6 ms·

> While he opposes the bulk collection of domestic communications, he has no such strong feelings about the N.S.A.’s foreign-surveillance efforts. As a non-Ame

> While he opposes the bulk collection of domestic communications, he has no such strong feelings about the N.S.A.’s foreign-surveillance efforts. As a non-American, I have a problem with this seemingly widespread idea even among privacy advocates in the USA that only Americans are entitled to the protection of their rights from the American government.

betterunix 13y ago
To be fair, your government should be working to protect you from foreign threats like this. You should not rely on foreign powers to protect you.
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  Believe me, I'm not happy that my government is all-in on the American mass surveillance game. But my specific concern here is with Americans who think it's okay for the US government to conduct mass surveillance on the rest of the planet, just not on Americans.
  - drivingmenuts 13y ago
    Because we never know where the next threat will come from, or perhaps the threat after that. Your country may be perfectly at peace with the US now, but there is no way to guarantee that peace unless we have people to continually watch for potential threats. Even that is, in itself, no guarantee, but it's better than nothing. Maybe someday, mankind will be able to share universal goodwill and peace, but until that time, trust, but verify, at a minimum.
    - jruthers 13y ago
      I call "Bullshit" on that. For all of the talk about "all men created equal" and "do to others as you would have them do to you", fundamentally Americans are brought up to believe they are different or "exceptional" to other humans. This belief let's them distort reality so that spying on innocent foreigners is ok but spying on innocent Americans is an abomination. Hypocrisy. Timothy McVeigh and others prove that the domestic threat to the US is as serious as the foreign.
- gurkendoktor 13y ago
  Right, but it's not an either-or thing.
- manish_gill 13y ago
  Yep, because our government basically controls the majority of what goes on the Internet, right? /s
saraid216 13y ago
National defense is a bogeyman for liberals such as myself. It's one of the most justifiable evils available, because the current peace of the world is somewhat of a modern illusion. Personally, I don't like the existence of national borders of any kind, but I also can't wish them away. And when you draw a line, that says there's something you want to exclude on the other side of it, and the stuff over there just might decide to cross the line in a way you don't like. My general strategy has been to support inclusive immigration policies, globalization efforts, and joint international operations. The more of these that exist, the less meaningful national boundaries become, the less necessary national defense will be.
fastball 13y ago
It's not a "widespread idea"... it's the legal reality. As a non-American, you do not share the rights of US citizens under the constitution. Period. They are the only people entitled to the protection of their rights from the American government, unless your country has signed some sort of treaty with the US government giving you extended rights from the US, which I doubt it has. Without such an agreement, this is nothing more than international espionage, which is a natural (and arguably necessary) part of having different nations that don't always see eye-to-eye. Do you take issue with spying in all forms, or only the 21st century brand of spying?
- bloopletech 13y ago
  Well that's nice; I'm glad to see that our common interests as HN users extends only to the US border. Widespread unchecked surveillance is evil in and of itself, it doesn't matter _who_ is doing the surveilling. Following your argument, if the Chinese government engaged in exactly the same sort of surveillance against you that the NSA does, you'd be fine with it, since it would merely be international espionage. But in the end, the same information about you is being stored. And your information is probably less trustworthy with the Chinese government than even with the NSA! 'Spying' in the traditional meaning is qualitatively different to dragnet surveillance of all communications. I understand that all countries engage in a level of spying, and that friends may not always remain so, but the US' seemingly widespread lack of trust in _any_ other country, only works when you're (1) right and (2) the most powerful country. These may not always hold true, and it's when bad things happen that you need friends you can trust (and that can trust you).
  - fastball 13y ago
    Firstly, I'm not from the US. Nextly, yes. Yes, I would be ok with the Chinese government spying on me, if they were able to. In the case of the NSA, the NSA coerced/worked with many private US companies and took the data from them (rather than somehow collecting the data themselves). Such coercion of American companies is what I believe should be curtailed. The thing is, China has no such reach in my life. I don't use any Chinese websites to store my data. I don't use any Chinese social networks to keep up with my friends. I don't use a Chinese email service.

betterunix 13y ago

To be fair, your government should be working to protect you from foreign threats like this. You should not rely on foreign powers to protect you.

RyanMcGreal 13y ago
Believe me, I'm not happy that my government is all-in on the American mass surveillance game. But my specific concern here is with Americans who think it's okay for the US government to conduct mass surveillance on the rest of the planet, just not on Americans.
- drivingmenuts 13y ago
  Because we never know where the next threat will come from, or perhaps the threat after that. Your country may be perfectly at peace with the US now, but there is no way to guarantee that peace unless we have people to continually watch for potential threats. Even that is, in itself, no guarantee, but it's better than nothing. Maybe someday, mankind will be able to share universal goodwill and peace, but until that time, trust, but verify, at a minimum.
  - jruthers 13y ago
    I call "Bullshit" on that. For all of the talk about "all men created equal" and "do to others as you would have them do to you", fundamentally Americans are brought up to believe they are different or "exceptional" to other humans. This belief let's them distort reality so that spying on innocent foreigners is ok but spying on innocent Americans is an abomination. Hypocrisy. Timothy McVeigh and others prove that the domestic threat to the US is as serious as the foreign.
gurkendoktor 13y ago
Right, but it's not an either-or thing.
manish_gill 13y ago
Yep, because our government basically controls the majority of what goes on the Internet, right? /s

saraid216 13y ago

National defense is a bogeyman for liberals such as myself. It's one of the most justifiable evils available, because the current peace of the world is somewhat of a modern illusion. Personally, I don't like the existence of national borders of any kind, but I also can't wish them away. And when you draw a line, that says there's something you want to exclude on the other side of it, and the stuff over there just might decide to cross the line in a way you don't like. My general strategy has been to support inclusive immigration policies, globalization efforts, and joint international operations. The more of these that exist, the less meaningful national boundaries become, the less necessary national defense will be.

fastball 13y ago

It's not a "widespread idea"... it's the legal reality. As a non-American, you do not share the rights of US citizens under the constitution. Period. They are the only people entitled to the protection of their rights from the American government, unless your country has signed some sort of treaty with the US government giving you extended rights from the US, which I doubt it has. Without such an agreement, this is nothing more than international espionage, which is a natural (and arguably necessary) part of having different nations that don't always see eye-to-eye. Do you take issue with spying in all forms, or only the 21st century brand of spying?

bloopletech 13y ago
Well that's nice; I'm glad to see that our common interests as HN users extends only to the US border. Widespread unchecked surveillance is evil in and of itself, it doesn't matter _who_ is doing the surveilling. Following your argument, if the Chinese government engaged in exactly the same sort of surveillance against you that the NSA does, you'd be fine with it, since it would merely be international espionage. But in the end, the same information about you is being stored. And your information is probably less trustworthy with the Chinese government than even with the NSA! 'Spying' in the traditional meaning is qualitatively different to dragnet surveillance of all communications. I understand that all countries engage in a level of spying, and that friends may not always remain so, but the US' seemingly widespread lack of trust in _any_ other country, only works when you're (1) right and (2) the most powerful country. These may not always hold true, and it's when bad things happen that you need friends you can trust (and that can trust you).
- fastball 13y ago
  Firstly, I'm not from the US. Nextly, yes. Yes, I would be ok with the Chinese government spying on me, if they were able to. In the case of the NSA, the NSA coerced/worked with many private US companies and took the data from them (rather than somehow collecting the data themselves). Such coercion of American companies is what I believe should be curtailed. The thing is, China has no such reach in my life. I don't use any Chinese websites to store my data. I don't use any Chinese social networks to keep up with my friends. I don't use a Chinese email service.