(This point was made clear in the actual page, but some of the comments suggest that not everyone understood it.)
The title to this posting (and the name of the website) are misleading. This is not a proposal to block funding for the NSA. And that's good, because such a proposal would have NO chance of passing, and would probably be a bad idea anyhow. Instead, this is a proposal to block funding for NSA collecting records on American citizens that are not being investigated. Which is a much more reasonable position.
Unfortunately, even if NSA stopped all domestic spying, the fact that they have programs like PRISM that silently turn any US company into a snitch for the US military means that the US internet industry has suffered an irreparable blow.
Obama getting on national TV and saying "we only target foreign entities" is the worst possible thing that could have happened. Even if all of this stuff works, the spying on foreigners via compelling US service providers to wiretap them is sufficient to end the internet industry in the USA as we know it.
Why? Persons who are not US citizens who are not on US territory aren't given protections under our constitution. What's the reasoning behind this? Surveillance serves a national interest for the US, and while there ought to be limitations for domestic surveillance, I don't see why those ought to exist for foreigners in other countries.
There is an ethical argument that the morality of a government's actions doesn't change because of the nationality of those actions' benefactors or victims. Therefore if it isn't moral to perform dragnet surveillance on the U.S. population, then it isn't moral to do so on foreign populations either.
There is another ethical argument that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us (i.e. the Golden Rule). If the U.S. doesn't want foreign governments performing dragnet surveillance on them, then the U.S. shouldn't perform dragnet surveillance on other countries.
There is a policy argument that dragnet surveillance, when combined with foreign information sharing agreements, is effectively an unintended loophole. For example, assume British intelligence performs dragnet surveillance on the U.S. and vice versa. When these hypothetical findings are shared, it negates the perceived limitations on domestic surveillance.
There is an economic argument that if U.S. companies cannot be trusted to protect the privacy of their customers, foreign markets will become closed to them either via customer choice or even foreign government regulation.
> then it isn't moral to do so on foreign populations either.
Since when was the last time US government or its Military branch thought or cared about what's moral and what's not?
Long story short: the major reason why they can get away with drones flying over foreign soil with lethal weapon is because american media barely reports on it. My hunch is that there are deals done behind closed doors; deals maybe NOT purely illegal but unethical for sure. For example: do not report on drone strikes and Lockheed Martin will advertise their jet fighters in your newspaper for $10MM per year. It happened before (hint: that advertise has no reason to exist; you won't and you can't just pick up your phone and call Lockheed to order a jetfighter yourself).
I am sure some small newspaper somewhere is alarming public on drones killing innocent people on foreign soil, but again, they are "too small to succeed".
And further: the only reason you don't have droned killing americans on american soil is the eventual unleash of bashing that media would do. Agai, nothing to do with morality. While far away they can get away with it, however here at home it would be hard to stop the news.
First, the Constitution itself doesn't say that only U.S. citizens in U.S. territory enjoy its protections. And the Declaration of Independence (which is not legally binding the way the Constitution is, but should give an idea of the mindset of the time) states all men are created equal.
Second, if we believe ideologically that privacy is a human right that should be protected, it is hypocritical to then say "Oh, but only for Americans. Everyone else can go fuck themselves." and it weakens the arguments for privacy in America as well as U.S. attempts to encourage other countries to protect privacy and other civil rights.
> First, the Constitution itself doesn't say that only U.S. citizens in U.S. territory enjoy its protections.
If the Constitution said: "people in France owe us taxes" would that be valid and binding? Of course not. American law cannot impose obligations on the French, and reciprocally, American law cannot give rights to the French. The Constitution is law, and American law extends to American soil and American citizens abroad. That's the nature of law.
> And the Declaration of Independence (which is not legally binding the way the Constitution is, but should give an idea of the mindset of the time) states all men are created equal.
To get a full idea of the "mindset of the time" the Declaration of Independence used flowery language like "all men are created equal" but the Constitution enshrined slavery into law for another generation and set up a system of government where only white, landowning males could vote. If the founders didn't think that blacks or women born on U.S. soil had rights under the Constitution, why on earth would you assume they thought anyone not born on U.S. soil would have rights?
