NSA reform panel: Foreigners actually have privacy rights, too

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/spying-reform-panel-the-world-is-not-the-nsas-playground/

by wrongc0ntinent • 13 years ago

111 60 13 years ago

aet• 13 years ago

Also, peace on earth, pls.

girvo• 13 years ago

I'm a foreigner. And I'll be honest: I expect and assume the NSA (and any other country) will be spying on my traffic if they have access to it. If we assume (even though I disagree) that an NSA with capabilities like this is needed, then targeting me as a foreigner is... Well, sort of the point.

Where the issue arises is that so much traffic goes through the US, a choice to use non US companies etc to avoid this becomes moot... So whenever I think about this, I end up back at square one and see the need for end to end encryption on everything. :(

Edit: I'm in a Five Eyes country too, just FYI. Also, anyone ever get the feeling that the entire point of the internet is kind of... Incongruent with national borders and laws that live within them? I'm not arguing for anarchy or a new global order, truly I don't see a good way of reconciling the feeling of "square peg round hole" I get when I think about this stuff.

win_ini• 13 years ago

My gmail signature says "Privacy Notice: the NSA likely has a copy of this email". My own little bit of civil disobedience.

Some people ask about it - and I explain that as Canadian living in the US - all my emails seem to fall under the umbrella of "ok to collect".

I'm hoping this makes people think "hmmm, is there anything in this email I don't want to send?" And realize the true impact of surveillance state - changing what we think and communicate to others.

rayiner7• 13 years ago

I'll echo Eric Posner's article on this issue: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_ch....

There's a big difference between not spying on foreigners because the government is legally constrained from doing so, and not spying on foreigners because it's bad foreign policy. The former idea is ridiculous: we do not live under world government where sovereign nations are subject to international legal restrictions. The latter idea is eminently sensible.

JulianMorrison• 13 years ago

we do not live under world government where sovereign nations are subject to international legal restrictions

We ought to. The notion that nation-states are allowed to run rampage and be as anarchic as they please, internationally, is stupid.

rayiner7• 13 years ago

The problem with world government, and international frameworks in general, is that people who don't think like you can nonetheless legally bind you. At least to the extent that you mix international frameworks with democracy.

My family emigrated to the U.S. from Bangladesh. It's a place where you see women covered up in the name of Islam, etc, and its getting worse over the last 20 years, not better. I have absolutely zero desire to be part of a democratic community with people who believe these things, and I bet if you're honest with yourself neither do you. But that's what happens when you mix international legal norms with democracy. You oblige yourself to follow the votes of people who have totally different cultural values to yourself.

And this isn't a one-way street either. I imagine most Europeans would prefer not to be part of a democratic community that included Americans and their notably more conservative approach to many issues.

JonSkeptic• 13 years ago

The notion that nation-states are allowed to run rampage and be as anarchic as they please, internationally, is stupid.

A world government sounds nice in theory (let's call it 'The Federation'), but I don't think you could even joke about one without peeving off more than half of the global populace. We simply aren't at a place in human history where international law can actually be binding or where nations can put aside their differences and work together (also known as a Power-of-Friendship-ocracy).

So, yeah, a total lack of enforceable international law/government is a stupid idea; I'm just not sure anyone has a better idea yet.

saraid216• 13 years ago

It's not that different from the idealized model of a federated US that many would like to see: a mostly powerless federal government with states running rampant and as anarchic as they please.

That said, I fully support the formation of a real planetary government.

Joeri2• 13 years ago

Actually, I think Posner's position is backwards and untenable in a modern globalized context. If we assume that human rights must be respected regardless of nationality, then national borders must be subservient to human rights.

Reading the universal declaration of human rights, these articles jump out at me for specifically this context:

Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Therefore, you cannot exclude people from due process because they are foreigners.

Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

Therefore, you cannot have one kind of due process for your own people, and another kind for foreigners.

Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Therefore, the U.S. system of law is obligated to protect foreigners from undue interference by the NSA, to an equal degree as U.S. citizens are protected.

Now, you can say that the human rights declaration is just a bunch of words without legal weight, and that in a realpolitik context it's simply impossible to give everyone their human rights in the current world even if you wanted to. And you would be right. When you read the UDHR it is depressing how far we have to go. But ... on this point, at this time, we can make genuine progress. So, why not? If what the NSA is doing is wrong when applied to U.S. citizens, it is wrong when applied to foreigners.

