Live data from Hacker News

Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

medium.com

41–50 of 222 posts

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#41
I went to this expecting to find a slightly puzzled reaction along the lines of, "even given the leaked surveillance, we all know that our own governments are doing similar stuff to us all the time and that we are protected neither by law nor by convention against it".

I know that's a bit of an overstatement but it's particularly amusing to see Snowden sheltered by two of the world's most enthusiastic users of surveillance, namely Russia and China.

FWIW I'm in the UK, where we're a lot luckier than most in terms of accountability, oversight and convention, but don't have an explicit constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. That said, it often bemuses people in Europe to look at the US and see almost no protection for what we understand as a basic right of "privacy".

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#42
post #7
post #4

Funny how citizenship seems to be a thing of the past to many people. Another weird side effect of globalization...

Many people now feel patriotic to ideals than imaginary lines drawn thousands of years ago. It's an interesting shift, and in some ways was started by the US having a constitution (set of ideals) as it's foundation rather than a particular leader, king, or ruler.

This concept has been formalized in Munich: http://www.transnationalrepublic.org/

You can have multiple transnational republics, based on ideas. :)

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#43
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a candid question then: what did drive the mess of wars in Europe before that? Germany, Switzerland and Italy were a mess of little independent territories fighting each other. I don't think all of those wars where based on religious grounds.

I am afraid anon1385's text puts the 200-300 year old rise of nationalism in a wrong light. Before that nationalism, people were not global citizens, quite opposite: their circle of life was even smaller (in a geographic sense). Cities, city-states and small kingdoms. England alone was a patchwork of small quarreling kingdoms ( http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/pics/heptarchy.gif ). So the rise of nationalism widene…

There's a gap of a millennium between the 18th century and the link you posted. I was taught William the Conqueror of Normandy came and, well, conquered around 1066 and mark the turning point in England's society by the introduction of the Feudal System. If you we're a mere peasant you tended to stay in your village and work the land for the knights/barons. They might not be interested in nationalism at that point.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#44
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a candid question then: what did drive the mess of wars in Europe before that? Germany, Switzerland and Italy were a mess of little independent territories fighting each other. I don't think all of those wars where based on religious grounds.

I am afraid anon1385's text puts the 200-300 year old rise of nationalism in a wrong light. Before that nationalism, people were not global citizens, quite opposite: their circle of life was even smaller (in a geographic sense). Cities, city-states and small kingdoms. England alone was a patchwork of small quarreling kingdoms ( http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/pics/heptarchy.gif ). So the rise of nationalism widene…

You're skipping about 1000 years of history there to make your point. By the time of the rise of nationalism, many parts of Europe had shifted back and forth in control between larger empires for hundreds of years, and it mostly was not a continent of tiny little city states and small kingdoms any longer. The era of the city states started fading quickly after the renaissance, and were in the first place mostly limited to small parts of Europe - most of Europe had seen ongoing consolidation of smaller kingdoms for a millennia or two by the time nationalism became a factor.

See this map from 1713, for example: http://victoriavane.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/western_euro...

Even of the smaller states, many were parts of larger empires for most of their existence, though the control might shift back and forth between empires.

E.g. Germany did not exist as a united country, sure, but the Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the Roman Empire) encompassed most of the smaller countries on the territories of present day Germany and at various times part of Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, France, Switzerland, Poland, Croatia, Slovenia, Czech Republic. Even within the Holy Roman Empire, many of the constituent states were at various times larger than their succeeding present day European states (though there were also many smaller states).

Nationalism in many instances erected substantial new borders in Europe in places where borders meant little to ordinary people before.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#45
The Declaration of Independence states that "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." Gendered language aside, the idea of the founders was clearly that rights derive from one's innate humanity, and do not derive from government largess. This was the ideal which provided America's inner light; for all of America's mis-steps, the proclamation of this core ideal fanned the flames of some sort of tendency towards goodness.

This ideal is all but gone. Today, the American government baldly proclaims that rights do not belong to human beings, but are conferred only by citizenship. the starkest example of this remains John Yoo's rationale (embraced by the Bush administration) for why the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Taliban: that the rights guaranteed by the Convention were not human rights, but rights granted to combatants of UN member states. Yoo argued that human rights did not exist, and that rights derive solely from citizenship.

