3 ms·

>Allies have always spied on each other. It's thanks to that kind of complacent commentary that we're shrugging off intelligence agencies hacking into the comp

>Allies have always spied on each other. It's thanks to that kind of complacent commentary that we're shrugging off intelligence agencies hacking into the computers of senators investigating said agencies. What a time to be alive.

corndoge 8y ago
The US should continue to spy on its allies, and as long as this is the case they're perfectly justified in spying on the US. Replace US with any other country and same applies. There's nothing particularly wrong with this arrangement.
- lostlogin 8y ago
  Do you see a point at which spying stops being ok, or any lines that shouldn’t be crossed? The agencies involved in spying don’t have a good track record and often have fairly limited oversight.
Someone1234 8y ago
You either get called "complacent" or "naive." This stuff is going to happen regardless of how upset people get, nation states have too much to gain by having more information and very little to lose when they're caught by an allie. And it isn't like this is new to the information revolution either. Countries were spying on each other using the postal service and telegrams, or even eyeballs and fast horses. As an aside your example isn't relevant, the CIA spied on their own government in that example, that is what makes it especially egregious and dangerous, since it impacts the state's own sovereignty. The actual topic at hand was nation-states spying on one another, apples and oranges.
- blancheneige 8y ago
  > You either get called "complacent" or "naive." Your original comment is certainly not naive, with the current state of affairs being undeniably ripe for spying operations. > This stuff is going to happen regardless of how upset people get Statists will only go as far as their people allow them to. > The actual topic at hand was nation-states spying on one another, apples and oranges. Believing there is any effective distinction, on the other hand, is not merely complacent but incredibly naive indeed.
  - Someone1234 8y ago
    > Statists will only go as far as their people allow them to. We're talking about inter-governmental spying, a state's own political system has nothing to do with the topic. So your point about Statists isn't relevant here. > Believing there is any effective distinction, on the other hand, is not merely complacent but incredibly naive indeed. You think it is "naive" to believe there's a distinction between two states spying on each other and a state's own security services spying on their own oversight organisation? What?
    - blancheneige 8y ago
      > a state's own political system has nothing to do with the topic that sounds very contradictory. unless you are implicitly admitting that intelligence agencies are above government oversight. in which case you might have a point. naive to believe this theoretical distinction holds in practice. how many more whistleblowers' careers need to be destroyed for you to realize this? the highly sophisticated machinery developed for "international spying" in light of all evidence appears to be a convenient justification for domestic spying, sometimes outsourced to your own allies to keep it legal [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-surveillance-personal-data https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-d...

corndoge 8y ago

The US should continue to spy on its allies, and as long as this is the case they're perfectly justified in spying on the US. Replace US with any other country and same applies. There's nothing particularly wrong with this arrangement.

lostlogin 8y ago
Do you see a point at which spying stops being ok, or any lines that shouldn’t be crossed? The agencies involved in spying don’t have a good track record and often have fairly limited oversight.

Someone1234 8y ago

You either get called "complacent" or "naive." This stuff is going to happen regardless of how upset people get, nation states have too much to gain by having more information and very little to lose when they're caught by an allie. And it isn't like this is new to the information revolution either. Countries were spying on each other using the postal service and telegrams, or even eyeballs and fast horses. As an aside your example isn't relevant, the CIA spied on their own government in that example, that is what makes it especially egregious and dangerous, since it impacts the state's own sovereignty. The actual topic at hand was nation-states spying on one another, apples and oranges.

blancheneige 8y ago
> You either get called "complacent" or "naive." Your original comment is certainly not naive, with the current state of affairs being undeniably ripe for spying operations. > This stuff is going to happen regardless of how upset people get Statists will only go as far as their people allow them to. > The actual topic at hand was nation-states spying on one another, apples and oranges. Believing there is any effective distinction, on the other hand, is not merely complacent but incredibly naive indeed.
- Someone1234 8y ago
  > Statists will only go as far as their people allow them to. We're talking about inter-governmental spying, a state's own political system has nothing to do with the topic. So your point about Statists isn't relevant here. > Believing there is any effective distinction, on the other hand, is not merely complacent but incredibly naive indeed. You think it is "naive" to believe there's a distinction between two states spying on each other and a state's own security services spying on their own oversight organisation? What?
  - blancheneige 8y ago
    > a state's own political system has nothing to do with the topic that sounds very contradictory. unless you are implicitly admitting that intelligence agencies are above government oversight. in which case you might have a point. naive to believe this theoretical distinction holds in practice. how many more whistleblowers' careers need to be destroyed for you to realize this? the highly sophisticated machinery developed for "international spying" in light of all evidence appears to be a convenient justification for domestic spying, sometimes outsourced to your own allies to keep it legal [1]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-deal-surveillance-personal-data https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/20/us-uk-secret-d...