3 ms·

We could and should have better privacy laws, though foreigners will always be subject to less protection. That said, a lot of this comes down to a failure in

We could and should have better privacy laws, though foreigners will always be subject to less protection. That said, a lot of this comes down to a failure in education around privacy and the cultural norm around folks thinking they have nothing to hide. The intuition most people have around privacy, and security, is incredibly poor.

Tangurena2 6mo ago
I think the issue is deeper than that. In the US, data about you belongs to the company that owns the hardware that the data is stored on. In the EU, data about you belongs to you.
- goosejuice 6mo ago
  My point is aside from policy, knowing what you give up to use that free software is a huge part of the equation.
tdb7893 6mo ago
One thing to note when talking about "foreigners" is that many rights in the constitution specify "persons". So citizens and non-citizens theoretically have equal rights from that standpoint. So I agree in general but it's worth noting that he was supposed to have constitutional rights to speech and against unreasonable searches.
- goosejuice 6mo ago
  Yes, sorry, by foreigner I mean non-citizen. Others do have constitutional rights, but the legislative and executive hold plenary powers in the realm of national security and immigration.
  - tdb7893 6mo ago
    As far as the Constitution goes, non-citizens have the same rights as citizens (at least for all the rights given to "persons") and there's no carveout actually in the Constitution for national security or immigration. Practically you have a point given case law but even in cases of immigration and national security these Constitutional rights still apply (regardless of what any branch of either Congress or the president try to do). You can read the bill of rights here (no mention of citizens or national security): https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...
    - goosejuice 6mo ago
      I never said there was a carve out? Citizens and legal permanent residents enjoy more rights beyond the constitution than non citizens. I'm not a lawyer, but see the privacy act, FISA and EO 12333.
    - ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
      It may come as a shocking surprise here, but human rights are not actually conferred by the Constitution or any other piece of paper. Human rights are “endowed by our Creator” and so the actual function of the Constitution is to protect those rights, and any logical person could reason that our Creator would probably not endow only certain persons or citizens with those rights.
      - lazyasciiart 6mo ago
        If you’re going to believe in a creator anyway, why not decide they have arbitrarily chosen to favor one group over another?
        ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        lazyasciiart 6mo ago
        No. Do explain why that’s relevant.

Tangurena2 6mo ago

I think the issue is deeper than that. In the US, data about you belongs to the company that owns the hardware that the data is stored on. In the EU, data about you belongs to you.

goosejuice 6mo ago
My point is aside from policy, knowing what you give up to use that free software is a huge part of the equation.

tdb7893 6mo ago

One thing to note when talking about "foreigners" is that many rights in the constitution specify "persons". So citizens and non-citizens theoretically have equal rights from that standpoint. So I agree in general but it's worth noting that he was supposed to have constitutional rights to speech and against unreasonable searches.

goosejuice 6mo ago
Yes, sorry, by foreigner I mean non-citizen. Others do have constitutional rights, but the legislative and executive hold plenary powers in the realm of national security and immigration.
- tdb7893 6mo ago
  As far as the Constitution goes, non-citizens have the same rights as citizens (at least for all the rights given to "persons") and there's no carveout actually in the Constitution for national security or immigration. Practically you have a point given case law but even in cases of immigration and national security these Constitutional rights still apply (regardless of what any branch of either Congress or the president try to do). You can read the bill of rights here (no mention of citizens or national security): https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...
  - goosejuice 6mo ago
    I never said there was a carve out? Citizens and legal permanent residents enjoy more rights beyond the constitution than non citizens. I'm not a lawyer, but see the privacy act, FISA and EO 12333.
  - ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
    It may come as a shocking surprise here, but human rights are not actually conferred by the Constitution or any other piece of paper. Human rights are “endowed by our Creator” and so the actual function of the Constitution is to protect those rights, and any logical person could reason that our Creator would probably not endow only certain persons or citizens with those rights.
    - lazyasciiart 6mo ago
      If you’re going to believe in a creator anyway, why not decide they have arbitrarily chosen to favor one group over another?
      - ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
        [flagged]
        lazyasciiart 6mo ago
        No. Do explain why that’s relevant.