
NSA reform panel: Foreigners actually have privacy rights, too - wrongc0ntinent
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/spying-reform-panel-the-world-is-not-the-nsas-playground/
======
sentenza
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
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.

~~~
grecy
> _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.

~~~
res0nat0r
The NSA's job has been to spy on foreigners since the Cold War. I don't
understand how the new revelations are some how a big surprise?

Also moving your cloud hosting to an EU country is probably going to buy you
exactly zero safety. The majority of the internet traffic in the world routes
through the USA regardless or origin / destination.

~~~
PeterisP
I recall times when we in Europe perceived NSA to be working on behalf of us
to protect against our common threats in China/Russia/Mideast/whatever - you
know, being allies, NATO, common military operations, so on.

Seeing them as the most powerful force hostile against us in the digital world
is some shift in mindset, when coming from that history.

~~~
res0nat0r
They aren't spying on you (if in fact you aren't plotting to kill
Americans)...

~~~
visarga
How would they find that out without first spying on you?

~~~
res0nat0r
As general Alexander mentioned in the 60 Minutes interview, they may collect
lots of data but don't examine it or bother to look until they have a warrant
or need. Kind if like what you do with your logging collection service....

~~~
PeterisP
NSA is known to abuse their intel for USA commercial interests (the largest
published example probably is Airbus vs Boeing).

You don't have to fear them unless you're a terrorist. Or you're a member of a
social organization with a somewhat similar name to a religious organization
(Dr. Rahinah Ibrahim case, for example) in which case US authorities will
treat your info as terrorist info. Or your partner criticizes US government
(e.g. David Miranda case), in which case your communications apparently can be
intercepted as well. Or your company competes with US companies. Or something
else that I hadn't noticed...

I mean "may collect lots of data until they have some need to use it" is evil
enough to be perceived as a hostile enemy act.

------
e28eta
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
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.

~~~
malandrew
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.

------
girvo
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
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.

------
rayiner
I'll echo Eric Posner's article on this issue:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_ch...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/11/the_nsa_should_keep_spying_on_foreign_leaders_and_citizens.html).

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
> 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_.

~~~
rayiner
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.

~~~
Joeri
The variation of opinion across the U.S. is at least as big as the variation
across the planet. Just watch Louis Theroux's documentaries to see the
evidence of this. You have extremist thinkers in any country. That is why we
have democracy and political parties, to find compromise through negotiation,
and why we have constitutions and courts of law to uphold them, to ensure
basic rights cannot be trampled with the shifting of the political winds. The
scale at which you apply democracy and constitutional rights doesn't really
matter, except that it is unfair to apply it unequally.

Now, I know what you're thinking. Can you take iran and israel and make one
country out of them? What a ridiculous idea, it would only end in bloodshed.
Here's the thing that's ridiculous to me: that we tolerate it when countries
deny people their human rights because it happens inside their borders. Team
America, World Police, right? Well, despite being a European I'm all for that
if it means we finally get rid of human rights violations. It's not ok to deny
women their human rights, so Iranians must eventually comply with that or face
consequences before a court of law. Similarly it's not ok for Israelis and
Palestinians to deny each other their human rights, so eventually they must
comply with that or face consequences before a court of law.

The way I see it, the discussion is not about what needs to be done, only on
when it will come about. Economically, we've already formed frameworks that
span the globe, like the WTO and IMF, and we have somehow managed to bring
everyone into a single unified economic theory, even the communists. Now we
just need to do the same thing for the other half of what governments do and
unify the social theory.

~~~
rayiner
> The variation of opinion across the U.S. is at least as big as the variation
> across the planet. Just watch Louis Theroux's documentaries to see the
> evidence of this. You have extremist thinkers in any country.

I'm sure the range of viewpoints within the U.S. is bigger than the difference
between the average viewpoint in the U.S. and the average viewpoint in
Bangladesh. But what's the really relevant measure is the average viewpoint in
the U.S., weighted by 300 million people, and the average viewpoint in
Bangladesh, weighted by 150 million people, and the gap between those two huge
masses of beliefs.

Moreover, we have internal boundaries in the U.S. to ease certain internal
disparities in belief systems. E.g. right to work versus right to unionize?
That's decided at the state level. "Rights" that are recognized at the
national level tend to be supported by national consensus, and when they're
not

> and why we have constitutions and courts of law to uphold them

Who decides what's in the constitutions? Unelected Philosopher-Kings? If,
instead, people get input into the constitutions by which they're governed,
then you're back to square one. Bangladesh, originally created as a secular
republic, amended its constitution in the late 1980's to make Islam the state
religion. The new Egyptian constitution makes "the principles of Islamic law
the main source of legislation..." Which courts of law are going to tell them
they can't do that? What of the real danger that they tell us that we have to
do that?

~~~
selimthegrim
I believe the Awami League government just undid this? In any case, they don't
have anything as bad as the Objectives Resolution.

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

------
anoncowherd
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.

------
RankingMember
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
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?

------
orblivion
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.

------
aet
Also, peace on earth, pls.

