7 ms·

> What illegal activities did the NSA perform here? See the first link in my comment. > In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that rem

> What illegal activities did the NSA perform here? See the first link in my comment. > In case you didn't notice, the Snowden leaks revealed filters that removed US citizens' communications, showing that they were complying with US laws that prevent the US military (of which the NSA is part of) from spying on US citizens. So what? As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections. I regard suggestions to the contrary as insulting. (for the record, I'm Australian, and I consider my own government's participation in these programs to be reprehensible)

emddudley 10y ago
So are countries sovereign or not? Are you saying that the US should be subject to the constitutions and laws of other nations, and vice versa?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nashashmi 10y ago
NSA cannot target Americans or American residents for spying. But they are allowed to spy and are in fact tasked with spying on non-Americans. It is what a U.S. spy agency does. And the spy agency of other countries, western and non-western, are supposed to be doing, e.g. spying on people outside of their countries. (Spying on your own people is akin to living in a totalitarian state.) What Snowden did was reveal to the world how extensive and deep the NSA's reach was. His initial objection was NSA's ability to spy on Americans, but when he blew the whistle, the entire world found out they too were being spied on. Misfire! Should he be punished or rewarded? It is a double edged sword.
canttestthis 10y ago
> As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections. Citizens of other countries in fact don't have the same rights and protections against the NSA as citizens. It's why the NSA exists.
- freehunter 10y ago
  If the Constitution says something, it applies to everyone everywhere. The Constitution of the United States does not apply to people it applies to the government. It says nothing about "US citizens" or "foreign nationals". It restricts what the government can do. So if the fourth amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches applies here (which there seems to be some debate about), it would apply to everyone. Not just to US citizens. The government does not have the right to perform searches of personal property without a warrant detailing exactly what will be searched. Again, this restriction applies to the government, it is not a protection afforded to citizens.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_t... My understanding has it that in practice "the people" means roughly "all citizens and residents of the US", not all people anywhere. You can disagree with the courts over what the words mean, but do so deliberately.
    - freehunter 10y ago
      That is an excellent article! I actually learned quite a bit from that, thank you. The main take-away that I had is that the courts generally uphold "the people" to mean "citizens", but there are some strong divisions on that and the case is far from settled. At the very least I agree with Harvard's opinion that this judgement cannot hold true to all instances of the the phrase "the people" without massively undoing hundreds of years of case law. Based on that I will change my statement here to say "the Constitution restricts the government, but it's unclear in the courts whether it restricts the government's actions against non-citizens, although it probably should according to constitutional law scholars". So if you're a tourist in the US, watch what you say and do, because you may not have any right to freedom of speech or protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
      - sarnowski 10y ago
lucozade 10y ago
> those of us born in other countries have the same rights too Not in US law we don't. To my knowledge there is no internationally agreed and enforceable privacy law. Now, as a UK citizen, I'm not exactly jumping with joy for either what the NSA or GCHQ have done but, from the point of view of US courts, spying on me is not something that bothers them hugely.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > To my knowledge there is no internationally agreed and enforceable privacy law. Article 8? https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-right-private-and-family-life https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-ar...
  - lucozade 10y ago
    The full name is "Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights". Doesn't cover the US or Australia unfortunately.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    And an article in U.S. constitution says it's enforceable because U.S. agreed to it.
- peterkelly 10y ago
  You're correct in the legal sense, but there is also the moral/philosophical aspect to it. Here's what the US Declaration of Independence had to say on the matter: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This is the moral/philosophical aspect. (I consider privacy to be one component of liberty, but expect it's not a universally-held view). "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" This is the legal aspect. So it depends on which you look at. In my comment above I was referring to the former. And specifically, my argument was based on that laid out at the very beginning of one of the country's most important founding documents, which I hope would carry some weight with those US citizens who believe in the moral principles on which their country is purportedly based.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. People who are neither within the US, nor US citizens, have generally less protection from rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, even when the actor involved is the US government. You can object to that all you want, but its unlikely to change. Fundamentally, neither our Constitution nor our government is about you. > As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too The big advance of popular government was that people have enforceable personal rights against their government, at least by citizenship and sometimes even by geography without citizenship. But it hasn't reversed the fundamental issue of sovereignty that there is very little in the way of substantially enforceable personal rights against a foreign sovereign, except those which your own sovereign guarantees and is willing to go to war (and capable of winning) to enforce. And whether this is the way thing should be or not, it is fundamentally incorrectable -- its the essential nature of sovereignty. You could make it irrelevant by establishing a single world sovereignty guaranteeing the rights you believe should exist for all against all governments, but that doesn't seem likely in the near future.
rayiner 10y ago
Reprehensible isn't the same as illegal. The 4th amendment does not apply to foreign citizens on foreign soil. NSA spying on Australians may be undesirable for various reasons, but it is legal.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
>So what? As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. If you're that keen to be covered by the United States Constitution, you can always petition for statehood; there's a procedure right there in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. Go to it, and good luck!
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  A careful reading of the U.S. Constitution reveals that the majority of the clauses that establish rights actually forbid the U.S. federal government from performing certain actions, period, rather than forbid it from performing those actions or not, conditional on citizenship. The 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to everyone, everywhere. The U.S. government must always get a warrant, regardless of borders. U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) [0] established precedent stating otherwise, but I agree with Brennan's dissent and Stevens' concurrence. The majority opinion basically said it would be too difficult for the U.S. to project its power overseas if it still had to obey its own laws there. I don't find political expedience to be an acceptable argument for voiding anyone's rights. Of course, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., those protections are unenforceable in practice regardless, because the target likely cannot access any court that might be able to grant relief. It might be interesting for a foreign national to ask to enter the U.S. for the purpose of petitioning for redress of grievances against the U.S. in a U.S. court. A foreign state need not petition for statehood. It would be sufficient to establish by treaty a court wherein a foreign person may sue a U.S. government and its agents for violations of U.S. law. That would be a double-edged sword, of course. It might also allow a U.S. entity to sue foreign persons for violations of U.S. laws in that foreign state's jurisdiction. (I'm thinking specifically about intellectual property suits.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urqui...
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > The 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to everyone, everywhere. Even granting that, what is "reasonable" depends on a lot of other factors (both legal -- such as specific grants of power to Congress, and laws passed under such grants -- and factual), and the nature of world of multiple sovereign states and the grant of power to Congress to regulate interactions with them, and laws passed by Congress make surveillance of purely foreign material "reasonable" under circumstances where it would not be domestically. > It would be sufficient to establish by treaty a court wherein a foreign person may sue a U.S. government and its agents for violations of U.S. law. I don't see how such a treaty can be reconciled with Article III; the treaty power does not extend to contravention of the Constitution. > It might also allow a U.S. entity to sue foreign persons for violations of U.S. laws in that foreign state's jurisdiction. US entities can already sue foreign persons for violations of US laws in foreign states territory in US courts to the extent that the US law at issue has extra-territorial application.
drivingmenuts 10y ago
> As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. As I see it, that is exactly as it should be. Just as you are not subject to American law, except when you are in America or the provisions of a treaty, you should also not be protected by it, except when you are in America, etc. etc. > As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections. Those protections that you may have derive from your own government and your own set of laws and the treaties made within that framework. You want to be protected by the laws of the United States of America, then be a citizen, with all the duties and responsibilities thereof.

