4 ms·

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 thei

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?
  - krapp 13y ago
    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? Bear a few things in mind... most Americans don't own a gun, and most who do don't have them to rise up against the government, and quite a few don't fit into the stereotype of 'gun loving American' at all. After the Newtown shooting (I believe it was) there was widespread support for gun control legislation (close to 90% IIRC) but it was summarily killed because of the power of lobbyists. America is bigger and more complicated than perhaps it seems from the outside. Also, gun ownership is a constitutional issue... IANACS* but the purpose of that is to allow the people to rise up against the tyranny of either an oppressive government or an outside enemy (as there was no assumption at the time that a standing national army would be a thing, or that Britain was going to leave us alone.) So that's been something we've been arguing over since the beginning. Meanwhile, a lot of Americans just aren't as politically charged about privacy as they are about gun rights. There's no privacy lobby which is as powerful as the NRA, an you can't win midterms by scaring your constituents about how the other party is coming to take your private keys away. There might be outrage about this eventually, but you've got to give it time to bubble up. All many Americans even know about Edward Snowden is some vague notion that he 'stole secrets' and 'gave them to China.' Meanwhile all you see on the news now is the George Zimmerman trial. * I am not a constitutional scholar

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?
- krapp 13y ago
  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? Bear a few things in mind... most Americans don't own a gun, and most who do don't have them to rise up against the government, and quite a few don't fit into the stereotype of 'gun loving American' at all. After the Newtown shooting (I believe it was) there was widespread support for gun control legislation (close to 90% IIRC) but it was summarily killed because of the power of lobbyists. America is bigger and more complicated than perhaps it seems from the outside. Also, gun ownership is a constitutional issue... IANACS* but the purpose of that is to allow the people to rise up against the tyranny of either an oppressive government or an outside enemy (as there was no assumption at the time that a standing national army would be a thing, or that Britain was going to leave us alone.) So that's been something we've been arguing over since the beginning. Meanwhile, a lot of Americans just aren't as politically charged about privacy as they are about gun rights. There's no privacy lobby which is as powerful as the NRA, an you can't win midterms by scaring your constituents about how the other party is coming to take your private keys away. There might be outrage about this eventually, but you've got to give it time to bubble up. All many Americans even know about Edward Snowden is some vague notion that he 'stole secrets' and 'gave them to China.' Meanwhile all you see on the news now is the George Zimmerman trial. * I am not a constitutional scholar