In the long run, people like Posner will be viewed as those who held back the tide of progress. The social struggle for equal human rights for all is not done, and it won't be for centuries, but you definitely want to be at the right side of history at each inflection point, and this is one of them.

rayiner7• 13 years ago

Here's the problem with recognizing "human rights" in a "modern globalized context." They're either meaningless verbiage, as the UDHR are, or enforceable norms, which presuppose some "modern globalized" body with the power to enforce norms.

I disagree that in the long run, people will find it so imperative to respect a universal set of "human rights" that they will be willing to give up autonomy to submit to international norms to enforce those rights. Yes, the arc of history trends towards greater recognition of rights. But it also shows that groups of like minded people always struggle for autonomy. Nationalist movements are just as common in history as civil rights movements.

Consider the UDHR itself. Most things in there are things Americans can agree with. But take Article 24 (right to holidays with pay), Article 25 (right to healthcare and housing), Article 26 (right to education), Article 27(2) (right to copyright protection). A lot of people, all over the world, would find calling one or more of these things "human rights" utterly ridiculous. You think they'd be in favor of giving up the autonomy of their countries to decide for themselves what social norms to adhere to, so as to elevate to an exalted status a set of norms determined mostly by other people?

PavlovsCat5• 13 years ago

we do not live under world government where sovereign nations are subject to international legal restrictions

There is no need for "world government". For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...

You know, if human rights didn't transcend nations they probably wouldn't be called that way.

And don't US constitution and laws also have things in them that apply to all people, period? Honest question, I don't know in detail; but I do know "you" signed the above -- sure it's not enforcable, but that doesn't give you the moral high ground, too.

rayiner7• 13 years ago

Peanuts are neither peas nor nuts, but rather legumes, and despite the use of the word "right" in the UDHR, the document does not actually create any legal restrictions. Also, it has no signatories. It was passed by voice vote, with "yea" votes including the U.S. and other wonderful rights-loving countries like China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Liberia, etc.

bmelton5• 13 years ago

The problem lies where the UDHR doesn't hold to local values. In the US, for example, we have codified the second amendment in our Constitution. Most other nations don't share this belief. In Iran, the stoning of adulterers could be seen as religious expression, though the most of the world doesn't share that view. In short, the UDHR, at least as it exists currently, doesn't allow for heterogeneity. In some cases, that may be clearly right, and in other cases, it may be clearly wrong -- but only from a particular point of view, and only by imposing value judgements... and with value judgements, more often than not, there is no clear, demonstrable answer.

And don't US constitution and laws also have things in them that apply to all people, period?

I think what you're referring to is the content of the fourteenth amendment. Ironically enough, not a part of the original Constitution or Bill of Rights, but it is there, though it only applies to US citizenry.

    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the 
    privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor 
    shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, 
    without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its 
    jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

sentenza• 13 years ago

Some of the other commenters seem to underestimate the extreme shift, caused by the NSA scandal, in how the US is perceived in some parts of Europe (and I guess Brasil).

NSA surveillance (and hacking!) is pevasive of all that is digital. They even directly attack private individuals in Europe, considering them as worthless pawns. (Don't believe me? Google "Belgacom Hack")

To those of us living in countries that had to struggle to rid themselves of the surveillance state, this _feels_ like enemy action.

So why should people over here perceive a country that has declared them fair game to its large security apparatus be anything other than an enemy?

Do not underestimate the consequences of the NSA actions. The mistrust that is growing right now could undo important parts of the digital globalization.

arethuza• 13 years ago

I was talking to someone who works for a company that does cloud hosting of very high end business applications (i.e. specialized finance systems) and he said they were seeing a lot of European companies starting to look at moving their hosting from the US to the EU - largely due to the recent NSA revelations.

I must admit that this rather surprised me - but I have no reason to doubt him.

bobzibub• 13 years ago

There are other costs outside of the US also: Given that the NSA is so aggressive (all pipes being suspect now) the changes politically demanded will:

-lessen convenience of all software and increasing the costs for users to interact with it in terms of time and complexity.

-building and deploying security solutions can be expensive especially to those products that do not lend themselves to security--more engineering increases costs.

-increase in cpu cycles as we all increase key sizes and introduce encryption where once there was none, or limited for authentication only.

