hallam@w3.org writes:
There is a considerable difference between running a government and being an individual. It is not merely ethical for one government to read another's mail, it is a duty.
I am a funny sort of person. I don't believe that governments should be able to do anything that individuals cannot. If it is bad for me to steal, it is also bad for a government official to steal. If it is bad for me to listen in on my neighbor's phone calls, it is bad for the government, too. I have no evidence that becoming a member of a government agency grants one absolution from sin. By my book, murdering, invading privacy, and all the rest are bad, and I see no reason to expect that just because you've been "ordered" to do them they become good.
By not taking adequate steps to inform itself of the Japaneese intentions the US suffered the loss of a substantial part of the US fleet at Pearl Harbour. Had sufficient resources been avaliable the naval codes could have been cracked in time.
I suspect that mass surveilance of the entire U.S. population by the government could in fact dramatically reduce crime. Should we do it? I suspect that I could substantially improve my position in life by listening in on other people's phone calls and reading their mail. I might even be able to stop crimes directed against my person by doing so. Should I do it? I do not mean to pretend that there is an absolute ethics. I merely claim that I do not find in my mind an easy distinction between the acts of a government official under color of authority and the acts of any other individual. Perry