4 ms·

As a "foreigner" (From the American POV) I am getting increasingly annoyed at the whole "American vs foreigner" issue as if spying on normal people from other c

As a "foreigner" (From the American POV) I am getting increasingly annoyed at the whole "American vs foreigner" issue as if spying on normal people from other countries is perfectly ok. Is it so much to ask that I be given the same privacy levels as a US citizen and not be caught in overly-broad privacy invading dragnets?

krapp 13y ago
I keep hearing this from non-Americans. And while I respect it, I always wonder what country they come from that apparently makes no legal distinction between its own citizens and anyone else, and which apparently has no intelligence service at all... This isn't really something that's unique to America, this 'us vs them' attitude is something that's fundamental to the way nations operate, I think.
- rurounijones 13y ago
  I would argue that most other countries to not have such far-reaching interception programs with access to so much internet traffic[1] and therefore, while their intent is the same, their capability is wildly different which changes priorities somewhat. [1] As the NSA presentation said, an awful lot of backbone traffic passes through the US.
  - krapp 13y ago
    Yes, but the political and social barrier between 'citizen' and 'foreigner' is still more or less the same wherever you go, especially where governments are concerned. When I leave the United States, I become a foreigner. My money may be welcome but my motives may be suspect, and I probably don't have the same rights as the locals. The internet shouldn't be a part of it, though. I agree with that 100%. The internet is not America's, we don't own it, we can't act as if anything going through our part of it belongs to us, to do with what we will.
    - rurounijones 13y ago
      Actually reading back I didn't make my point correctly. I am naturally outraged at the antics of the NSA and similar organisations (GCHQ etc.). But right now I am really annoyed that the entire debate seems to have focused on "This is affecting us". It seems to have been accepted by everyone (Government, News, Public) that spying like this on foreigners is fine and dandy. I just wish there was a bit more outrage / discussion on the "Is it actually ok to spy on foreigners like this?"
      - krapp 13y ago
        > I just wish there was a bit more outrage / discussion on the "Is it actually ok to spy on foreigners like this?" Well, you can't really fault American media for focusing on Americans (or maybe you can.) But it would be interesting to see that break into the national consciousness. I'm afraid, though, that if you asked most Americans their answer would be "of course it's OK, as long as we're the best at it." ... I can see how that could be incredibly infuriating.
      - drewfrank 13y ago
        I am American and I share this sentiment.
    - ajuc 13y ago
      There are rights that differ for foreigners, but the basic rights are the same for everybody. It's not like you can kill a foreigner without consequences, or steal from him, right? Secrecy of correspondence is in constitutions of many european countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence (funny how even USSR had had it since 1936 - what the state do with its constitution is another matter it seems). Certainly not all countries are listed, cause Poland isn't there, and it also have this law. And it's considered basic right, so why shouldn't foreigners have it? The more I learn about USA the stranger it seems. Guns are legal cause freedom, even at cost of lives, and secrecy of correspondence is just nice-to-have? Why do you need the guns, if you don't use them to defend your privacy?
- Ihmahr 13y ago
  Not at all. In europe you'll be treated equal. Except for UK we don't assassinate people, period.
- furyg3 13y ago
  For me (as an American) it's a moral question. If the principles of the country are so fundamental and so sacred, why would you hold others to a lower standard? Spying on Americans, that's clearly wrong! Imprisonment without a trail, no way! Except for foreigners, then it's legal, so it's fine... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all me are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. What is unclear about that? I just don't understand that we live in a society where it is ok to 'deliver' freedom to others by force, but where we maintain that digging through every german's gmail account is 'legal' in the US, so it's ok. It's not only hypocritical, but short-sighted. Why would a French company use Gmail or Exchange Online if the US maintains that it and any subcontractor can read their mail at their leisure with no real consequences? Why would a Belgian visit the US if they could detain him because one of his facebook friends got in trouble with the police when he visited Florida?
- outworlder 13y ago
  > I keep hearing this from non-Americans. And while I respect it, I always wonder what country they come from that apparently makes no legal distinction between its own citizens and anyone else Not all countries have Guantanamo. Most won't allow foreigners to be imprisoned indefinitely without charges. Heck, in my country (Brazil), foreigners are usually treated better than citizens, even when charged with a crime. Despite the low rate of conviction, crimes against foreigners draw more attention from the justice system. The legal protections for foreigners are that strong, and Itamaraty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamaraty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamaraty) enforces them. If you are living here (even temporarily), you hold all the rights that citizens have, minus some things (like the obligation to vote). > and which apparently has no intelligence service at all... Not as extensive as the US system, but that's to be expected. At some point it might be necessary to make a distinction between citizens and foreigners, but only when it matters.
zmmmmm 13y ago
Having previously posted a similar comment to yours and subsequently thought about it a lot, there is one justification, weak as it may be, for focusing on Americans in this. It's the potent implications of the democratic integrity of the nation that come from your government having a giant database on you. If they can, at will, get access to any and all of the communications of any citizen they have incredible power over the voting public. I have no doubt that at this point, if the Obama administration desperately wanted to get hold of some individual's communications - to discredit them, implicate them, or just learn better how to manipulate them - they could do it. I actually doubt they would do it, and I'm not suggesting they will. But once the means for the corruption are there, and the temptation is there, it is utterly inevitable that it will be used. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc. So for your case, yes, they are violating your privacy, and that's bad. But for US citizens, they are dismantling the very fabric of democracy itself. It's orders of magnitude more important than a mere raping of privacy.
- rurounijones 13y ago
  Hmm, actually that makes perfect sense as a reason to rile up the proletariat, never considered that angle.

