3 ms·
If I get your last point correctly, it implies that state spy agencies should not be restricted by laws, because it will make them ignore those laws and undermi
by ketzu 6y ago
If I get your last point correctly, it implies that state spy agencies should not be restricted by laws, because it will make them ignore those laws and undermine oversight. But oversight is worthless with that premise anyways, because there aren't any laws restricting the agency.
- mytailorisrich 6y agoYou are not getting my point correctly. Spy agencies are restricted by laws and should be restricted by laws. But it should be sensible taking into account the reality of what these agencies are and do, and not based on idealism. Their purpose and what they do has not changed and will not change because of this decision because there is a need to protect national interests and that is not achieved by being a boy scout. Therefore they will try to find a way to get around it as much as possible, be it in the drafting of the new law or in practice.
- jacobr1 6y agoIt is the classic tradeoff: regulation vs. banning for "unsavory" practices. This is perhaps easier to see with drugs, gambling, and sex-work. And of course, it gets more complicated because, within broad categories, specific practices maybe be banned even within a regulatory framework.
- fit2rule 6y agoThe way they get around it: the CIA bases in Germany are allowed to spy, since they are not sovereign German territory. And, since the BND answers to the CIA, sharing of information will be up to the CIA, according to the national interest of the USA first, and Germany second.