4 ms·

> We should give foreigners rights that Americans enjoy. Uhhh no. I pay taxes and uphold my civic responsibilities (jury duty, selective service, etc.). I ear

by maratd 13y ago

> We should give foreigners rights that Americans enjoy. Uhhh no. I pay taxes and uphold my civic responsibilities (jury duty, selective service, etc.). I earn those rights. Unless those foreigners decide to become US citizens and take on the same responsibilities, no, those rights do not extend to them.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
opminion 13y ago
Those foreigners usually have those responsibilities in their own countries. The same works the other way around. Wouldn't it make sense to have reciprocity so it ends up being a game of citizen collaboration, rather than of competition (as in many other areas of international diplomacy and law)?
- maratd 13y ago
  > Wouldn't it make sense to have reciprocity so it ends up being a game of citizen collaboration Yes, I'd be perfectly happy with that. In fact, I'd be thrilled to have the same protections when travelling abroad. Unfortunately, most countries don't provide such protections for even their own citizens.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pantaloons 13y ago
You earned the right to not be spied on? What, specifically, did you do that exclusively grants you that privilege?
- cathustler 13y ago
  The fourth amendment, and Map v. Ohio; upholding civic duties are the end of the deal that civilians are to be responsible for, ceding tyrannous behavior that is disallowed by legislation is the government's. Obviously barring the fact that the Constitution seems to just be a long-standing joke to the government, or so it seems as of late. Also, to be clear I'm not defending the point of whom you responded, I'm just outlining the support for it.
jlgreco 13y ago
You pay to receive protection from the people that you pay? How is that not a protection racket?
- mpyne 13y ago
  A protection racket is when the people you pay will actually injure you if you don't pay them. There are many non-racket variants of this, including an actor or famous athlete hiring a bodyguard.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    maratd's idea is that in order to not be violated by a government, one must pay that government. The people you pay will violate you if you don't pay them. It is a textbook protection racket. Of course it is not accurate to state that the government is running a protection racket because his initial premise from which that follows is stunningly idiotic in the first place. Rights are not given in return for tax money, not even in America. Non-taxpaying non-citizens enjoy basic protection under the law if they happen to be physically located in America; they don't have to "buy" that. That "physically located" qualification is what needs to be changed. "They don't pay taxes to us" is not an excuse.
vijayr 13y ago
Say you use some service based in Europe or Asia, and you visited a bunch of countries in Europe or Asia. would you be okay if those governments accessed your data, without any reason, without any warrant? It is not about Americans vs foreigners, or paying taxes or jury duty - it is about having a valid reason for anyone to access anybody's data, and doing it the proper way (warrant etc). Not just in the US, but anywhere in the world. May be other governments in other countries are doing the same, we don't know. If that's the case, this is very depressing - pretty soon, everyone will be spying on everyone else (if that is not already happening), and this wouldn't be a nice way to live
- mpyne 13y ago
  No offense but I already assume that any information that would run across e.g. Iran or China is intercepted and extracted for absolutely everything it's worth. Mostly I avoid the issue by not visiting Weibo, etc., but I realize that's not very helpful for those not in the U.S. since there's really only the one Facebook, Google, etc. Perhaps this kind of thing would lead to either increased federation of website (e.g. there's be a U.S. Google and a E.U. Google and swapping amongst them would not be completely frictionless). Either that or reciprocal agreements between different nations to increase the privacy rights of their citizens (in fact I thought these already existed). But I don't see a solution that involves not having all these nations intelligence agencies simply skipping out on the collection of intelligence part.
  - vijayr 13y ago
    I wasn't saying they should skip intelligence collection, please re-read my comment above. The intelligence agencies exist and are needed for a reason, and they should collect/process information etc - that is their job, isn't it?. No-one is disagreeing with that. However, they should do it via proper legal channels, and do it with valid reason - not just collect all information on everyone en-masse. And the laws governing these should be transparent.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Well whatever else it is, PRISM is "valid legal channels" (even for foreign citizens). There's no generic authority to simply extract information on any desired foreign citizen even now. The law itself is transparent, though the court system actually implementing it is not, nor is the proceedings by which the law is drafted and debated. But with that in mind I'm not sure how much you're really asking to be different.
Vivtek 13y ago
And yet your government asserts rights of control over them without your granting them any legal recourse. Tell me, how do you think that's gong to play out, ultimately? He who lives by the sword...

