For that comparison to work, we would need a modern Third Reich or World War as well. Tapping into European email in 201x is hardly the same as spying on the Nazis.
Threats to what?
> There is no way to measure its success.
Convenient
> If you oppose it, pick a better reason to base your argument on.
If you support it, pick a better reason to base your argument on.
If success can't be measured then there is no success.
Throughout history, suspicionless surveillance has been carried out by mafioso to oppress and control.
Of your suspicionless surveillance, you assert "this time is different". The assertion fails.
The Nazis could use your arguments word for word on dissenters of the Gestapo.
Where did I do that?
Depends, is a modern Turing a champion of reading all domestic communications?
To Godwin this thread decisively:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/hannah-...
Spying on the rest of the world that you're not currently at war with is not such a cause, it's a travesty, an insult and has the net negative effect of fracturing the world further and reducing the amount of goodwill between NATO allies.
Please do not soil Turing's legacy by trying to conflate the two.
I'm not sure the world is a much more dangerous place than it was in the 1930s, at ground level that's just another appeal to fear, the general consensus seems to be that the world is getting safer rather than the opposite. Unless you live above a bunch of oil in the ground.
The US Military and associated intelligence branches have crafted heros, but also committed atrocities against our own men and women in uniform. That used to be the line they didn't cross.
You can give an enlisted man syphilis and see what happens. You can even overtly target black enlisted men and see what happens.
But you do the same kind of experiment with the civilian population and you are straight fucked.
I guess if we're obliterating that line, then sure, what's the difference? You're either cop or little people.
A long history of human experimentation in the United States says otherwise. Service members have been used as guinea pigs for over a century.
In the public sector we mostly consider employment solely based on its benefits because under US law there is only so much bad shit that your employer is allowed to cause you to endure.
Employment with the US Military or associated intelligence services MUST be considered with the stark fact in mind that a core tenant of your employment is signing over your life. Not to die nobly for just causes. Simply to give over your life for nearly any purpose deemed fit by your superiors.
What fool would take that bargain?
I find it hard to believe there's any sort of recruitment shortage. The NSA does today what it did 5, 10, 15, etc years ago. People interviewing for those positions know exactly what they're getting into then the same way they know what they're getting into today. The whole "OMGZ SPYING ON MY MAY-MAYS" sells on here on reddit, but apparantly lots of people don't take that view and instead see sigint as a legitimate need, like having a standing military with nuclear weapons or intervening into foreign countries. Arguably, good sigint means less conflicts and more wins. Hitler's Germany was damaged greatly by sigint hero Alan Turing. Funny how we celebrate Turing, but a modern Turing today would be vilified instantly. The world, if anything, is much more dangerous today than in the 30s considering how many nations have nuclear weapons. Honestly, if I had the choice I'd rather work there than find new ways to deliver annoying click-bait ads at a place like Facebook or get kids hooked on some milquetoast WoW-clone.
The Chinese, Iranian, and Russian sigint guys aren't taking some moral stand either. They're just getting their assess to work the same way we do.