251–260 of 291 posts
IMO it should be a much bigger deal for totally commodity services (IMAP/SMTP, file storage, etc.) vs. "unique" services (it's not like you could run your own Facebook server in Iceland...)
There are local social networks, to give an example from Russia: vk.com, odnoklassniki.ru, etc. And these are more popular than Facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And my point is that what they can get without a court order is more than they can get with one.
But the return on investment is likely to be far less. If it is harder, more resources have to be spent, then they will be more selective if just because it would be prohibitive to bug every system across the world, at least at present.
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…
If the government is willing to spy directly on the people it should be serving, then it starts to feel like it's out of control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are local social networks, to give an example from Russia: vk.com, odnoklassniki.ru, etc. And these are more popular than Facebook.
Social networks aren't commodities, especially once your set of friends are on them.
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…
When the US spies on US citizens, who do we have to turn to?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does anyone know how these companies, et al., actually differentiate US Citizens from Non-US Citizens? I don't remember clicking the "I'm a US Citizen box" on any website.
> Does anyone know how these companies, et al., actually differentiate US Citizens from Non-US Citizens? I don't remember clicking the "I'm a US Citizen box" on any website. I think you were just trolling but if not then one of hundreds possible ways to find that: 1. get a hold of your your email (or name and then facebook / gmail snoop) 2. your email leads to your paypal account 3. your paypal account leads to your…
Google knows a lot about someone, but they have no idea what citizenship I hold. They can guess, of course, but that isn't a lawful way to discriminate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Foreigners don't want equal rights. Just equal protections from the government.
protection (from harm) is a right granted by the 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…
I think a better way to look at it is that rights are cultural, but that if we are serious about living in a decent and respectful world we should in our actions extend to others the rights we want to have ourselves. Does free speech extend to advocating going out and killing all African Americans at a white supremacist rally? In the US it does, but only because of our bad experiences during the Red Scares. In Canada…
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…
While true, there is this bit in the Declaration of Independence about inalienable human rights. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be a legal document anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Every country has different rights for citizens and non-citizens. The rights are inherent in the nature of the situation (i.e., humans living in a social order based on equality of individuals under the law). The scope of the protection of those rights varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (and vanishes entirely where jurisprudence is slave to political demagoguery). The fourth Amendment isn't the source of the…
Your assertion is essentially that all of these rights are natural rights. This is, as I said, an interesting claim. I'll point out the irony that the freedoms everyone considers so important didn't even make it in the original document, only the addendum :)
They may be deemed "natural rights" by the nature of mankind living in what I will term "just" societies (where jurisprudence and justice coincide), but they are not "natural" in their springing forth from the natural sciences of physics, chemistry and biology.
There were a number of people involved in the Constitution of the US of A who did not want to enumerate the rights, knowing that they were not the government's to give and receive. The pragmatic reality of the day was a yield to legal codification, since most knew that a government not explicitly bound, was bound to implicitly violate those rights. The escape clauses were (probably, I'll let others debate that) the 9th and 10th amendments.