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

61–70 of 95 posts

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

#61

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

rmc wrote: post #23
tomp wrote: post #11

> Earlier this year the Brazilian government used the courts to block WhatsApp for 72 hours as it seems they did not like being unable to peer into the private communications of their citizens. This happened again just a couple of weeks ago and it seems what the government cannot control should be blocked or even banned. It's very hypocritical when an American criticises foreign "corrupt, oppressive" governments for…

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!

Duh? That's trivially true. Similarly, as a non-EU citizen outside the EU, the freedom to travel within the EU does not apply to me. Or, as a non-Canadian outside Canada, I cannot receive medical coverage from their national health care plan.

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

#62

Post by aianus »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #61
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!

Duh? That's trivially true. Similarly, as a non-EU citizen outside the EU, the freedom to travel within the EU does not apply to me. Or, as a non-Canadian outside Canada, I cannot receive medical coverage from their national health care plan.

There is no national health care plan in Canada. Each province has its own independent healthcare system.

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

#63

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

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…

The US has an obligation to spy to the maximum extent possible on foreign citizens and entities. Just as every foreign government has the same obligation to spy on the US.

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

#64

Post by MereInterest »

furyg3 wrote: post #48
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.

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 go…

Completely agreed, especially with the US Constitution's philosophy of restricting the government, rather than providing rights for citizens. A government can only guarantee rights for citizens that are under its jurisdiction, but it can always forbid itself to take actions.

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

#65

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

maglavaitss wrote: post #8
pjmlp wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been raised in a country enjoying the first winds of freedom after a dictatorship of 44 years, I wonder how serious this kind of blog posts are. Sometimes they look just doing activism from the couch.

Anything that raises a flag and makes people think and consider alternatives to FB, Google, printed money, etc, is good activism. Whether it's from the couch or the armchair, is irrelevant.

Printed money as opposed to what? Printed money is far better from a privacy standpoint than electronic money.

And no, bitcoin or similar is not going to be a realistic replacement.

Neither is money backed by gold or the element or compound of your choice.

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

#66

Post by zaroth »

furyg3 wrote: post #48
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.

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 go…

I think you're missing a key tenant of the purpose of government. Of the people, for the people, doesn't mean all humanity, but rather the people who are being governed and both pay into and benefit from the system. Government being a collective outsourcing of the force required to achieve some common good, again, for the people doing the outsourcing.

That's not to say there couldn't be ratified treaties between countries which give up some measure of sovereignty in order to set some better ground rules. We ratify all sorts of treaties like that, Obama ratified (by executive order, which I didn't know was possible) the Paris accord just last week. But I don't know of any treaties the US has signed to limit non-domestic wiretapping.

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

#67

Post by MereInterest »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #63
dunkelheit wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The US has an obligation to spy to the maximum extent possible on foreign citizens and entities. Just as every foreign government has the same obligation to spy on the US.

Do we? I would say that the obligation of the US government is to follow the goals set in the Constitution as much as possible, until such time as the Constitution is amended or replaced. As much as spying does "provide for the common defence", it is defensible. When the spying alienates allies, it is too much. When the spying forces foreign-held companies to pull out, can it really be said to "promote the general Welfare"?

Why would there be such an obligation for unlimited spying?

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

#68

Post by justthisonetime »

furyg3 wrote: post #48
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.

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 go…

And I call BS when I see it. A nation state is morally responsible to it's citizens to uphold the law and order and protect it's citizens [from threats internal and external]. This is funded by the tax money collected by the state from it's subjects. Nation state may, willingly provide protections and other services reserved for it's citizens to others. But concept that it must or should is flawed at heart. World today remains a hostile place and the game for supremacy remains as strong as ever.

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

#69

Post by GunboatDiplomat »

aianus wrote: post #62
GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Duh? That's trivially true. Similarly, as a non-EU citizen outside the EU, the freedom to travel within the EU does not apply to me. Or, as a non-Canadian outside Canada, I cannot receive medical coverage from their national health care plan.

There is no national health care plan in Canada. Each province has its own independent healthcare system.

Whatever, the same principle applies.

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

#70

Post by naasking »

GunboatDiplomat wrote: post #61
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!

Duh? That's trivially true. Similarly, as a non-EU citizen outside the EU, the freedom to travel within the EU does not apply to me. Or, as a non-Canadian outside Canada, I cannot receive medical coverage from their national health care plan.

> Duh? That's trivially true. Similarly, as a non-EU citizen outside the EU, the freedom to travel within the EU does not apply to me.

1. That's not a valid analogy. The EU has no control over how people travel in other countries and any restrictions they may face. The US government does have control about how it treats people outside US borders. They're not remotely analogous.

2. The US constitution could easily be interpreted as a way that the US government should treat human beings, which means the 4th amendment describes how they should approach search and seizure of any person's property, wherever the US government has influence. Given the internet, influence now extends to computers across borders.

Post reply on HN