4 ms·

> In a general sense, people in other countries are not subject to American law The rights are really limitations on the American government, so it's not "subj

> In a general sense, people in other countries are not subject to American law The rights are really limitations on the American government, so it's not "subjecting" anyone to anything, and there's no reason limitations on the US government couldn't apply to how it treats people all over the globe. It's no imposition on the sovereignty of Iceland for the US not allow itself to hack into servers there. Moreover, in practice, it's way more complicated than you're implying. The Supreme Court has been clear that the geographical location of a US citizen actually doesn't matter at all: > When the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which the Bill of Rights and other parts of the Constitution provide to protect his life and liberty should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land. [1] So it's not just "people in other countries", and presumably the same thing applies to his property being in that other country. And it's not just citizenship that matters: foreigners on US soil are protected by much of the Constitution, even undocumented immigrants [2]. So apparently neither location nor citizenship strip you of your rights. However--and this is the weird part--for some reason the combination matters: foreigners on foreign soil are not afforded the protections of the Constitution. See e.g. [3]. [1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/354/1 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/354/1 [2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrig... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquidez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Verdugo-Urquid...

hawkice 12y ago
I think you'll find we completely agree -- the simplification seemed appropriate because it really is a question of how US law applies to objects located and plausibly operated by people who aren't Americans. An important point you made, though: > The rights are really limitations on the American government [...] It's no imposition on the sovereignty of Iceland for the US not allow itself to hack into servers there. This is pointing in the key direction I was trying to go. I feel we _should_ hold ourselves to a higher standard, and I suspect there is no substantial barrier legally. But judges are rarely in the business of "should", otherwise we wouldn't have rule of law. Hence my comment about him seeming to just do his job in this case. Anyhow, you got my upvote. :)

hawkice 12y ago

I think you'll find we completely agree -- the simplification seemed appropriate because it really is a question of how US law applies to objects located and plausibly operated by people who aren't Americans. An important point you made, though: > The rights are really limitations on the American government [...] It's no imposition on the sovereignty of Iceland for the US not allow itself to hack into servers there. This is pointing in the key direction I was trying to go. I feel we _should_ hold ourselves to a higher standard, and I suspect there is no substantial barrier legally. But judges are rarely in the business of "should", otherwise we wouldn't have rule of law. Hence my comment about him seeming to just do his job in this case. Anyhow, you got my upvote. :)