Good Luck Germany.
The Yanks don't respect their own constitution or citizens. What makes you think you'll be treated any better?
European aerospace giant Airbus is promising legal action over claims its top blueprints were stolen by German spies and given to America's intelligence agencies. "We are aware that as a large company in the sector, we are a target and subject of espionage," the company said in a statement to the AFP newswire. "However, in …
But that would be a good start, not least because it undermines the corrosive "you spy on our domestics and we'll spy on yours and then we can both claim that we only spy on foreigners", which is nothing less than the deliberate flouting of the laws of the lands involved. And since having law enforcement deeming that it can ignore the law for the good of the nation is well down the slippery slope to police statedom, this should be applauded.
How is this the Yanks fault? The Yanks made requests and the Germans decided the requests were valid (even if they didn't look at each individual request). The Germans should have evaluated every request and dismissed those they thought were illegal or do the Germans just approve of every request from every intelligence agency on the planet?
The "they told me to do it" excuse doesn't work for adults as well as it does for children. I'm sure the politicians, on both sides, will do the regular "I'm shocked, SHOCKED I say!" routine but business will continue as usual amongst the intelligence community.
"How is this the Yanks fault? The Yanks made requests..."
So does that mean if I ask a hitman to kill someone for me, I haven't done anything wrong either? It is up to the hitman to decide if that is right or wrong?
And that's without even knowing if any pressure was put on BND to do it.
BB - You are comparing a data sharing request with a hit request? You're talking apples and oranges here.
I think a better comparison is if you made a data request to get all the data files on your neighbors and a few business leaders throughout the city from the local police department and they just gave it to you. Is it illegal to make the request? No. Is the police wrong for doing it? I think they are.
"And that's without even knowing if any pressure was put on BND to do it."
It could have been a simple request and no pressure added. Besides, who knows what the BDN requests from the NSA.
As a retired soldier of the US military, I have to agree with the statement, if not some guided views.
A lawful order is supreme, an unlawful order was and is inactionable.
But, we're dealing with spy land, where things get... Strange.
But, I've learned to love spies.
They keep everyone honest.
Save, when it's for economic gain.
"....The Yanks don't respect their own constitution ...." In this case they respected UN arms and trade embargoes - the searches were for companies in breach of UN sanctions. To quote Auntie Beeb: "....Leaks from a secret BND document suggest that its monitoring station at Bad Aibling checked whether European companies were breaking trade embargos after a request from the NSA...." (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32542140).
Makes you wonder what Airbus has to hide, especially after all the fuss over the NSA spying on Petrobas seems to have been more than justified by the subsequent Petrobas-Rousseff scandal (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32422875)
LOL, the down-voters need to go do a little reading on the subject of a French company called Potec SA, Saddam's chemical weapons factory at Samarra (http://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/muthanna.htm), and the UN sanctions and treaties that was all in breach of. Oh, and yes, those chemical weapons did exist (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0). Countdown to raging denial posts in 3, 2, 1.....
"If the moral high ground is your destination...." Who said anything about a 'moral high ground'? All I did was point out the fact the requests were due to suspected arms embargo infringements, something French companies have a track record of.
"....US riding roughshod over the NPT....." Schwing! Wow, you really want to go off-topic, don't you? Not feeling too confident on discussing UN embargo breaches? BTW, India is not a signatory to the NPT.
"Wow, you really want to go off-topic, don't you? Not feeling too confident on discussing UN embargo breaches?"
As one who served in war after a yellowcake brownstain on a national undergarments mess *and* having worked for a US company that suffered multiple ITAR violations, do you *really* want to go down that road with me?
There will be an investigation. Espionage for corporate gain will not be permitted.
If such has been conducted, the NSA will be properly monitored and guided.
Here's the fun part. Due to an oddity of circumstances, I happen to be within "small arms range" of the NSA. That doesn't suggest I'd fire a weapon, it only describes a certain oddity of time and corporate conditions.
So, such a suggestion of corporate gain conditions with the NSA *will* be investigated and reported upon.
But, it will take time. If such is present, it'll be eliminated silently.
".....As one who served in war after a yellowcake brownstain on a national undergarments mess *and* having worked for a US company that suffered multiple ITAR violations, do you *really* want to go down that road with me?...." Nope, but then it wasn't me that wanted to go looping off onto another topic in the first place.
