4 ms·

You should care, because without any protection for our own citizens, there is no possibility of protection for non-citizens. That being said, if you best want

by drone 13y ago

You should care, because without any protection for our own citizens, there is no possibility of protection for non-citizens. That being said, if you best wanted to ensure that no US agency ever spies on you, a good start would be for your government to prove it never spies on US citizens. That runs both ways: you want to trust us, we want to trust you. So, it takes both: a strong localized protection, and a verifiable remote protection. We're working on our side of the first part, if you already have the first part on your side, the next best thing to do is start working on the second.

aragot 13y ago
Haha, the last American who uses a French service shuts off the lights, please ;) Wait, no, we're already in the dark. You're right in saying it should be symmetrical. It goes this way: - US person is protected from US abuses by US laws, - French person is protected by French laws, - We have Safe Harbour so French's people data goes freely to the US, - French people aren't protected by US laws, - And symmetrical. The cross-country problem is a big one, prompting for the creation of international organizations for the protection of international citizens.
pyre 13y ago
What about the Five Eyes countries? This is less of an adversarial "you are spying on us, so we should be able to spy on you," and more of a "the NSA has invited our country to spy on US citizens so that they can get data from us." At the very least, some of that responsibility comes from the NSA.
- drone 13y ago
  I'm not speaking to specific actions, or existing agreements, I'm speaking to reciprocity. The most effective way to get from others is to give the same. Edit: actually, 5 eyes is a perfect example of a negative (in this context) reciprocal agreement. We should work to create the opposite sort of reciprocal agreement.
  - pyre 13y ago
    But You-Don't-Spy-On-Me-I-Don't-Spy-On-You agreements aren't really worth much. If you're doing spying it's not out in the open, and how many countries would be willing to (e.g.) embargo trade with the US if spying every came to light? This goes the same way with China too. The US has called out China on espionage, yet where are the repercussions for China? Did the US terminate trade with China?

by drone 13y ago

aragot 13y ago

Haha, the last American who uses a French service shuts off the lights, please ;) Wait, no, we're already in the dark. You're right in saying it should be symmetrical. It goes this way: - US person is protected from US abuses by US laws, - French person is protected by French laws, - We have Safe Harbour so French's people data goes freely to the US, - French people aren't protected by US laws, - And symmetrical. The cross-country problem is a big one, prompting for the creation of international organizations for the protection of international citizens.

pyre 13y ago

What about the Five Eyes countries? This is less of an adversarial "you are spying on us, so we should be able to spy on you," and more of a "the NSA has invited our country to spy on US citizens so that they can get data from us." At the very least, some of that responsibility comes from the NSA.

drone 13y ago
I'm not speaking to specific actions, or existing agreements, I'm speaking to reciprocity. The most effective way to get from others is to give the same. Edit: actually, 5 eyes is a perfect example of a negative (in this context) reciprocal agreement. We should work to create the opposite sort of reciprocal agreement.
- pyre 13y ago
  But You-Don't-Spy-On-Me-I-Don't-Spy-On-You agreements aren't really worth much. If you're doing spying it's not out in the open, and how many countries would be willing to (e.g.) embargo trade with the US if spying every came to light? This goes the same way with China too. The US has called out China on espionage, yet where are the repercussions for China? Did the US terminate trade with China?