
Obama: If you are a US citizen the NSA can’t listen to your calls - chrisblackwell
http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/06/17/pres-obama-if-you-are-a-us-citizen-the-nsa-cannot-listen-to-your-telephone-calls-and-the-nsa-cannot-target-your-emails/?utm_medium=Spreadus&utm_campaign=social%20media&awesm=tnw.to_c0ZGR&utm_source=Twitter
======
beloch
Obama is still treating this problem as though it's a case of privacy vs
security. The real issue is trust. U.S. citizens can't trust what private U.S.
corporations tell them if the government has the power to coerce and then
muzzle them. This is a poisonous environment to do business in. International
business is going to go elsewhere, and domestic business will also choose to
outsource to more transparent countries.

~~~
namank
Well put. Trust has become the underlying issue here, everything else is
semantics.

At the same time though, I think Obama is looking at a comfortable point where
trust is traded off for security. Problem with such points is that they can
shift in either direction depending on who is in charge - that's what's scary.

------
gasull
_the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and
danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply
because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders
did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US
Persons are created equal."_

\- Edward Snowden

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-
snowden-n...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/17/edward-snowden-nsa-
files-whistleblower#block-51bf317be4b0d3c14258337b)

~~~
rayiner
If by "all men", the founders most definitely did intend to leave out blacks
and women, why on earth would you assume they nonetheless intended to include
foreigners?

See U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265-267:

""" The Fourth Amendment provides:

"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."

That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach
only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that the
Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy,"
Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 12, n. 4, "the
people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the
Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and
established by "the people of the United States." The Second Amendment
protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and
Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and
reserved to "the people." See also U. S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make
no law. . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble")
(emphasis added); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be
composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several
States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means
conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment,
and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are
reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, _refers to a class of persons who
are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient
connection with this country to be considered part of that community._ See
United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 279, 292 (1904)
(Excludable alien is not entitled to First Amendment rights, because "[h]e
does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our
Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law")."""

The framers were not "global citizen" radicals circa 2013. They were very
conscientiously creating a social compact to govern a country of a well-
defined set of people. It is entirely natural to assume, as has been assumed,
that they did not intend Constitutional rights to be universal.

~~~
samstave
However, it can also be said that the wording in these phrases was so
masterfully written that they allow for the meaning to evolve.

~~~
rayiner
You evolve the meaning of a phrase when you decide that a digital Word
document on a USB key is a "paper" within the meaning of the 4th amendment.
Changing something fundamental like the scope of rights in the document,
changing it from a social compact, a contract among a community of people,
into some universal statement of principles applicable to anyone isn't
evolving the meaning, it's rewriting the document and an exercise in
historical revisionism.

------
bobwaycott
In which the President offers an amazing interpretation of what it means for a
program to be transparent--i.e., that it allegedly goes through a secret court
whose rulings are not publicly available.

This is not transparency. This is the regurgitation of obfuscating talking
points.

~~~
LoganCale
Transparency: a secret court with secretly appointed judges who make secret
rulings on requests whose details are kept secret from the judges.*

* I've seen allegations of this last bit, but not evidence. The claim was that it mostly goes on the word of the requesting agency/analyst and the judge has no real way of knowing whether it's a legitimate request or not.

~~~
revelation
Using secret interpretations of laws.

------
moreentropy
I guess I'm used to a more technical definition of "can't" than politicians
nowadays.

Apart from that, I'm German, and every time I read this "not to US citizens"
excuse, all I understand is that they'll happily rape all my data without any
questions asked.

~~~
MisterWebz
Here's something interesting I found on wikipedia. According to the "General
Data Protection Regulation", which is a data protection law and is supposed to
take effect in 2016 in the EU:

 _the Regulation also applies to organizations based outside the European
Union if they process personal data of EU residents._

Further in the section "Discussion and challenges":

 _The new regulation conflicts with other non-European laws and regulations
and practices (e.g. surveillance by governments). Companies in such countries
should not be acceptable for processing EU personal data anymore._

What are your thoughts on this?

Source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation)

~~~
moreentropy
Data on intra-european transactions and matters is often deliberately shared
with the US for intelligence purposes OR is processed by companies in the US,
which automatically means that it is used by the US for intelligence.