"......having worked for a US company that suffered multiple ITAR violations...." How many of those were with state-sponsors of terrorism? Ignoring the long Fwench relationship with Saddam even after the First Gulf War (and no-one mention the UN-Iraqi Oil For Food scandal - oops, too late! http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/mar/21/20040321-101405-2593r/), the Fwench have proved to have quite elastic morals when it comes to a profit (http://www.english.rfi.fr/americas/20140308-us-probes-big-three-french-banks-over-sanctions-busting).
Is that the real weapons factory from the good old days when The West supported Irak in its war with a larger neighboring country, or is that the imaginary weapons factory that only American government officials could see when they were wearing their special propaganda goggles?
".....or is that the imaginary weapons factory that only American government officials could see....." I see you missed this recent discussion at the UN about the loss of the Samarra chemical weapons complex to ISIS last year (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/muthanna.htm). Please do try and read the whole article without your head exploding.
" I see you missed this recent discussion at the UN about the loss of the Samarra chemical weapons complex to ISIS last year "
Moron milk drinker, who has never learned a shit stain of NBC comprehension.
First off, *any* petrochemical plant, any pharmaceutical plant, any chemical plant *is*, by definition, a chemical weapons plant under variable conditions.
Variable being, producing chemical weapons (*any* US citizen can produce a fair handful of such weapons in their garage or basement), via actually producing such weapons or more rarely, suggesting capability by the company or just having the precursor chemicals (which also produce plastics and drugs).
What is lacking in your insane world view is actual production, suggestion of production, existing stockpiles, anything other than the fucking sand I and my buddies examined until quite a few were killed by IED's. Oh, and the lack of any WMD within the entire, centimeter observed nation of Iraq.
Oh! Maybe they're in Syria, just to puff up your failed nation leadership desiring misleadership!
Too bad, beat you to the punch. Terabytes of data are stored on various secure networks to remove the clearance of a leader attempting such.
"Moron milk drinker...." Sorry, is there a "smart" way to drink milk? Personally I use a glass, or a cup if it's hot milk. OH! That was supposed to be an insult? Well, if you think drinking milk is "moronic" it might suggest vitamin-deficiency was inhibiting your "thinking" process.
".....First off, *any* petrochemical plant, any pharmaceutical plant, any chemical plant *is*, by definition, a chemical weapons plant under variable conditions..... (*any* US citizen can produce a fair handful of such weapons in their garage or basement)...." How about you go read the two articles I linked to, the FAS and NY Times pieces, then come back and say you still think the Muthanna complex equates to a "garage or basement" or the other US troops mentioned are all "liars". Take your time, maybe best if you get an adult's help. And a glass of milk.
Dear downvoters, are you trying to deny the UN exists, the Samarra chemical weapon complex (do bear in mind if you do accept the existence of the UN, denying a report from the UN is a bit head-in-the-sand), or that ISIS has taken the area and potentially the stock of 2500 chemical sarin rockets stored there? Please do try and think carefully before reflexively downvoting whatever upsets your carefully fostered preconceptions.
"Is that the real weapons factory from the good old days when The West supported Irak in its war with "
If you can't even successfully spell Iraq, your further testimony is suspect in the extremity of reviewing the testimony of the village idiot.
The likelihood is that there were no targetted searches at all, at least initially. The order will have been "intercept stuff because ... stuff!". More than half of spying is about finding information that *might* be embarrassing at the right time. Hopefully, there are other governments with information about the trade embargoes the USA has broken - because there will be a lot of them. No-one is clean in this dirty process.
This post has been deleted by its author
>>"Good. It can wait. It's up to the government elected by the people of the UK to decide the UK's foreign policy."
Well yes, but there's the problem. The European government actually does a better job protecting us than our own. It's not because it doesn't go far enough that the UK wants to pull out of the Human Rights Act, after all. And I think everyone here knows that if the USA asks the UK government for some information, the UK government will just roll over and share anything they're told to.
There are sounds emanating from the barrel with blue flag on it?
Well, Europe..... you have been sold down the river by politicos to abusive mobsters. Stop complaining and get with the program. There is P.U.T.I.N. to "oppose" and next up, the glorious Caliphate. You sure you don't want to buy a few more F-35? You might need them.
