Governments who have tried that in the past find that groups of civilians start systematically killing government agents, particularly police and security forces.
It's generally a bad idea to go that route because the government is effectively condoning illegal actions and others will adjust their behavior similarly. Rather like the streets with graffitti and broken windows that seem to attract crime.
Now some would say the the government has already condoned illegal spying behavior, but that is not the same thing. Some groups have taken it upon themselves to spy back on the government but I don't know of anyone who suggests killing people as a response to illegal spying.
In any case, increasing the use of force leads to escalation and escalation leads to an expanding spiral of destruction that quickly becomes uncontrollable. For an example of what happens then, read a book called "10 days in October" and think about whether the USA really wants to follow the Soviet example. In addition, the Soviets themselves have pretty much abandoned that approach which is the main reason why the dissolution of the Soviet Union was so peaceful. Wiser heads prevailed. Can the USA at least match that as the American Empire fades away?
Spying on your citizens and enforcing martial law are two very different things. The US already (illegally) spies on its citizens. Giving it more ways of doing so is not a good idea.
Yes, use by the military to continue committing genocide against their own people. “Spying” in geopolitical context usually means use against other countries.
it should be like in war, bombing civilians is a war crime, spying on even foreign civilians should never be legally accepted. ever. otherwise we re on the fast track toward another catastrophe for the human race and one of its unique features, freedom.
The American leaders had an endgame planned. "Let's spy on them" is not an endgame. Unless it's part of a much more detailed plan, I don't think the comparison holds up. Spying on your own government is more akin to a couple of 18th-century Americans saying, "Hey, I know, let's go shoot a couple of British soldiers." Outside the context of a revolution, it's only good at getting you killed.
And when spying becomes counterproductive, should we still increase the level of spying? When US-led coups destabilize a region, does this maximize national security? When US-based surveillance causes a drop in investment, does this maximize national prosperity?
That's naive. You don't think the Russians and the Chinese have operatives in Washington trying to spy on Americans? Spying is illegal, but everyone does it.
What we're talking about is an international game of brinksmanship.
Illegality is a relative proposition. There are scarce few international laws that govern anything and even fewer international laws with teeth. Each individual nation has laws against spying, but given the propensity to avoid an international incident, I tend to think that spies who are discovered are either tortured or returned to their home countries. Since the laws of one country do not extend beyond their borders, it's difficult to enforce ones sovereignty in a different country, or to exert ones own authority over another nation-state's actor.
This is all just very murky, but the concept of illegality is relative at best in this instance.
Isn't this what you _want_ the U.S. spy agencies to do? See what other countries are up to?
I think the only problem is when they take this technology to look upon their own citizens outside the checks and balances of our system of judges and warrants for this sort of thing.
Most my examples would be of the US acting in cases that are technically illegal and only so related directly to this kind of surveillance (like ELF, bradley manning, mccarthyism (not to mention other, foreign policy related or historical atrocities)), I certainly do not think that, even if we pretend the US always has super great intentions, they are not always the best to have stick their hands in things.
And, from the little I know, the actual stifling part is [allegedly?] evident in malcom X and fred hampton cases, as well as others I might be missing.
There's definitely a large spectrum, between countries where the government uses violent means to suppress political oppostion (including but not limited to Belarus), over governments that deport people who met with a "person of interest" to third-party countries where they get tortured (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar) to countries where people just feel that preemptive intelligence gathering without concrete indications is more a cover-your-ass thing than a useful technique to fight crime.
Note that Lawful Interception (i.e. interfaces for government agencies to siphon off data from internet providers), as it was established by US and Europe, was never a focused effort to provide data for criminal investigations but started out with different groups of users in mind (i.e., espionnage and possibly other uses that the average citizen would find spooky).
And, as the article explains, the same technology that is used to guarantee Lawful Interception in Germany/US/other countries is used for political suppression in countries that would perhaps lack the technical sophistication but have a budget and corresponding sources for these. (Although I'm reasonably certain that companies in China and Russia will be happy to provide similar technology to potential buyers).
Hell, why shouldn't they. The USA has already done it, why not them too. Maybe there is actually even some sort of kind of MAD principle in that concept. I don't really see how it would end up well, but it at least has a chance of a positive outcome relative to the USA dominating and spying on the world unilaterally.
I guess the ideal situation would be a transglobal civil intelligence corp that hacks and publicly publishes the secrets of governments their officials and corporations. A crowd-sourced intelligence organization that tracks public figures and agents and activities across the globe.
Illegal spying should remain illegal. When a spy agency has nothing to loose anymore, does not have to tread carefully anymore to see which laws to break or sidestep there is no bound to the eventual corruption that will come with time
Maybe it's their way of fighting the Man. They're compelled, almost by force, to cooperate with the US and other governments in spying on their users. This seems like a way to offset that ethical load by taking away some of the tools those bad actors use as weapons. I know I'd do it if I were in their shoes.
I hate this less than bulk spying on individuals (not suspected of a crime). At least these bulk targets are more likely to be people with the means to defend themselves from thin-skinned or overreaching govs. However, I admit that doesn't change the overall ethics much.
A larger issue is that after decades of US being a leader of bad international behavior, many worse Govs are emulating and building on our invasive strategies.
Predictably, the US ceaselessly whines & lashes out at nations who follow our blueprint. I'd prefer my US Gov put on it's big girl panties and own up to the problems it designs.
why do we need to spy on other governments unless we're going to war with somebody? The US has overthrown 50 governments since wwii. How about we srop doing that?
That's hardly effective; most covertly collected evidence is already inadmissible in courts in most free countries and yet here we are.
Governments spying isn't ubiquitous because it's an effective means to uphold the law: it's because like any government budget: you use it or you lose it. And after the "good old days" of the Cold War nobody is ready to relinquish that power. So instead here we are, decades after we stepped back from the nuclear brink, as terrified as ever with a media presenting us with a myriad of dubious villains to justify expansion and over reach.
The true extent of the damage caused by rampant espionage will probably never be understood because secrets breed secrets, breed corruption -- and when a nation's intelligence services can legally spy on the full spectrum of industry: the potential for corruption is massive
Most other countries have been thrilled to abuse their own people when it comes to espionage. So no, they'll jump right on board, gladly. Not primarily to punish the US, but because it's a perfect excuse to expand their existing spying programs.
Sure. And one thing we could say is, "realistically, nations are going to do this. It's cheap and easy and has a lot of upside if they succeed. So we tolerate it."
It's like how the international community accepts that the CIA, FSB, MI6, etc, exist -- nobody serious is really objecting to foreign spying in principle.
But in that case -- if we were being consistent -- we might find (for example) Russian agents trying to swing the US election, and we would have to shrug: "ah well, everybody does it." And I doubt that's the attitude that our leaders would take!
It's generally a bad idea to go that route because the government is effectively condoning illegal actions and others will adjust their behavior similarly. Rather like the streets with graffitti and broken windows that seem to attract crime.
Now some would say the the government has already condoned illegal spying behavior, but that is not the same thing. Some groups have taken it upon themselves to spy back on the government but I don't know of anyone who suggests killing people as a response to illegal spying.
In any case, increasing the use of force leads to escalation and escalation leads to an expanding spiral of destruction that quickly becomes uncontrollable. For an example of what happens then, read a book called "10 days in October" and think about whether the USA really wants to follow the Soviet example. In addition, the Soviets themselves have pretty much abandoned that approach which is the main reason why the dissolution of the Soviet Union was so peaceful. Wiser heads prevailed. Can the USA at least match that as the American Empire fades away?
reply