I think it would be possible for intelligence services to obtain and pass on information about a citizen while still trying to work for the overall safety of the country.
Nope, it is not their job. If a citizen is accused in a crime, there are other institutions tasked with the investigation. Sometimes this is the counterintelligence, sometimes this is the police. However, breaking the law and actively avoiding legal supervision is a crime which makes them criminals.
Well, they are accused of not investigating possible espionage in their own army. Lacking details, it is really hard to say what is the exact situation, but obviously they are not interested in preventing crimes.
The community here is understandably very anti-surveillance, but you're right about the purpose of intelligence.
When we talk about intelligence and counter-terrorism, it's more about preventing terrorist attacks than reacting to them.
The UK is more open with statistics than the US — their most senior counter-terrorism officer claims that they foiled 22 terrorist attacks from March 2017 to September 2019 [1].
This would generally be the function of a counter-intelligence or internal (criminal) investigation group.
In the US that would be handled by the FBI -- they're legally the only ones that can spy on citizens in in the US. They work hand-in-glove with other agencies, but they own domestic.
A non-US example would be Russia, where the FSB (which Putin used to be the head of) handles internal investigations and counterintelligence like the FBI, while the SVR handles foreign intelligence. Or MI5 vs MI6 in the UK, etc.
Ok so we have to play by the rules to the absolute T. But our adversaries like China/Russia can play dirty and anyway they want, because you say justice is absolute and black and white. Great.
Have you ever thought that maybe there was a reason for those rules to be imposed?
It is really easy to put on the kindergarten act and to say that if the other side did it first, then it is okay. However, what is the difference between you and the other side then? The state has rather enormous power as it is and it is quite able to use it without letting the power trips of random individuals.
If you understand these programs they have... they do a meta-analysis of huge amounts of data. So while they use your data, there isn’t somebody personally looking at your data.
Whereas China/Russia has people tracking dissidents etc.
Not even in the same realm.
Im saying give a more nuanced legal approach so we can defend ourselves.
If it was just about meta data, maybe. However, the US (I accept that we are talking them now) have the lovely habit of imprisoning and torturing people on the bases of suspicion, without a due process, and without oversight or consequences for the fuckups. You see, the rules are exactly for the situations when some innocent bastard gets between the teeth of the machine and some middle manager orders for the body to be buried because murders look bad in the quarterly performance review.
It depends on who is doing the tracking and who the dissidents are. I think most will agree it’s in the interest of the country to track “dissidents” who are bent on inciting “race” wars and so on. Violent anarchists probably also get in that list. Basically any seriously credible threat to the state and its citizens.
It seems that you’re implying that allowing intelligence agencies unlimited discretion in spying on their own populations is necessary in order to “win” against hostile foreign powers.
This seems like a fairly extraordinary claim that you haven’t backed with either evidence or logic.
The US point of view is more concerned about making enemies than solving problems. This is the Achilles heel of this country. For all its problems, the Chinese are engaged in the right approach: make alliances instead of war and improve their economy.
There’s a fair argument to be made here, but I think you’re missing the parent’s point. It’s not that it’s impossible for someone to obtain and pass on information while working for the overall safety of the nation, but rather they’re arguing that secret intelligence agencies inherently do not serve the overall safety of their own countries.