Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us(medium.com)
medium.com
Why discussions on cyber snooping have been so painful for us
https://medium.com/surveillance-state/f77088fd4c28
221 comments
It would, perhaps, be enlightening to quote the entire sentence from the US Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In particular:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
In particular:
...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Thank you - this is the most sensible comment I've seen in this thread.
Many thinkers throughout history have noted that states and criminal gangs are effectively the same. They are both inherently violent organisations. Criminal gangs are tiny states; states are large, settled criminal gangs.
The Yakuza in Japan or the Cray family (when they ruled half of London) are examples of intermediate forms: criminal gangs that have taken on some of the role of the state. Rather than arbitrarily robbing people, they instead ask for protection money. This is more than just a polite form of robbery: they legitimately protect you from other criminal gangs. Though I doubt anyone here has had to make the decision, I think everyone would prefer to deal with one predictable criminal gang than many competing unpredictable gangs.
Eventually the gang leaders realise that it's in their own interest to build a stable, prosperous society: its better to be a Caesar than a barbarian warlord. If nothing else, the wine is nicer. Passing laws and promising that even the leaders will abide by them makes the citizens comfortable dealing with one another and makes everyone richer. Once everyone is comfortable with the idea of the law being supreme, the mob might realise they can do away with kings and bring in constitutions and parliaments and so on. Democracy works (and only works) because the mob agrees that these are the set of rules they will live by, and that therefore it's not wise to ignore them.
Still, rights and laws remain contingent on power. Human rights only extend as far as the military reach of states that support human rights. Until we build a world government, the only universal law over humanity is the same as it was in 10000 BC: raw power, physical force, violence. The world as a whole is essentially a lawless realm consisting of about 200 gangs; the only thing that stops everything turning into bloods vs crips is a shaky system of alliances, treaties and, ultimately, mutually assured destruction.
One obvious counterpoint is that France no longer needs to fear Germany because the Germans and French are suddenly BFFs and neither will vote to go to war with the other. The "international community" is slowly coming to resemble a federated state, with one set of laws. But this community is not truly international. Russia and China can violate your right to privacy all they want. Ultimately, this is because they have H-bombs. Likewise, we can violate Sharia Law as much as we like and Iran can't stop us.
My point is this: most of these complaints would make sense if America truly was a world government, achieving legitimacy via just consent of the 7 billion governed. But it's not, and it can limit its citizenship however it pleases. The fact that America was historically built on immigration doesn't give me, a foreigner, the "right" to live there. The very concept is nonsensical - the USG has more guns than me, and so they can decide who's in and who's out. The idea that people should be able to live wherever they want is a beautiful dream but is entirely counter to the way the world is going, and is also horrendously impractical.
I've travelled to China a few times over the last few years and each time the visa requirements have gotten stricter. They've decided they don't need any more foreigners, and I can't contest the morality of this with the CPC because again, they have more guns than me. As the world gets more crowded, other middle income countries will follow suit. The walls are going up everywhere. As much as I, personally, would benefit from the US tearing down its borders and letting me live there without restriction, it doesn't make a lot of sense if they do so and other countries don't.
Americans can constrain their intelligence agencies and open their borders as much as they like. They can't force other countries to do the same, which means that these policy proposals are equivalent to "we should make our intelligence gathering less capable than that of China and Russia" and "we should import Latin Americans until our quality of life is equal to that of Honduras". If America wants to reenact the fall of Rome, that's their prerogative, but as a foreigner I wish other foreigners would not cheerlead them as they do so. No America means no "international community" (what can the EU do against China and Russia?), and good luck petitioning China to respect your human rights as a global citizen.
Although you might not believe it, I'm not actually a cynic about human nature or pessimistic about our future. We built stable, peaceful societies in a violent world. Go humanity! But we have to remember that this was not achieved by the divine intervention of the Great God Human Rights, but by working within the universal laws of power. Good can triumph over evil, but as even Jesus said, it needs the "cunning of snakes" to succeed.
Many thinkers throughout history have noted that states and criminal gangs are effectively the same. They are both inherently violent organisations. Criminal gangs are tiny states; states are large, settled criminal gangs.
The Yakuza in Japan or the Cray family (when they ruled half of London) are examples of intermediate forms: criminal gangs that have taken on some of the role of the state. Rather than arbitrarily robbing people, they instead ask for protection money. This is more than just a polite form of robbery: they legitimately protect you from other criminal gangs. Though I doubt anyone here has had to make the decision, I think everyone would prefer to deal with one predictable criminal gang than many competing unpredictable gangs.
