One would hope that they were trying to gain access to someone else's devices, as opposed to turning the guns towards their own citizens and economy. If a soldier showed up at my door and pointed their gun at me, my reaction wouldn't be "of course you're doing that, your job is to point guns."
Apple devices are sold all over the world, so there's no way of gaining access to the enemy's devices without that method also being applicable to everyone else. Actually using them on everyone else is a different matter.
That's only true of some methods like using exploits and other vulnerabilities, or mass-surveillance style methods. It's not true of other types like confidence tricks and social engineering, eavesdropping and potentially watching passwords being entered or getting them on camera, phishing, fake wifi points, tailored viruses, or cookie hacking. Those methods can be designed for a specific target. Of course, there's also the good old-fashioned method of getting a warrant for data.
The entire concept that the government has "a right" to this data - an argument I've seen judges actually make to justify these activities - is ludicrous. They don't have a right to it by default. They have a compelling interest in the data/information if and only if there is enough reason to believe someone is up to criminal activity. In which case they should have no problem at all getting a warrant.
Which enemy?
Regional rivals: North Korea and Iran
Authoritarian partners/allies: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, a bunch of other Middle Eastern countries
A bunch of countries flirting with authoritarianism: Brazil, Hungary, Poland, Israel
If that sounds dumb to you, you should rethink the statement about Poland and Hungary.
But somethings like breaking encryption, exploiting iPhones, etc. while they may be used against Americans can also be used against others.
Essentially there's an arms race, and we use our tax money to sponsor our government in this race, with the hopes that they'll side with us. There really isn't another option unless you want to give a private entity this power, or not participate in the race (which I don't advise).
> But somethings like breaking encryption, exploiting iPhones, etc. while they may be used against Americans can also be used against others.
Both of these can have a chilling effect on free speech, therefore I'm against the CIA doing this to citizens. The potential threat against citizens nowhere near outweighs the need to uphold our constitution.
Ironically though, the average American citizen is probably under more CIA surveillance than the average foreign person such as myself.
Why keep pretending the CIA is a foreign intelligence service?
However, there's nothing stopping them sharing capabilities with the Five Eyes and asking one of them to spy on a US citizen...
If anything, a citizen is more capable of carrying out a terrorist attack, or just doing any action some foreign power wants to perform in that country.
The exception for domestic citizens seems to be just a concession for the masses and their representatives, not a pragmatic choice.
Edit: a pragmatic reasoning could be compartmentalization — keeping citizens under the watch of a separate entity (e.g. FBI) but it doesn't explain why domestic mass surveillance should be ruled out.
It's a matter of who we have a responsibility towards.
The government we elect in our own country is responsible to us, and as a people we widely do not want our government spying on us. (This is true in most if not all countries.)
But that same government is NOT responsible to the citizens of other nations. The CIA has no responsibility towards Canadians (like myself) or anyone else who isn't American.
I'm not arguing that this is ethically right. I'm just saying it's pragmatic.
If you're not a citizen of my country, my country has no legal obligations to you outside of international law. And no country, to my knowledge, has ever tried to introduce the right to privacy into international law. Every country hates spies within its own borders, but seeks to have them inside of everyone else's.
The early revolutionary war history overly simplified is something like this. Britain increases taxes on America. America stops paying taxes. Britain increases military presence to force America to pay taxes. America fought against the British military.
During the increased British military presence in America the British goverment did terrible things, including living in civilians homes and eating their food. This is what the parent comment meant when he said "The American revolution was started because citizens did not want the government in their homes." Ultimately, the British goverment was in American homes to help the tax collection effort, so your idea of early Americans caring a lot about taxation is also true.
Also, the whole trial by jury of peers was really great for those like John Hancock (the guy who signed his name really big on the Constitution) who got in trouble with the British for smuggling and then would be invariably found not guilty by his employees. When military trials came into place, Hancock and his distributor buddies started getting jail time.
Also, by the way, Hancock shipping basically had a mob, who were responsible for a bunch of the rioting in Boston and likely the related Tea Party.
Just wanted to point out that America wasn't exactly formed out of ideology.
By the way- that big signature? Essentially the largest political middle finger ever.
Thanks!
That was a slogan of the revolution, but there were more than one; it wasn't the unique complaint. There was also a fairly specific list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence.