151–160 of 291 posts
This government wants to keep increasingly more secrets from its populace, while simultaneously decreasing our rights to secrecy.
More of the double standard which widens the gap between "We the People" and the ruling classes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're outside of the US, then yes you are not subject to NSA orders. But your data will still be accessed by the NSA, as the NSA won't require an order to read what you've got.
The point is they cannot get a court to compel you to hand it over. Yes, they can take what they can get.
"Like Google with strong data protection."
"Like Facebook with strong data protection."
Feel free to send me some of your billions later.
I think there's some outrage now but by and large most citizens don't really care as long as there's some justification they can buy (ZOMG gotta protect us against those terrorists). Yes it's a sad state of affairs but that's what it is.
If I'm wrong on that the US has just created a pretty sweet incentive for European/Other entrepreneurs to grab a good chunk of the silicon valley business.
One of the rather interesting side issues in this whole debate has been how casually the rights of foreigners are tossed aside as secondary to those of american citizens. There is intense debate about whether US citizens rights are being violated, but almost nobody questions whether there's any moral or ethical issue with completely unrestrained spying on everybody else. While I understand that this is largely becaus…
Somehow, this time, the story got traction. I agree w/ the general consensus that it's about damn time. The Mil Industrial Complex will keep rolling on w/ "Top Secret-creep" and "Surveilance-creep" until a proper re-evaluation of the Church reforms and the Patriot act and other contributory/relevant legislation for this day and age is conducted, and enforced.
I am hoping the earlier "All wars must end" speech on the part of Obama is hinting at a step in this direction.
Of note, it was probably worse pre-internet, when the NSA could just scoop radio signals out of the air...networked communications made it much harder for them - at least temporarily.
Also with SIGINT, the NSA is joined at the hip by the UK, Canada, AUS and NZ...the NSA technically could avoid spying domestically by sending intel requests to their counterpart agencies...
I think 'destroyed' is a strong word, and it's still early. Damaged? That's probably fair. I wonder if that's a major reason the Google-centric 'The Internship' movie kinda bombed this weekend. I mean, it might just be a crappy movie (didn't see the reviews), but I do suspect a lot of people weren't really into seeing a movie about Google after all this.
The average movie-goer wouldn't make the association unless the story were in the headlines for weeks, maybe months, on end. It just doesn't look like a great movie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in most countries, this is just not the way it works, legally. Every country has different rights for citizens and non-citizens. For example, the US has held the 4th amendment does not apply to non-citizens who are not "part of the national community" (IE if a bunch of canadians came down and fished every weekend, you could search them however without violating the 4th amendment. If they lived here illegally…
> For example, the US has held the 4th amendment does not apply to non-citizens who are not "part of the national community" Could you please provide a reference for this?
From the headnote:
"The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution, and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
One of the rather interesting side issues in this whole debate has been how casually the rights of foreigners are tossed aside as secondary to those of american citizens. There is intense debate about whether US citizens rights are being violated, but almost nobody questions whether there's any moral or ethical issue with completely unrestrained spying on everybody else. While I understand that this is largely becaus…
Absolutely. I remember how in 2001 when the US as the first country ever invoked article 5 of the NATO treaty, within hours all NATO members had followed through with support. And the minute of silence that was held all over Europe for the 9/11 victims. Then we joined them in two wars. We bought their cell phones, their operating systems and productivity suites, their internet adds, hosting and email services and mov…
Despite the actions and statements of our government, most of us Americans feel the same way. (It's just that the shitty entitled xenophobes are just so damn loud sometimes...)
You'll note that in our declaration of independence, it states that the rights to life and liberty are the inalienable birthright of every man, endowed by his creator, before it says fuck-all about anyone's government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't speak for others, but as far as I am concerned, every person on earth has the exact same rights. I see no difference between an American and someone from another country. This informs my stance on all of US foreign policy. To me, spying on an innocent Iraqi or Chinese citizen is just as morally reprehensible as spying on an innocent American citizen. That being said, not all people feel as I do, and you are r…
At least in most countries, this is just not the way it works, legally. Every country has different rights for citizens and non-citizens. For example, the US has held the 4th amendment does not apply to non-citizens who are not "part of the national community" (IE if a bunch of canadians came down and fished every weekend, you could search them however without violating the 4th amendment. If they lived here illegally…
Next question: how are Google etc treating my data when my own government wants to know what I say about them? Do they also bend over backwards to set up portals for different levels of ally, or are foreign citizens safer from their own governments than US citizens are from theirs?