Eventually the gang leaders realise that it's in their own interest to build a stable, prosperous society: its better to be a Caesar than a barbarian warlord. If nothing else, the wine is nicer. Passing laws and promising that even the leaders will abide by them makes the citizens comfortable dealing with one another and makes everyone richer. Once everyone is comfortable with the idea of the law being supreme, the mob might realise they can do away with kings and bring in constitutions and parliaments and so on. Democracy works (and only works) because the mob agrees that these are the set of rules they will live by, and that therefore it's not wise to ignore them.
Still, rights and laws remain contingent on power. Human rights only extend as far as the military reach of states that support human rights. Until we build a world government, the only universal law over humanity is the same as it was in 10000 BC: raw power, physical force, violence. The world as a whole is essentially a lawless realm consisting of about 200 gangs; the only thing that stops everything turning into bloods vs crips is a shaky system of alliances, treaties and, ultimately, mutually assured destruction.
One obvious counterpoint is that France no longer needs to fear Germany because the Germans and French are suddenly BFFs and neither will vote to go to war with the other. The "international community" is slowly coming to resemble a federated state, with one set of laws. But this community is not truly international. Russia and China can violate your right to privacy all they want. Ultimately, this is because they have H-bombs. Likewise, we can violate Sharia Law as much as we like and Iran can't stop us.
My point is this: most of these complaints would make sense if America truly was a world government, achieving legitimacy via just consent of the 7 billion governed. But it's not, and it can limit its citizenship however it pleases. The fact that America was historically built on immigration doesn't give me, a foreigner, the "right" to live there. The very concept is nonsensical - the USG has more guns than me, and so they can decide who's in and who's out. The idea that people should be able to live wherever they want is a beautiful dream but is entirely counter to the way the world is going, and is also horrendously impractical.
I've travelled to China a few times over the last few years and each time the visa requirements have gotten stricter. They've decided they don't need any more foreigners, and I can't contest the morality of this with the CPC because again, they have more guns than me. As the world gets more crowded, other middle income countries will follow suit. The walls are going up everywhere. As much as I, personally, would benefit from the US tearing down its borders and letting me live there without restriction, it doesn't make a lot of sense if they do so and other countries don't.
Americans can constrain their intelligence agencies and open their borders as much as they like. They can't force other countries to do the same, which means that these policy proposals are equivalent to "we should make our intelligence gathering less capable than that of China and Russia" and "we should import Latin Americans until our quality of life is equal to that of Honduras". If America wants to reenact the fall of Rome, that's their prerogative, but as a foreigner I wish other foreigners would not cheerlead them as they do so. No America means no "international community" (what can the EU do against China and Russia?), and good luck petitioning China to respect your human rights as a global citizen.
Although you might not believe it, I'm not actually a cynic about human nature or pessimistic about our future. We built stable, peaceful societies in a violent world. Go humanity! But we have to remember that this was not achieved by the divine intervention of the Great God Human Rights, but by working within the universal laws of power. Good can triumph over evil, but as even Jesus said, it needs the "cunning of snakes" to succeed.
Absolutely fantastic post, sir or madam.
I very much agree that the rest of the world is being a bit two-faced, on the one hand enjoying immensely the pax americana which we have wrought and on the other decrying the evils of American imperialism--despite doing damned little to act in a similarly noble fashion.
As much as we may, for example, decry the surveillance of foreigners by the .gov and bemoan the lack of open immigration policies, we cannot do so without also acknowledging that the US is still very much better in these regards than many of the other first-world nations.
The failure of the US is perhaps a sadness, but the failure of the American Dream--were it to come to pass--is far, far worse.
I very much agree that the rest of the world is being a bit two-faced, on the one hand enjoying immensely the pax americana which we have wrought and on the other decrying the evils of American imperialism--despite doing damned little to act in a similarly noble fashion.
As much as we may, for example, decry the surveillance of foreigners by the .gov and bemoan the lack of open immigration policies, we cannot do so without also acknowledging that the US is still very much better in these regards than many of the other first-world nations.
The failure of the US is perhaps a sadness, but the failure of the American Dream--were it to come to pass--is far, far worse.
To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.
Your apologia is as old as the Roman Empire, and made as little sense then - as Tacitus points out using Calcagus above.
The concept of a 'Pax Americana' is an absurdity given the wars instigated by the US just in the last few decades and manipulation of client states, and while other nation states are no different in many ways in being run for the benefit of those in power, I certainly wouldn't say the US is better in these regards than the majority of western states.