You are too kind, Iain.
Another thing one could say is that Merkel and her cornies have very limited choices by now in terms of what to admit to. It more or less narrows down to total inadequacy and loss of control or ... well ... treason.
They will admit to neither, of course. It's not like we are having a national crisis. Not at all.
Presenting: Germany – a 100% subsidiary of the U.S. of A.
It seems to be a perennially favorite topic of the Europeans that America is stealing all of their intellectual property, especially here on the register. Not to say it's un-true, but I can't think of anything that airbus knows how to do that Boeing, for instance, doesn't. If it was a Russian or Chinese intrusion the espionage angle would make more since. Airbus is probably trying to make political points out of this with its lawsuit. All governments spy on all other governments. There is no trust in international relations. It really is a sad state of affairs.
but I can't think of anything that airbus knows how to do that Boeing, for instance, doesn't
It doesn't have to be technical. Just having knowledge of their bidding process and plans is enough to create an advantage for Boeing by underbidding them by a percentage. Of course, if Airbus dreams up something that Boeing wants it's handy yo have the spying already in place, but financials and bids in that industry are worth the effort alone.
"I can't think of anything that airbus knows how to do that Boeing, for instance, doesn't."
While it's entirely possible that Boeing pinched some of Airbus's secrets, especially to deal with a problem that Boeing was having problems rectifying, it doesn't stop there. Once they have their mole in place, they can then go along and deliberately sabotage plans incrementally in order to delay Airbus's production, so Boeing can get the jump on them in the market, and get the customers to sign exclusivity contracts while Airbus is trying to undo the sabotage that will put lives at risk.
The USAs foreign, economic, and military policies are all inextricably linked, and they treat a threat to one, as a threat to all 3. Given how they are now rolling domestic policy into the fold and treating their own citizens as criminals who have to prove themselves innocent, it's a worrying trend. But when you have the "best" government that money can buy, what do you expect?
On an engineering level - yes, I'm sure Boeing already knows how to do everything Airbus does (for statistical values of "everything", there may be some fringe technologies outlying for all I know, but I strongly suspect Boeing doesn't care about those). That's not the point.
The two companies are commercial rivals, not technological ones. Knowledge of Airbus's manufacturing processes, its bidding process, or its internal costs would give Boeing a very sharp edge in bidding for new contracts.
> I'm sure if Boeing wanted to steal Airbus's secrets
Funnily enough, it seems the bulk of industrial espionage is carried out by governments (at the State, region, and even municipal level in certain cases), rather than by other companies. No idea why.
Source: an industrial spy I used to date.
Can Airbus prove the charges? On both what was snooped and what was shared and with whom? It could be the embargo information (which would be embarrassing to Airbus and the German government) or something else. Given the way spy vs. spy vs. spy and "sharing" is and has been going on, there's really not much info in the article to say what's was done and what their grounds for tossing a sueball are.
I recall a case, I think around twelve years ago, when US intelligence agencies had obtained confidential business information on a German plane manufacturer and then passed that information on to either Boeing or Lockheed-Martin allowing the US company to out-manoeuvre their European competitor in a very big deal at the time. Unfortunately I don't recall the exact year or company though I could dig out the reference given time.
Anyway, Germany and France were deeply unimpressed. It does not seem that a great deal has changed.
"We have no knowledge of alleged economic espionage by the NSA or other US agencies in other countries"
Lol, then read the NSA's mission statement here: https://www.nsa.gov/about/mission/index.shtml
Pretty straight forward to me, they have a mandate to spy on Airbus, amongst other companies competing with US companies ...
Anon, for reasons ...
All it takes is for a security analyst to be chummy with someone at an aerospace company.
It doesn't have to be a government cover up conspiracy, pure capitalist profiteering will do.
"Hey I can get access to Airbus..."
"Oh anything interesting?"
"Sure heres some new fancy wing research"
"Oh that's cool, I'll show it to my boss as my new idea!"
"Great, and we can share the bonus you get!"
"Deal..See if theres anything on engines next time"
With the lack of oversight we'd never know, if the analysts boss does find out, its just another brown envelope.
