Yes, the moral difference is in the motivation and consequences.

We take into account motivation pretty often to evaluate morality not sure why you can't apply it here

TSA's purpose is prevent harm to other passengers (effectiveness is debatable but not the point), the east German border guards were there to keep control on what information the population could access and share

They are not the same thing even if the means look the same

So basically, "when we do it it's good, when they do it it's bad"? I didn't think I'd see someone seriously practice such morality on this website.

Most morally mature people practice that sort of reasoning. They take into account intentions, likely consequences, the state of knowledge of those involved, and other complicating factors before coming to a conclusion.

I think we have exactly opposite definitions of "moral maturity".

You may be right, anal_reactor.

Is it moral for an ambulance to cut through traffic, run red lights and break speed limits? Is the same moral for drunk teenagers?

There's no action (and by that I do mean action, not something abstract that involves multiple actions and choices) that won't be moral some times and immoral others. Intent is always to be accounted for. I'd be happy to have counterexamples if you have any in mind

Also pretty weird to see you infuse a sense of moral superiority to this website of all places