What moral ground does the United States have for directly invading the personal communications of the leaders of its allies?
Ostensibly this is all about protecting the itself from danger. What is the threat posed by, say, Germany?
Ostensibly this is all about protecting the itself from danger. What is the threat posed by, say, Germany?
Well they're one of the world's major industrial powers and just a couple of generations ago they threatened to take over all of Europe.
So much of the outrage over NSA spying (abroad) is predicated on this foolish idea that we live in a time outside of history, that while the West may have spent the better part of the last millennium embroiled in warfare with each other, that our generation is the first to be so enlightened as to make that unthinkable.
They have a mountain of data already -- if they can't get a sense of what's going on from that then maybe they're not up to the task.
<snark> Slightly tangential anecdata: the FBI was warned about the suspicious flight school students yet they bungled the job of stopping the 9/11 attack. So what good is this comprehensive intelligence gathering if the government can't even use it properly? </snark>
What sources would you recommend reading to learn more about that? The 9/11 Commission Report? I'm embarrassed to admit that I haven't done much reading on inter-agency relations pre-9/11.
(I hope this comment doesn't read as snark, I'm genuinely interested in learning more.)
For a general idea of what the book goes into, you can see Soufan's profile in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/10/060710fa_fact_wr.... In the (Pulitzer Prize-winning) reporter's own words: "Soufan became America’s best chance to stop the attacks of September 11th.".
<extra-snark> The FBI had information within the organization itself and still fumbled the ball: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03...
<snark-doubledown> The CIA likely helped create Al Qaeda, so perhaps they were protecting their own. Or maybe they were too busy running drugs and plotting the overthrow of other governments to get the memo out. </snark-doubledown> </extra-snark>
Sorry, no love for any of these guys.
You picked the worst example.
Five years before Germany invaded Polland, Allied leaders held Hitler and Mussolini in very high regard and publicly praised their gentlemanly natures and leadership abilities.
Details of military battles could be kept secret during the battles and for a couple of years afterward, and sure we should keep demographic data about private people restricted to only those agencies that legitimately need that data, but those are the only exceptions that come to mind.
It's one thing to "know" from movies that someone is being spied on. It's another thing entirely to know from NSA documents that you and people you know are being spied on.
You may argue that we already knew what the NSA was doing, but specifics matter. If I have a key to your house (for emergencies), you know that in theory, I could be there every minute of the day when you aren't. But you assume that I'm not doing this. The specific knowledge that I was there, and ate the last piece of chocolate cake, changes everything.
While these agencies are nominally accountable to Congress, and thus their mission is "approved", in practice, it seems they are not. Snowden's whistleblowing is a step in the direction of accountability.
Also, don't think like a hacker, think like a politician. Having the information isn't a simple boolean state. There's a difference between "the information is available" and "everybody knows, and it's top of mind". Or "people have vague worries that X and Y might happen" and "X and Y is happening and it's on a grander scale than you could have conceived".