krapp 13y ago

I keep hearing this from non-Americans. And while I respect it, I always wonder what country they come from that apparently makes no legal distinction between its own citizens and anyone else, and which apparently has no intelligence service at all... This isn't really something that's unique to America, this 'us vs them' attitude is something that's fundamental to the way nations operate, I think.

rurounijones 13y ago
I would argue that most other countries to not have such far-reaching interception programs with access to so much internet traffic[1] and therefore, while their intent is the same, their capability is wildly different which changes priorities somewhat. [1] As the NSA presentation said, an awful lot of backbone traffic passes through the US.
- krapp 13y ago
  Yes, but the political and social barrier between 'citizen' and 'foreigner' is still more or less the same wherever you go, especially where governments are concerned. When I leave the United States, I become a foreigner. My money may be welcome but my motives may be suspect, and I probably don't have the same rights as the locals. The internet shouldn't be a part of it, though. I agree with that 100%. The internet is not America's, we don't own it, we can't act as if anything going through our part of it belongs to us, to do with what we will.
  - rurounijones 13y ago
    Actually reading back I didn't make my point correctly. I am naturally outraged at the antics of the NSA and similar organisations (GCHQ etc.). But right now I am really annoyed that the entire debate seems to have focused on "This is affecting us". It seems to have been accepted by everyone (Government, News, Public) that spying like this on foreigners is fine and dandy. I just wish there was a bit more outrage / discussion on the "Is it actually ok to spy on foreigners like this?"
    - krapp 13y ago
      > I just wish there was a bit more outrage / discussion on the "Is it actually ok to spy on foreigners like this?" Well, you can't really fault American media for focusing on Americans (or maybe you can.) But it would be interesting to see that break into the national consciousness. I'm afraid, though, that if you asked most Americans their answer would be "of course it's OK, as long as we're the best at it." ... I can see how that could be incredibly infuriating.
    - drewfrank 13y ago
      I am American and I share this sentiment.
  - ajuc 13y ago
    There are rights that differ for foreigners, but the basic rights are the same for everybody. It's not like you can kill a foreigner without consequences, or steal from him, right? Secrecy of correspondence is in constitutions of many european countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence (funny how even USSR had had it since 1936 - what the state do with its constitution is another matter it seems). Certainly not all countries are listed, cause Poland isn't there, and it also have this law. And it's considered basic right, so why shouldn't foreigners have it? The more I learn about USA the stranger it seems. Guns are legal cause freedom, even at cost of lives, and secrecy of correspondence is just nice-to-have? Why do you need the guns, if you don't use them to defend your privacy?
Ihmahr 13y ago
Not at all. In europe you'll be treated equal. Except for UK we don't assassinate people, period.
furyg3 13y ago
For me (as an American) it's a moral question. If the principles of the country are so fundamental and so sacred, why would you hold others to a lower standard? Spying on Americans, that's clearly wrong! Imprisonment without a trail, no way! Except for foreigners, then it's legal, so it's fine... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all me are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. What is unclear about that? I just don't understand that we live in a society where it is ok to 'deliver' freedom to others by force, but where we maintain that digging through every german's gmail account is 'legal' in the US, so it's ok. It's not only hypocritical, but short-sighted. Why would a French company use Gmail or Exchange Online if the US maintains that it and any subcontractor can read their mail at their leisure with no real consequences? Why would a Belgian visit the US if they could detain him because one of his facebook friends got in trouble with the police when he visited Florida?
outworlder 13y ago
> I keep hearing this from non-Americans. And while I respect it, I always wonder what country they come from that apparently makes no legal distinction between its own citizens and anyone else Not all countries have Guantanamo. Most won't allow foreigners to be imprisoned indefinitely without charges. Heck, in my country (Brazil), foreigners are usually treated better than citizens, even when charged with a crime. Despite the low rate of conviction, crimes against foreigners draw more attention from the justice system. The legal protections for foreigners are that strong, and Itamaraty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamaraty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamaraty) enforces them. If you are living here (even temporarily), you hold all the rights that citizens have, minus some things (like the obligation to vote). > and which apparently has no intelligence service at all... Not as extensive as the US system, but that's to be expected. At some point it might be necessary to make a distinction between citizens and foreigners, but only when it matters.

zmmmmm 13y ago

Having previously posted a similar comment to yours and subsequently thought about it a lot, there is one justification, weak as it may be, for focusing on Americans in this. It's the potent implications of the democratic integrity of the nation that come from your government having a giant database on you. If they can, at will, get access to any and all of the communications of any citizen they have incredible power over the voting public. I have no doubt that at this point, if the Obama administration desperately wanted to get hold of some individual's communications - to discredit them, implicate them, or just learn better how to manipulate them - they could do it. I actually doubt they would do it, and I'm not suggesting they will. But once the means for the corruption are there, and the temptation is there, it is utterly inevitable that it will be used. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc. So for your case, yes, they are violating your privacy, and that's bad. But for US citizens, they are dismantling the very fabric of democracy itself. It's orders of magnitude more important than a mere raping of privacy.

rurounijones 13y ago
Hmm, actually that makes perfect sense as a reason to rile up the proletariat, never considered that angle.