5 ms·

No, tptacek is right... if you are a foreigner living abroad, the bill of rights does not apply to you: In 1957, the court changed its position, overturning de

No, tptacek is right... if you are a foreigner living abroad, the bill of rights does not apply to you: In 1957, the court changed its position, overturning decades of precedent to declare that American citizens are in fact protected against U.S. government misbehavior by the Bill of Rights even outside the country. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the court limited its ruling to U.S. citizens. Foreigners remained stuck with the old rule that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply abroad.[0] So US citizens are protected whether they are within US borders or abroad. And foreigners are protected if they are within US borders... but once they leave, it no longer applies. [0]. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/16/opinion/oe-raustiala16 http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/16/opinion/oe-raustiala...

tptacek 13y ago
It's also pretty hard to argue that prior to 1957, anyone in the USG needed to get a warrant to collect intelligence information from foreign soil.
- rgbrenner 13y ago
  Right.. Prior to 1957, US citizens did not even have rights outside of the US. From the same article: So when, in 1880, American diplomats in Japan "tried" and convicted one American for killing another in Yokohama Bay, they did not need a jury to convict. When the defendant asserted that his 6th Amendment right to a jury trial had been violated, the Supreme Court declared "the Constitution has no operation in another country."
rgbrenner 13y ago
I found the actual case.. if anyone wants to read more, it was Reid vs Covert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354...
alan_cx 13y ago
Hold on.... If a foreigner is protected while in the US, is accountable to the US if he/she breaks US law from abroad, and accountable if he/she breaks US law while visiting the US in the form of visiting a US web-server, (we foreigners are said to have visited US jurisdiction if we use US based services, there for we can be extradited) why then, if a foreigner's data is on US servers or systems, is his/her data and privacy not also protected under US law, if a foreigner is protected while in the US. If we are said to have visited the US and there for come under US law if we use US services, then surely it must also apply that the data we leave behind is also protected.
- TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
  Well, US jurisdiction only applies when it's convenient, and the same goes for rights ;)
  - Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
    I think its rather that no one has tested the above argument. The judgement was in 1953, so it had nothing to say about the internet or data stored in the US.
- ra 13y ago
  You're right, it's hypocrisy in action. I wonder if a panel of lawmakers were given all of this to make recommendations on, without secrecy, gag orders or political prejudice, if we'd have very different situation today.
  - gundy 13y ago
    US government is bigoted and tyrannical towards non-US citizens. Period.
ef4 13y ago
I'm aware that the court has interpreted it that way. That doesn't make it any less wrong. To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. - Thomas Jefferson,1820 I will also note that the data in question was within the United States, where all property, whether owned by foreigners or not, is protected from unlawful search and seizure.
- tptacek 13y ago
  What warrant did Jefferson serve on the Barbary Pirates?
  - markdown 13y ago
    <insert name of fallacy here>
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Fallacy fallacy?
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    The First Barbary War was a declared war -- declared first by the Pasha of Tripoli against the US and explicitly recognized as a state of war in several acts of Congress subsequently -- so its hardly relevant.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Well, "recognized as" hardly amounts to a declaration of war. Congress did authorize use of military force though, but technically only against Tripoli, not Algiers or Tunis. So the question remains open in general.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Well, "recognized as" hardly amounts to a declaration of war. Congress has the power to declare war, but (a) that power doesn't require any particular language, and any authorization of military action, as contained in the various statutes Congress adopted after the Tripoli declared war, can have the effect of a declaration of war (and a declaration of war may be limited or conditional), and (b) Congressional declaration of war is sufficient to create war, but not necessary; an enemy declaring, or initiating without declaring, war is also sufficient to create war. See, among other cases, Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37 (1800); The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1862); The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1871).
yaix 13y ago
Interesting. I guess that's why Guantanamo is on Cuba.
grappler 13y ago
4th amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” I don't understand this notion that you don't really understand something like the 4th amendment without understanding the whole history of case law interpreting said amendment. The amendment is short and simple. It says what it says. It is part of the supreme law of the land (the constitution) and thus supersedes any lesser laws which may conflict with it. Any interpretation of it is just that. If I were to put it in software terms, I'd call interpretations “derived artifacts” and the amendment the “source”. If I start getting weird conflicts and unexpected behavior, as any developer knows, I should “make clean” (clear out all derived artifacts) followed by “make” (rebuild from source).
bigiain 13y ago
"No, tptacek is right... if you are a foreigner living abroad, the bill of rights does not apply to you:" This is becoming abundantly obvious from where I sit, outside the US as a non-US citizen. I wonder just how long it's going to take for non US businesses and governments to realise the consequences of that? I look forward to the startup opportunities in what are currently considered "major player consolidated verticals" for non US based disruption? Who's currently planning an ad network or web analytics service or auction site or microblogging service or social network or online retail conglomerate - all marketed to national government and non-US based businesses as "all data stored outside US jurisdiction, all data SSL/TLS with PFS on the wire to minimise consequences of interception", then lobby governments to advice citizens to switch away from "US monitored services" and for corporations to forbid use of "US monitored service" via corporate networks. It's all but impossible to break into markets dominated by Google/eBay/Amazon/Facebook/Twitter - but what if the Australian government started recommending people use a secure local alternative, and big companies started blocking those services at the firewall?

