5 ms·

> 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 priva

> 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.
- rayiner 10y ago
  The Declaration of Independence has no legal force.
  - DougWebb 10y ago
    Also, "all men" is referring specifically to white males, since at the time women were not treated equally and, you know, they had slavery back then. It's important to keep in mind the spirit of these historical documents and how that spirit can be applied today, but it's also important to remember that these are imperfect documents from an imperfect time and that they can't be treated as gospel. Even the founding fathers believed that, which is why they built in mechanisms for updating the Constitution.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      > Also, "all men" is referring specifically to white males, since at the time women were not treated equally and, you know, they had slavery back then. Different people involved with the writing of that document had different ideas, and there were many drafts, and it was a creation of compromise. That it was left as open as it was, when prior revisions had specific clauses critical of the slave trade removed[1], is a testament to how contentious it was. That it was still used as later evidence for the abolition of slavery is to the credit of those that fought for a more inclusive wording. That it didn't include specific reference to women... well yeah, that sucks, but at least you can argue later that "man" was meant in the sense of (or should be interpreted as) "humanity". 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal#Slavery_and_the_phrase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal#Slav...

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.

rayiner 10y ago
The Declaration of Independence has no legal force.
- DougWebb 10y ago
  Also, "all men" is referring specifically to white males, since at the time women were not treated equally and, you know, they had slavery back then. It's important to keep in mind the spirit of these historical documents and how that spirit can be applied today, but it's also important to remember that these are imperfect documents from an imperfect time and that they can't be treated as gospel. Even the founding fathers believed that, which is why they built in mechanisms for updating the Constitution.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > Also, "all men" is referring specifically to white males, since at the time women were not treated equally and, you know, they had slavery back then. Different people involved with the writing of that document had different ideas, and there were many drafts, and it was a creation of compromise. That it was left as open as it was, when prior revisions had specific clauses critical of the slave trade removed[1], is a testament to how contentious it was. That it was still used as later evidence for the abolition of slavery is to the credit of those that fought for a more inclusive wording. That it didn't include specific reference to women... well yeah, that sucks, but at least you can argue later that "man" was meant in the sense of (or should be interpreted as) "humanity". 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal#Slavery_and_the_phrase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal#Slav...