I'd condemn this sort of widespread surveillance no matter who the actor is (and in fact it seems the UK has been just as cavalier in their actions, to take one example). It's a very dangerous centralisation of power and will lead to the growth of a secret state, inimical to the values you appear to find admirable (though the American dream is a rather vague concept and could really mean anything).
Empires are not forces for good, on the contrary normally they civilise the world by subjugating it to their will. In our increasingly connected and mobile world, we should try to see past the concept of a nation state or empire building to universal values of human rights to basic needs, among which I'd place individual privacy fom state intrusion.
Your apologia is as old as the Roman Empire, and made as little sense then - as Tacitus points out using Calcagus above.
The concept of a 'Pax Americana' is an absurdity given the wars instigated by the US just in the last few decades and manipulation of client states, and while other nation states are no different in many ways in being run for the benefit of those in power, I certainly wouldn't say the US is better in these regards than the majority of western states.
I'd condemn this sort of widespread surveillance no matter who the actor is (and in fact it seems the UK has been just as cavalier in their actions, to take one example). It's a very dangerous centralisation of power and will lead to the growth of a secret state, inimical to the values you appear to find admirable (though the American dream is a rather vague concept and could really mean anything).
Empires are not forces for good, on the contrary normally they civilise the world by subjugating it to their will. In our increasingly connected and mobile world, we should try to see past the concept of a nation state or empire building to universal values of human rights to basic needs, among which I'd place individual privacy fom state intrusion.
And once the Empire was gone, I believe a great many people missed it.
We've seen the people voluntarily subject themselves to cataloging and surveillance on an unprecedented scale--Facebook, Twitter, Google, and so forth.
So, honestly, to hell with "the people". You claim that this information gathering is an outrage, that this invasion of privacy is an affront to all things decent.
Fact is, amigo, that fully a sixth of the human race has voluntarily given up their privacy to Facebook and the like in exchange for a cute little garden to play in and communicate with. Sadly, we seem to have forfeited the right that we otherwise would've claimed.
The people have spoken.
We've seen the people voluntarily subject themselves to cataloging and surveillance on an unprecedented scale--Facebook, Twitter, Google, and so forth.
So, honestly, to hell with "the people". You claim that this information gathering is an outrage, that this invasion of privacy is an affront to all things decent.
Fact is, amigo, that fully a sixth of the human race has voluntarily given up their privacy to Facebook and the like in exchange for a cute little garden to play in and communicate with. Sadly, we seem to have forfeited the right that we otherwise would've claimed.
The people have spoken.
I disagree about nostalgia for Empire - that tends to be connected with apologies for contemporary empire building, while ignoring the constant warfare, massive slavery, brutal subjugation of conquered peoples, venality and corruption of Ancient Rome. It's a fascinating period, but hardly one to feel nostalgia for.
I agree that frequent and public sharing of information via twitter etc will in future be considered dangerous, and some people are sharing far too much, much of it out in public. That has no bearing on my individual right to privacy though - just because lots of people engage in public sharing of trivia, news, and opinions doesn't mean they are abdicating the right to privacy on more substantial matters - not many would agree to sharing all their email publicly for example.
The more important point for me is that there is a big difference between me sharing some info publicly, some info semi-anonymously, and then separately private financial info with my bank, numbers called with my phone company, email with google etc, and intel agencies of my country demanding access to all this information in aggregate for everyone, in perpetuity, and sharing it with other agencies and countries, with no effective oversight or even permission.
I see no justifiable excuse for that, not the mirage of a Pax Americana, Islamist terrorists, or any future threat.
I agree that frequent and public sharing of information via twitter etc will in future be considered dangerous, and some people are sharing far too much, much of it out in public. That has no bearing on my individual right to privacy though - just because lots of people engage in public sharing of trivia, news, and opinions doesn't mean they are abdicating the right to privacy on more substantial matters - not many would agree to sharing all their email publicly for example.
The more important point for me is that there is a big difference between me sharing some info publicly, some info semi-anonymously, and then separately private financial info with my bank, numbers called with my phone company, email with google etc, and intel agencies of my country demanding access to all this information in aggregate for everyone, in perpetuity, and sharing it with other agencies and countries, with no effective oversight or even permission.
I see no justifiable excuse for that, not the mirage of a Pax Americana, Islamist terrorists, or any future threat.
| the US is still very much better in these
| regards than many of the other first-world
| nations.
