[nehal3m]

I'm not sure that's the case. The first line of the article reads: Is the NSA buying up Americans' location and browsing data?

That's what's blocking instatement of a new director, so no, it won't have any effect on the data collected on foreigners.

[Dalewyn]

Americans are Constitutionally guaranteed a right to privacy in the home, among other rights, and that's what the NSA is hung up on.

The NSA spying on foreigners, who enjoy no protections from the Constitution, is part of its intended agenda.

[NickC25]

The NSA as it exists is essentially the government telling you the 4th Amendment is just for show. The NSA takes broad measures under the blanket of "national security" and through its 5 Eyes partners, can pretty much do as it pleases, either with US Citizens, or foreign citizens.

EDIT: Former NSA directors have deliberately lied under oath to Congress about their activities and actions...with no penalty or rebuke. The NSA are above the law and constitution.

[barrysteve]

The NSA does not reveal what technology it uses or how they use it. Snowden had to leak that information, for it to come to light.

The public has no way of knowing if the NSA follows the law and the theoretically available technology for the NSA to use, means it's extremely unlikely they have restrained themselves from gazing into your private life at home.

[autoexec]

I think Snowden proved that the NSA does routinely spy on the American public and the fact that the director of the NSA outright lied to congress under oath and never faced any consequence for it shows that the public will never be allowed to know the truth and that congress will never be able to stop them.

[phpisthebest]

While what you say is true in practice, it is based on a completely incorrect reading of the constitution by the US Court system

The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world, not just the land that is the US, as such the government prohibition on search should apply to all government agencies world wide. In short if it illegal for the NSA to spy on someone in Michigan, it should be illegal for them to Spy on them in Spain.

It is very strange that this prohibition applies to all persons while with in the borders of the US, and also applies to US Residents living aborad, but magically some how does not applies to non-citizens outside the US.

When in reality The Constitution does not apply to people at all, it does not grant me or any one else rights, it is a document where we the people surrender some of our power, some or our natural rights to the government for a limited purpose.

Somehow we have flipped this script, to where the constitution lays out what the government "cant" do, instead of that intention of providing a very limited list of things the government can do, of which is prohibited from all other activity

[bane]

As a matter of ethics and morality you're probably not wrong. As a matter of law it's important that there is a distinction because it would cut both ways. Saying U.S. law that restricts the behavior of the United States Government should apply globally also implies that U.S. law in all other respects should apply globally.

I mean, we'd appreciate your income tax, but you might not like all the gun ownership.

[phpisthebest]

I am American, and 10000000% support the right to private gun ownership. I believe we should have less not more gun control

>> also implies that U.S. law in all other respects should apply globally.

No it does not imply that at all, again you are reversing the position I am talking about. In fact US Law probably applies too much to other nations via International Trade Agreements to other nations already.

[bane]

Why doesn't it?

[phpisthebest]

Because my comments were about limiting the US Government, not other governments.

If the US Constitution would bar the NSA from spying with out probable cause on everyone, not just US Citizens, then that has absolutely zero bearing on if the EU wants to have gun control. I am not even sure how there is a connection to the 2 at all

[oyashirochama]

It specifically is made for the citizens of the US to be protected from overzealous government mandates. It doesn't care about foreign powers due to them being...foreign and all potential enemies regardless of national friendships.

Also all constitutions are social contracts that are only as strong as the judicial branch is at restricting the government, so its really up to interpretation on that front.

[Dalewyn]

You are massively confused. The Constitution gives certain powers to the government at the pleasure of the governed (read: Americans) and affords protections to them while providing none to foreigners (read: those who aren't governed by the US government). Re-read what I said and re-read the Constitution too if you have time, the Constitution's protections and guarantees apply to individuals and whether they are American.

In short, it is illegal for the NSA (or any part of the US government) to spy on Americans and legal to spy on foreigners, regardless of a given individual's location.

We generally draw the line using physical location because keeping track of whether you ended up with info on an American while spying somewhere outside America, say France or Japan, is utterly impractical. That doesn't mean the legal lines are drawn like that, though.

[morkalork]

Is this the same line of reasoning that lead to things extraordinary rendition and black sites in GWOT? Non US citizens on non US land, thus the government can do whatever they want like detain people indefinitely and "enhanced interrogation"?

[orochimaaru]

Yes. Those people and lands involved in the act are outside the purview of the US judicial system. Keep in mind I'm not discussing the morality of this. Just that whatever happens there cannot be brought to court in the US.

[salawat]

Oh, it can. Fruitlessly, but it can. U.S. law covers all U.S. citizens, regardless of physical location. Just because you're in Mexico doesn't mean you have carte blanche to bribe or commit crimes. This is an explicit point ground into all Federal employees yearly.

It's just that the operations in question will invoke "National Security" and "sovereign immunity" arguments sufficient to ensure the judiciary will either summary judgement the case. Or leave it conspicuously unreviewed.

Or, at the end of the day, a Presidential pardon will be conferred at the appropriate/most convenient opportunity.

Or actions will just be undertaken with the understanding that the participants will be operating deniably, in which case it is quite literally the Government unilaterally deciding that breaking the law is the only way.

[dataflow]

> Americans are Constitutionally guaranteed a right to privacy in the home

Not really. It's been inferred from the text by courts, but it's been a bit of a leap, and the Supreme Court can overturn the earlier interpretations at any time. "Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists."

[1] http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightof...

[hedora]

Roe v Wade was based on a purported right to privacy (I don’t understand the legal contortions that link abortions to privacy).

When they overturned Roe v Wade last year they simultaneously overturned the previous rulings that established a (limited by international standards) right to privacy in the US.