
I guess the crux of the argument I was trying to make wasn't to defend their actions, but to point out that there still remains rational reasons to maintain some level of intelligence gathering. Exactly what that level of data collection should be is something I don't have a clear idea about. I think it's a very complicated issue and is something that should undergo serious scrutiny to consider the ethical, and in cases like this where they have been caught out doing something clearly unethical, the geopolitical ramifications of such actions. I don't think it's just "western" countries that this applies to either, I think other countries would jump at the opportunity to surveil the governments and citizens of "western" countries if given the opportunity/capability (if they aren't already).
I guess I was more just tired of the one-sided sensationalism generated by the media on these stories and wanted people to at least consider the alternative point of view as to why intelligence agencies exist.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jcd on Tuesday March 04 2014, @02:13PM
At the global level, we have total anarchy. Nation-states are all spying on each other at all times, and we're delusional if we don't believe it. To some extent, I believe that there is a need for international intelligence gathering, but only in adversarial situations. Otherwise, leverage becomes intel, and whoever can pay for the best intel infrastructure ends up on top every time. It might be time for some sort of international agreement - Geneva Convention style - to reign this stuff in.
Supposedly, it's for our own good (here in the US, you've all heard "because TERRORISM!"), but it's really just making it harder for us to do business and maintain friendly relations with other countries. It's the decade/century of leaks, after all, so it's only a matter of time before $unsavory_intel_program gets discovered.
"What good's an honest soldier if he can be ordered to behave like a terrorist?"