So, if I use Gmail as a non US citizen, I have to assume that the US
government will read/analyze my emails. That's a well recognized fact that
I've also been told by people working with classified (German) government data
on multiple occasions.

Examples:
[http://epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.html](http://epic.org/privacy/intl/passenger_data.html)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interbank_Financial_Telecommunication#United_States_of_America_government_involvement_in_SWIFT_matters)

~~~
MisterWebz
But that does not address the fact that according to the GDPR in its current
state, a company such as Google should not have the authority to process EU
citizen's data unless it's fully compliant with GDPR.

How they're going to enforce that, I have no idea. Now if I've understood this
correctly, this means that if a foreign company is fully complaint with this
new law, we would have much greater access to data that is being collected,
and we also have the power to request the removal of said data. The US
government might still collect all those incoming data before it has the
chance to be removed, but having a law such as GDPR being enforced would be a
huge step forward.

------
DanielBMarkham
In related news, policemen also cannot break the laws.

But isn't it a good thing we have the public with their smartphones recording
the police as they work? Isn't it great that there are multiple separate,
public, open channels to provide feedback when the police go astray?

The use of "cannot" here is very problematic.

~~~
drcode
Exactly: Obama is using "cannot" to mean "aren't supposed to" while making it
appear like he's saying "aren't technologically able to".

~~~
jsz0
Not how I read it. Obviously the technical ability to do so exists so "cannot"
can only mean "aren't supposed to" in this context. Honestly I think people
would have to be grasping at straws to read it any other way. What else could
it possibly mean? Of course it's technically possible that's not even open for
debate is it?

~~~
rhizome
A plain reading of the word "cannot" says that the person does not have the
ability.

~~~
CWuestefeld
If you're a stickler for language, then yes. The word "can(not)" refers to the
ability, while the words "may (not)" or "must (not)" refer to a policy
constraint rather than ability.

But in common vernacular, the word "can" is used in both cases, so it's
ambiguous.

"Mom, _can_ I play on the Xbox now?" "No, you haven't finished your homework."
Obviously Junior has the ability to play, but his mom won't allow him to do
so.

~~~
rhizome
We're talking about adults, though.

------
declan
Unfortunately the truth appears to be somewhat different. See:
[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589672-38/snowden-nsa-
sn...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589672-38/snowden-nsa-snoops-
on-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/)

EFF's position (from the CNET article): "The evidence shows that the NSA seeks
a warrant only after the communication is initially acquired and analyzed by
computers according to algorithms designed by humans, placed in a government
database, and reviewed by an analyst."

------
drcode
I think this interview perfectly illustrates the distinction Snowden mentioned
between technical capability and policy.

Note that the president says "if you're a US person the NSA cannot listen to
your telephone calls" instead of saying "if you're a US person, the NSA isn't
recording your phone calls".

The word "cannot" in this context means "they aren't supposed to", not "it is
technically impossible".

He's saying that listening to your phone calls is "against the rules" but that
doesn't mean this data isn't still being captured and put into an NSA data
warehouse somewhere, in case circumstances change.

~~~
jsz0
I may be in the minority here but that seems completely reasonable to me.

~~~
AnIrishDuck
There's the reason the Germans wouldn't even take a _census_ until recently
because of what the Nazis did with that data during WWII:

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230398250457642...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303982504576423814268469244.html)

Can you imagine what kind of weapon this massive library of data would be in
the wrong hands?

~~~
gnarbarian
The article is behind a pay wall.

------
eob
Two elements of the government rhetoric surrounding this issue really bug me.

First, they use phrasing like "listen to calls" which is nonsensical in the
modern world. If a computer observes all packets traveling across a fiber
line, transcribes VoIP traffic into text, and then only persists counts of
keywords to magnetic storage medium -- does that count as "listening"? If they
do this proactively, but no human ever looks at those counts unless a warrant
is pulled, does it count as listening? When we conduct the debate around
outdated language, it is impossible to be specific about what is taking place.

Second, the government tends to regurgitate the law, rather than existing
practice.

~~~
bobwaycott
What I find a bit more insidious is that "listening" is being discussed in the
public sphere in the way it is expected to mean--that is, as a real-time,
present-tense, current action. In practice, what is occurring and actually
under debate, but being evaded because of the language employed, is
"listening" in the context the government is _doing_ it--that is, as a
retroactive, past-tense, stepping-back-in-time action.

