Comment by akjj

12 years ago

> It is illegal in the US but who cares about the rest of the world?

I think it's entirely justifiable to give the NSA more latitude abroad than domestically. To turn reverse the scenario, as an American, I would far rather have the French or the Germans conducting surveillance on the United States than the US government. People keep comparisons to the Stasi, too often they forget what the Stasi's purpose was: to suppress political opposition. Here in the US, surveillance was used for the same purpose, on a much smaller scale, during the J. Edgar Hoover era. Political opponents of the government were spied on with the intent of blackmail or embarassment.

That's the whole reason why government surveillance is so scary. It puts so much information in the hands of an organization with such far-reaching powers in law enforcement and otherwise that the combination is prone to abuse. When the US spies on foreign citizens or vice versa, the potential for abuse is much less. The NSA has neither the interest nor the ability to harass political opponents in Germany and France, and the same goes in the other direction.

> People keep comparisons to the Stasi, too often they forget what the Stasi's purpose was: to suppress political opposition

That's however not how the Stasi thought of itself though, or how it was presented in propaganda.

http://andberlin.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/propaganda-in-t...

"For our security"

US intelligence agencies do keep tabs on stuff like Occupy, and of course it's officially "to prevent terrorism".. I for one don't buy it.

In particular, domestic surveillance is a completely different beast vis-a-vis foreign surveillance: spying outside one's own state comes with it the almost total absence of state's monopoly on force (and, furthermore, the protection of the government in the state being spied upon).

Omniscience without omnipotence is tolerable, as is omnipotence without omniscience. The real trouble happens when you've got both.