3 ms·

Or far simpler, revoke section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It's an absolutely insane law anyhow, basically "we can spy on any data of non-

Or far simpler, revoke section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It's an absolutely insane law anyhow, basically "we can spy on any data of non-American users of American services, without any restrictions"

yohannparis 5y ago
I agree that section 702 is a bit extreme. But, at the heart of it, it makes sense. If foreigners can use services in your jurisdiction, you want to see what they do for security purposes. Nonetheless, it's against the belief of "innocent until proven guilty."
- danhor 5y ago
  This assumption leads to the conclusion that only services that reside in the same jurisdiction (EU, USA, ...) can be used if legal protection from the state is desired. If legal protection from the state is enforced (even for other states) this means there need to be wholly separate services in each jurisdiction. This seems very undesirable, especially for the US with it's multinational web companies.
  - kazen44 5y ago
    > This assumption leads to the conclusion that only services that reside in the same jurisdiction (EU, USA, ...) can be used if legal protection from the state is desired. which is the correct conclusion? As the state can only offer legal protection under its own jurisdiction. Sure, real life complicates things a bit. (mainly, the jurisdiction of the EU as an institution in and of itself compared to its member states is a messy affair) but it is still a totally valid argument none the less.
    - simion314 5y ago
      >which is the correct conclusion? As the state can only offer legal protection under its own jurisdiction. Not sure I follow, US gov can't legally protect non US citizens from itself abusing them? It should be as hard for the spying to happen for an US or non US citizen or company.
- andybak 5y ago
  > But, at the heart of it, it makes sense. If foreigners can use services in your jurisdiction, you want to see what they do for security purposes. As a "foreigner" in a friendly country I'm understandably not too happy about this. And the logical outcome is that the US will lose business anywhere this is unacceptable.
  - yohannparis 5y ago
    I completely agree with your statement, and I feel the same!
- RHSeeger 5y ago
  > If foreigners can use services in your jurisdiction, you want to see what they do for security purposes. There are a LOT of things that law enforcement agencies want that they should not get. The fact that they want it or that it would be useful to them is not enough of an argument to give it to them. It has to be balanced against other factors, to decide what is best for society as a whole.

yohannparis 5y ago

I agree that section 702 is a bit extreme. But, at the heart of it, it makes sense. If foreigners can use services in your jurisdiction, you want to see what they do for security purposes. Nonetheless, it's against the belief of "innocent until proven guilty."

danhor 5y ago
This assumption leads to the conclusion that only services that reside in the same jurisdiction (EU, USA, ...) can be used if legal protection from the state is desired. If legal protection from the state is enforced (even for other states) this means there need to be wholly separate services in each jurisdiction. This seems very undesirable, especially for the US with it's multinational web companies.
- kazen44 5y ago
  > This assumption leads to the conclusion that only services that reside in the same jurisdiction (EU, USA, ...) can be used if legal protection from the state is desired. which is the correct conclusion? As the state can only offer legal protection under its own jurisdiction. Sure, real life complicates things a bit. (mainly, the jurisdiction of the EU as an institution in and of itself compared to its member states is a messy affair) but it is still a totally valid argument none the less.
  - simion314 5y ago
    >which is the correct conclusion? As the state can only offer legal protection under its own jurisdiction. Not sure I follow, US gov can't legally protect non US citizens from itself abusing them? It should be as hard for the spying to happen for an US or non US citizen or company.
andybak 5y ago
> But, at the heart of it, it makes sense. If foreigners can use services in your jurisdiction, you want to see what they do for security purposes. As a "foreigner" in a friendly country I'm understandably not too happy about this. And the logical outcome is that the US will lose business anywhere this is unacceptable.
- yohannparis 5y ago
  I completely agree with your statement, and I feel the same!
RHSeeger 5y ago
> If foreigners can use services in your jurisdiction, you want to see what they do for security purposes. There are a LOT of things that law enforcement agencies want that they should not get. The fact that they want it or that it would be useful to them is not enough of an argument to give it to them. It has to be balanced against other factors, to decide what is best for society as a whole.