------
mcphilip
Lets assume everything said in the interview is true. This would only serve to
reassure the public that the state is not proactively looking for threats
among U.S. citizens. That's a good thing.

However, as my only other comment on the leaks indicates, I still think it's
appalling that the infrastructure exists to 'passively' collect the content of
U.S. citizens' online communication in the first place. From my experience
working with 'big data', the step of collecting information is the difficult
part. Mining the data is relatively trivial and can be 'switched on' at any
point.

So my original concern still stands: there is no reason to assume that power
won't be abused in the future. What happens when a terrorist threat born and
bred in the U.S. successfully attacks a target? I'm willing to bet these
statements about not actively monitoring U.S. citizens would quickly be
forgotten and new rationalizations would be put into place instead -- e.g. the
state only searches for key phrases in citizen generated content, like 'hate
government'

------
ipsin
Clapper: "the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens’
e-mails"

Obama: "the NSA can't listen to your calls"

The denial I would like to hear: the NSA does not _collect_ your e-mails,
phone calls or internet traffic. The lack of a denial is looking _very_
suspicious, and a careful reader is forced to act as if it's all being
vacuumed up.

Their promises only relate to when that data may be used.

~~~
declan
No... Collect has a very specific meaning to the NSA. Collect means when data
have "been received for use by an employee of a DoD intelligence [that is,
NSA] component in the course of his official duties"
[http://atsdio.defense.gov/documents/5242.html](http://atsdio.defense.gov/documents/5242.html)

"Acquire" or "intercept" or "intake in any way" would be better. The language
is very slippery here.