Just to reinforce this point and the fact that it is not going away: this is literally natural law.
Our weapons are no different than bacterial antibiotic resistances and all the other genetic mutations that have led to what life is today. It does not matter if all seven billion people consented, all it would take is one willing person with a weapon strong enough to subdue the rest of civilization to take power. That weapon doesn't even need to be technology, it could be as simple as blackmailing the people holding the power.
The struggle for life, let alone liberty and privacy, has always been an arms race and it always will be.
Our weapons are no different than bacterial antibiotic resistances and all the other genetic mutations that have led to what life is today. It does not matter if all seven billion people consented, all it would take is one willing person with a weapon strong enough to subdue the rest of civilization to take power. That weapon doesn't even need to be technology, it could be as simple as blackmailing the people holding the power.
The struggle for life, let alone liberty and privacy, has always been an arms race and it always will be.
For anyone interested, Norbert Elias (1897-1990) wrote a very enlightening book "The Civilizing Process" describing how these small social structures evolved into States as we know them in Occident [1]. Excerpted from a summary [2]:
According to Elias, monopolization, and especially the monopolization of physical force and violence warranted more self-restraint from both the government and the individual. In "The civilizing Process" Elias talks about "a chain of mutual dependence" which makes people dependent upon each other in order to perform various tasks and achieve their goals. This, according to Elias, explains why societies required more stability, regularity and supervision. Transportation and the development of markets increased human interactions between people who found themselves dependent on each other even without direct contact. This according to Elias has led for the need to coordinate actions and establish the "rules of the game". Playing by the rules meant a growing demand for self restraint.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process
[2]: http://culturalstudiesnow.blogspot.fr/2012/04/norbert-elias-...
According to Elias, monopolization, and especially the monopolization of physical force and violence warranted more self-restraint from both the government and the individual. In "The civilizing Process" Elias talks about "a chain of mutual dependence" which makes people dependent upon each other in order to perform various tasks and achieve their goals. This, according to Elias, explains why societies required more stability, regularity and supervision. Transportation and the development of markets increased human interactions between people who found themselves dependent on each other even without direct contact. This according to Elias has led for the need to coordinate actions and establish the "rules of the game". Playing by the rules meant a growing demand for self restraint.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process
[2]: http://culturalstudiesnow.blogspot.fr/2012/04/norbert-elias-...
I addressed your us-versus-them mindset in my reply to Goladus, but I couldn't help but point out how disingenuous this is:
Good can triumph over evil, but as even Jesus said, it needs the "cunning of snakes" to succeed.
The whole quote is: "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."
You conveniently forgot the "innocent as doves" part, obviously because it doesn't fit in with the rest of your argument that America must act like a cirminal gang to secure peace. I feel unfortunate to live in a world filled with others who feel the same as you.
Good can triumph over evil, but as even Jesus said, it needs the "cunning of snakes" to succeed.
The whole quote is: "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."
You conveniently forgot the "innocent as doves" part, obviously because it doesn't fit in with the rest of your argument that America must act like a cirminal gang to secure peace. I feel unfortunate to live in a world filled with others who feel the same as you.
You misunderstand my argument. Obviously Jesus says that you should do good. Apparently that was a big part of his shtick. But if you want to actually do good you need to have a pretty fucking clear idea of how the world works. Because, y'know, wolves. It's not that America must act like a criminal gang, it's that it lives in a neighbourhood patrolled by a number of criminal gangs, so even if its ultimate goal is to kumbayah the world into submission it should probably keep a few guns in reserve, just in case.
"I feel unfortunate to live in a world filled with others who feel the same as you."
Judging by the comments here, I think its filled more with people who feel the same as you. It's not since the 19th century that people like me have been common, though the ideas I'm riffing on were already old during the Roman Empire, who succesfully implemented the only known formula for world peace discovered to date (si vis pacem, para bellum). The 20th century was full of idealistic visionaries who tried flipping this ancient wisdom, with predictable results.
You should feel unfortunate in about two or three decades though: that's when I forecast the West's technological and economic boons peter out and its various infringements of natural law finally catch up with it, and the east Asian nations bring back the old order: national sovereignty over world policing, mercantilism over outsourcing, savings over debt, and good governance over democracy.
"I feel unfortunate to live in a world filled with others who feel the same as you."
Judging by the comments here, I think its filled more with people who feel the same as you. It's not since the 19th century that people like me have been common, though the ideas I'm riffing on were already old during the Roman Empire, who succesfully implemented the only known formula for world peace discovered to date (si vis pacem, para bellum). The 20th century was full of idealistic visionaries who tried flipping this ancient wisdom, with predictable results.
