It seems naive not to believe that other countries' intelligence services do the same, or would do so if they had the technology.
This doesn't make it right.
The reason I feel that we're justified in using the "but-everybody-else-does-it" argument to dismiss it from our concern at the moment, is that it attempts to redirect the public outrage from a major problem (NSA spying on basically everyone) to a much more minor problem (NSA spying on head of a foreign state).
Imagine the (hypothetical) case where a particular state's police force is taking fire due to the police breaking up a properly permitted, legal, peaceful rally using excessive force.
It later comes out that the police officers of the department in question regularly disobey the speed limit and sometimes run stop signs.
To be sure, police officers speeding is not something they should be doing; it's wrong and unethical to do that.
But police officers speeding is a much less serious problem than police officers depriving the people of their right to peacefully assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances.
And if the media and the audience's focus immediately goes from the more important story (unlawfully breaking up peaceful rallies and excessive use of force) to the less important story (police officers sometimes exceed the speed limit when they're not supposed to), it's bad because it means the serious problem is no longer getting the attention it deserves.
I'm going to go against the grain here and say that it's not just that "everyone does it", it's more about the fact that everyone will do it, regardless of the circumstances.
Consider for a moment what would happen if the U.S. stopped all its foreign & domestic spying. What would happen? Do you think China will stop their spy programs? How about Russia? The UK? The rest of Europe?
No. The U.S. would be at a severe disadvantage when it comes to intelligence. It's like an arms race, except instead of weapons, it's knowledge. Just because one player quits or gets caught, doesn't mean everyone else will stop. In fact, it would be to their advantage if a few players left the table.
That's why I find this whole spying thing nonsense. It's one thing to spy on regular citizens, but it's another to spy on targets (like Angela Merkel) who are political actors and/or heads of state. It should be expected.
This doesn't make it right.
The reason I feel that we're justified in using the "but-everybody-else-does-it" argument to dismiss it from our concern at the moment, is that it attempts to redirect the public outrage from a major problem (NSA spying on basically everyone) to a much more minor problem (NSA spying on head of a foreign state).
Imagine the (hypothetical) case where a particular state's police force is taking fire due to the police breaking up a properly permitted, legal, peaceful rally using excessive force.
It later comes out that the police officers of the department in question regularly disobey the speed limit and sometimes run stop signs.
To be sure, police officers speeding is not something they should be doing; it's wrong and unethical to do that.
But police officers speeding is a much less serious problem than police officers depriving the people of their right to peacefully assemble and petition their government for redress of grievances.
And if the media and the audience's focus immediately goes from the more important story (unlawfully breaking up peaceful rallies and excessive use of force) to the less important story (police officers sometimes exceed the speed limit when they're not supposed to), it's bad because it means the serious problem is no longer getting the attention it deserves.