Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

decentralize.today

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 95 posts

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#41

Post by dunkelheit »

jnbiche wrote: post #26
rmc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember: if you're a non-US citizen outside the US, then the US Constitution protection against search (4th Amendment) doesn't apply to you! We have no 4th Amendment protections!

I'm as opposed to mass surveillance as anyone on HN, but I've been surprised by this kind of reaction. Why are non-citizens surprised at this lack of constitutional protection? Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any.

As a non-US citizen I don't expect much protection from US constitution. Historically, it had peacefully coexisted with many kinds of discrimination. But I'd rather US government didn't record my communications, constitutional or not. It is not a constitutional matter, it is a human rights matter.

Of course, enforcing it is problematic because the USA is the most powerful country in the world and other governments are not keen on protecting their citizens' rights in this regard. On the contrary, they seem acutely envious of US surveillance powers and are trying to get some of them themselves.

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#42

Post by Sylos »

jnbiche wrote: post #35
kuschku wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any. Yes, Germany. Almost all of German constitution applies to any "Person", not even just any human. And the government has the constitutional requirement to help ensure those rights are granted to people globally.

That's impressive. I guess that's the difference between a modern, progressive constitution written over 2 centuries ago versus one written 50 years ago. Semantic point, do you differentiate between a "human" and "person"? This may be a translation issue, but to me there's no practical difference between the two.

To me, "human" is a member of the human race, "person" is any creature with consciousness, feelings, personality. So, if an ape/dolphin/alien/robot/whatever is intelligent enough, they are a person to me.

This is my opinion, though a lot of it was shaped by the German education system, so it's definitely possible that when this question becomes actually relevant in a decade or two that a judge might rule this the official interpretation.

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#43

Post by cderwin »

kuschku wrote: post #31
jnbiche wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm as opposed to mass surveillance as anyone on HN, but I've been surprised by this kind of reaction. Why are non-citizens surprised at this lack of constitutional protection? Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any.

> Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any. Yes, Germany. Almost all of German constitution applies to any "Person", not even just any human. And the government has the constitutional requirement to help ensure those rights are granted to people globally.

FYI most of the U.S. constitution only uses the word "person" as well, but legally persons outside the U.S. who are not citizens have no standing.

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#44

Post by Tomte »

cderwin wrote: post #43
kuschku wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any. Yes, Germany. Almost all of German constitution applies to any "Person", not even just any human. And the government has the constitutional requirement to help ensure those rights are granted to people globally.

FYI most of the U.S. constitution only uses the word "person" as well, but legally persons outside the U.S. who are not citizens have no standing.

In Germany there is a distinction between citizens and non-citizens.

The most important basic rights are enjoyed by everyone.

Only citizens enjoy some basic rights (freedom of assembly, for example).

But there is a "catchall" basic right (Article 2, paragraph I) that can be used by non-citizens to claim those rights, as well.

The difference is that this catchall basic right is weaker when weighing it against conflicting basic rights (practical concordance) and it has imminent limitations (statutes can override it – although that must be useful and proportional).

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#45

Post by martindelemotte »

jnbiche wrote: post #26
rmc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember: if you're a non-US citizen outside the US, then the US Constitution protection against search (4th Amendment) doesn't apply to you! We have no 4th Amendment protections!

I'm as opposed to mass surveillance as anyone on HN, but I've been surprised by this kind of reaction. Why are non-citizens surprised at this lack of constitutional protection? Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any.

The French constitution references the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which covers "all men, French, foreign, prisoners and enemies".

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#46

Post by creshal »

jbpetersen wrote: post #5

Article is actually a lengthy pitch for YAC$ (yet another cryptocurrency) It's another anonymized coin that appears to have fancy chat/marketplace support in the main wallet application as a flagship feature.

I don't understand how blockchain applications can ever be considered "anonymous", when there's a public ledger and everyone knowing your wallet address can track all your transactions.

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#47

Post by jnbiche »

dunkelheit wrote: post #41
jnbiche wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm as opposed to mass surveillance as anyone on HN, but I've been surprised by this kind of reaction. Why are non-citizens surprised at this lack of constitutional protection? Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any.

As a non-US citizen I don't expect much protection from US constitution. Historically, it had peacefully coexisted with many kinds of discrimination. But I'd rather US government didn't record my communications, constitutional or not. It is not a constitutional matter, it is a human rights matter. Of course, enforcing it is problematic because the USA is the most powerful country in the world and other governments ar…

> But I'd rather US government didn't record my communications, constitutional or not. It is not a constitutional matter, it is a human rights matter.

For the record, I agree 100%.

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#48

Post by furyg3 »

jnbiche wrote: post #26
rmc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember: if you're a non-US citizen outside the US, then the US Constitution protection against search (4th Amendment) doesn't apply to you! We have no 4th Amendment protections!

I'm as opposed to mass surveillance as anyone on HN, but I've been surprised by this kind of reaction. Why are non-citizens surprised at this lack of constitutional protection? Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any.

I've said it before, but why WOULDN'T a country provide protections and rights to non-citizens (residents or not) that it outlines in it's constitution? After all, the US founding fathers believed it to be "self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". If it is always wrong for a government to do certain things, then clearly it is wrong for a government to do those things no matter to whom they are done.

Morally it's clear that you should treat others by the standards that you believe to be universal.

A government's ability to guarantee and protect these rights is, of course, limited by its geography. Other people may have different value systems which mean they protect a different set of rights than those defined in the US constitution (although the DoI does declare them to be 'unalienable'). But that's not what people are talking about when they talk about US government spying internationally. The US government violates rights it considers to be universal, and many of the people who's rights are violated are in countries with similarly enshrined values, and also who's countries are not at war with the US.

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#49

Post by jnbiche »

martindelemotte wrote: post #45
jnbiche wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm as opposed to mass surveillance as anyone on HN, but I've been surprised by this kind of reaction. Why are non-citizens surprised at this lack of constitutional protection? Are there actually any countries whose constitutional protections apply to non-citizens and/or non-residents? I think that would be pretty cool and progressive if it were the case, but I'm not aware of any.

The French constitution references the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which covers "all men, French, foreign, prisoners and enemies".

So do the protections afforded by the French constitution apply to "all men, French, foreign, prisoners and enemies"?

Re: Privacy and control need to be put back into the hands of the individual

#50

Post by etatoby »

martinko wrote: post #38
kbart wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since WhatsApp is virtually a blackbox, their word for end-to-end encryption means nothing. Few 'bugs' in implementation and you have a nice backdoor.

True, but it would at least give them plausible deniability that they couldn't hand over plaintext messages, even if they wanted to.

That's probably the entire purpose behind WhatsApp "encryption": to have their cake and eat it too.
Post reply on HN