You should feel unfortunate in about two or three decades though: that's when I forecast the West's technological and economic boons peter out and its various infringements of natural law finally catch up with it, and the east Asian nations bring back the old order: national sovereignty over world policing, mercantilism over outsourcing, savings over debt, and good governance over democracy.
I agree with abraininavat; your perspective is an unfortunate one. Or you're being disingenuous. Roman empire and world peace? The Roman empire a) was at constant war, and b) governed over a tiny sliver of the world. And "keep a few guns in reserve just in case" != more military spending than next 20 countries combined; massive spying on allies, enemies, and citizens alike; etc.
You are interpreting this precisely backwards.
These "Rights" are unalienable. They are not to be given away, they are not to be taken away. Governments exist to secure these rights. To help protect these rights, the government may exist... but only by consent of the people being governed.
It may be true that the Russian government does not give these rights to it's citizens, or that these citizens yield these rights to the Russian government. Nevertheless, according to the morals listed in the DoI, the US government is founded on the belief that Russians have these rights, because they are human beings.
Therefore, the US government, when dealing with 'men' of any nationally, needs to respect the unalienable Rights which all men have been granted by their Creator. Anything else is hypocritical.
Edit: after thinking about it, it gets even better. Because foreigners have not consented to being governed by the US, the rights of foreigners not to be spied on by the US government would go even further than the rights of Americans. And yes, I know the DoI is not law. But if we Americans cannot simultaneously claim to believe in it's principles and make laws that contradict it without being hypocritical.
These "Rights" are unalienable. They are not to be given away, they are not to be taken away. Governments exist to secure these rights. To help protect these rights, the government may exist... but only by consent of the people being governed.
It may be true that the Russian government does not give these rights to it's citizens, or that these citizens yield these rights to the Russian government. Nevertheless, according to the morals listed in the DoI, the US government is founded on the belief that Russians have these rights, because they are human beings.
Therefore, the US government, when dealing with 'men' of any nationally, needs to respect the unalienable Rights which all men have been granted by their Creator. Anything else is hypocritical.
Edit: after thinking about it, it gets even better. Because foreigners have not consented to being governed by the US, the rights of foreigners not to be spied on by the US government would go even further than the rights of Americans. And yes, I know the DoI is not law. But if we Americans cannot simultaneously claim to believe in it's principles and make laws that contradict it without being hypocritical.
Backwards or forwards, my interpretation is less an oversimplification than the parent.
It may be true that the Russian government does not give these rights to it's citizens, or that these citizens yield these rights to the Russian government. Nevertheless, according to the morals listed in the DoI, the US government is founded on the belief that Russians have these rights, because they are human beings.
The distinction one must make based on my interpretation is that the US may believe that Russians have those rights, but it is not the US Government's responsibility to secure them, especially if doing so would conflict with the objective of securing the rights of its own citizens.
The Government's first duty is to its citizens, and it's the duty of citizens to hold its government accountable. It is, therefore, not the least bit surprising to see a different reaction between the idea of a government spying on others versus spying on citizens.
I also did not bother to question the relevance of bringing in Geneva convention arguments into a discussion about surveillance and privacy. If you examine carefully, you'll discover that the Geneva Convention deals with issues of life, liberty, and happiness quite directly in the sense of execution, imprisonment, and torture. Privacy, meanwhile, is a right derived from the US Constitution and not one of those alluded to in the Declaration.
Nowhere do I say that you can't argue that a Government should uphold basic rights of all humans everywhere regardless of citizenship. What you can't do is trot out the first half-phrase of the Declaration of Independence, highlight one example of a legal argument that a non-state entity had flagrantly violated terms of a convention and should not enjoy its benefits, and somehow try to connect that to Americans being really pissed off about being subject to a large surveillance program by their own Government.
It may be true that the Russian government does not give these rights to it's citizens, or that these citizens yield these rights to the Russian government. Nevertheless, according to the morals listed in the DoI, the US government is founded on the belief that Russians have these rights, because they are human beings.
The distinction one must make based on my interpretation is that the US may believe that Russians have those rights, but it is not the US Government's responsibility to secure them, especially if doing so would conflict with the objective of securing the rights of its own citizens.
The Government's first duty is to its citizens, and it's the duty of citizens to hold its government accountable. It is, therefore, not the least bit surprising to see a different reaction between the idea of a government spying on others versus spying on citizens.