>If the Constitution said: "people in France owe us taxes" would that be valid and binding?
Yes, because the text would be a grant of power to the US federal government to try and collect taxes from the people of France. Such text says absolutely nothing about the rights or obligations of the people of France.
Likewise the Constitution does not "give rights" to people, except insofar as it prohibits/mandates actions of the Federal and/or State governments.
The Constitution limits the abilities of the U.S. government. When people say Constitutional rights should apply outside of the U.S. as well, they mean those limitations should apply to the U.S. government in their dealings with people outside of the U.S.
Just because it isn't recognized or judicial law doesn't mean it's meaningless. The statement that "all men are created equal" is a dictum and a recognition that despite the freedoms a person is afforded by their place of residence, the United States recognizes their right to their freedom. This has been the foundation of American foreign policy (with hit-or-miss adherence to its message).
Yes, the US does not have jurisprudence over French law, but if the French were to become a violent, repressive dictatorship, we've stated our moral obligations, which are aligned with aiding the French people.
So I know it is not nor has it ever been legally binding, but what are your thoughts on the UDHR with regards to this discussion? Is it just a document of pretty words to disregard when convenient, or does it hold any signifigance?
Article 12 states that:
"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."
Like most UN declarations, it's meaningless. Among other things, it guarantees:
Article 23: unions;
Article 24: leisure and paid holidays;
Article 25: food, clothing, housing, medical care, unemployment benefits, sickness and disability benefits, old age benefits;
Article 26: free education.
None of these things are recognized as "rights" in the U.S. The U.S. has assiduously avoided being bound by international tribunals, and thus nothing in the UNDHR can be enforced as a right against the U.S., and nothing that can't be enforced merits the name "right."
The UNDHR was an aspirational document that was conceived at a time before it was realized how awful an idea it was to enter into an international union with all of the nations of the world, and before Americans fully appreciated how unwilling they were to cede any sovereignty to an international body.
> First, the Constitution itself doesn't say that only U.S. citizens in U.S. territory enjoy its protections.
The Constitution itself doesn't say a lot about hardly anything. I just looked at it (the real thing) the other day, it's even shorter than it seems at first from looking at it online.
In the event, the courts have consistently ruled that Constitutional protections are not completely binding everywhere in the world, even protections included in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment specifically does not apply outside U.S. borders, for example, even though it does apply to anyone in U.S. borders (not just U.S. citizens).
> And the Declaration of Independence (which is not legally binding the way the Constitution is, but should give an idea of the mindset of the time) states all men are created equal.
I don't think this really helps your argument. The mindset of the time were the Negroes were not even men, for example, and they certainly had no 'right' to privacy according to those who issued the Declaration.
So I'm sympathetic to the point. I think we need to change something to bring our law in accordance with norms we'd expect for the Internet. But just pointing to the 'Charters of Freedom' will not help your argument (others have tried and failed), and they don't mean today what you think they mean.
Because there's nothing inherently special about the humans born inside of the imaginary lines that comprise the US borders that entitles them to privacy denied to others.
In short, none of us are free until all of us are equal.
Also, in the off chance you don't give a shit about basic human dignity for those filthy foreigners: it's also simply bad business. It puts all US internet companies at a huge starting disadvantage against internet companies in countries which don't force private organizations to silently spy for their national militaries by default.
> Because there's nothing inherently special about the humans born inside of the imaginary lines that comprise the US borders that entitles them to privacy denied to others.
The fact that the borders of nations are arbitrary and drawn by humans makes them no less real or important - it definitely doesn't make them imaginary. To say otherwise is incredibly naive, as well as deeply ignorant of history and the political realities in the world.
> Also, in the off chance you don't give a shit about basic human dignity for those filthy foreigners
Do you really need to include this kind of bullshit in your response?
It's also simply bad business. It puts all US internet companies at a huge starting disadvantage against internet companies in countries which don't force private organizations to silently spy for their national militaries by default.
