5 ms·

> The United States makes an improper division between surveillance conducted on residents of the United States, and the surveillance that is conducted with alm

by raindev 11y ago

> The United States makes an improper division between surveillance conducted on residents of the United States, and the surveillance that is conducted with almost no restraint upon the rest of the world. > Treating two sets of innocent targets differently is already a violation of international human rights law. It was bothering me for quite a while. I'm not an American. So what? I have lesser privacy rights?! Am I lesser human? Is spying okay as long as it's not spying on you?

yenda 11y ago
According to the US, yes. This is an empire, it's citizen have more rights than those of the colonies.
- pbhjpbhj 11y ago
  From the Constitution of USA: >"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." // This does not put a geographic limit, so all citizens (I think "the people" here is clearly a reference in context to citizens) should be excluded from having their data seized without warrant. That's got to be hard with USA citizens appearing in most populations and internet data not being clearly from any particular citizen or other person [they'll need an "isCitizen" bit so that all data packets from USA citizens can be dropped before inspection!]. Moreover the 14th Amendment to the USA Constitution appears to extend protections to all "persons", viz: >"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." // If the internet is under USA jurisdiction then persons there should be extended the "equal protection of the laws". One such law being that you need a warrant to search their "papers, and effects" [which clearly purposes to protect private correspondences]. Not sure how it works in the USA - to bypass this Federal operations could be considered to be outwith the jurisdiction of any state?? That would seem to require the people involved to not be citizens of the USA though, as they would then fall under the requirements for their State of residence to ensure the protection of the laws extends to people [everywhere].
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    "People" in the 5th Amendment means "people", not citizens; 5th Amendment protections are not limited to citizens. But note that it has no explicit warrant requirement; just a reasonableness requirement and a limit on when warrants shall issue. It's read as implicitly requiring warrants in most cases for reasonableness, but there are plenty of exceptions.
  - solotronics 11y ago
    For many (all?) situations the federal government considers itself the district of columbia which is not a state and is a federal territory. The Fed is thus not a state but a supra-state entity that operates outside what states would consider acceptable. They routinely trample individual and states rights. It is ironic considering the history of why the U.S. was founded that we have given in to a domestic version of the same tyranny.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
bad_user 11y ago
This has been bothering me too. Biggest problem from my point of view is that the US also happens to be the steward of the Internet. This public screwup represents the perfect opportunity for governments of the world to balkanize the Internet, as in further splintering it in geographic and commercial boundaries. Countries like China now have valid arguments in the eyes of the Chinese for blocking foreign websites and services. And more and more national firewalls will happen, firewalls that will crush freedom of speech and that will end the free trade. I'm not sure if the age of the free Internet we've been enjoying is coming to an end, but you can bet your ass that governments are trying to end it. And the US government doesn't even seem to comprehend how big their screwup is.
x5n1 11y ago
All countries should create their own facebooks and invite Americans to join theirs. It's sort of stupid to allow Facebook into any country unless all of its business operations and servers are based in the said country with proper controls. Even then that does not preclude the US government forcing Facebook to turn over data on Non-US citizens to itself. Facebook is the #1 vector of US government's indiscriminate spying on everybody's else's citizens. Google comes a close second, but you don't generally give Google as many personal details as you give to Facebook. At least not by your own free will. And that's really the problem that France has, everyone uses American services so America can basically create a dossier on everyone. No one uses French services other than French citizens, and perhaps a few other souls.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Next week's EU data protection "safe harbour" decision may require exactly that: Facebook may no longer be allowed to export personal data from the EU. Edit: data protection would also have a huge effect on the "peeple" app, discussion of which seems to be banned on HN.
  - tempodox 11y ago
    Nobody should be allowed to export personal data from such jurisdictions except for the owners of that data themselves. A U.S.-ian should be allowed to decide to trust their personal data to a company inside E.U. jurisdiction but that company shouldn't be allowed to trade that data anywhere else (especially, back to the U.S.). Of course, that's a complete pipe dream, and I'm just hallucinating.
    - cm2187 11y ago
      How do you define "export"? Does that mean any website needs to have a server located in every single country in the world?
      - kuschku 11y ago
        If a German user shares data with Facebook, Facebook should not be allowed to give the data to any entities in the US. You may never give userdata to anyone else or give anyone else access to userdata. Embedding tracking scripts from third parties is equally problematic. Google Analytics should be globally forbidden.
snowwrestler 11y ago
This a structural problem; even if the language of the Constitution confers protection on foreign citizens (which I believe it does, to some extent), there are only certain situations in which foreign citizens have standing in U.S. courts. If they don't reside in the U.S. they basically have no venue to ask for relief. Even if the parent is right that it is a violation of international law, enforcement of international law is essentially voluntary.