To be fair, the roots of that doctrine long preceded the Bush administration, and have continue to grow since. But when I look at framing of debate about rights -- and this applies not only to the NSA spying, but also to the outrage over the fact that the US President would order the drone assassination of, gasp, American citizens (as opposed to the thousands of other non-combatants he has killed in the same way) -- when I see this, it becomes clear that the ideals which inspired the declaration of independence are long since gone.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#46
post #23
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You, as a non-US citizen, are not protected by our constitution. Nor am I, a US citizen, protected from your government. I have no grounds to "raise outrage" at my government for spying on foreigners, much as I might disapprove. They don't break any laws when they do that. Moral rules, yes; disrespect to our friends and allies, yes; laws, no. When they spy on US citizens, they tear up our Constitution in doing so. Th…

You are factually wrong. You, as a US citizen, are most certainly protected from my government by the German constitution. Not when it comes to all basic rights in the constitution (only Germans have freedom of movement, freedom of labor and freedom of association), but most are universal and apply to every person. The US constitution is out of date and simply wrong on this point. Human rights are universal and every…

Make clear what you mean by 'nationalism' before you use perjorative words like pest - as if your assertion is axiomatic.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#47
post #10
post #5

That's one thing that has annoyed me about the tech world's outrage and objections to the PRISM spying lark. They appear outraged that US citizens are spied on, with the implication that it was ok when non us citizens were spied on. Do I, a non us citizen, not have a right to privacy?

You, as a non-US citizen, are not protected by our constitution. Nor am I, a US citizen, protected from your government. I have no grounds to "raise outrage" at my government for spying on foreigners, much as I might disapprove. They don't break any laws when they do that. Moral rules, yes; disrespect to our friends and allies, yes; laws, no. When they spy on US citizens, they tear up our Constitution in doing so. Th…

> You, as a non-US citizen, are not protected by our constitution.

This is a myth, recently revived by Republicans to justify "enhanced interrogation techniques" (ie, abominable torture methods that used to qualify as 'war crimes').

The most important articles of the Bill of Rights don't refer to "citizen" but to "people" in general. Here's the full text of the 4th Amendment, most relevant in this case

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#48
post #10
post #5

That's one thing that has annoyed me about the tech world's outrage and objections to the PRISM spying lark. They appear outraged that US citizens are spied on, with the implication that it was ok when non us citizens were spied on. Do I, a non us citizen, not have a right to privacy?

You, as a non-US citizen, are not protected by our constitution. Nor am I, a US citizen, protected from your government. I have no grounds to "raise outrage" at my government for spying on foreigners, much as I might disapprove. They don't break any laws when they do that. Moral rules, yes; disrespect to our friends and allies, yes; laws, no. When they spy on US citizens, they tear up our Constitution in doing so. Th…

Actually, the 4th Amendment doesn't just apply to US persons - it's a blanket requirement. The restriction of the various agencies' activities to non-US persons is not because (directly, anyway) of any constitutional issue but rather to do with the division of labour between the various agencies - the NSA (et al) is meant to be doing foreign-focused stuff and the FBI to focus on domestic spying.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#49
post #39

I was going to write a comment to this effect on one of the many threads related to this subject, but figured it would fall on deaf ears. Americans should not underestimate the damage this scandal has done to the American 'brand'. Growing up, I was the Americophile of my friends. I loved American culture, I aspired to live the American dream, I fully intended to pursue American citizenship later in life. This is only…

Without wanting to sound alarmist, but I feel exactly the same way.

I've abandoned my intentions of living in the US, or even just visiting there solely because of this scandal. Not because of some deeply hurt morale or feeling, but because i simply wouldn't feel safe in the US anymore.

I've been on the web for a very long time now, have read all kinds of chemistry, pyrotechnics and bomb-making newsgroups and websites and contributed to them.

I've visited a school with over 50% muslim students and lots of my friends are muslim.

I consider myself close to a maker, loving 3D Printers and Arduinos, Quad-Copters and the like...

I post my political views openly on Google+ and Facebook and discus it via Twitter and Mail...

I'm afraid to the extent i'm targeted and what would happen if I tried to visit the US.

Re: Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us

#50
This outrage at American reactions is terribly hypocritical. Yes, people -- regardless of nationality -- should be upset when they realize their privacy is being grossly violated without cause, by any government.

However, people seem to think Americans should be more concerned about other people's rights than their own, when the real problem is the violation of everyone's rights. Despite this, all anyone is really interested is their own rights, which is quite obvious considering the central complaint here is that Americans are wrapped up in themselves while the rest of the world has the same issue. How is that rational? Your rights are being violated, and that's supposed to matter to me more than the fact that my rights are being violated by my government in the same way? Yes, it's selfish, but it's also self-preservation. If people don't stand up for themselves when they need to, they will not be around to stand up for anyone else later.

Many of us wring our hands at the various European financial crises; many of us worry about North Korea's potential to harm its neighbors; many of us anxiously watch for improvement in Middle Eastern politics. But just like anyone else, when we find out things where we live are worse than we thought, we look inwards to our own problems; that they effect others is terrible, but it's irrational and unreasonable to expect that to be our primary motivation.

Post reply on HN