[B0Z]

> I don't understand how this argument that the constitution of a country (which represents its highest thoughts and ideals) can be applied selectively (i.e., only to citizens). If the thoughts contained therein regarding the rights of human beings are indeed 'True', then surely they should apply to all human beings?

You'll get little argument from most 'Mericans for your statement that these rights are human rights. The argument you will get is the rationality of transference. The difference between the OP and any American is citizenship and history.

US citizens of today are beneficiary to a Constitution that was crafted and bled for, over 200 years ago, with nasty war for our independence and claim to self governance. I didn't fight this battle. My father didn't fight this battle. Neither did his father. But one of the dumb-luck results of not only being born in the US to American citizens, are the benefits bestowed upon me by the war that was fought for the benefit of future generations (i.e. ME).

Now... this is going to sound really pointed and "f* y", but there's no other way to say it. Those 200+ year old men and women didn't fight this war for people in other countries, they did it for their own sons, daughters, and many generations that would come.

I agree! Those rights that were fought for should be universal human rights for every single person on the planet. But that's why you have to fight whatever government collects your taxes for those very rights on your own.

Respectfully.

[icebraining]

But that's why you have to fight whatever government collects your taxes for those very rights on your own.

Why? It's not the government collecting my taxes that is reading my emails and generally spying on my communications, it's the US'. How does fighting it help me?

[B0Z]

I hear the point. Seriously I do. But the Constitution the US is bound by is not an agreement between the US government and citizens of the world. It's an agreement between the US government and the citizens for whom it claims jurisdiction. It's scope and application is not only limited, but intentionally and wisely limited. Were it not, we would be imperial Britain and we all know how that worked out.

[jkrems]

I think you are missing the point here: My government (Germany) already grants those rights, maybe even more rights than the US. But this doesn't mean anything when I'm using a service provided by an US company over which my government doesn't have any jurisdiction. What the US government says by its position and in the age of internet and cloud computing is the following: The moment any non-US citizen is using a service provided by an US company, he is giving up any right to due process, privacy and data security (as far as this service is concerned). Which is risky and short-sighted to say the least.

[mpyne]

That's just it; our Icelandic friend at WikiLeaks didn't lose due process. A valid warrant was issued, that's essentially the end of story; that's all the protections U.S. citizens get, after all.

I do agree that there needs to be a framework for how "data privacy" works in the Cloud Era, but it's important to keep in mind that it's not as if the law was meant to be that uneven toward foreigners, the law is essentially still from a time when there was no such thing as a Cloud, and "search & seizure" actually meant something physically present was found and seized.

The law doesn't (in general) permit taking property in the U.S. belonging foreigners abroad, for instance, so it was not as if the legislators all had their "FUCK U EUROPE" pens out when they were drafting the laws.

What we need are bilateral treaties that cover this situation. Perhaps something like a Most Favored Nation status between nations that specifies what kind of warrant requirements would exist for a given foreign national.

But then again, how do you determine the nationality of the user behind a given IP address in the modern world?? :-/

[B0Z]

> The moment any non-US citizen is using a service provided by an US company, he is giving up any right to due process, privacy and data security (as far as this service is concerned). Which is risky and short-sighted to say the least.

I realize this is a crappy response, but the only solution is to not use the services of countries whose laws do not explicitly protect you. As a US citizen, I refuse to use any services that can avoid that are provided by China for this very reason. (aside from the fact that I can't read Chinese.)

But... it's really, really important you understand something else here... The rights and protections you are correctly suggesting are NOT granted to you because of the limited scope and application of our Constitution, are the exact same rights and protections of mine, as a US citizen, that are currently being violated. Were I a citizen of another country, I would be just as, if not more, incensed about what has been claimed about the privacy rights of my data recently. But imagine what it's like to have grown up in a country where the guarantee of these rights is so ingrained in our minds that they are barely (almost NEVER) questioned, to find out that they are being violated at will and without the legal right to challenge or even the right to know what those violations are.

I can not even begin to articulate to you the degree of uncontainable rage I and many, many people I know have regarding what is going on right now. I can't recall a single time in my entire life, which is not an insignificant number, that I have been more angry or concerned about anything. NOT F!*&%$ ONCE!