emddudley 10y ago

So are countries sovereign or not? Are you saying that the US should be subject to the constitutions and laws of other nations, and vice versa?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nashashmi 10y ago

NSA cannot target Americans or American residents for spying. But they are allowed to spy and are in fact tasked with spying on non-Americans. It is what a U.S. spy agency does. And the spy agency of other countries, western and non-western, are supposed to be doing, e.g. spying on people outside of their countries. (Spying on your own people is akin to living in a totalitarian state.) What Snowden did was reveal to the world how extensive and deep the NSA's reach was. His initial objection was NSA's ability to spy on Americans, but when he blew the whistle, the entire world found out they too were being spied on. Misfire! Should he be punished or rewarded? It is a double edged sword.

canttestthis 10y ago

> As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections. Citizens of other countries in fact don't have the same rights and protections against the NSA as citizens. It's why the NSA exists.

freehunter 10y ago
If the Constitution says something, it applies to everyone everywhere. The Constitution of the United States does not apply to people it applies to the government. It says nothing about "US citizens" or "foreign nationals". It restricts what the government can do. So if the fourth amendment right to protection against unreasonable searches applies here (which there seems to be some debate about), it would apply to everyone. Not just to US citizens. The government does not have the right to perform searches of personal property without a warrant detailing exactly what will be searched. Again, this restriction applies to the government, it is not a protection afforded to citizens.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_t... My understanding has it that in practice "the people" means roughly "all citizens and residents of the US", not all people anywhere. You can disagree with the courts over what the words mean, but do so deliberately.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    That is an excellent article! I actually learned quite a bit from that, thank you. The main take-away that I had is that the courts generally uphold "the people" to mean "citizens", but there are some strong divisions on that and the case is far from settled. At the very least I agree with Harvard's opinion that this judgement cannot hold true to all instances of the the phrase "the people" without massively undoing hundreds of years of case law. Based on that I will change my statement here to say "the Constitution restricts the government, but it's unclear in the courts whether it restricts the government's actions against non-citizens, although it probably should according to constitutional law scholars". So if you're a tourist in the US, watch what you say and do, because you may not have any right to freedom of speech or protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
    - sarnowski 10y ago

lucozade 10y ago

> those of us born in other countries have the same rights too Not in US law we don't. To my knowledge there is no internationally agreed and enforceable privacy law. Now, as a UK citizen, I'm not exactly jumping with joy for either what the NSA or GCHQ have done but, from the point of view of US courts, spying on me is not something that bothers them hugely.

