Privacy and the State

[french frank]

This curious idea that nobody ever imagined such things could possibly happen until a politically-motivated young troublemaker like Snowden came along to helpfully inform an appalled world is truly ridiculous.

I suppose it gets to a point where one might wonder whether one wishes to tolerate it or play some Boy's Own Paper game of pretending no one knows what everyone knows; and everyone secretly doing it in the full knowledge of everyone else.

I don't think it was so much EU leaders getting egg on their faces as the US getting a bloody nose - and not liking it.

[scottycelt]

I suppose it gets to a point where one might wonder whether one wishes to tolerate it or play some Boy's Own Paper game of pretending no one knows what everyone knows; and everyone secretly doing it in the full knowledge of everyone else.

I don't think it was so much EU leaders getting egg on their faces as the US getting a bloody nose - and not liking it.

Less of the sexism ... girls are as very much as involved as the boys and always have been in matters of political 'dirty tricks'!

The US doesn't seem particularly perturbed over the "furore". It's the European leaders who are doing all the mock-whinging (or whingeing) no doubt for home public consumption!!

[ahinton]

I doubt we could ever accuse the Germans of technological backwardness or stupidity.

But you just did, as good as!...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

. . . Spying on someone who is self-evidently not a terrorist, nor shielding terrorists, nor plotting any kind of damaging action against your country, possibly - who knows? - in order to further some sort of damage, e.g. commercial/economic, against them to your own benefit ... suddenly seems to make the actions of Edward Snowden seem, not excusable so much as essential.

If that was specifically what the likes of Manning and Snowden had done, then that would be one thing. It might excuse their actions. But they've done far more serious damage than that.

And the highlighted part of your statement is entirely your construction; such monitoring may well simply be elementary caution. They are your friends, but just keep an eye on them to be sure - and you don't do that?

[scottycelt]

But you just did, as good as!...

On the contrary, I expressed bafflement as to why the German security services allowed Mrs Merkel's mobile to be tapped (allegedly). I very much doubt that, when it comes to combating such practices, Germany has inferior technological skills to the US. We are not talking about any old body here but the leader of one of the economic powerhouses of the world. My very astonishment suggests I don't really believe the German security services are noted for any great stupidity.

If it was not a gross misjudgement based on trust, it maybe begs the question about who exactly is (was) in charge of the German leader's mobile phone security?

[Richard Barrett]

I very much doubt that, when it comes to combating such practices, Germany has inferior technological skills to the US.

Do you think maybe it has something to do with the fact that US "defence" expenditure is fifteen times that of Germany?

[ahinton]

The issue that we're considering now is why a country (US, in this instance) should be spying on an ally.

What I would ask scotty, Mr Pee and A_I_C is whether they believe that it is wholly acceptable for any country to spy on any other country, irrespective of whether or not the victim country is supposedly an "enemy". What view should be taken of Germany and France had they been revealed as having spied on US? Or suppose that Somalia had spied on US and Britain, or on France and Germany? Or suppose that Iran was spying on Syria, Yemen or Sudan?

If indeed any and all such snooping is, and should be considered to be, acceptable without argument or question just because it's possible and not all that unlikely, doesn't this lead inevitably to a sense of burgeoning distrust between all nations? If so, do you think that to be a good idea and one to be welcomed?

The thread topic here, however, has rather departed from the original subject and onto this kind of international espionage conducted by countries' security services; Privacy and the State, on the other hand, is surely more about the ways in which and the extent to which governments snoop - or are at least able to snoop - on their own citizens without prior written consent from those citizens. The two issues are obviously related and equally serious, of course, but international political and industrial espionage is not really the same thing as governments spying on their own people.

[french frank]

If that was specifically what the likes of Manning and Snowden had done, then that would be one thing. It might excuse their actions. But they've done far more serious damage than that.

But Manning and Snowden were in one incontrovertible sense reactive - reacting to what their government was doing - regardless of what unworthy motives individuals with particular viewpoints wish to encumber them with.

And the highlighted part of your statement is entirely your construction;

As you cleverly deduced from my use of the phrase 'possibly - who knows?'.

such monitoring may well simply be elementary caution. They are your friends, but just keep an eye on them to be sure - and you don't do that?

Um, pass. I can't conceive of the kind of situation where I (personally, and in my lowly position) would want to 'just keep an eye on them to be sure'.

[Serial_Apologist]

Snowden's treasonable activities, which have endangered countless lives and hobbled the efforts of our security services to combat terrorism

Is there any evidence for these 3 charges?

[ahinton]

Is there any evidence for these 3 charges?

If there is, I have yet to encounter it.

Firstly, no activities can be confirmed even as criminal or otherwise unlawful, let alone "treasonable", unless and until their commission by the accused has been decided in court and no appeal against the court's decision subsequently lodged by the accused following its conviction of him/her.