Feel free to retort, once again.
Personally, the "we only spy on non-Americans!" bit bothers me because my wife is permanent resident, not a US citizen. Should I be concerned about the distinction? What privacy is she afforded? Should I be concerned that my communication with a non-citizen makes me 'fair game' as well?
I think this line is just to appease the American public. It's been made clear the lines of right-and-wrong, legal-and-illegal are blurry.
>
It's also simply bad business. It puts all US internet companies at a huge starting disadvantage against internet companies in countries which don't force private organizations to silently spy for their national militaries by default.
Sure, assuming that the US is the only country that would be involved in such activity.
> Personally, the "we only spy on non-Americans!" bit bothers me because my wife is permanent resident, not a US citizen. Should I be concerned about the distinction? What privacy is she afforded?
She's treated the same as a US citizen would be. The law covers US persons, which include green card holders.
I'm not saying the whole NSA/PRISM story isn't concerning. Just that the idea of limiting the NSA's(and, presumably, other agencies) surveillance on foreign individuals who are specifically under investigation (whatever that means, the OP wasn't specific) is a non sequitur idea that finds no meaningful support in our constitution.
Countries are just arbitrary divisions. Just because you are born in a certain geographic region doesn't mean you are the property of the government of that region. Every person is a human being with inherent rights and freedoms.
You think we are all equal, but Americans are just more equal than others?
Dividing people is counter productive and antiquated. We are all unified as citizens of Earth and denizens of the internet.
> We are all unified as citizens of Earth and denizens of the internet.
That's something we would all probably like, but that's not actually true to this point. Today we can't even keep $FOOs from killing $BARs (or other $FOOs) when they're in the same national boundary, so why would you pretend the world is something other than what it actually is?
FWIW I think the U.S. needs to normalize how it conducts surveillance with other nations and political entities, but I don't think that should apply to everyone. Instead it should be dependent on bilateral treaty (we won't spy or do this list of things to you, without arranging with your Foreign Ministry, and you won't do those things to us without arranging with our Dept. of State).
> we won't spy or do this list of things to you, without arranging with your Foreign Ministry, and you won't do those things to us without arranging with our Dept. of State
During the Bush years, I recall reading that the US had (secret) bilateral agreements with the UK, wherein the Brits would spy on the Americans for the US govt and the US would spy on the Britons for the UK govt. This was supposedly a way of working around legislation governing domestic surveillance.
I've no idea if this is actually true or not, but perhaps bilateral agreements aren't necessarily better.
Hell, it probably is true. But it is something that can and should be covered an agreement. The alternative is no agreement and the status quo of nations spying on each other, and citizens getting caught up in the crossfire since we now all share the same Internet.
First, the context of the parent's comment about countries being arbitrary divisions was clearly with regard to human rights.
Secondly, your argument is completely circular. That people in Nebraska will defend your freedom does not make national divisions any less arbitrary. It simply means that those who would do so have bought into the arbitrary divisions. So, you are effectively saying that if we can get people to believe in those arbitrary divisions, then they are not arbitrary.
Each country expects other governments to spy on them, but when you start requiring American companies to help the intelligence agencies do their jobs, it leaves little reason for anyone to do business with American companies.
Also, as Obama has stated (intensely dislike many of his policies, but on this occasion he's right), it's a given that espionage is conducted in order to discover political/military secrets, but that's completely different from conducting industrial espionage against commercial organizations, or individual espionage against private citizens. I know that he personally is a hypocrite for saying this while PRISM exists, but that doesn't mean that the statement itself was wrong.
> Each country expects other governments to spy on them, but when you start requiring American companies to help the intelligence agencies do their jobs, it leaves little reason for anyone to do business with American companies.
This is largely orthogonal to the issue of whether or not the NSA ought to be barred from spying on foreign individuals unless that person is specifically under suspicion of some sort.
Everyone's giving you the high-and-mighty ethical arguments, I'll give you the rational self-interest argument.