DanBC 10y ago
> To my knowledge there is no internationally agreed and enforceable privacy law. Article 8? https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-right-private-and-family-life https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-ar...
- lucozade 10y ago
  The full name is "Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights". Doesn't cover the US or Australia unfortunately.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  And an article in U.S. constitution says it's enforceable because U.S. agreed to it.
peterkelly 10y ago
You're correct in the legal sense, but there is also the moral/philosophical aspect to it. Here's what the US Declaration of Independence had to say on the matter: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This is the moral/philosophical aspect. (I consider privacy to be one component of liberty, but expect it's not a universally-held view). "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" This is the legal aspect. So it depends on which you look at. In my comment above I was referring to the former. And specifically, my argument was based on that laid out at the very beginning of one of the country's most important founding documents, which I hope would carry some weight with those US citizens who believe in the moral principles on which their country is purportedly based.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. People who are neither within the US, nor US citizens, have generally less protection from rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, even when the actor involved is the US government. You can object to that all you want, but its unlikely to change. Fundamentally, neither our Constitution nor our government is about you. > As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too The big advance of popular government was that people have enforceable personal rights against their government, at least by citizenship and sometimes even by geography without citizenship. But it hasn't reversed the fundamental issue of sovereignty that there is very little in the way of substantially enforceable personal rights against a foreign sovereign, except those which your own sovereign guarantees and is willing to go to war (and capable of winning) to enforce. And whether this is the way thing should be or not, it is fundamentally incorrectable -- its the essential nature of sovereignty. You could make it irrelevant by establishing a single world sovereignty guaranteeing the rights you believe should exist for all against all governments, but that doesn't seem likely in the near future.

rayiner 10y ago

Reprehensible isn't the same as illegal. The 4th amendment does not apply to foreign citizens on foreign soil. NSA spying on Australians may be undesirable for various reasons, but it is legal.

mzw_mzw 10y ago

>So what? As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. If you're that keen to be covered by the United States Constitution, you can always petition for statehood; there's a procedure right there in Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1. Go to it, and good luck!

logfromblammo 10y ago
A careful reading of the U.S. Constitution reveals that the majority of the clauses that establish rights actually forbid the U.S. federal government from performing certain actions, period, rather than forbid it from performing those actions or not, conditional on citizenship. The 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to everyone, everywhere. The U.S. government must always get a warrant, regardless of borders. U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990) [0] established precedent stating otherwise, but I agree with Brennan's dissent and Stevens' concurrence. The majority opinion basically said it would be too difficult for the U.S. to project its power overseas if it still had to obey its own laws there. I don't find political expedience to be an acceptable argument for voiding anyone's rights. Of course, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., those protections are unenforceable in practice regardless, because the target likely cannot access any court that might be able to grant relief. It might be interesting for a foreign national to ask to enter the U.S. for the purpose of petitioning for redress of grievances against the U.S. in a U.S. court. A foreign state need not petition for statehood. It would be sufficient to establish by treaty a court wherein a foreign person may sue a U.S. government and its agents for violations of U.S. law. That would be a double-edged sword, of course. It might also allow a U.S. entity to sue foreign persons for violations of U.S. laws in that foreign state's jurisdiction. (I'm thinking specifically about intellectual property suits.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urqui...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to everyone, everywhere. Even granting that, what is "reasonable" depends on a lot of other factors (both legal -- such as specific grants of power to Congress, and laws passed under such grants -- and factual), and the nature of world of multiple sovereign states and the grant of power to Congress to regulate interactions with them, and laws passed by Congress make surveillance of purely foreign material "reasonable" under circumstances where it would not be domestically. > It would be sufficient to establish by treaty a court wherein a foreign person may sue a U.S. government and its agents for violations of U.S. law. I don't see how such a treaty can be reconciled with Article III; the treaty power does not extend to contravention of the Constitution. > It might also allow a U.S. entity to sue foreign persons for violations of U.S. laws in that foreign state's jurisdiction. US entities can already sue foreign persons for violations of US laws in foreign states territory in US courts to the extent that the US law at issue has extra-territorial application.

drivingmenuts 10y ago

> As one of the 7.1 billion people who are not US citizens, I object to the notion that only the rights of Americans warrant protection. As I see it, that is exactly as it should be. Just as you are not subject to American law, except when you are in America or the provisions of a treaty, you should also not be protected by it, except when you are in America, etc. etc. > As surprising as this may sound, those of us born in other countries have the same rights too, and deserve the same protections. Those protections that you may have derive from your own government and your own set of laws and the treaties made within that framework. You want to be protected by the laws of the United States of America, then be a citizen, with all the duties and responsibilities thereof.