That's right. Internet utopians need to come to terms with the idea that the world is and always will be a cruel jungle. There is emphatically no fix for this. All of human history is testament to this cold, sad fact.
It's pretty obvious you can engineer around it. What I think is a given, is that you cannot have a global privacy "amendment" passed.
I find it surprising that you use the word "amendment". Does it mean you understand that such a proposal would have zero chance of getting passed under most governments ? If so, you must be aware that such an amendment can never apply to the internet itself, even if the US were to implement it.
Read what the ITU tried to pass during it's last meeting, and then you'll see where governance leads. Sorry to tell you this, but >70% of the world's human population lives under extremely restrictive governments, and most of them wouldn't have it any other way. If internet rule was fair, there would be no freedom on the internet, not now, not ever, nowhere. Because 300 million Americans force their way on the rest of the planet is why internet freedom exists and the only chance it has for the future (and, ironically, probably at least 60% of those Americans don't agree with their government doing this, but don't know/care).
Even Europe has more invasive laws than the NSA uses. Refusing to give up encryption keys is a crime in Europe (even for people who don't live there). The mere fact that there has to be a warrant before tapping is implemented, and that ISPs and companies can see and even fight those warrants ... well it sounds absurd to me. Companies are never trusted with this information in Europe, and dozens of different agencies (ie. all members of interpol and their components) can request information like this. Most are not bound by the rules of the government the person investigated lives in.
You mistake my meaning. I'm talking about the context of the US government and the NSA in particular, the scope of whose powers are defined by the US constitution.
I find it surprising that you use the word "amendment". Does it mean you understand that such a proposal would have zero chance of getting passed under most governments ?
No, and I think you're reading too much into it. I'm talking about a constitutional amendment because it is the only way to put privacy on an equal constitutional footing with other governmental imperatives whose existence has been confirmed by precedent, and which would otherwise prevail in a legal challenge. As a law nerd, this strikes me as the most effective technical approach.