[nabla9]

Intelligence agencies in Nordic countries are really small, just few hundreds people per agency and limited budgets. Even if they go rouge, what they can do is limited. Number of people in the field is even smaller. This creates problems of it's own because their counterparts quickly learn to recognize their faces.

For comparison, FBI Counterintelligence Division alone has 1-2 people per 10,000 Americans. Add different intelligence and surveillance agencies under DHS and others to that list and it's easy to see that the US has insane amount of domestic surveillance manpower per capita.

[gostsamo]

The US is invading, bombing or financing a civil war in a random country every few years, while Denmark are at the corner of the map. Are you going to compare the threat models of the two?

[nabla9]

Thereat model to their own citizens, yes.

[wojciii]

Yeah .. but we (I'm Danish by citizenship) don't apologize because our newspaper prints satirical drawings of some prophet.

The threat model is different. No terrorist attacks of serious kind were performed as of yet but plans were found for terrorist attacks in Copenhagen. Something akin to what happened in Germany. The threat seem real.

[gostsamo]

Did the police have to break the law to stop those attacks? Because the question is not if a country should have a counterintelligence service, but what legal tools it should be given, whether it should be under judicial control when using them, and how to control it so that it does not abuse the powers (both legal and physical) it is given.

[wojciii]

I don't think so. I think the info was obtained from our allies which dig it up somewhere in the middle East.

[sandworm101]

>>Even if they go rouge, what they can do is limited.

I expect you meant "go rogue" but "go rouge", as in red/communist/russian, also works in the context.