Re:NSA infected 50,000 computer networks with malicious soft...
by grey-area on Saturday November 23, 2013 @02:54PM
(#6787207)
Be outraged that we're spying on your country if that makes you feel better, I guess. I'd rather nobody spied on each other either.
Opposition to the tactics of the NSA/GCHQ does not require you to be opposed to the existence of spies. That's an old, tired argument, which we didn't need to go into the first time. Of course spies spy, but should they do so without boundaries, without proper supervision, and above the law? Should they do so outside wartime and on allies? Should they be given the very real capacity to subvert our democracies and networks worldwide? Who then will keep them in check if the head of the NSA decides he wants regime change at home? How will we know if this has happened?
Personally I don't think this world-weary acceptance of lawbreaking is an appropriate response, and I'm outraged that spies in my country (GCHQ) have been collaborating with collection of data worldwide and handing it over to the NSA, without any respect for international law or the interests of their own country.
The important discussion to be had is on where the boundaries to NSA surveillance lie, and how to perform adequate supervision of them, and just what laws they are not allowed to break. At the very least I think we need a proper inquiry into those topics, which we have not been offered thus far. Spies could (and have) assassinate, kidnap, subvert the political process, and break into networks worldwide but should they do those things to allies and domestically? Should we fund them to keep doing it? Should we accept the perpetual state of war which has been engendered by wars on terrorism and drugs, and the use of that to justify tyranny, assassination and subversion of the democratic process? If we say they can and will do all these things, because it's just what they do, we might as well given up on the pretence of a democracy we currently enjoy.
There are very good reasons the NSA is not supposed to be used domestically, and I'd argue those reasons should also extend to allies, if only because not doing so means your country will no longer have any real allies at all. Why should anyone trust the US or UK in trade negotiations when they've been shown to cheat and steal at every opportunity? Why should Sri Lanka say not just laugh in the face of the UK when Cameron talks of human rights, and China laugh in the face of the US when it complains about intrusive industrial espionage? The blowback on this topic is very real and deep and is only going to be reinforced by reactions like yours above which come down to 'spies will be spies'. The defensive capabilities of the NSA should be far more important than the offensive ones in my opinion, particularly in times of peace. Acting as if you are in a perpetual state of war with other nations, including your closest allies and even domestic population, will lead them to treat you the same way.
The spies have become a supranational organisation which apparently doesn't feel it is answerable to anyone; even the politicians who are ostensibly in charge of them. I think that's dangerous and worthy of note.
Opposition to the tactics of the NSA/GCHQ does not require you to be opposed to the existence of spies. That's an old, tired argument, which we didn't need to go into the first time. Of course spies spy, but should they do so without boundaries, without proper supervision, and above the law? Should they do so outside wartime and on allies? Should they be given the very real capacity to subvert our democracies and networks worldwide? Who then will keep them in check if the head of the NSA decides he wants regime change at home? How will we know if this has happened?
Personally I don't think this world-weary acceptance of lawbreaking is an appropriate response, and I'm outraged that spies in my country (GCHQ) have been collaborating with collection of data worldwide and handing it over to the NSA, without any respect for international law or the interests of their own country.
The important discussion to be had is on where the boundaries to NSA surveillance lie, and how to perform adequate supervision of them, and just what laws they are not allowed to break. At the very least I think we need a proper inquiry into those topics, which we have not been offered thus far. Spies could (and have) assassinate, kidnap, subvert the political process, and break into networks worldwide but should they do those things to allies and domestically? Should we fund them to keep doing it? Should we accept the perpetual state of war which has been engendered by wars on terrorism and drugs, and the use of that to justify tyranny, assassination and subversion of the democratic process? If we say they can and will do all these things, because it's just what they do, we might as well given up on the pretence of a democracy we currently enjoy.
There are very good reasons the NSA is not supposed to be used domestically, and I'd argue those reasons should also extend to allies, if only because not doing so means your country will no longer have any real allies at all. Why should anyone trust the US or UK in trade negotiations when they've been shown to cheat and steal at every opportunity? Why should Sri Lanka say not just laugh in the face of the UK when Cameron talks of human rights, and China laugh in the face of the US when it complains about intrusive industrial espionage? The blowback on this topic is very real and deep and is only going to be reinforced by reactions like yours above which come down to 'spies will be spies'. The defensive capabilities of the NSA should be far more important than the offensive ones in my opinion, particularly in times of peace. Acting as if you are in a perpetual state of war with other nations, including your closest allies and even domestic population, will lead them to treat you the same way.
The spies have become a supranational organisation which apparently doesn't feel it is answerable to anyone; even the politicians who are ostensibly in charge of them. I think that's dangerous and worthy of note.