Snowdon is a dummy

The British provided handsomely for Arnold, but never completely trusted him. He was never given an important military command. They moved to London where he found no job, some admiration and even some contempt. He moved his family to Canada where he reentered the shipping business. The Tories there disliked him and had no use for him, and eventually he returned his family to London. When the fighting began between France and England, he tried again for military service, but to no avail. His shipping ventures eventually failed and he died in 1801, virtually unknown, his wife joining him in death three years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Arnold

Arnold received a commission as a brigadier general in the British Army, an annual pension of £360, and a lump sum of over £6,000.[4] He led British forces on raids in Virginia, and against New London and Groton, Connecticut, before the war effectively ended with the American victory at Yorktown. In the winter of 1782, Arnold moved to London with his second wife, Margaret "Peggy" Shippen Arnold. He was well received by King George III and the Tories, but frowned upon by the Whigs. In 1787, he returned to the merchant business with his sons Richard and Henry in Saint John, New Brunswick. He returned to London to settle permanently in 1791, where he died ten years later.

Just now on Sky News some women were complaining that invasions of privacy are tantamount to rape.

it all comes down to how each person weighs security and privacy

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

I guess in the end of all this debate (leaving Snowden out of it for the moment) it all comes down to how each person weighs security and privacy. Usually those who seem to be on privacy side, believe, perhaps rightly, that other means can and should be found. Those who come down on the security issue usually feel that if tracking phone data and other measures can help prevent terrorist acts then it is worth the loss of privacy. Ideally, I like to come down with the first, but I always find myself in the end coming down on the second. But I do understand the other side, I don't think the other side understands our side if this thread is any indication.

But I do understand the other side, I don't think the other side understands our side if this thread is any indication.

Germany's federal public prosecutor appears to have decided not to investigate the spying of Merkel's phone by US and British intelligence agencies. He has won few friends domestically by doing so.
[...]
However, it is not unusual for federal prosecutors to investigate cases which, at first glance, appear difficult, or even hopeless. That's why Range should have actually decided a year ago, upon learning of the first reports of Edward Snowden, to immediately begin investigating, instead of merely considering the issue, says Georg Mascolo, part of the research team put together by NDR, WDR and SZ.

Lawyer Nikolaos Gazeas, an expert in international criminal law at the University of Cologne, agrees. German legal principles require public prosecutors to investigate a crime in the case of "initial suspicion" - regardless of whether they want to or not. And such an initial suspicion could be quite convincingly affirmed in the current case, he told DW.
"The requirements for initial suspicion are very low. Low probability is enough to go forward on an actionable offense."

Those minimal requirements were fulfilled, he added, via two criminal acts: intelligence service activity - in a potentially serious case involving Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone - as well as general spying with regard to German data.

Both were more or less proven by the non-denial from Washington, Gazeas says. Otherwise, Merkel would not have raised the issue directly with US President Barack Obama during a visit to the US capital.
As a result, the issue should in fact have come to a formal preliminary investigation, Gazeas said.

Even the months-long investigation by Range's office, Gazeas says, is problematic.

"Large parts of the investigations here that were undertaken by the federal prosecutor could have also taken place in a formal investigation - perhaps even have to - if one strictly interprets the criminal code."

And if, after all criminal code possibilities had been exhausted, the decision had then been made to close the case due to a lack of evidence, that would have been easier to communicate to the public, the law expert added.
[...]
Many suspect Range's motive may have been a fear of angering the US authorities through formal investigations. That consideration is understandable, Gazeas says. But "initial suspicion" aside, Germany's criminal code of procedure includes a special mechanism for refraining from investigations for political reasons.

The criminal law expert also criticizes the timing of the decision.

"It's a little surprising that the federal prosecutor did not at least wait for developments on whether or not Edward Snowden testifies before the inquiry committee [in German parliament]. New revelations would have been quite conceivable from such a hearing."

Federal workers want their country to be safe, the will not engage in practices they know are illegal.

He claims to be spying for 10 years, however, he has yet to explain all the successes he had uncovering terrorist actions planned against the US.

Did the founding fathers hate the government, Frank?