3 ms·

Ditto. I can't believe "we only spy on communications involving foreigners" is actually an acceptable argument in the United States.

by UVB-76 13y ago

mhurron 13y ago
Name a country where it is not.
- pedrocr 13y ago
  When you're talking about spying on communications over the wire I agree, but that's not the scandal here. The scandal here is that the USG's position is that "we can obtain from the service provider without a warrant the data of any user or corporation as long as they are foreign, even if that data is stored in a non-US datacenter". Imagine the same kind of position in the physical world. A multinational storage company would be forced by the USG to open up a client's storage locker somewhere in Europe, copy all the documents in it and send them to the US. If nothing else this is a very serious threat to the US as the global provider of tech services.
  - mhurron 13y ago
    Again, name one country in the world that does not have this position. You tried to change the topic to law enforcement, we're talking about spy agencies. They operate on different rules. MI5/6 doesn't go 'oh poppycock, they've hopped on the chunnel and fled to France.' They talk to the French agencies or if it's too secret, they go and do it them self. Mossad doesn't give a damn where in the world you are. 'Everyone, everywhere, our laws only exist in our country' is, and has been for a long time, standard operating procedure for these agencies in every country for basically their entire existence.
    - pedrocr 13y ago
      >Again, name one country in the world that does not have this position. You tried to change the topic to law enforcement, we're talking about spy agencies. They operate on different rules. I didn't change the topic at all. I can't quote the relevant laws in this case but as far as I know the law in Europe is that you need a warrant to get the information and that requirement doesn't disappear if the owner of the information is a foreigner. That's what's truly amazing in the USG's position. I agree that everyone tries to spy on information on the wire, but the idea that you can demand any information at rest from any company as long as the owner of the information is a foreigner is an amazing position to hold. There are two other reasons to move your data to your own jurisdiction from US services. 1) the US has the most well funded military so your local spooks probably have less capabilities 2) if one of your local spooks spies on you at least you're in the same jurisdiction and have a small amount of agency (the courts, the vote).
sroerick 13y ago
It's kind of absurd. I'm working with Restore the Fourth, who, to my knowledge, is one of the only groups who is keeping on the surveillance message. It's frustrating. I don't believe the US should spy on foreign citizens. But in order to present a bulletproof argument, I have to focus on "American Citizens". The main reason for this is because spying on American citizens is actually illegal. If I let the concept of "foreigners" into the discussion, I lose the constitutional, legal, and rhetorical footing that is already pretty tenuous.

Ditto. I can't believe "we only spy on communications involving foreigners" is actually an acceptable argument in the United States.

by UVB-76 13y ago

Ditto. I can't believe "we only spy on communications involving foreigners" is actually an acceptable argument in the United States.

mhurron 13y ago

Name a country where it is not.

pedrocr 13y ago
When you're talking about spying on communications over the wire I agree, but that's not the scandal here. The scandal here is that the USG's position is that "we can obtain from the service provider without a warrant the data of any user or corporation as long as they are foreign, even if that data is stored in a non-US datacenter". Imagine the same kind of position in the physical world. A multinational storage company would be forced by the USG to open up a client's storage locker somewhere in Europe, copy all the documents in it and send them to the US. If nothing else this is a very serious threat to the US as the global provider of tech services.
- mhurron 13y ago
  Again, name one country in the world that does not have this position. You tried to change the topic to law enforcement, we're talking about spy agencies. They operate on different rules. MI5/6 doesn't go 'oh poppycock, they've hopped on the chunnel and fled to France.' They talk to the French agencies or if it's too secret, they go and do it them self. Mossad doesn't give a damn where in the world you are. 'Everyone, everywhere, our laws only exist in our country' is, and has been for a long time, standard operating procedure for these agencies in every country for basically their entire existence.
  - pedrocr 13y ago
    >Again, name one country in the world that does not have this position. You tried to change the topic to law enforcement, we're talking about spy agencies. They operate on different rules. I didn't change the topic at all. I can't quote the relevant laws in this case but as far as I know the law in Europe is that you need a warrant to get the information and that requirement doesn't disappear if the owner of the information is a foreigner. That's what's truly amazing in the USG's position. I agree that everyone tries to spy on information on the wire, but the idea that you can demand any information at rest from any company as long as the owner of the information is a foreigner is an amazing position to hold. There are two other reasons to move your data to your own jurisdiction from US services. 1) the US has the most well funded military so your local spooks probably have less capabilities 2) if one of your local spooks spies on you at least you're in the same jurisdiction and have a small amount of agency (the courts, the vote).

sroerick 13y ago

It's kind of absurd. I'm working with Restore the Fourth, who, to my knowledge, is one of the only groups who is keeping on the surveillance message. It's frustrating. I don't believe the US should spy on foreign citizens. But in order to present a bulletproof argument, I have to focus on "American Citizens". The main reason for this is because spying on American citizens is actually illegal. If I let the concept of "foreigners" into the discussion, I lose the constitutional, legal, and rhetorical footing that is already pretty tenuous.