4 ms·

That's hilarious. One of the premier and foremost missions of the Verfassungsschutz is of course counter-intelligence. To support another countries foreign int

That's hilarious. One of the premier and foremost missions of the Verfassungsschutz is of course counter-intelligence. To support another countries foreign intelligence service (which is targeted with espionage on Germany) is nothing short of treason on an organized scale.

nota_bene 11y ago
Don't forget that borders are becoming less important. Corporate interests don't care about borders and national interests.
- alyandon 11y ago
  Corporate interests care a great deal about borders so long as it allows them to artificially segment markets to derive maximum profitability (dvds, pharma, etc)!
logicallee 11y ago
>To support another country's foreign intelligence service (which is targeted with espionage on Germany) is nothing short of treason on an organized scale. Maybe, but the logical slippery slope if you do allow this happen is that in the end every country cooperates and their budget for counter-espionage looks like... the budget, say, California has to defend itself from Texas and Massachusetts, or for securing its borders from Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon by planting spies in those countries I mean states, or the FBI budget for counter-intel versus the CIA. All of which is exactly, precisely $0. In what conceivable world is it better for California to be spending that money on such hypothetical programs, or for taxpayers to fund the CIA in its attacks against the FBI, and to fund the FBI in its countermeasures against the CIA -- an idea that is total, complete madness - instead of putting it into education, roads, water, or whatever else you want that actually has any benefit to society whatsoever? The world is incredibly well-connected, and states don't need to be hacking other states. Whether you agree with surveillance or not, it is not difficult to argue that cooperation is a net benefit for all.
- revelation 11y ago
  I'm not sure what you are even trying to say here. First of all, states are hacking other friendly states. States they cooperate with. Then of course, foreign intelligence services derive their power and existence outside of the normal law framework from the simple fact that they are generally not allowed to spy on their own (e.g. US) citizens. That is pretty much the very fine line that separates them from a state-funded terrorist conspiracy. In that light, any cooperation with another intelligence agency (which naturally isn't bound to not spying on US citizens) is prima facie suspect.
  - logicallee 11y ago
    But I was replying to the thought, which I quoted, that "to support another country's foreign intelligence service is nothing short of treason on an organized scale". (I mean official support and cooperation, that both services know about, like James Bond and Felix Leiter, his American counterpart who sometimes makes an appearance, in the films.)
eternalban 11y ago
facts of life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deploym...
tempodox 11y ago
On a formal level, that seems true enough. Plus, they are using unconstitutional means to “protect the constitution”. I'm starting to wonder whether agencies like that are actually worth the trouble they're causing.

nota_bene 11y ago

Don't forget that borders are becoming less important. Corporate interests don't care about borders and national interests.

alyandon 11y ago
Corporate interests care a great deal about borders so long as it allows them to artificially segment markets to derive maximum profitability (dvds, pharma, etc)!

logicallee 11y ago

>To support another country's foreign intelligence service (which is targeted with espionage on Germany) is nothing short of treason on an organized scale. Maybe, but the logical slippery slope if you do allow this happen is that in the end every country cooperates and their budget for counter-espionage looks like... the budget, say, California has to defend itself from Texas and Massachusetts, or for securing its borders from Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon by planting spies in those countries I mean states, or the FBI budget for counter-intel versus the CIA. All of which is exactly, precisely $0. In what conceivable world is it better for California to be spending that money on such hypothetical programs, or for taxpayers to fund the CIA in its attacks against the FBI, and to fund the FBI in its countermeasures against the CIA -- an idea that is total, complete madness - instead of putting it into education, roads, water, or whatever else you want that actually has any benefit to society whatsoever? The world is incredibly well-connected, and states don't need to be hacking other states. Whether you agree with surveillance or not, it is not difficult to argue that cooperation is a net benefit for all.

revelation 11y ago
I'm not sure what you are even trying to say here. First of all, states are hacking other friendly states. States they cooperate with. Then of course, foreign intelligence services derive their power and existence outside of the normal law framework from the simple fact that they are generally not allowed to spy on their own (e.g. US) citizens. That is pretty much the very fine line that separates them from a state-funded terrorist conspiracy. In that light, any cooperation with another intelligence agency (which naturally isn't bound to not spying on US citizens) is prima facie suspect.
- logicallee 11y ago
  But I was replying to the thought, which I quoted, that "to support another country's foreign intelligence service is nothing short of treason on an organized scale". (I mean official support and cooperation, that both services know about, like James Bond and Felix Leiter, his American counterpart who sometimes makes an appearance, in the films.)

eternalban 11y ago

facts of life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments#Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deploym...

tempodox 11y ago

On a formal level, that seems true enough. Plus, they are using unconstitutional means to “protect the constitution”. I'm starting to wonder whether agencies like that are actually worth the trouble they're causing.