Basically we have globally a large amount of government paid people who are entirely unaccountable, and steal data from each other's nations with gay abandon. As soon as they're challenged they wave the National Security flag, and get themselves some more tax money to do more.
NSA and BND are now friends. GCHQ likes this.
"In this case they respected UN arms and trade embargoes - the searches were for companies in breach of UN sanctions."
Actually they were looking out for US companies, since non-US companies breaking embargoes would be unwanted competition for US companies doing the same.
"Makes you wonder what Airbus has to hide"
Typical nonsense coming from you. What does any person/company in the world have to hide? Why don't they don't they make public every bit of information about themselves?
"especially after all the fuss over the NSA spying on Petrobas seems to have been more than justified by the subsequent Petrobas-Rousseff scandal"
I was not aware that NSA were the ones to spill the beans on the corruption at Petrobras. Let's assume they were, and let's assume that justifies the spying, so what is the justification for the spying on the other 99.999999% of companies for which the NSA has not found any dirt so far?
"BTW, India is not a signatory to the NPT."
You clearly miss the point that the OP is making, namely, the US which is a signatory to the NNPT is flouting the treaty by dealing with India.
".....Actually they were looking out for US companies...." So anything that disagrees with your version of reality has to be discounted out of hand? Are you saying I hacked the Beeb and posted that report? LOL, don't worry, I know that for your ilk baaaaaahlieving is so much more important than looking at facts. If you wish to protest the BBC article I suggest you go shriek at the BBC complaints department, I'm pretty sure no-one will miss you or your "contribution" whilst you're gone.
"....Typical nonsense coming from you....." Really? You want to pretend no European companies ever broke UN embargoes? You want to pretend you know everything about the inner workings at Airbus? Please do tell what highly-enlightened position you are employed in at Airbus that allows you to make such a statement? Personally, I'd be surprised if you were even qualified to flip burgers in their staff canteen, but I'm sure you can set the record straight, n'est pas?
".....so what is the justification for the spying on the other 99.999999% of companies for which the NSA has not found any dirt so far?...." It's called detection and prevention - go look it up. I suppose your limited view of the World means you assume all intelligence work is reactive rather than proactive? How quaint!
"....the US which is a signatory to the NNPT is flouting the treaty by dealing with India." Quite the opposite, actually. India already has extensive nuke tech and weapons, so it beyond the point where the NPT applies. By ensuring India develops that tech responsibly the US is ensuring that India does not follow North Korea into being a blackmarket source for Third World dictators. Oh, I suppose you're actually upset because the US beat out a deal from the Fwench. Whodathunk a top-level Airbus exec like you would also be an expert on international nuclear affairs! Well, probably no-one, actually.
"So anything that disagrees with your version of reality has to be discounted out of hand? ..."
It seems you have a febrile imagination (someone less kind than me would say feeble), that you can infer so much from so few words is incredible. I have not said a single word about the veracity or otherwise of that BBC report. What is true though is that the standard and objectivity of BBC reporting has been going downhill. But whether that report is true or not is besides the point, the essence is that you seem to believe:
"[The USA] In this case they respected UN arms and trade embargoes - the searches were for companies in breach of UN sanctions."
Find me someone who truly believes that and I'll find you an idiot. The US cynically exploit UN Resolutions and values as cover to advance their interests in the cases where Resolutions and values coincide with interests. When they do not coincide and the US is unable to bend the UN to its will then they will mock the UN as irrelevant and carry on with their unilateral policies. So much for respect.
"You want to pretend no European companies ever broke UN embargoes?"
Companies and countries the world over have and continue to do so, especially the US, which like to police others but not itself.
"It's called detection and prevention"
It's called blanket surveillance pretending to catch the terrorists created by the policies of the "West". If you think the information gathered is only used for terrorism related purposes then you're more delusional than I give you credit for. Any commercially advantageous information gleaned WILL be put to use to advance US interests.
"By ensuring India develops that tech responsibly the US is ensuring that India does not follow North Korea into being a blackmarket source for Third World dictators."
