4 ms·

> You either get called "complacent" or "naive." Your original comment is certainly not naive, with the current state of affairs being undeniably ripe for spyi

> 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...

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...