Edited by Gillian Palmer
US Intelligence Agency Wiretapping: We Need Rules that Won't Invite Distrust
The reach of U.S. intelligence gathering extends as far as the inner workings of so-called allied nations, where it expresses itself as a cold reality.
The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), which is primarily responsible for intelligence gathering by means of intercepted communications, tapped German Chancellor Merkel's cellphone. Germany and several other European nations, tied to the U.S. as allies, have rallied fiercely against such actions.
It seems that Chancellor Merkel's phone conversations have been monitored since her inauguration, over 10 years ago. That she would express a strong discomfort with the U.S. is quite understandable.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who supervises all U.S. intelligence agencies, testified before Congress, saying, "To seek out the intentions of heads of state is the very basis of an intelligence agency."*
There are also reports that the NSA has spied on 35 world leaders. We can say that the NSA spying on foreign heads of state has been acknowledged as fact.
This wiretapping has invited distrust among allied nations in regard to the U.S.; there will also be negative diplomatic consequences. The Obama administration must make every possible effort to move toward reconciliation with Germany and others.
Although, it's probably impossible to expect the U.S. to curb its spying practices. And if it did, there would be a danger.
Along with the spread of the Internet and cellphones, the importance of intelligence gathering via communication interception has also increased prolifically for intelligence agencies. The NSA has continued to be on the forefront of surveillance technology, especially since the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
It can't be denied that U.S. intelligence-gathering endeavors have been a boon to allied nations in regard to counterterrorism and so on. For this reason in particular, allied nations are cooperating with the U.S. by offering information. In the interest of national security, intelligence gathering is of the utmost importance.
If the U.S. were to rein in its spying operations, the ones to benefit from this would probably be Russia or China, opening a personal intelligence war. There's no doubt, too, that terrorists, fearful of America's watchful eye, would also benefit.
What we really need now is for the U.S. to revisit its rules on preserving privacy and the methods by with intelligence is gathered, inside and outside its borders, and to do so in a way that does not invite distrust from allied nations.
The U.S. government has announced that a goal has been set to entirely revise its intelligence-gathering policies by the end of the year. Congress is also in agreement. They want to pay careful attention to the establishment of a new system for intelligence gathering.
And for those who are considered to have been spied upon, it is necessary to arrange a system of countersurveillance. There is always the possibility that surveillance taps have also been laid by hostile countries. The Japanese government has denied that any surveillance was directed at Prime Minister Abe, but it wouldn't be an exception.
This is an age in which communications can be intercepted at any time, in any place. It is crucial to base one's diplomacy on this premise.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.
The U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), which is primarily responsible for intelligence gathering by means of intercepted communications, tapped German Chancellor Merkel's cellphone. Germany and several other European nations, tied to the U.S. as allies, have rallied fiercely against such actions.
It seems that Chancellor Merkel's phone conversations have been monitored since her inauguration, over 10 years ago. That she would express a strong discomfort with the U.S. is quite understandable.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who supervises all U.S. intelligence agencies, testified before Congress, saying, "To seek out the intentions of heads of state is the very basis of an intelligence agency."*
There are also reports that the NSA has spied on 35 world leaders. We can say that the NSA spying on foreign heads of state has been acknowledged as fact.
This wiretapping has invited distrust among allied nations in regard to the U.S.; there will also be negative diplomatic consequences. The Obama administration must make every possible effort to move toward reconciliation with Germany and others.
Although, it's probably impossible to expect the U.S. to curb its spying practices. And if it did, there would be a danger.
Along with the spread of the Internet and cellphones, the importance of intelligence gathering via communication interception has also increased prolifically for intelligence agencies. The NSA has continued to be on the forefront of surveillance technology, especially since the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
It can't be denied that U.S. intelligence-gathering endeavors have been a boon to allied nations in regard to counterterrorism and so on. For this reason in particular, allied nations are cooperating with the U.S. by offering information. In the interest of national security, intelligence gathering is of the utmost importance.
If the U.S. were to rein in its spying operations, the ones to benefit from this would probably be Russia or China, opening a personal intelligence war. There's no doubt, too, that terrorists, fearful of America's watchful eye, would also benefit.
What we really need now is for the U.S. to revisit its rules on preserving privacy and the methods by with intelligence is gathered, inside and outside its borders, and to do so in a way that does not invite distrust from allied nations.
The U.S. government has announced that a goal has been set to entirely revise its intelligence-gathering policies by the end of the year. Congress is also in agreement. They want to pay careful attention to the establishment of a new system for intelligence gathering.
And for those who are considered to have been spied upon, it is necessary to arrange a system of countersurveillance. There is always the possibility that surveillance taps have also been laid by hostile countries. The Japanese government has denied that any surveillance was directed at Prime Minister Abe, but it wouldn't be an exception.
This is an age in which communications can be intercepted at any time, in any place. It is crucial to base one's diplomacy on this premise.
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.