IF that is really want the US wants then they should be working with Pakistan instead as it would reap far more and immediate benefits. Pakistan is already known to have conducted proliferation activities and may be doing so even now. India is far more stable (insurgencies and rebels notwithstanding) than Pakistan, and is far less likely to proliferate than Pakistan. So if any country needs "help" to prevent proliferation it is Pakistan not India. Rather, the nuclear cooperation deal with India was a ploy to wean India away from Russia and as a part of a long term plan to encircle. Obviously India is too smart to stay firmly wedded to the US but would continue to play China, Russia and the US against each other to and reap any incidental benefits.
"I suppose you're actually upset because the US beat out a deal from the Fwench."
I'm not upset about anything. But I can imagine the outrage and pouting indignation from the US if it was the French or indeed any other country which did the deal. Learn to spell or grow up (I know it's futile to expect you to).
".....It seems you have a febrile imagination ...." Ah, I bet this is a lead in to another time when you flat out deny what you have already posted! According to how you want to insist reality works, I not only hacked the Beeb but I also must have hacked El Reg and edited your posts? Seriously LMAO @ your fail!
".....I have not said a single word about the veracity or otherwise of that BBC report....." And there we are! The Beeb report expressly states the work was looking for sanctions busting, but you insisted it was just ".....they were looking out for US companies, since non-US companies breaking embargoes would be unwanted competition for US companies doing the same...." For you to be able to back that up you would have to (a) show the US companies breaking the sanctions, and (b) not only evidence that they were going unpunished by the US authorities, but (c) evidence that the US authorities were encouraging such activity. Oh, and you'd also have to deny the history of European companies that have breached sanctions before. You presented none such as you have no evidence outside of your wanting to baaaahlieve it to be true. Fail again!
"....that you can infer so much from so few words is incredible...." So I have those words in an outright statement from a reputable source, whereas you have zero evidence of what you stated, yet you find it "incredible" that I draw a conclusion from that outright statement whilst you insist on making statements with no supporting evidence..... Hmmmm, you do know the difference between empirical and faith-based thought, right? Just admit you autonomicly shrieked a fallacy you dearly want to believe is true because it is easier for you to do so than face facts and move on. Oh, and that is more fail again, again.
".....Find me someone who truly believes that...." The reporter and editor at the Beeb. Please do try and claim you are not only a high-ranking Airbus employee AND a nuclear scientist AND also better qualified in journalism than the Beeb, it would truly amuse! Your denial is simply more comic failure.
"....and I'll find you an idiot...." If I wanted you to find an idiot I'd simply point you to the nearest mirror. Your definition of "idiot" seems to be limited to those that do not hold your socio-political faith, whereas your posts contain plenty of evidence to point to your own limited reasoning, as evidenced by your next statement: ".....But whether that report is true or not is besides the point, the essence is that you seem to believe....." You must have been talking to the mirror at that point. Either that or your just blindly rejecting any source of information that does not align with your worldview without even the slightest attempt to consider it. That is simply denial. And yet more fail again, again, yet again, again.
".....The US cynically exploit UN Resolutions and values as cover to advance their interests in the cases where Resolutions and values coincide with interests....." Newsflash, moron - ALL the nations at the UN participate with the express interest of forwarding their own national views! That you single out the US as doing so "cynically" whilst absolving the rest of the World just goes to show the extent of your bias. The extent of your fail in just one post is simply extraordinary! I suggest El Reg introduces a new measure of fail called the crayon, a kind of negative reasoning ability scale that starts at 0.1 crayons (village idiot levels) and progresses through 0.5 crayons (equivalent to the real-world denial of a follower of the Westboro Church) to 1.0 crayon (empirically demonstrated inability to think for yourself).
".....IF that is really want the US wants then they should be working with Pakistan instead as it would reap far more and immediate benefits. Pakistan is already known to have conducted proliferation activities and may be doing so even now...." What baloney! Pakistan is not only under US-led investigation (by the IAEA and the UN) but is so because the US intelligence services uncovered the dealings between Pakistani, North Korea and Iraq! Read here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan - then go read here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Pakistan_relations and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea%E2%80%93Pakistan_relations - for a clue as to how that little bit of proliferation got legs. If you manage to digest those articles without succumbing to blanket denial you could go for a real challenge to your ignorance and try here to for a more real source of proliferation than Pakistan - http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/157678/china-iran-nuclear-allies
"or that ISIS has taken the area and potentially the stock of 2500 chemical sarin rockets stored there?"
