|
On 28/07/13 17:15, Martijn Grooten
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jul 2013, Philip Whateley wrote:
Whilst it might (just) be acceptable to
spy on your citizens to prevent
terrorist attacks on your citizens
I think I am OK with a government agency "spying" on someone when
they have a reason to suspect them of doing something illegal and
it's been approved by a court order. And of course, this
"something illegal" should be bad enough to justify the snooping.
But what is bad enough and what is illegal isn't easy to define,
as you point out:
would it then be acceptable if the
government in question were able to define what terrorism is
(for
example, attempting to overthrow a dictatorship)?
Indeed. I don't think it is possible to come with a generally
accepted definition of terrorism that includes al-Q'aeda and the
Rote Armee Faktion, but excludes resistance fighters in World War
Two, or the ANC in Apartheid South-Africa. (Though it probably
helps if your definition were to include the overthrow of a
democratically elected government.)
Then there is also the issue of commercial
confidentiality: are we
really saying that we do not believe that US security services
would not
pass on to US companies information which would prevent
effective
competition by non-US companies in global markets. (for example,
if
Rolls-Royce aerospace made a dramatic improvement in jet engine
design
or materials which would effectively put GE and Pratt &
Whitney aircraft
engine divisions out of business, and the NSA became aware of
it, would
they pass it on to US companies?)
Commercial confidentiality is many reasons why mass surveillance
is wrong.
But again, I don't think focussing on the US is helpful here - I
think it's just as bad if the UK does it. And there are reasons to
assume it does, like recent revelations on spying on delegates to
a G8 summit. (Which, rather fascinatingly, involved "fake Internet
cafés.)
Martijn.
Totally agree. It is wrong when any nation does it, and I just used
US as an example as aircraft engine manufacture is a world I am
familiar with. However, the US does have more opportunity than other
nations, if only because Microsoft, Google et al are (a) all but
ubiquitous and (b) US companies. So it is much easier for the US to
employ mass surveillance and much harder for anyone (US national or
otherwise) to avoid it. Hmm - my father calls it "The heavy hand of
freedom"
Phil
|
