> Basically what they're saying is that, in the name of security, we can do whatever the fuck we want.
That's not an accurate paraphrasing. Of course when it comes to "foreign private commercial information or trade secrets" it is the sovereign right of the U.S. to "do whatever the fuck we want." The paraphrased language actually makes a concession: we will only use this information for security purposes as opposed to commercial purposes.
> we will only use this information for security purposes as opposed to commercial purposes.
They obviously wouldn't lie, would they? And I guess abuse also never happens.
I thought the point of this was to implement mechanisms that would make occurrence of abuse less likely, instead they're just trying to calm people down.
The only lie would be if they said they were going to stop monitoring foreign Internet comms completely.
Beyond that, if you're assuming the government will lie as a matter of course then it doesn't matter what Obama said in his speech, as there's nothing he could have said to conclusively guarantee anything you'd want.
I think granting "do whatever we want to citizens of other countries when they are in their home country" as a part of sovereignty is bizarre. We are not sovereign over that territory.
Sovereignty means total freedom of action except perhaps what you bargain away. And even then, in the absence of some higher jurisdiction to enforce them, agreements between sovereigns are only binding out of politeness and convenience.
In other words, to say that the U.S. can't say tap international fiber cables and record all French traffic, you must be able to point to a treaty where we agree not to do that. And even then, since nobody can enforce that treaty against us, we follow it only to the extent we find it convenient. Sovereign nations exist amongst themselves in a state of nature, and those are the rules of nature.
> total freedom of action except perhaps what you bargain away.
Sovereignty and the lack of some treaty preventing some behavior X does nothing to prevent other sovereigns from becoming angry and or retaliating in kind. Doing something 'because we can' does not make it wise.
Sure, the other sovereigns are welcome to retaliate, mope, etc. But there is a huge difference between "should not" and "can not." It's also fundamental that "should" is determined by democratic process, while "can" may be subject to legal constraints that override democracy.
But we were discussing "should not". If all sovereignty means is, effectively, "you can do whatever you can get away with" then "it's our sovereign right" conveys no moral force. We can and should curtail our "sovereign rights" and everyone else's whenever it aligns sufficiently with our interests and ideals.
You could say that the US government can do whatever with the data of citizens of other countries that flows through US networks, but that still wouldn't justify the NSA tapping on foreign-only networks on grounds of do-whatever-we-want sovereignity, would it?
That's not an accurate paraphrasing. Of course when it comes to "foreign private commercial information or trade secrets" it is the sovereign right of the U.S. to "do whatever the fuck we want." The paraphrased language actually makes a concession: we will only use this information for security purposes as opposed to commercial purposes.