This is incredibly disturbing news (though alas, not surprising).
Attorney-client privilege exists for a reason. Part of that is to protect the client from lawyers acting in bad faith. But part of that is because the entire justice process breaks down if defendants can no longer communicate openly with their lawyers without fear that prosecutors may be able to get their hands on that same information.
Of course, there are other means of communication besides email (and email was never the most secure communication medium to begin with), but this still is a very dangerous step.
"ASIO has cancelled the passport of a retired spy who's preparing to give evidence in The Hague about what he says was his involvement in a covert operation to record Timorese ministers and officials in Dili in 2004."
"For some time now the Timorese government has been alleging that the bugging operation was ordered by then foreign minister Alexander Downer during negotiations over a treaty governing billions of dollars in gas revenue between the two countries."
"It's understood the spy decided to blow the whistle when he learned that in his life after politics, Alexander Downer had become an advisor to Woodside Petroleum through his lobbying firm, Bespoke Approach."
tl;dr: Foriegn Minister of Australia spied on foreign government for Woodside Petroleum. Said minister now works for Woodside Petroleum.
A piece[1] at emptywheel.net notes that the mention of sigint used in agricultural trade negotiations around 2004 and suggestively points to a diplomatic cable[2] discussing strategy for changing the French stance on GM imports from the US at that time.
If you're interested in this aspect you might like to take a look.
Note that these lawyers were working for a foreign government. It is a bit weird to claim that a multinational corporation deserves more protections than a corporation operating only in its home country.
If the NSA reform is to be meaningful in any way at all there has to be a very explicit closure of the "Five-Eyes" Loophole.
Something like:
The NSA or any other govt. agency cannot target/encourage/hint/suggest that any agency in the five eyes (or how many ever lap dog govts. participate)
target any American Persons without a specific warrant.
If these agencies do target Americans & the NSA comes to know they cannot use this information & must ask the agency involved to destroy it and stop the activity.
Using the Patriot act authorizations which were anti-terrorism motivated to spy on commercial entities is just a complete betrayal of its intent.
The military-industrial complex is truly frightening in its reach and its greed
As someone living outside the United States, I'd like there to be protections for foreigners as well. The U.S. government should not be permitted to spy on or intercept the communications of any person without due cause (or suggest an ally do the same).
This is of course different when the U.S. has issued a declaration of war and is openly hostile towards a country or organization (such as Al Qaeda).
Really, I'd like this to be a proposal at the UN level, ratified by all civilized countries.
TL;DR Title is misleading, possibly false. The Aussies spied on a trade negotiation and offered to share the intel with America. It is not known whether or not the Americans accepted any information which was the result of spying on Americans, or passed it on to negotiators. We only know they provided "clear guidance" about what information they would accept.
Why did you leave out the quote immediately after that? It's relevant.
> the Australian agency "has been able to continue to cover the talks, providing highly useful intelligence for interested US customers"
Whey would they say that the (continued!) intelligence provided by the Australian agency was "highly useful" if their counsel ruled they couldn't use it?
Because there was other intelligence to be gleaned which was not the result of spying on Americans. Only the law firm was American; the rest of the parties were not. It's possible (likely?) that the NSA said, "give us everything with a non-American source" which would keep them within the law. I have not seen any evidence from Snowden that the NSA deliberately breaks the laws that bind them, though they make give the law liberal interpretations at times.
I hope that American companies and law firms, etc., wind up losing massive business in the future. It's the only way this crap will ever be contained. Economic pain seems like the only way to get things changed.
That is happening already. Cisco took a big hit for this reason. However, it isn't going to become a hemorrhage until some competitor offers and markets an open and verifiable alternative. You can bet that US diplomacy is working hard to make sure nobody actually dares sell against NSA back doors.
Time to stop doing business with all US corporations. Until we hurt them where it counts - the pocketbook - there's no chance for the rest of the world to recover from this heinous, repressive regimes, effect on our lives...
This is incredibly disturbing news (though alas, not surprising).
Attorney-client privilege exists for a reason. Part of that is to protect the client from lawyers acting in bad faith. But part of that is because the entire justice process breaks down if defendants can no longer communicate openly with their lawyers without fear that prosecutors may be able to get their hands on that same information.
Of course, there are other means of communication besides email (and email was never the most secure communication medium to begin with), but this still is a very dangerous step.