~~~
ipsin
Thank you for helping me decode the double-speak. I had previously read that
"collect" had a specific meaning for the NSA, but I'd assumed that meaning
also made sense within the context of the English language.

~~~
jacobparker
That particular instance isn't an example of doublespeak (
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak)
) it's just jargon.

------
bobwaycott
A bit more thorough engagement:

> _I don’t think anybody says we’re no longer free because we have checkpoints
> at airports._

I think there are actually _quite a lot_ of people who do expressly argue that
point in nearly those exact words. The point of contention is arguing we are
demonstrably _less_ free or more inconvenienced not because of the checkpoints
_per se_ , but because of the invasive procedures forced upon the public's
expectations of privacy and the protection thereof.

This--invasive violation of public expectations of privacy & protection--is
becoming a bit too much of a constant theme.

> _[W]e don’t have to sacrifice our freedom in order to achieve security. ...
> That 's a false choice. ... To say there’s a tradeoff doesn’t mean somehow
> that we’ve abandoned freedom._

The President is an intelligent man with a solid grasp of language and its
intricacies of usage. To admit there is a tradeoff is to implicitly assent to
the sacrificing of freedom for said tradeoff (this, the achievement of
security).

The bit about this being a false choice is interesting. The President invokes
the fallacy of the false dilemma, which raises the expectation that there are
additional options available--but not considered--where the goal of protecting
freedoms and achieving greater security intersect ... _and then does not offer
any alternatives or exposition on what other options may be (or have been)
considered._ I'm left quite unsure of how he then considers sacrificing
freedom to achieve security a false choice.

Moving on, this statement

> _... the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot
> target your emails … and have not._

directly contradicts the followup statement:

> _... if you’re a U.S. person, then NSA is not listening to your phone calls
> and it’s not targeting your emails unless it’s getting an individualized
> court order._

This strikes as more talking points rearing their head without substantive
difference in an effort to shape public opinion and discourse. If it is said
that the NSA cannot target emails and listen to phone calls, that is going to
etch itself into the public consciousness that the technological apparatus
required is not present. But the follow up clarifies in nearly identical
language that the NSA is not listening/targeting " _unless it 's getting an
individualized court order._" So now we are at the opposite side--the NSA
_can_ target your emails and listen to your phone calls, despite the
aforementioned clarification they _cannot_. The talking points are keeping
things intentionally muddled where they could easily make it more plain. So,
barring other intricately worded explanations, this pretty much makes it sound
like the NSA can indeed listen to your phone calls and target your emails, but
only--as long as the existing rules are being followed--if they secure an
"individualized court order" after good old-fashioned probable-cause seeking.

Of course, this is an even more bizarre clarification for the President to
make when he later turns his attention to the phone records program. The 2015
Program:

> _Program number one, called the 2015 Program, what that does is it gets data
> from the service providers like a Verizon in bulk, and basically you have
> call pairs. You have my telephone number connecting with your telephone
> number. There are no names. There is no content in that database. All it is,
> is the number pairs, when those calls took place, how long they took place._

Okay, so admission that bulk call data is there, as Snowden alleged with his
leaks. Once again, the talking points that this is all metadata--without
explicitly using that particular word, though. And yet, it is trivial to
connect a phone number to its owner. So, _your_ call data is there in the
database with all the information required to identify _you_ specifically
should intelligence agencies deem necessary.

The President further clarifies the nature of the reporting in that he says
"[a]t no point is any content _revealed_ ", a perhaps unfortunate, unintended
admission that the content is there. I know the President likes to be very
clarifying when speaking and interviewing and somewhat sidetracks mid-sentence
to clarify a specific phrase or term (note all the em-dashes littered
throughout the text of the interview), but this one is particularly
interesting because it reads as if he caught himself mid-un-truth when he
jumps mid-sentence to say that if the FBI wants content, they then have to go
to the FISC to ask for a warrant to get the content.

 _Any rational person should, therefore, conclude the content is indeed there
to be interrogated, regardless of what the policy for such interrogation may
be._

His comments on the 702 program are nigh-unintelligible for such a careful
speaker as the President usually is. He tries to disqualify concerns about it
by saying it "does not apply to any U.S. person", then describes it as a
program that produces " _essentially_ [but not _actually_ ] a warrant" that
compels private companies who hold communications to turn over the content.
Then again, the clarifier that this does not apply to U.S. persons and is only
in "narrow bands" of criminal/terrorist activity by foreign agents. He further
attempts to posit constitutionality and authority by saying "the process has
all been approved by the courts"\--but these are not publicly accountable
courts whose decisions are made available to we the People.

> _... if people are making judgments just based on these slides that have
> been leaked, they’re not getting the complete story._

Nevermind that we are only getting a partially complete story--being hidden
behind curious clarifications and dubious assertions of state secrets
privileges--because of leaked slides.

The big kicker:

> _It is transparent. That’s why we set up the FISA court ... My concern has
> always been not that we shouldn’t do intelligence gathering to prevent
> terrorism, but rather are we setting up a system of checks and balances?

So, on this telephone program, you’ve got a federal court with independent
federal judges overseeing the entire program. And you’ve got Congress
overseeing the program, not just the intelligence committee and not just the
judiciary committee — but all of Congress had available to it before the last
reauthorization exactly how this program works._

This is more informative than most everything else in the interview. The
President clarifies that--despite much of what campaign rhetoric made people
believe he thought--his concern _is not_ whether we should be enacting these
intelligence gathering programs that target _everyone_ and attempt to hide
behind _policy rules_ , not _laws_. His concern is the erection of checks and
balances that appear _good enough_ , but none of which actually are explicitly
in the way of public discourse and notification.

He relies on a "federal court with independent federal judges" that operate
_in secret_ and whose decisions are _de facto_ classified, as well as
statistically shown to be rubber stamp decisions.

The biggest allegation is that _all of Congress_ had this information
available to them before the last reauthorization of the programs, information
that told Congress " _exactly how this program works_ ".

Either the President is lying, or Congress is putting on a sham of shock when
they were already aware of all of this, or the President is throwing them
under the bus for not bothering to read and understand the information before
reauthorizing--thus making a move to avert public outrage toward their
representatives, all of whom allegedly had this information and ignored it
when reauthorizing. Or something else.

I still feel like this interview offers a depressing amount of talking points
winning over actual disclosure, and yet another advance of creatively
assigning words like "transparency" to programs that are clearly not.

[edit: spelling/grammar mistakes. sorry]

~~~
DanielBMarkham
It's interesting that they would bandy around the word "transparency" \-- with
secret unapproachable courts, not all committee members being read into
programs, and so on.

That's gotta win for me the "political doublespeak" award for the week. Better
to have made a case that the structures were needed (which he feebly does,
incongruously), than simply call one thing something else over and over again.

~~~
bobwaycott
Yes, certainly. Doublespeak, indeed.

