Or people care, but they don't care in the direction that GP wants. I want US spy agencies to spy on non-American living outside the US who have information that affects national security without being slowed down by too many procedures. I don't want them to spy on Americans, but the government actively works to prevent the agencies from doing this, so it's working as intended.
"I want US spy agencies to spy on non-American living outside the US who have information that affects national security without being slowed down by too many procedures"
Do you also want other national agencies to spy on US citizens without "being slowed down by too many procedures"?
No?
Well, if they did not do it before, because of "friendship", then they surely started doing it.
Further increasing the amount of illegal hacking for everyone.
I actually do believe, there should be some restraint with hacking each and everyone because of "national security", because that can applied to everything. There should be a real reason, a actual threat.
China and russia might have had no restraint like you. Agencies in EU countries actually did.
"There is no law that prevents countries from spying on each other, so I don't know what you think is illegal here. "
Depending on your definition of "law", is there a law preventing agencies from going somewhere else and killing and stealing as they see fit?
International law is kind of complicated, but the basic idea is to not interfere with each other to keep the peace.
And activly hacking foreign computers is considered interfering.
How would you consider the act, if a foreign agency would hack the Phone of Biden?
Probably hostile?
Well yes, that was how it was considered in germany, when it became known that the NSA did hack the phone of Merkel. The reason why we are still allies is merely, that russia and china are indeed worse. And that is the reason, why the US is still kind of "the leader of the free world". But keep on doing Guantanamo stuff, hack every friendly nation, say "fuck the EU" and other countries might decide one day, they might as well stick with china then.
Some african and asian states made that decision already.
Hacking into computers on foreign soil, sounds quite interfering to me, or would you be OK with me giving it a try at your computers/network?
"> is there a law preventing agencies from going somewhere else and killing and stealing as they see fit?
Yes, the laws of the country they go to"
Same with hacking. It is not legal, to hack computers here in germany.
And sure, Merkel wasn't surprised, nor was me, or anyone in IT security. But the general population was. They assumed naivly, ally means respecting the other party.
> would you be OK with me giving it a try at your computers/network?
I wouldn't be OK with it, but I wouldn't call it interfering either if you don't actually interfere with my actions after gaining access.
> Same with hacking. It is not legal, to hack computers here in germany
Then try to enforce those laws on other countries, and see how far you get. If the US sent an agent into Germany to kill someone, the killer would be held liable.
> They assumed naivly [sic] [emphasis added], ally means respecting the other party.
> How would you consider the act, if a foreign agency would hack the Phone of Biden?
Well, mostly they do not seem to care that much. Politicians have probably the worst opsec of all people. Mrs. Merkel was a target, but so was President Macron recently:
But I do believe the US government regulary makes an outcry because of russian or china hacking. And into NATO doctrin was a passage included, that makes physical strikes against hackers possible. So they do care.
Increasingly so, yes. In general, hypothetical kinetic responses to non-kinetic actions is a somewhat dangerous direction in my opinion, given the current geopolitical turbulence.
