Maybe. Seems to me that there's a bit of an issue with the general operating mode of an intelligence agency. I've said in the past that I wasn't generally overly concerned with stories such as the NSA's reported monitoring of German chancellor Angela Merkel -- which later reports suggest might _not_ have happened -- apparently they're not even totally up on which close national ally heads-of-state they're spying on. But keeping tabs on other countries -- even friendly ones -- yeah, that's part of the basic remit.

But an organize "we'll spy on yours if you spy on ours" arrangement, particularly with a "don't ask for it, we'll just give it to you" understanding. That's violating the intent of legal and constitutional protections every which way.

At the same time, if a talent scout in North Whateveristan gets handed a sheaf of goatskins exfiltrated from the local TCP-over-parchment connectivity provider, the legality of that data's acquisition shouldn't be a hinderence.

But if North Whateveristan happens to be a friend and we're concerned with that the goatskins reveal, then breaking that information to the government (or other friends in slow places) should be possible at some level.

If there's a resolution by law in this, it's likely going to have to require explicit controls over how and when data of a given nation's nationals or residents is provided to that nation. And bars on mass transfers.

Perhaps mandating them outside intelligence services through diplomatic channels?

At least that'll give Wikileaks a sporting chance.

> But an organize "we'll spy on yours if you spy on ours" arrangement, particularly with a "don't ask for it, we'll just give it to you" understanding. That's violating the intent of legal and constitutional protections every which way.

That is exactly my point. And it's horrible, it's the government thuggishly wiping its ass with the Constitution. East Germany would have swooned in ecstasy at all the intelligence porn collected by the NSA.