US internet companies need the freedom to do business with overseas clients without those clients assuming their communication will be spied on. If you start spying on foreigners using American services you hurt the providers of those services, you hurt their ability to get customers.
A compelling argument. But it's predicated on the assumption that US corporations are somehow unique in terms of the relationship they have with the local intelligence agencies, and I don't know that that's a reasonable.
American companies such as Facebook and Google are under EU laws when operating in the EU. Handing over all this private information about EU citizens is illegal according to EU laws. So PRISM will cause problems for American companies because they will not be able to operate outside the US without getting fined.
That is the economic side of things. Then there is the other aspect that it is going to ruin relationship with allied countries. We have had to put up with a lot of shit from the US, and this feels like the final straw.
Sneak is speaking specifically about the impact on the US IT industry. As an American IT worker, I agree. "Not subject to US jurisdiction" is becoming a feature.
Many reasons, but one that I haven't seen mentioned is that it's a slippery slope.
Whatever we allow them to do to non-U.S. citizens can and will likely be turned against U.S. citizens. Their simple argument is that the terrorists walk among us, and are thus indistinguishable from American citizens. So, they must now cast a wider net that includes Americans.
We have already seen them use this rationale and, in fact, it is part of what got us here today.
Setting the human rights issues aside, here's a compelling practical reason: spying on other countries can be a side-step towards domestic spying. By spying on China, we can also capture any data they've captured on us, without circumventing any laws prohibiting spying on citizens.
It wouldn't take long before this devolved to backdoor deals with allies; we spy on Germany, Germany spies on us, and we each "accidentally" get to scoop up data on our own citizens. (Of course, this is already happening now; they just don't have to lean on it as heavily, since most of the countries in question are spying domestically with impunity.)
Well, does that mean that every other country in the world is well within its rights to spy on every US citizen? I am sure no other country's constitution stipulates protections for US citizens either.
We should have several tiers; I'm fine with essentially unlimited spying on foreign governments and intelligence agents, terrorist groups, etc. Some spying on foreign companies in defense or infrastructure, and stuff like OSINT on foreign companies/organizations/people in general.
The bar for spying on purely private foreign citizens should be high, but not quite as high as on US persons -- maybe going 3 hops at a basic level internationally (i.e. Bin Laden's courier's maid) vs. 2 hops for US persons (McVeigh's maid, but not his maid's mom).
The bar for spying domestically should be very high, and essentially limited to counterintelligence on USG employees and contractors, agents of foreign powers, and maybe certain classes of domestic terrorist; everything else should be handled under regular law enforcement.
Also important: money is fungible. To block funding for a particular activity is to say that Congress appropriates money per activity. I don’t think that’s the case, but would happily be corrected.
So a law that states ‘here’s your money, but you’re not allowed to use it for x’ seems toothless in the extreme. It’s words on a page.
Keep in mind also that the NSA is close to lawless, so any room for interpretation will gut the intent. If it’s words on a page, it’s room for interpretation.
The only actual solution is to actually reduce the NSA’s budget, substantially. Is that in this bill?
I don't know. If we say "Here is your money; you can't use it for X" and the next whistleblower shows that they are nonetheless using it for X means they're misappropriating government funds, and people can go to jail for that.
Yes and no. Congress can specifically prevent agencies from spending money on given activities with riders on budget bills. Evading such a ban would be a bigger deal than the current story, if only because congress would have explicitly stated tha such activities may not be conducted with congressionally provided funds. Assuming word of the program got out.
This is already thought about. You are hardly the first one to realize that funds can be spent on things other than what they were appropriated for. Look up the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Just for the record, this will not help. There are a lot of foreigners who will still be under surveillance and I am pretty sure they will start seeking ways to pull their data away from US soil.
(This point was made clear in the actual page, but some of the comments suggest that not everyone understood it.)
The title to this posting (and the name of the website) are misleading. This is not a proposal to block funding for the NSA. And that's good, because such a proposal would have NO chance of passing, and would probably be a bad idea anyhow. Instead, this is a proposal to block funding for NSA collecting records on American citizens that are not being investigated. Which is a much more reasonable position.