4 ms·

who were US citizens It doesn't matter if they were us citizens or not. Take for example the Tuskegee syphilis experiment [1]. I don't know if you wrote that i

by molmalo 13y ago

who were US citizens It doesn't matter if they were us citizens or not. Take for example the Tuskegee syphilis experiment [1]. I don't know if you wrote that in order to make those experiments look even worse, but it shouldn't matter the nationality of those people. The fact that they were experimenting with them without their consent, it's just terrible... And they were doing it for 40 years! It looks like something taken from Josef Mengele's research book (and I can't think of a better case than this to appeal to Godwin's law[2]). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

jholman 13y ago
> "It doesn't matter if they were us citizens or not." Yyyyes and no. It depends on what you're discussing, and in what context. Medical experiments like Tuskegee and MK Ultra, I agree with you entirely. Wiretapping, it's a little different. I mean, non-Americans who're being spied on the by US government should be offended, maybe, but not quite the same level of outrage. It seems reasonable to demand that your own country follow its own law. If/when they break that law, there's an extra type of outrage that's appropriate. And American elected representatives purport to be agents of the citizens of the US (and they do not purport to be agents of humanity at large.. well, not as literally, anyway). If/when they act against the interests of the US citizenry, there's an extra type of outrage that's appropriate. Further, the harm that the NSA can do to a random citizen of, say, Germany, by spying on them, is modest. The harm that can be done to Americans, by being spied upon by hypothetical corrupt agents of their own government, is much steeper, I think.
- josephlord 13y ago
  So you would only be offended but not outraged if the Chinese, Russian or the British government spying on you? The only thing that makes it worse that the NSA is spying on Americans is it seems completely contrary to any ordinary reading of the US law (and some reasonable readings of the constitution) and the NSA's remit. If the law (and constitution) was properly amended to allow it it would be less bad than spying on foreigners.
  - cma 13y ago
    You don't think it is also worse because the US has legal jurisdiction over you, while China, Russia, and Great Britain don't?
    - josephlord 13y ago
      Well I'm British living in Britain but the extradition laws are such I don't feel safe from US legal processes. Plus there are numerous reasons to tempt me into the US's jurisdiction (for business, conferences or pleasure) so while I don't visit often I wouldn't want to restrict myself from visiting. There are also non-legal actions that can be taken from insider trading on call patterns of company execs planning mergers to blackmail or straight industrial espionage.
  - jholman 13y ago
    That's right. As a Canadian living in the US, and highly vulnerable to the US government, I am much less outraged by the US spying on me than I would be if I heard about similar offenses from my own government. And I'd be still less concerned if I'd stayed at home in Canada. > "If the law (and constitution) was properly amended to allow it it would be less bad than spying on foreigners." I disagree.
    - josephlord 13y ago
      I probably should have said it is less bad than being spied on by foreigners. At least if you have a democratic country you can campaign and vote for candidates promising to stop the mass intrusion or even stand on that platform. I don't like the monitoring but at least in a democracy there is something that can be done about it (not that it is easy to persuade a sufficient number of people to join a cause but it can be done). I would expect governments to try to protect their citizens from foreign spying[1] (and to try to spy on foreigners). I would expect them to regard other countries efforts as illegal and prosecute (or revoke diplomatic status and send home where applicable) those trying to spy on their citizens. Internally there are several different issues with the recent NSA: 1) The high level of intrusion offensive and dangerous at the apparent levels that it is currently occurring. 2) The democratic process seems to have been poorly followed, NSA is far exceeding its stated brief (foreign inteligence). 3) Constitutionally the situation seems at best dubious. Issue (1) applies internally and externally. The others are US internal issues. [1] See Echelon etc. and other actions as cases where this expectation is wrong.
mindcrime 13y ago
You're right, the citizenship thing doesn't really matter. I think, however, that it's a little bit more galling for them to target American citizens, coming from the perspective of an American citizen at least, as protecting our rights is nominally the very reason we have a government at all. And for the very same government we created to protect us, to turn around and attack the very people who created it, just adds salt to the wound. That said, experimenting on people without their knowledge or permission is wrong, evil, and abhorrent regardless of their nationality (or any other attribute!).