I also did not bother to question the relevance of bringing in Geneva convention arguments into a discussion about surveillance and privacy. If you examine carefully, you'll discover that the Geneva Convention deals with issues of life, liberty, and happiness quite directly in the sense of execution, imprisonment, and torture. Privacy, meanwhile, is a right derived from the US Constitution and not one of those alluded to in the Declaration.
Nowhere do I say that you can't argue that a Government should uphold basic rights of all humans everywhere regardless of citizenship. What you can't do is trot out the first half-phrase of the Declaration of Independence, highlight one example of a legal argument that a non-state entity had flagrantly violated terms of a convention and should not enjoy its benefits, and somehow try to connect that to Americans being really pissed off about being subject to a large surveillance program by their own Government.
> it is not the US Government's responsibility to secure them
no-one is asking the USG to secure anything (though it seems happy to jump in and do so when it suits other objectives) - the issue is direct, willful, and secret violation of human rights considered inalienable by the USG itself.
no-one is asking the USG to secure anything (though it seems happy to jump in and do so when it suits other objectives) - the issue is direct, willful, and secret violation of human rights considered inalienable by the USG itself.
These "Rights" are unalienable.
They are in alienable. That is to say, incapable of being separated from the individual possessing them. Literally, they cannot be alienated (separated) from the person possessing them.
Your real property (home, money, possessions, even spouse, children, or other family) may be taken from you and given to someone else.
The word inalienable refers not to rights which may not be taken, but which can not be taken.
You may be deprived of these rights, but nobody else can take possession of them.
It's a subtle difference, and one few people understand, particularly in the context of natural, civil, or universal human rights, which can be argued to have a moral or socially beneficial basis, but may still be alienable.
There's also a fair amount of debate over the self-evidence, alienability, and/or naturalness of these rights. Of of their status should they become so (say, through technology).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
They are in alienable. That is to say, incapable of being separated from the individual possessing them. Literally, they cannot be alienated (separated) from the person possessing them.
Your real property (home, money, possessions, even spouse, children, or other family) may be taken from you and given to someone else.
The word inalienable refers not to rights which may not be taken, but which can not be taken.
You may be deprived of these rights, but nobody else can take possession of them.
It's a subtle difference, and one few people understand, particularly in the context of natural, civil, or universal human rights, which can be argued to have a moral or socially beneficial basis, but may still be alienable.
There's also a fair amount of debate over the self-evidence, alienability, and/or naturalness of these rights. Of of their status should they become so (say, through technology).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
> It may be true that the Russian government does not give these rights to it's citizens, or that these citizens yield these rights to the Russian government.
That isn't what the parent is talking about. He's asserting that only citizens of the US have granted the US the power to enforce the granting or ceding of rights. Non-US citizens must look to their own governments for such protection.
But, this is more like it:
> Because foreigners have not consented to being governed by the US, the rights of foreigners not to be spied on by the US government would go even further than the rights of Americans
That isn't what the parent is talking about. He's asserting that only citizens of the US have granted the US the power to enforce the granting or ceding of rights. Non-US citizens must look to their own governments for such protection.
But, this is more like it:
> Because foreigners have not consented to being governed by the US, the rights of foreigners not to be spied on by the US government would go even further than the rights of Americans
I really hope President Obama reads this.
But to follow that completely, you've also made no contract by your consent to give your government the power to arrest, prosecute, or employ various armed agents to use against another who has not so consented to your government.
Treaties are an implicit social contract. The parties to a treaty are contracting binding social obligations and permissible and expected behaviors. If they were not a social contract, they would have no binding power. They may usefully be understood as a constitution of sorts between foreign powers.
Violating a treaty is violating a social contract. A social contract does not equal a constitution alone.
Treaties are an implicit social contract. The parties to a treaty are contracting binding social obligations and permissible and expected behaviors. If they were not a social contract, they would have no binding power. They may usefully be understood as a constitution of sorts between foreign powers.
Violating a treaty is violating a social contract. A social contract does not equal a constitution alone.
But to follow that completely, you've also made no contract by your consent to give your government the power to arrest, prosecute, or employ various armed agents to use against another who has not so consented to your government.
It's true that's outside the scope of my comment. However, once again referring to the Declaration of Independence, the concluding paragraph includes comments that the notion of statehood includes these rights[1]:
as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
Specifically, that's the role of the Head of State (The President) and the State Department.
====
Violating a treaty is violating a social contract. A social contract does not equal a constitution alone.