According to the report that you so kindly provided:
"(http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/muthanna.htm). Please do try and read the whole article without your head exploding."
It is obvious that your head exploded after reading the first paragraph (which mentioned the 2500 rockets) and you didn't get to read the bit which says:
'Speaking in late June about the compound’s takeover, US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that while the situation is troubling, the leftover stockpile does not include “intact chemical weapons ... and would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely use this for military purposes or, frankly, to move it."'
It also beggars the question that why is it after invading and occuying Iraq for close to a decade under the pretence of Iraq having undisclosed WMD that there are still supposedly dangerous chemical (maybe weapons) lying around, at a well known site, one which since at least 1996 UN inspectors had worked at before?
"....According to the report that you so kindly provided...." And your evidence to counter that report is.... oh, solely based on your unmatched powers of denial! What an argument winner you presented there! Oh, before you preen, that was sarcasm - you provided SFA as usual.
"....US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki...." So, that would be the State Department that has routinely denied reports of chemical weapons found in Iraq. Not that the Democrats gain anything by constantly bashing the old Republican Bush administration with the "no WMDs in Iraq" mantra. And wouldn't it be embarrassing in the run up to a presidential election for your front-runner to have been Secretary of State in the Obama administration from January 2009 to February 2013, a key post during the failed diplomatic response to the so-called Arab Spring mess that led to the rise of ISIS and the overshadowing of US influence in Iraq by Iran. And, of course, it wouldn't be at all politically embarrassing to the Obama administration to have to account for why no effort has been made to destroy that chemical weapons stock earlier, or do more to prevent ISIS capturing large swathes of Iraq, let alone stored Iraqi chemical weapons they knew were there! No, I'm sure the political appointees at the State Department have no political reason to try and play down the whole affair (just so we're clear, that was more sarcasm).
"....It also beggars the question that why is it after invading and occupying Iraq for close to a decade under the pretence of Iraq having undisclosed WMD that there are still supposedly dangerous chemical (maybe weapons) lying around, at a well known site, one which since at least 1996 UN inspectors had worked at before?" But hold on a sec - people like you just want to insist there never were any chemical weapons, so how come you can so easily switch to now insisting those "non-existant" weapons are "harmless" if they were never there in the first place? How can you now seek deflection from the original point by insisting that they should have been destroyed rather than admitting first that your denial of WMDs in Iraq was itself a faith-based political convenience? But then you would have to question not only why you were spoonfed that in the first place, but why you were so happy to swallow it. Oh dear, there seem to be some gaping holes in that façade of denial you so carefully wrap yourself in.
"How can you now seek deflection from the original point by insisting that they should have been destroyed rather than admitting first that your denial of WMDs in Iraq was itself a faith-based political convenience?"
You are deliberately blurring the fact that Iraq did have some WMDs and the UN commission headed by Hans Blix had been pretty successful in investigating and dismantling said weapons. The US and the UK falsely insisted that Iraq had more undisclosed weapons and secret programmes, under this false pretence they again invaded and occupied Iraq. During this second occupation no new or significant WMDs had been found. When people say there are no WMDs in Iraq they refer to the situation at the start of 2003, which is that Iraq pretty much disclosed everything of significance about their WMDs, furthermore there is no evidence of any ongoing WMD related programmes.
"people like you just want to insist there never were any chemical weapons ..."
"... so how come you can so easily switch to now insisting those "non-existant" weapons are "harmless" if they were never there in the first place?"
The links you so helpfully provided to backup your shrill claim "that ISIS has taken the area and potentially the stock of 2500 chemical sarin rockets stored there? ", like I said you only read the first paragraph before you blew up your pretty head and did not read the bit which said weapons are basically useless. So I'm pointing out that the links you provided to "prove" your claim in fact does nothing of the sort. It's not me who is switching, but rather you who don't know how to read.
'".....Find me someone who truly believes that...." The reporter and editor at the Beeb.'
I hope you do realise that reporting on something and believing it are two separate concepts. To make it clear, the Beeb have reported what the NSA gave as the reason, they did not make a value judgement as to whether what the NSA said was true or not - and I hope they would never unless it was marked clearly as an opinionated editorial or they had evidence otherwise.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021