Now You Hear Me, Now You Don't !
Shock, horror, apparently, as we have just learnt from recent revelations by whistle blower Snowden that the US ' intel services' actually spy on people, moreover, they spy on their allies and friends - UK, France, Germany and now Spain. Chancellor Merkel is not happy, President Hollande is unamused, while Premier Cameron is just plain bemused. Surely, did the international community really believe that the US spend billions every year on cutting edge computerised listening systems that then closes its ears to conversations had by close political relations? After all every nation-state is potentially a rival if not a threat to American hegemony. However, what this recent exposure has reopened is the debate about the notions of personal freedom; the opportunity to contact people and converse in private without that communication being intercepted, identified and interfered with. Moreover, that the substance of this conversation remains secure - freedom from oppression, freedom to express oneself. What the NSA has developed thanks to huge technological leaps is just a more sophisticated, super sensitive, mega quick version of listening systems that have been with us ever since the Second World War. Consequently, this present level of intrusion has been around for at least a decade, all that has changed is that we have just woken up to the fact. In justification, 'Everybody spies on everybody' has become the current cliché, but is that true? Is it legal? Is it ethical? Is it essential?
Firstly, some context, if you compare the NSA's reach, in other words, their facility and ability to collect meta-data and to tap into more detailed and more focused surveillance with other nations intel systems then it is like placing bows and arrows next to ICBM's - the NSA out guns all other similar facilities many, many times over. Since, providing protection for American interests not only includes the obvious economic, commercial and financial assets it also covers scientific, military research and development. Moreover, the UK's equivalent to the NSA - GCHQ - offers a helping hand by being connected to the NSA; providing an essential link for European intel into Washington, Why? Because in return the US passes on certain elements of intel to London plus it assists with the ongoing development of GCHQ via the latest software and computer upgrades. This is indeed where the 'special relationship' is truly special. This is all operated under that all incorporating banner of nation-state security.
Hence, ethics and the essential nature of this behaviour is not really considered since justification is always driven by that overriding sense of the need to 'be safe'. But from what? Maybe it is from the very same 'intel agencies' that have developed their own sense of rationality and reasoning that often equates, paradoxically, to a process of constantly being listened to, whilst, ultimately, no one taking account of what we say or mean. This indeed is an extension of post modernity - nothing really matters but the 'hear' and now.
KK
Firstly, some context, if you compare the NSA's reach, in other words, their facility and ability to collect meta-data and to tap into more detailed and more focused surveillance with other nations intel systems then it is like placing bows and arrows next to ICBM's - the NSA out guns all other similar facilities many, many times over. Since, providing protection for American interests not only includes the obvious economic, commercial and financial assets it also covers scientific, military research and development. Moreover, the UK's equivalent to the NSA - GCHQ - offers a helping hand by being connected to the NSA; providing an essential link for European intel into Washington, Why? Because in return the US passes on certain elements of intel to London plus it assists with the ongoing development of GCHQ via the latest software and computer upgrades. This is indeed where the 'special relationship' is truly special. This is all operated under that all incorporating banner of nation-state security.
Hence, ethics and the essential nature of this behaviour is not really considered since justification is always driven by that overriding sense of the need to 'be safe'. But from what? Maybe it is from the very same 'intel agencies' that have developed their own sense of rationality and reasoning that often equates, paradoxically, to a process of constantly being listened to, whilst, ultimately, no one taking account of what we say or mean. This indeed is an extension of post modernity - nothing really matters but the 'hear' and now.
KK