Id bet this will be a small drag on the world economy and certainly a drag on the world software industry. It could be thought of as a world wide tax.

grecy• 13 years ago

I must admit that this rather surprised me

Why does it surprise you? It's come to light the American government is sifting through everything it can get it's hands on. Any rational person would take steps to try and prevent their important data being looked at.

malandrew3• 13 years ago

Finance is all about informational asymmetries. If I traded on informational asymmetries, I'd consider the US government surveillance apparatus to be a huge threat. At the end of the day, the analysts at Fort Meade are probably the least worrisome of the people with access to all this data. The biggest threat are all the consultancies involved in the US intelligence industry. Companies like Booz Allen simply have too many ties to the financial industry and the security industry, and anyone who has worked in finance knows that Chinese walls and other mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest are simply security theater.

bananacurve• 13 years ago

The feigned outrage of EU leaders who have data sharing agreements with the NSA is not credible. Europe has outsourced most of their defense and intelligence for good reason, why do everything twice when the West is cooperating with each other. I'll believe there is a problem when Germany even begins to consider closing a couple US military bases.

anoncowherd• 13 years ago

Don't worry about the "inequality", they've always been spying on US citizens too, and still are!

In fact, US citizens are their priority, because they're the ones the US government needs to control and keep in check to maintain their power.

e28eta• 13 years ago

I've been looking/waiting for an article like this ever since news of the NSA spying was released (but haven't been looking particularly hard). All of what I've seen previously discussed whether the spying has been legal/appropriate to do to US Citizens, while I've always felt it has been a bad idea regardless of citizenship.

I haven't really thought it through, but I sometimes wish that the international blowback does happen, and happens in a big way. I think the US government has betrayed the world's trust, and I would like to see repercussions. As a software engineer working in Silicon Valley for a company that sells software internationally, it would not be good for my industry. However, my country's morality compass seems to be broken, and I'd appreciate if the rest of the world helped us to get back on track.

tbastos• 13 years ago

As a foreigner, I appreciate your sensibility. I'm constantly under the impression that most americans would be fine with the NSA surveillance programs if they didn't target americans. That viewpoint is exactly what earned America so many enemies along the years. America doesn't need better intel or military, it needs better international policies. What good is it to be the richest country on Earth if you have a sick/stressed society that is constantly under threat, and with increasingly fewer civil liberties?

Today, I don't think I would want to live in the US... and if you'd asked me 15 years ago I would have jumped at the opportunity.

malandrew3• 13 years ago

Exactly. I myself have this secret fantasy that one day we'll realize that we'd buy 10x the security, by taking the 33 cents of every tax dollar we spend on defense and using it to help all the countries in the world that we want to like us. We can build a lot more goodwill by building nations than destroying them. If we're seen as the people that show up at your countries doorstep and improve your human condition until it's on par with most developed countries, then that would earn us a lot more security because we'd have popular global support.

Which is going to be more impactful?

1) Don't mess with us or we will mess with you? or 2) If you mess with us, we'll show up and improve life for your own population, where they will clearly support kicking you out to let us in to help out.

The former is the conclusion you come to if you view all the best possible outcome as the result of Pareto optimalities or the result of a Nash equilibrium.

It's like "how to make friends and influence people" for nation states.

RankingMember• 13 years ago

It's been my opinion that we need to put our policies where our mouth so often is here (we're still calling ourselves a beacon of personal liberty and freedom, right?) and stop acting like the rest of the world is made up of nothing but potential enemy combatants. The tone of our relationship with the rest of the world is significantly marred when we don't show basic respect even for our allies (not that I think our enemies should necessarily be fair game for these kinds of tactics either - not going to "win hearts and minds" that way).

cinquemb• 13 years ago

Privacy, in general, to me, seems to only go as far as an individuals/groups ability/will to assert it "technically".

In physical space, as you may have seen in the ACLU parody video of the NSA, people threw/swatted at the cameras and "santas" that were snooping (a "technical" solution, not an "theory" one [they did not try to reason with the santas to stop doing what they were doing before they resorted to the "technical" solution, from what we were led to believe]).

Most people are not doing that in the realm of the internet, so to me the video was interesting because at the end, it's a call to action in basis of a "theory" that made no mention to the "technical" that could be at ones disposal.

How can one use only reason with someone/organization/government who asserts their power over another through technicalities ignored by those who lack the ability/will to assert their privacy through the technicalities available and discussed many times over on places like HN from information accessible online?

danbruc2• 13 years ago

It is really scary that some people need a 300 page report to realize that foreigners have privacy rights, too.

orblivion• 13 years ago

It's kindof funny, the presumption is that there's exactly one government in the world who is not allowed to spy on any given person, every other government is fair game.

NSA reform panel: Foreigners actually have privacy rights, too

Related Stories