The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of surveillance by GCHQ and its American sister organisation, the National Security Agency, whose access to phone records and internet data has been defended as necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime.
So, are the diplomatic and political representatives of allied powers suspected criminals or suspected terrorists then?
I'm not sure how they can possibly wriggle out of this one without much egg on face, and possibly some significant consequences for diplomatic standing too, with the G8 summit taking place this week.
There's really no diplomatic issue here. There's some egg on face for it becoming public, but spying pre-dates terrorism. Governments spy on other governments. It's what's done.
I disagree with the article here. PRISM absolutely raises serious questions about the boundaries of intelligence agencies. But spying on other governments - which is the whole reason for GCHQ existing - that's exactly what these agencies exist to do.
It's like all those Russian sleeper agents in the US back in 2010. It was highly embarrassing for Russia, but there was virtually no change to diplomatic or political relations...because it's what spying is about. And exactly the same thing happened a few months ago when Russia threw out a US 'diplomat' (or, as it turned out, CIA agent) for totally botching a recruitment job. Embarrassing for the US, but no diplomatic consequences of any noticeable kind.
I agree that spies spying on people is hardly news. As far as any possible diplomatic consequences, it was more idly wondering whether anyone would try to turn the fact that this time it got out to their advantage during the G8.
But it doesn't reflect well on all the politicians rushing to defend mass surveillance/dragnet operations on the grounds that these capabilities are only used in serious crime/terrorism/whatever other specific cases they admitted to.
It's also rather surprising that some of these tactics were used or worked at all, not because there was any real doubt that these kinds of organisations could use them if they were willing to commit enough resources, but more because anyone attending a high profile event like that actually fell for the tactics and made it worthwhile to bother trying them in the first place.
The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of surveillance by GCHQ and its American sister organisation, the National Security Agency, whose access to phone records and internet data has been defended as necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime.
So, are the diplomatic and political representatives of allied powers suspected criminals or suspected terrorists then?
I'm not sure how they can possibly wriggle out of this one without much egg on face, and possibly some significant consequences for diplomatic standing too, with the G8 summit taking place this week.