3 ms·
The problem is not so much about the expected behavior of a spy agency, or how the US government justify itself "But it's only on non-citizens". That's kind of
by AYBABTME 13y ago
The problem is not so much about the expected behavior of a spy agency, or how the US government justify itself "But it's only on non-citizens". That's kind of expected, like you explained.
The problem is when the medias, the public and politicians are reassuring and reassured by that "But it's only for non-citizens".
To a foreigner like me, what I see is that US citizens, medias and politicians are just fine with my fundamental rights being violated. That is as long as I'm not a US citizen... a clear statement that to those eyes, the problem is of less magnitude because I'm not as important a being as US citizens are.
Do I have less a right to privacy because I am not a US citizen? Is it more ethical or moral?
I'm not talking of my legal rights on a US soil; because legality has not much to do with morality. Really, in this argument I don't care about the NSA's goal, or all the spy agencies' goals. I care about how the public reacts; nobody cared as long as it was only about violating the privacy of those without US citizenship. Second class humans.
That's incredibly insulting. It makes me angry.
And worst of all, I feel like I can't even express myself on that topic without fearing repercussion. When one day at the airport, I'll cross the custom lanes and some automated filter will have flagged me as a national security threat because I once posted outrage about how they treat non-citizens.
- sseveran 13y agoCorrect. You have no legal right to privacy in the US and enjoy none of the legal protections from our government that citizens enjoy (or should). You can be renditioned, spied on and wiretapped with no legal recourse in the US. Similarly Americans don't enjoy legal protections from the governments of other countries. Now two countries may enter into an agreement not to surveil each other or their citizens. That is completely a different issue. But if you are not a US citizen or don't have a visa than the Constitution affords you no protections.
- frenger 13y ago"Similarly Americans don't enjoy legal protections from the governments of other countries." Yeah right.
- sseveran 13y agoWhat governments are extending me legal protections?
- andrewaylett 13y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction#Universal_jurisdiction_laws_around_the_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction#Univers... In general, these are laws against things like war crimes. The UK (Brit here) also extends some child protection, fraud and bribery laws to cover acts worldwide, the former intended to be used to prosecute sex tourists who are unlikely to be prosecuted where they committed the offences. I'm unsure whether any of these laws have actually specifically protected you, but the reason for their introduction is to afford people in other countries similar protection from UK-based criminals to the protections people enjoy in the UK.
- sseveran 13y agoPersonally I hate whole "war crimes" thing. Since it WW2 it has been applied only to enemies. There was a lot of contention with the Russians over what was a war crime, since Stalin had done many of the same things as Hitler. It was generally agreed that it was only illegal when the Germans did it and Stalin went home happy. It seems that Universal Jurisdiction allows people to prosecute me, but doesn't specifically protect me.
- serf 13y agohow about when the government makes you renounce citizenship and waive your right to sue them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Hamdi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Hamdi
- sseveran 13y agoThey should have just manned up and charged him with treason. That seems like a relatively simple case.
- AYBABTME 13y agoBut my point is specifically not about legality.