~~~
the0ther
and i would say that Doublethink was the real main point of 1984. Big Brother
and surveilance...that was filler compared to the theme of Doublethink. Go
ahead and watch what I do, I'm not ashamed, but DO NOT fuck with my thoughts
and my words for expressing those thoughts.

ministry of love, ministry of truth, ministry of peace...2+2=5. it was such a
bigger part of 1984 than the surveilance bit.

In the US, political correctness is the slippery slope to Doublespeak.

~~~
mkr-hn
That's a very strange segue.

------
LoganCale
I wish he had then been asked how they determine if someone is a U.S. citizen.
From other sources we've heard that they only need 51% confidence that they
are a non-US person.

~~~
SilasX
They invented a device that can discern the US-Citizenship-status of anyone
merely by knowing the phone's local usage details and privacy-respecting
information about the data transmitted.

Well, not really, but that's what would be necessary for such a claim to hold
any water.

~~~
jsz0
Why would that be necessary? If they are targeting an individual for
investigation at this level certainly they have already determined their
citizenship status well in advance. From there obtaining permission to
investigate citizens who are in contact with this individual probably isn't
too difficult. I guess I just don't see why it would have to be some magical
automated system when it can be handled on a case-by-case basis quite easily.

~~~
SilasX
Because it's unlikely they do all that groundwork beforehand.

------
toufka
Every story on this subject from the government uses very specific technical
qualifiers. "Listen" in this case. Likely there is some kind of natural
language processing done to each call - either to give a complete (written)
transcript or a categorical summary. In both cases the verb is not 'listen' \-
but in both cases the action is similarly egregious.

~~~
declan
Here's EFF and EPIC's parsing of the technical qualifiers (they found a lot of
weasel words): [http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589672-38/snowden-nsa-
sn...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589672-38/snowden-nsa-snoops-
on-u.s-phone-calls-without-warrants/)

------
notatoad
Why should we believe him? When companies are legally required to lie on
behalf of the government, i find it hard to trust the government to tell me
the truth directly.

~~~
bobwaycott
This. Applied to both parties--the corporations and the government
agencies/branches/actors.

I find it very disturbing and dangerous to the healthy operation of a free
society when any individual or collective entity is required to lie about
receiving legal orders to turn over information to the government.

I haven't thought through all the ramifications of that sentiment, of course,
but it is very unsettling.

------
gfodor
In Obama-speak, "can't" means "we have a law that says they cannot, so they
certainly must not be doing it."

In human-speak, "can't" means, "do they have a system capable of letting your
average NSA analyst do this easily without oversight?" I suspect we'll never
get the answer to this question unless it is leaked.

~~~
diminoten
You can't stop the government from breaking the law, at the end of the day.

~~~
grecy
Revolutions and civil wars have proved otherwise

~~~
diminoten
How?

------
pla3rhat3r
It comes down to trust. No one trusts Government anymore. They can get up on
stage with pretty pictures and screenshots of "proof" that they're not
listening to calls. It won't matter. No one believes them anymore. They have
to fix that first and the only way to do that is to vote the lifelong
Politicians out of office and get some fresh meat in there. Senators and
Congressman need to have term limits. They collectively have more power than
the President yet they can stay office for life. Checks and balances? Nope!

------
boi_v2
It is interesting how violating the privacy of a US person can be considered
some kind of issue, not that big, but still a bit of a problem, on the other
hand if you are a non US person everything is fine because your life doesn't
matter anyway.

This is exactly the kind of thought I hoped the internet would break, and I
have worked quite hard to help it happen, the day of the feuds are over, no
more lords to came and lie to us telling that people who lives on the other
side of that river want bad things to happen us, no more divide and conquer,
the middle ages is over, is it?

~~~
Oletros
This is what amazes me, it seems that the problem is only when the ones spied
are US citizens.

If you're a foreign living, studying or for holidays in the USA there is no
problem that the NSA spies you.

------
r00fus
Bush (2005): We don't torture

Obama (2013): We don't spy on citizens

The President really has no credibility here - it's like asking a CEO if his
company is engaged in illicit behavior - even if it is, it's his job to say it
isn't (or that he isn't aware of it).

~~~
marssaxman
I suppose we have to read it like this: Bush says "It is illegal for us to
torture, therefore whatever we are doing cannot be torture"... Obama says "It
would be illegal if we spied on US citizens, so, whatever we are doing isn't
spying on US citizens".