Secondly, no court has yet determined that Mr Snowden's activities have actually endangered anyone, let alone "countless lives" (although "countless" could be interpreted as "0", one may suppose); such an accusation has not even yet been tested in a court and, until such time as it is, it can only be regarded as a matter of speculative opinion.

Thirdly, no one, including "our security services", has sought formally to claim, with legal authority for so doing, that any or all of those activities have interfered with anyone's efforts "to combat terrorism" anywhere or even argued how they might have done so or be thought to have done so; in any case, Mr Pee's reference to "our" here seems gravely misplaced given that it is principally the US rather than the British government that's moaning and whingeing about those activities and their alleged effects, which is perhaps hardly surprising since no one has yet sought to accuse Mr Snowden of having misappropriated the property of, or interfered in the activities of, or committed acts of theft against, Britain's security services.

In view of this, all three of those charges are clearly at present entirely without legal foundation.

[scottycelt]

Do you think maybe it has something to do with the fact that US "defence" expenditure is fifteen times that of Germany?

Not really. The USA is by far the world's largest military Power. Germany, for sound historical reasons, now keeps a very low profile militarily.

You don't need nuclear weapons and a huge army, navy and air force to ensure a country's leader has the latest technology and expertise to combat mobile phone tapping, whether this sort of spying is practised by 'friends' or enemies.

[scottycelt]

The issue that we're considering now is why a country (US, in this instance) should be spying on an ally.

What I would ask scotty, Mr Pee and A_I_C is whether they believe that it is wholly acceptable for any country to spy on any other country, irrespective of whether or not the victim country is supposedly an "enemy". What view should be taken of Germany and France had they been revealed as having spied on US? .

What I think is 'acceptable' is irrelevant. The fact is that governments will always spy if they believe that might protect their countries' interests.

If France and Germany had been revealed as having spied on the UK we would have had the same mock outrage by Cameron and Miliband and also in the media. UKIP would have a field day.

American and British Intelligence are closely linked. Cameron is keeping very quiet over the Merkel affair.

Frankly, I'm not really too surprised about that ... are you?

[ahinton]

Not really. The USA is by far the world's largest military Power. Germany, for sound historical reasons, now keeps a very low profile militarily.

We know that, but why is it so and, for that matter, why should it be so?

You don't need nuclear weapons and a huge army, navy and air force to ensure a country's leader has the latest technology and expertise to combat mobile phone tapping, whether this sort of spying is practised by 'friends' or enemies.

US expenditure on "nuclear weapons and a huge army, navy and air force" is not what I took Richard Barrett specifically to mean when referring to US "defence" expenditure as being 15 times that of Germany; that level of expenditure may well be at least as disproportionate on its intelligence gathering and surveillance facilities and activities as it is on its weaponry and armed services and, if so, the question that he put to youseems to me to be entirely reasonable and to the point. Does it strike you as especially likely that US would allocate many times as much as does Germany to funding its weaponry and the armed services that use them but only relatively modest sums on its intelligence gathering and surveillance facilities and activities? Such a notion sounds well less than plausible to me.

[french frank]

whether this sort of spying is practised by 'friends' or enemies.

Considering the very high moral standards you demand, vis-à-vis the 'wrongdoings' of comparatively lowly placed individuals such as Manning and Snowden, those moral demands appear to vanish when dealing with powerful states.

I would have thought that, by definition, if a state's security services are developing cutting edge new technologies to combat spies and terrorists, those technologies could hardly be automatically anticipated and guarded against by other nations, before they are used.

[ahinton]

What I think is 'acceptable' is irrelevant.

It might be to you, but should it be so?

The fact is that governments will always spy if they believe that might protect their countries' interests.

We're quite clearly talking here about governments spying regardless of considerations about protecting their countries' interests.

If France and Germany had been revealed as having spied on the UK we would have had the same mock outrage by Cameron and Miliband and also in the media. UKIP would have a field day.

Who's decided and on what grounds that such outrage would be "mock"? If that had indeed happened, how would you expect the British government, opposition and also-ran party leaders to react? - by simply accepting it as all part of life's rich governmental tapestry and keeping calm and carrying on? Would you not at the very least expect the government to question the French and German governments' security services' motives in having done this and perceived need to do it in their own interests?

American and British Intelligence are closely linked.

But how closely? Do you really know? How would you expect the British government to respond were it to discover the same or similar kinds of activity had been directed at British sources by US security services? - and were it to react with outrage in such circumstances, would you likewise regard that as "mock"?

Cameron is keeping very quiet over the Merkel affair.

Indeed he is - so far, anyway - and, in so doing, he appears to trying to avoid digging himself in deeper by - er - digging himself in deeper but with a different shovel...

Frankly, I'm not really too surprised about that ... are you?

Nothing really surprises me about any of this, but that doesn't mean that I accept it or indeed should accept it merely because it can and does happen...