4 ms·

You should not trust any nation state that has influence over the corporations that build their processors, but the U.S. at least has a right to privacy built i

by magpi3 8y ago

You should not trust any nation state that has influence over the corporations that build their processors, but the U.S. at least has a right to privacy built into the constitution that affords its citizens (can corporations) the right to challenge any spyware it might ask a corporation to build into a processor in the courts. That is at least something. In China, as far as I can tell, anything goes. Corporations work hand in hand with the government, and control of the population through spying and "social scores" is a high and very open priority for the government.

b4eEX 8y ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't American constitution apply only to US' citizens? Even in the ideal case, were it to perfectly protect Americans from three-letter agencies' weaseling, it offers absolutely zero guarantees for non-citizens, which is 95% of world population or so. Americans could pressure USG to stop spying on foreigners, but why would they? I don't see any incentive for an average John Doe to do so. So, overall, there's not that much of a difference for most of the world. One might even argue that for outsiders Chinese relatively stable direction and autocracy is marginally better than American flipping every 8 years, since it allows you to better assess threat profile. Edit: added a bit about assessing threat.
- magpi3 8y ago
  It's corporations have rights to and if they want to have a global reputation, fighting for users' privacy makes business sense. Or at least so I would hope.
marcosdumay 8y ago
US laws are pretty clear in that foreigners (AKA non-citizens) don't have those rights their Constitution give to their people, so, again, what changes?
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  The Constitution calls out 2 groups of people: "Citizens", which it uses when referring to voting rights and who can run for office, and "People", which refers to everyone, citizen or not, within the jurisdiction of the US.
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    > which refers to everyone, citizen or not, within the jurisdiction of the US. Only a tiny percentage of non-Americans are within the jurisdiction of the US. This means that the vast majority of them are not protected by the constitution - which was the parent's point.

by magpi3 8y ago

b4eEX 8y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't American constitution apply only to US' citizens? Even in the ideal case, were it to perfectly protect Americans from three-letter agencies' weaseling, it offers absolutely zero guarantees for non-citizens, which is 95% of world population or so. Americans could pressure USG to stop spying on foreigners, but why would they? I don't see any incentive for an average John Doe to do so. So, overall, there's not that much of a difference for most of the world. One might even argue that for outsiders Chinese relatively stable direction and autocracy is marginally better than American flipping every 8 years, since it allows you to better assess threat profile. Edit: added a bit about assessing threat.

magpi3 8y ago
It's corporations have rights to and if they want to have a global reputation, fighting for users' privacy makes business sense. Or at least so I would hope.

marcosdumay 8y ago

US laws are pretty clear in that foreigners (AKA non-citizens) don't have those rights their Constitution give to their people, so, again, what changes?

s73v3r_ 8y ago
The Constitution calls out 2 groups of people: "Citizens", which it uses when referring to voting rights and who can run for office, and "People", which refers to everyone, citizen or not, within the jurisdiction of the US.
- sangnoir 8y ago
  > which refers to everyone, citizen or not, within the jurisdiction of the US. Only a tiny percentage of non-Americans are within the jurisdiction of the US. This means that the vast majority of them are not protected by the constitution - which was the parent's point.