3 ms·
If all they do is foreign activity like that, then no, probably. But that's not what Schneier wrote. He specifically calls out indiscriminate bulk surveillance
by twoodfin 13y ago
If all they do is foreign activity like that, then no, probably.
But that's not what Schneier wrote. He specifically calls out indiscriminate bulk surveillance of foreign citizens as "overreach", even without making a distinction between U.S. allies and adversaries.
Again, I'm not interested in having yet another discussion about exactly which data the NSA is or isn't allowed to collect accidentally or deliberately on U.S. citizens. If you think there have been a paucity of discussion threads about that, feel free to start another one.
- gr3yh47 13y agoit's not only overreach, it's obvious human rights abuse people have a right to not be indiscriminately surveilled by every country that they don't live in.
- rayiner 13y ago> people have a right to not be indiscriminately surveilled by every country that they don't live in. [citation needed]
- a3n 13y agoThat's a good point. I would say that society is, or at least can be, what we make of it. In this area we've most of us given the decisions for surveillance and other hostile activity to politicians and bureaucrats. It doesn't necessarily have to be that way.
- jafaku 13y agoNobody gave the power to the politicians, except previous politicians.
- jellicle 13y ago> Article 12. > No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- rayiner 13y ago> Article 22. > Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. What does this even mean? > Article 25. > (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Sounds pretty cushy. > Article 27. > (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author. You're literally violating peoples' human rights when you torrent that music! > Article 29. > (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. What does this even mean? The UDHR is a supremely silly document. It takes a grab bag of things that are desirable within a particular society, and elevates them to the status of human rights.
- dllthomas 13y agoWhat would you list as human rights, then, in a global sense?
- tptacek 13y agoThat's a bullshit response. Buried in the middle of his comment is a glaring contradiction in HN's supposed support of the UDHR: the document hints at freedom from surveillance (one might stipulate), but directly demands support for moral and material rights for authors and artists. Virtually nobody on HN agrees with Article 27. So, rather than moving the goalposts: 'rayiner was rebutting the proposition that the UDHR demonstrates a right for people around the world to be free from any surveillance. Do you disagree with him? If so, how do you square it with this site's overwhelming support for piracy?
- jafaku 13y agoCouldn't you make the same trollish comment about any human right? Say we are talking about your right to not be tortured. Would you be able to provide a "citation" in your defense? What would be an acceptable source in your opinion?
- harryh 13y agoMy right to not be tortured is defined in the 8th Amendment.
- dllthomas 13y agoAnd the fact that we have other rights that may not be clearly defined anywhere is explicitly spelled out in the 9th.
- jafaku 13y agoYou seem to have skipped the most important part in your constitution: Human rights don't come from a piece of paper, they are not given to you by a government. They are innate. If you really are an American, you will stop with the whole "Americans have rights, foreigners don't" argument.
- harryh 13y agoThe US Constitution says nothing about innate rights.
- jafaku 13y agoOk it's in the declaration of independence, but congrats for being a smartass: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
- harryh 13y agoThe Declaration of Independence isn't a governing document.
- bediger4000 13y agoWow! What a lawyerly thing to write! Without some authority ("Patry on Surveillance", anyone?) our lives are open to anyone with money or an agency to pick over, pick apart and monkey with. Some rights stand on their own. In another, more civilized age, they were termed "God given".