My intent was to draw a distinction between the relationship between the US government and its own people and the relationship between the the US government and non-citizens. My use of the term "social contract" was a reference to the specific Enlightenment concept.
The distinction was drawn in order to help explain to people why reactions to domestic spying are different than reactions to, say, the CIA spying in Pakistan. Domestic spying gets a more visceral, widespread negative reaction because the social contract a between government and its own citizens is highly sensitive. It's the only thing preventing oppression and tyranny-- violations should always result in an immediate flurry of public discourse, political consequences, and push to address the breach. This is not to say that treaty violations and other interaction with foreign actors is not serious-- there was no shortage of outrage about for Abu Ghraib-- but people are one step removed in any such interaction in a way that they are not when the government has offended its own.
[1] Selective quote, yes. But most relevant to the point. The "Supreme Judge of the World" part is interesting and relevant to the discussion in general but I didn't have time to address it.
It's true that's outside the scope of my comment. However, once again referring to the Declaration of Independence, the concluding paragraph includes comments that the notion of statehood includes these rights[1]:
as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
Specifically, that's the role of the Head of State (The President) and the State Department.
====
Violating a treaty is violating a social contract. A social contract does not equal a constitution alone.
My intent was to draw a distinction between the relationship between the US government and its own people and the relationship between the the US government and non-citizens. My use of the term "social contract" was a reference to the specific Enlightenment concept.
The distinction was drawn in order to help explain to people why reactions to domestic spying are different than reactions to, say, the CIA spying in Pakistan. Domestic spying gets a more visceral, widespread negative reaction because the social contract a between government and its own citizens is highly sensitive. It's the only thing preventing oppression and tyranny-- violations should always result in an immediate flurry of public discourse, political consequences, and push to address the breach. This is not to say that treaty violations and other interaction with foreign actors is not serious-- there was no shortage of outrage about for Abu Ghraib-- but people are one step removed in any such interaction in a way that they are not when the government has offended its own.
[1] Selective quote, yes. But most relevant to the point. The "Supreme Judge of the World" part is interesting and relevant to the discussion in general but I didn't have time to address it.
I'm pretty sure nkoren's point has just flown over your head.
You're talking about the obligations of the US Government. The US Government clearly only has the obligation to secure the rights of its own citizens.
nkoren is talking about the rights of the US Government. Just look at the language of the very first clause. All men are guaranteed these rights. It makes no mention of citizenship. That the US Government has the obligation to protect the rights of only US citizens does not mean that it has the right to violate the rights of non-US citizens. I don't buy the bullshit that the government can only protect my rights by violating the rights of others. That's small-minded thinking.
I agree with 4891 that nations act like criminal gangs. I seem to be one of very few who believe they shouldn't, though.
You're talking about the obligations of the US Government. The US Government clearly only has the obligation to secure the rights of its own citizens.
nkoren is talking about the rights of the US Government. Just look at the language of the very first clause. All men are guaranteed these rights. It makes no mention of citizenship. That the US Government has the obligation to protect the rights of only US citizens does not mean that it has the right to violate the rights of non-US citizens. I don't buy the bullshit that the government can only protect my rights by violating the rights of others. That's small-minded thinking.
I agree with 4891 that nations act like criminal gangs. I seem to be one of very few who believe they shouldn't, though.
nkoren is talking about the rights of the US Government.
No, he is talking about the behavior of the US Government and the behavior of its citizens, and inferring motivating principles from that. Nkoren appears to have concluded that the US and its people have abandoned the founding enlightenment ideals in favor of utter selfishness.
I don't buy the bullshit that the government can only protect my rights by violating the rights of others.
Sorry, but that's just the way life is. Maybe someday we can live in a world without prisons, without police, without armies, and without weapons but until that utopia comes people will infringe the rights of others, and the only way to stop them is return violation. That is not to say that every time a government claims it is acting to protect the rights of its citizens it is actually doing so, or that the violations it commits are justified. Or even worth the monetary cost. Small-minded thinking is not being able to make distinctions between John Yoo, Drone Strikes, and PRISM because you think universal human equality is the only enlightenment ideal that matters.
No, he is talking about the behavior of the US Government and the behavior of its citizens, and inferring motivating principles from that. Nkoren appears to have concluded that the US and its people have abandoned the founding enlightenment ideals in favor of utter selfishness.
I don't buy the bullshit that the government can only protect my rights by violating the rights of others.
