Spying on citizens part and parcel of democracy? In what definition of democracy?
If you want to pretend that those politicians and officials are accountable to the people, then the people are a legitimate target for espionage, just like the king would be in a monarchy.
First, if officials are accountable to the people, then the officials are legitimate target of espionage (or transparency). The people is the master, not the officials.
Also, following your logic, are people also a legitimate target to terrorist attacks? It is after all a democracy, and in that sense they are responsible for the actions of their government, right?
Or we could take the logical conclusion that what we have is far for a democracy...
In the definition that says the ultimate source of government power is the people. You seem to agree that this is a reasonable definition of democracy. This means that they are a legitimate target when it comes to espionage or terrorism, yes. If you don't like it, move to a dictatorship.
"Ultimate source" in parliamentary democracy just means that people vote (and once in several years).
They don't influence the government in its day to day operations, nor they have any special power or significance for the various policies as individuals (outside of their function as a voting majority).
So while this might make them a "legitimate" target for terrorism (in the sense: they voted for the government so they are ultimately responsible for its foreign policy etc) it doesn't make any sense at all regarding to espionage.
Of course it does. Although you did miss quite a bit, you at least realize that they vote in elections. You don't see the value in knowing and influencing election results?
Comments
Spying on citizens part and parcel of democracy? In what definition of democracy?
First, if officials are accountable to the people, then the officials are legitimate target of espionage (or transparency). The people is the master, not the officials.
Also, following your logic, are people also a legitimate target to terrorist attacks? It is after all a democracy, and in that sense they are responsible for the actions of their government, right?
Or we could take the logical conclusion that what we have is far for a democracy...
In the definition that says the ultimate source of government power is the people. You seem to agree that this is a reasonable definition of democracy. This means that they are a legitimate target when it comes to espionage or terrorism, yes. If you don't like it, move to a dictatorship.
"Ultimate source" in parliamentary democracy just means that people vote (and once in several years).
They don't influence the government in its day to day operations, nor they have any special power or significance for the various policies as individuals (outside of their function as a voting majority).
So while this might make them a "legitimate" target for terrorism (in the sense: they voted for the government so they are ultimately responsible for its foreign policy etc) it doesn't make any sense at all regarding to espionage.
Of course it does. Although you did miss quite a bit, you at least realize that they vote in elections. You don't see the value in knowing and influencing election results?