by raindev 11y ago

yenda 11y ago

According to the US, yes. This is an empire, it's citizen have more rights than those of the colonies.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago
From the Constitution of USA: >"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." // This does not put a geographic limit, so all citizens (I think "the people" here is clearly a reference in context to citizens) should be excluded from having their data seized without warrant. That's got to be hard with USA citizens appearing in most populations and internet data not being clearly from any particular citizen or other person [they'll need an "isCitizen" bit so that all data packets from USA citizens can be dropped before inspection!]. Moreover the 14th Amendment to the USA Constitution appears to extend protections to all "persons", viz: >"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." // If the internet is under USA jurisdiction then persons there should be extended the "equal protection of the laws". One such law being that you need a warrant to search their "papers, and effects" [which clearly purposes to protect private correspondences]. Not sure how it works in the USA - to bypass this Federal operations could be considered to be outwith the jurisdiction of any state?? That would seem to require the people involved to not be citizens of the USA though, as they would then fall under the requirements for their State of residence to ensure the protection of the laws extends to people [everywhere].
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  "People" in the 5th Amendment means "people", not citizens; 5th Amendment protections are not limited to citizens. But note that it has no explicit warrant requirement; just a reasonableness requirement and a limit on when warrants shall issue. It's read as implicitly requiring warrants in most cases for reasonableness, but there are plenty of exceptions.
- solotronics 11y ago
  For many (all?) situations the federal government considers itself the district of columbia which is not a state and is a federal territory. The Fed is thus not a state but a supra-state entity that operates outside what states would consider acceptable. They routinely trample individual and states rights. It is ironic considering the history of why the U.S. was founded that we have given in to a domestic version of the same tyranny.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

bad_user 11y ago

This has been bothering me too. Biggest problem from my point of view is that the US also happens to be the steward of the Internet. This public screwup represents the perfect opportunity for governments of the world to balkanize the Internet, as in further splintering it in geographic and commercial boundaries. Countries like China now have valid arguments in the eyes of the Chinese for blocking foreign websites and services. And more and more national firewalls will happen, firewalls that will crush freedom of speech and that will end the free trade. I'm not sure if the age of the free Internet we've been enjoying is coming to an end, but you can bet your ass that governments are trying to end it. And the US government doesn't even seem to comprehend how big their screwup is.

x5n1 11y ago

All countries should create their own facebooks and invite Americans to join theirs. It's sort of stupid to allow Facebook into any country unless all of its business operations and servers are based in the said country with proper controls. Even then that does not preclude the US government forcing Facebook to turn over data on Non-US citizens to itself. Facebook is the #1 vector of US government's indiscriminate spying on everybody's else's citizens. Google comes a close second, but you don't generally give Google as many personal details as you give to Facebook. At least not by your own free will. And that's really the problem that France has, everyone uses American services so America can basically create a dossier on everyone. No one uses French services other than French citizens, and perhaps a few other souls.

pjc50 11y ago
Next week's EU data protection "safe harbour" decision may require exactly that: Facebook may no longer be allowed to export personal data from the EU. Edit: data protection would also have a huge effect on the "peeple" app, discussion of which seems to be banned on HN.
- tempodox 11y ago
  Nobody should be allowed to export personal data from such jurisdictions except for the owners of that data themselves. A U.S.-ian should be allowed to decide to trust their personal data to a company inside E.U. jurisdiction but that company shouldn't be allowed to trade that data anywhere else (especially, back to the U.S.). Of course, that's a complete pipe dream, and I'm just hallucinating.
  - cm2187 11y ago
    How do you define "export"? Does that mean any website needs to have a server located in every single country in the world?
    - kuschku 11y ago
      If a German user shares data with Facebook, Facebook should not be allowed to give the data to any entities in the US. You may never give userdata to anyone else or give anyone else access to userdata. Embedding tracking scripts from third parties is equally problematic. Google Analytics should be globally forbidden.

snowwrestler 11y ago

This a structural problem; even if the language of the Constitution confers protection on foreign citizens (which I believe it does, to some extent), there are only certain situations in which foreign citizens have standing in U.S. courts. If they don't reside in the U.S. they basically have no venue to ask for relief. Even if the parent is right that it is a violation of international law, enforcement of international law is essentially voluntary.