by maratd 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

opminion 13y ago

Those foreigners usually have those responsibilities in their own countries. The same works the other way around. Wouldn't it make sense to have reciprocity so it ends up being a game of citizen collaboration, rather than of competition (as in many other areas of international diplomacy and law)?

maratd 13y ago
> Wouldn't it make sense to have reciprocity so it ends up being a game of citizen collaboration Yes, I'd be perfectly happy with that. In fact, I'd be thrilled to have the same protections when travelling abroad. Unfortunately, most countries don't provide such protections for even their own citizens.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pantaloons 13y ago

You earned the right to not be spied on? What, specifically, did you do that exclusively grants you that privilege?

cathustler 13y ago
The fourth amendment, and Map v. Ohio; upholding civic duties are the end of the deal that civilians are to be responsible for, ceding tyrannous behavior that is disallowed by legislation is the government's. Obviously barring the fact that the Constitution seems to just be a long-standing joke to the government, or so it seems as of late. Also, to be clear I'm not defending the point of whom you responded, I'm just outlining the support for it.

jlgreco 13y ago

You pay to receive protection from the people that you pay? How is that not a protection racket?

mpyne 13y ago
A protection racket is when the people you pay will actually injure you if you don't pay them. There are many non-racket variants of this, including an actor or famous athlete hiring a bodyguard.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  maratd's idea is that in order to not be violated by a government, one must pay that government. The people you pay will violate you if you don't pay them. It is a textbook protection racket. Of course it is not accurate to state that the government is running a protection racket because his initial premise from which that follows is stunningly idiotic in the first place. Rights are not given in return for tax money, not even in America. Non-taxpaying non-citizens enjoy basic protection under the law if they happen to be physically located in America; they don't have to "buy" that. That "physically located" qualification is what needs to be changed. "They don't pay taxes to us" is not an excuse.

vijayr 13y ago

Say you use some service based in Europe or Asia, and you visited a bunch of countries in Europe or Asia. would you be okay if those governments accessed your data, without any reason, without any warrant? It is not about Americans vs foreigners, or paying taxes or jury duty - it is about having a valid reason for anyone to access anybody's data, and doing it the proper way (warrant etc). Not just in the US, but anywhere in the world. May be other governments in other countries are doing the same, we don't know. If that's the case, this is very depressing - pretty soon, everyone will be spying on everyone else (if that is not already happening), and this wouldn't be a nice way to live

mpyne 13y ago
No offense but I already assume that any information that would run across e.g. Iran or China is intercepted and extracted for absolutely everything it's worth. Mostly I avoid the issue by not visiting Weibo, etc., but I realize that's not very helpful for those not in the U.S. since there's really only the one Facebook, Google, etc. Perhaps this kind of thing would lead to either increased federation of website (e.g. there's be a U.S. Google and a E.U. Google and swapping amongst them would not be completely frictionless). Either that or reciprocal agreements between different nations to increase the privacy rights of their citizens (in fact I thought these already existed). But I don't see a solution that involves not having all these nations intelligence agencies simply skipping out on the collection of intelligence part.
- vijayr 13y ago
  I wasn't saying they should skip intelligence collection, please re-read my comment above. The intelligence agencies exist and are needed for a reason, and they should collect/process information etc - that is their job, isn't it?. No-one is disagreeing with that. However, they should do it via proper legal channels, and do it with valid reason - not just collect all information on everyone en-masse. And the laws governing these should be transparent.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well whatever else it is, PRISM is "valid legal channels" (even for foreign citizens). There's no generic authority to simply extract information on any desired foreign citizen even now. The law itself is transparent, though the court system actually implementing it is not, nor is the proceedings by which the law is drafted and debated. But with that in mind I'm not sure how much you're really asking to be different.

Vivtek 13y ago

And yet your government asserts rights of control over them without your granting them any legal recourse. Tell me, how do you think that's gong to play out, ultimately? He who lives by the sword...