tptacek 13y ago

It's also pretty hard to argue that prior to 1957, anyone in the USG needed to get a warrant to collect intelligence information from foreign soil.

rgbrenner 13y ago
Right.. Prior to 1957, US citizens did not even have rights outside of the US. From the same article: So when, in 1880, American diplomats in Japan "tried" and convicted one American for killing another in Yokohama Bay, they did not need a jury to convict. When the defendant asserted that his 6th Amendment right to a jury trial had been violated, the Supreme Court declared "the Constitution has no operation in another country."

rgbrenner 13y ago

I found the actual case.. if anyone wants to read more, it was Reid vs Covert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354...

alan_cx 13y ago

Hold on.... If a foreigner is protected while in the US, is accountable to the US if he/she breaks US law from abroad, and accountable if he/she breaks US law while visiting the US in the form of visiting a US web-server, (we foreigners are said to have visited US jurisdiction if we use US based services, there for we can be extradited) why then, if a foreigner's data is on US servers or systems, is his/her data and privacy not also protected under US law, if a foreigner is protected while in the US. If we are said to have visited the US and there for come under US law if we use US services, then surely it must also apply that the data we leave behind is also protected.

TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago
Well, US jurisdiction only applies when it's convenient, and the same goes for rights ;)
- Andrew_Quentin 13y ago
  I think its rather that no one has tested the above argument. The judgement was in 1953, so it had nothing to say about the internet or data stored in the US.
ra 13y ago
You're right, it's hypocrisy in action. I wonder if a panel of lawmakers were given all of this to make recommendations on, without secrecy, gag orders or political prejudice, if we'd have very different situation today.
- gundy 13y ago
  US government is bigoted and tyrannical towards non-US citizens. Period.

ef4 13y ago

I'm aware that the court has interpreted it that way. That doesn't make it any less wrong. To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. - Thomas Jefferson,1820 I will also note that the data in question was within the United States, where all property, whether owned by foreigners or not, is protected from unlawful search and seizure.

tptacek 13y ago
What warrant did Jefferson serve on the Barbary Pirates?
- markdown 13y ago
  <insert name of fallacy here>
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Fallacy fallacy?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  The First Barbary War was a declared war -- declared first by the Pasha of Tripoli against the US and explicitly recognized as a state of war in several acts of Congress subsequently -- so its hardly relevant.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Well, "recognized as" hardly amounts to a declaration of war. Congress did authorize use of military force though, but technically only against Tripoli, not Algiers or Tunis. So the question remains open in general.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Well, "recognized as" hardly amounts to a declaration of war. Congress has the power to declare war, but (a) that power doesn't require any particular language, and any authorization of military action, as contained in the various statutes Congress adopted after the Tripoli declared war, can have the effect of a declaration of war (and a declaration of war may be limited or conditional), and (b) Congressional declaration of war is sufficient to create war, but not necessary; an enemy declaring, or initiating without declaring, war is also sufficient to create war. See, among other cases, Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37 (1800); The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1862); The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1871).

yaix 13y ago

Interesting. I guess that's why Guantanamo is on Cuba.

grappler 13y ago

4th amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” I don't understand this notion that you don't really understand something like the 4th amendment without understanding the whole history of case law interpreting said amendment. The amendment is short and simple. It says what it says. It is part of the supreme law of the land (the constitution) and thus supersedes any lesser laws which may conflict with it. Any interpretation of it is just that. If I were to put it in software terms, I'd call interpretations “derived artifacts” and the amendment the “source”. If I start getting weird conflicts and unexpected behavior, as any developer knows, I should “make clean” (clear out all derived artifacts) followed by “make” (rebuild from source).

bigiain 13y ago

"No, tptacek is right... if you are a foreigner living abroad, the bill of rights does not apply to you:" This is becoming abundantly obvious from where I sit, outside the US as a non-US citizen. I wonder just how long it's going to take for non US businesses and governments to realise the consequences of that? I look forward to the startup opportunities in what are currently considered "major player consolidated verticals" for non US based disruption? Who's currently planning an ad network or web analytics service or auction site or microblogging service or social network or online retail conglomerate - all marketed to national government and non-US based businesses as "all data stored outside US jurisdiction, all data SSL/TLS with PFS on the wire to minimise consequences of interception", then lobby governments to advice citizens to switch away from "US monitored services" and for corporations to forbid use of "US monitored service" via corporate networks. It's all but impossible to break into markets dominated by Google/eBay/Amazon/Facebook/Twitter - but what if the Australian government started recommending people use a secure local alternative, and big companies started blocking those services at the firewall?