~~~
r00fus
Yes, both statements are completely useless. The buck doesn't stop anywhere,
it just goes in loops forever. Quite kafka-esque.

------
ksherlock
_We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals._ \-- Barack
Obama, 2009 Inauguration speech. ([http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-
address](http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address))

~~~
coldcode
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's
mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” ― George Orwell, 1984

------
IsTom
US is not the Roman Empire and you can't get away with "only _our_ citizens
matter" these days.

------
orthecreedence
"Cannot" as in do not have the technical ability to, or "cannot" as in
_absolutely have the ability_ but are prohibited by some easily-ignorable
legislation?

~~~
declan
Or worse yet, "cannot" as in authorized by a secret interpretation of that
legislation blessed by a secret court...

------
jbennettl
I think the core of this double speak or contradictory and obfuscatory
vagueness solely is a function of not having poor Snowden under wraps. ie.
they don't really know what he knows or what he could say. So the gov't has to
be coy. If they arrest or grab him up (which it seems well within their
capabilities to do) you will see the subtle tightrope dance Obama and company
are doing change as they are now free to become positional and can control the
dialog and the message. The message is we are telling the truth. He is a liar
and a traitor. There will be no one out there left to refute it. Incidentally
folks should read the USA Today account of the three former NSA workers who
tried to raise alarms about all this years ago within the system and got
treated pretty badly as a result.

------
namank
"If you are a US citizen.."

The constitution of one country is being used to govern an infrastructure that
powers many more.

~~~
jarek
High time to change that

~~~
CWuestefeld
So long as the fix isn't to give all nations a say in the governance --
because then it devolves to the lowest common denominator.

If there's a fix, it should be some means of taking out of governmental hands
altogether.

~~~
jarek
A lowest common denominator in spying wouldn't be such a bad thing, I would
think, provided a sensible choice of countries.

Though I was thinking more along the lines of making the internet less reliant
on American-housed or -owned infrastructure.

------
negamax
Yay! It's Us Vs Them. You are all safe because you are in our club. Forget
what's wrong and right! /s

------
DrJokepu
So how does this work? If I talk to my wife (she is a US citizen, I am
European) on the phone about, say for instance, groceries, are the NSA going
to listen to it?

~~~
jedmeyers
If you live in the US then NSA cannot listen to your calls as you are what
Obama administration calls a "US person".

~~~
marssaxman
But the NSA can certainly listen to his wife's calls... many of which may
include him as the other endpoint. This is an obvious edge case even if this
legal smoke-screen offered any actual protection, which seems unlikely.

~~~
jedmeyers
Why do you think NSA can listen to his wife's calls?

~~~
marssaxman
Because I misread his comment.

Also, because I don't believe that these policies are worth anything; what
really matters are capabilities, and the NSA clearly has whatever access it
needs to listen to anyone it wants.

------
jedmeyers
Title says "If you are a US citizen the NSA can’t listen to your calls" when
in the text it says that "If you are a US PERSON the NSA can’t listen to your
calls". This is misleading as in reality the Fourth Amendment protects not
only citizens but a broader group of people named "the people" in the
amendment. As per United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez: The Fourth Amendment
phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the
Constitution, and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in
Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures.
This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a
national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with
this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 494 U. S. 264-266.

------
milfot
as a non-american - fuck you obama.. but I guess you know that already

------
lawnchair_larry
"It depends on what the definition of "can't" is"

------
arbuge
Well, I guess there goes at least the international business done by gmail,
yahoo mail, etc. No guarantees there...

------
ninguem2
I hope the next web is faster, because on this one, the article took forever
to load.

------
thequestion
Look, this is what i want to know, whats the difference between this and the
NSA separately collecting the data via the FISA court from google, microsoft,
at&t, etc.? Besides sludge-like speed?

------
chmike
And non American are cockroaches with which you can do anything you want ?

------
thejerz
Can't or won't? Or shouldn't?

------
BarackObama
What I meant was look to me as an example. We can't even be sure who's really
an American citizen, right Trump?! Fist Bump!

------
blibble
the NSA can't, but GCHQ can

