Yes it is. Otherwise you're putting yourself at a strategic disadvantage. It's an inevitable outcome of the technology being available. We have great weather satellites now partly because knowing the weather and observing agriculture in other countries makes us economically competitive.

If a technology exists it's going to be used, within the normal variations of supply and demand. You might prefer to abstain from using a particular technology, but there's also the possibility that it will get used on you. From a governmental perspective, a country has a requirement to be as aware of its political environment as it can for the sake of its citizens' safety.

I am curious how you would define "spying" though.

- Should NGA not use imaging satellites to keep track of national disasters and environmental issues?

- Should NGA not use imaging satellites for nuclear non-proliferation monitoring?

- Should DoD not have digital sensors at the egress points of their networks to gather information on attacks by foreign actors?

- Should NSA not monitor the communications of foreign adversaries to determine their intentions on the battlefield?

- Should NSA not investigate adversarial nations launching attacks and information-gathering operations against DoD infrastructure as well as US private industry?

- Should our military intelligence branches not monitor weapons development of adversarial nations (using ELINT measurements, imaging satellites, along with other forms of intelligence gathering to determine their offensive/defensive capabilities)

- Should we not use SIGINT sensors and capabilities to detect an incoming attack on the USA or an ally?

- I can add a whole lot more to this list if interested.

The act of "spying" is far more than just SIGINT collection and processing of internet data. Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with? Do you take issue with all intelligence collection as a whole, or specifically SIGINT collection, or more specifically SIGINT collection of internet data or phone records? I am curious and like to keep an open mind about these things, so am being genuine when I ask this.

Let's start with an easy step. Only intercept the communications of identified targets, not the masses. There, 7 billion people get the ability to speak freely. A solid start. That's without needing to stop any of the first 6 things you listed. The seventh one is a bit vague, detect via what method? Don't do it by tapping all the ISPs.

Generally: false equivalence, excluded middle.

I do not understand. The question was:

> Can you elaborate on what you specifically take issue with?

And I'm responding specifically to that response.

If you don't think intelligence agency's should be doing this then what exactly do you think they should be doing?

I'm always interested in what people think the intel agencies do or should be doing. Personally I agree with you, targeted intelligence is more valuable than blanket intelligence but today with "big data" this may be changing.