by molmalo 13y ago

jholman 13y ago

> "It doesn't matter if they were us citizens or not." Yyyyes and no. It depends on what you're discussing, and in what context. Medical experiments like Tuskegee and MK Ultra, I agree with you entirely. Wiretapping, it's a little different. I mean, non-Americans who're being spied on the by US government should be offended, maybe, but not quite the same level of outrage. It seems reasonable to demand that your own country follow its own law. If/when they break that law, there's an extra type of outrage that's appropriate. And American elected representatives purport to be agents of the citizens of the US (and they do not purport to be agents of humanity at large.. well, not as literally, anyway). If/when they act against the interests of the US citizenry, there's an extra type of outrage that's appropriate. Further, the harm that the NSA can do to a random citizen of, say, Germany, by spying on them, is modest. The harm that can be done to Americans, by being spied upon by hypothetical corrupt agents of their own government, is much steeper, I think.

josephlord 13y ago
So you would only be offended but not outraged if the Chinese, Russian or the British government spying on you? The only thing that makes it worse that the NSA is spying on Americans is it seems completely contrary to any ordinary reading of the US law (and some reasonable readings of the constitution) and the NSA's remit. If the law (and constitution) was properly amended to allow it it would be less bad than spying on foreigners.
- cma 13y ago
  You don't think it is also worse because the US has legal jurisdiction over you, while China, Russia, and Great Britain don't?
  - josephlord 13y ago
    Well I'm British living in Britain but the extradition laws are such I don't feel safe from US legal processes. Plus there are numerous reasons to tempt me into the US's jurisdiction (for business, conferences or pleasure) so while I don't visit often I wouldn't want to restrict myself from visiting. There are also non-legal actions that can be taken from insider trading on call patterns of company execs planning mergers to blackmail or straight industrial espionage.
- jholman 13y ago
  That's right. As a Canadian living in the US, and highly vulnerable to the US government, I am much less outraged by the US spying on me than I would be if I heard about similar offenses from my own government. And I'd be still less concerned if I'd stayed at home in Canada. > "If the law (and constitution) was properly amended to allow it it would be less bad than spying on foreigners." I disagree.
  - josephlord 13y ago
    I probably should have said it is less bad than being spied on by foreigners. At least if you have a democratic country you can campaign and vote for candidates promising to stop the mass intrusion or even stand on that platform. I don't like the monitoring but at least in a democracy there is something that can be done about it (not that it is easy to persuade a sufficient number of people to join a cause but it can be done). I would expect governments to try to protect their citizens from foreign spying[1] (and to try to spy on foreigners). I would expect them to regard other countries efforts as illegal and prosecute (or revoke diplomatic status and send home where applicable) those trying to spy on their citizens. Internally there are several different issues with the recent NSA: 1) The high level of intrusion offensive and dangerous at the apparent levels that it is currently occurring. 2) The democratic process seems to have been poorly followed, NSA is far exceeding its stated brief (foreign inteligence). 3) Constitutionally the situation seems at best dubious. Issue (1) applies internally and externally. The others are US internal issues. [1] See Echelon etc. and other actions as cases where this expectation is wrong.

mindcrime 13y ago

You're right, the citizenship thing doesn't really matter. I think, however, that it's a little bit more galling for them to target American citizens, coming from the perspective of an American citizen at least, as protecting our rights is nominally the very reason we have a government at all. And for the very same government we created to protect us, to turn around and attack the very people who created it, just adds salt to the wound. That said, experimenting on people without their knowledge or permission is wrong, evil, and abhorrent regardless of their nationality (or any other attribute!).