4 ms·

Although I disagree about spying on your allies at this kind of level, I did find it more outrage-worthy that the NSA was spying on the ordinary population than

by pluma 11y ago

Although I disagree about spying on your allies at this kind of level, I did find it more outrage-worthy that the NSA was spying on the ordinary population than that they were bugging politicians and officials.

9872 11y ago
That's part and parcel of democracy. If you want to pretend that those politicians and officials are accountable to the people, then the people are a legitimate target for espionage, just like the king would be in a monarchy.
- coldtea 11y ago
  Spying on citizens part and parcel of democracy? In what definition of democracy? >If you want to pretend that those politicians and officials are accountable to the people, then the people are a legitimate target for espionage, just like the king would be in a monarchy. First, if officials are accountable to the people, then the officials are legitimate target of espionage (or transparency). The people is the master, not the officials. Also, following your logic, are people also a legitimate target to terrorist attacks? It is after all a democracy, and in that sense they are responsible for the actions of their government, right? Or we could take the logical conclusion that what we have is far for a democracy...
  - 9872 11y ago
    >In what definition of democracy? In the definition that says the ultimate source of government power is the people. You seem to agree that this is a reasonable definition of democracy. This means that they are a legitimate target when it comes to espionage or terrorism, yes. If you don't like it, move to a dictatorship.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      "Ultimate source" in parliamentary democracy just means that people vote (and once in several years). They don't influence the government in its day to day operations, nor they have any special power or significance for the various policies as individuals (outside of their function as a voting majority). So while this might make them a "legitimate" target for terrorism (in the sense: they voted for the government so they are ultimately responsible for its foreign policy etc) it doesn't make any sense at all regarding to espionage.
      - 9872 11y ago
        Of course it does. Although you did miss quite a bit, you at least realize that they vote in elections. You don't see the value in knowing and influencing election results?
cmdkeen 11y ago
With the Five Eyes agreement there's pretty much a statement that France is outside the proper list of US allies. Any foreign security agency worth its salt would view that as a statement of intent that those outside the group are likely to be spied on by those inside. France has always had a divergent geopolitical strategy that sets it apart from the USA/UK alliance.

by pluma 11y ago

9872 11y ago

That's part and parcel of democracy. If you want to pretend that those politicians and officials are accountable to the people, then the people are a legitimate target for espionage, just like the king would be in a monarchy.

coldtea 11y ago
Spying on citizens part and parcel of democracy? In what definition of democracy? >If you want to pretend that those politicians and officials are accountable to the people, then the people are a legitimate target for espionage, just like the king would be in a monarchy. First, if officials are accountable to the people, then the officials are legitimate target of espionage (or transparency). The people is the master, not the officials. Also, following your logic, are people also a legitimate target to terrorist attacks? It is after all a democracy, and in that sense they are responsible for the actions of their government, right? Or we could take the logical conclusion that what we have is far for a democracy...
- 9872 11y ago
  >In what definition of democracy? In the definition that says the ultimate source of government power is the people. You seem to agree that this is a reasonable definition of democracy. This means that they are a legitimate target when it comes to espionage or terrorism, yes. If you don't like it, move to a dictatorship.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    "Ultimate source" in parliamentary democracy just means that people vote (and once in several years). They don't influence the government in its day to day operations, nor they have any special power or significance for the various policies as individuals (outside of their function as a voting majority). So while this might make them a "legitimate" target for terrorism (in the sense: they voted for the government so they are ultimately responsible for its foreign policy etc) it doesn't make any sense at all regarding to espionage.
    - 9872 11y ago
      Of course it does. Although you did miss quite a bit, you at least realize that they vote in elections. You don't see the value in knowing and influencing election results?

cmdkeen 11y ago

With the Five Eyes agreement there's pretty much a statement that France is outside the proper list of US allies. Any foreign security agency worth its salt would view that as a statement of intent that those outside the group are likely to be spied on by those inside. France has always had a divergent geopolitical strategy that sets it apart from the USA/UK alliance.