Sorry, but that's just the way life is. Maybe someday we can live in a world without prisons, without police, without armies, and without weapons but until that utopia comes people will infringe the rights of others, and the only way to stop them is return violation. That is not to say that every time a government claims it is acting to protect the rights of its citizens it is actually doing so, or that the violations it commits are justified. Or even worth the monetary cost. Small-minded thinking is not being able to make distinctions between John Yoo, Drone Strikes, and PRISM because you think universal human equality is the only enlightenment ideal that matters.
Honestly, no.
Small minded thinking is being unable to step out from behind the 'protection' offered by authority figures because the world just seems too scary to you.
If the cost of belief in the rights of humanity to freedom, dignity and self determination is high, that is because the rewards are great.
Stop being cynical, and stop being scared. Look up. The sun is shining :)
Small minded thinking is being unable to step out from behind the 'protection' offered by authority figures because the world just seems too scary to you.
If the cost of belief in the rights of humanity to freedom, dignity and self determination is high, that is because the rewards are great.
Stop being cynical, and stop being scared. Look up. The sun is shining :)
Thank you for that.
Can I just say, I wouldn't say the Enlightenment Ideal is all but gone. It's not even near death.
We, the people, chose leaders and were betrayed. That doesn't just apply to the US, but I'll start there. I believe the people were half-awake...but not completely unaware of who they were electing or what they would lose.
The idealist's battle against tyranny on one side and anarchy on the other is strewn all across the pages of history. Some idealists lost their way. But the ideals, "Safety and Happiness" – really, the entire Declaration of Independence or the UN Declaration of Human Rights – the ideals don't die.
They are self-evident. Like 3.14159 and 2.71828.
Can I just say, I wouldn't say the Enlightenment Ideal is all but gone. It's not even near death.
We, the people, chose leaders and were betrayed. That doesn't just apply to the US, but I'll start there. I believe the people were half-awake...but not completely unaware of who they were electing or what they would lose.
The idealist's battle against tyranny on one side and anarchy on the other is strewn all across the pages of history. Some idealists lost their way. But the ideals, "Safety and Happiness" – really, the entire Declaration of Independence or the UN Declaration of Human Rights – the ideals don't die.
They are self-evident. Like 3.14159 and 2.71828.
We, the people, chose leaders and were betrayed. That doesn't just apply to the US...
Absolutely true. Unfortunately, in my opinion, one of the things that simply does not work in modern democracy is the election system, two-party death march or otherwise: Candidates play to emotion and often outright lie or intentionally overpromise solely for the purpose of attaining office. And it works, every damn time.
They then find themselves either predictably impotent or, worse, they settle in and show their real colors... and usually win re-election anyway.
If enough people continue to fail to understand this, the majority of the voting public will continue to actively subjugate everyone to the rule and whim of dangerously uninterested officials, and those who do understand will continue to find themselves without candidates worth voting for, as these races the world over are overwhelmingly choked with self-serving bureaucrats who have little if any interest in their constituents' (or anyone else's) well-being.
Absolutely true. Unfortunately, in my opinion, one of the things that simply does not work in modern democracy is the election system, two-party death march or otherwise: Candidates play to emotion and often outright lie or intentionally overpromise solely for the purpose of attaining office. And it works, every damn time.
They then find themselves either predictably impotent or, worse, they settle in and show their real colors... and usually win re-election anyway.
If enough people continue to fail to understand this, the majority of the voting public will continue to actively subjugate everyone to the rule and whim of dangerously uninterested officials, and those who do understand will continue to find themselves without candidates worth voting for, as these races the world over are overwhelmingly choked with self-serving bureaucrats who have little if any interest in their constituents' (or anyone else's) well-being.
No, the ability to choose the outcome is still well and truly in our hands.
I didn't say when or where, but I do believe that the power to govern invariably flows from the people themselves.
I didn't say when or where, but I do believe that the power to govern invariably flows from the people themselves.
Nah, it's too late. The USA is no longer what it was relative to the rest of the world. It still has the same flag, but the understanding of the importance of Liberty is largely gone.
200+ years ago, a large portion of the population would rather die than be dictated to by an implacable and uncaring confiscatory government. Today the population doesn't even realize what they're missing because they have really good cable television, video games, and reality shows.
200+ years ago, a large portion of the population would rather die than be dictated to by an implacable and uncaring confiscatory government. Today the population doesn't even realize what they're missing because they have really good cable television, video games, and reality shows.
99.999% of government officials aren't close to being touched by elections. Do you honestly believe you can change government significantly while leaving 99.999% of the government unchanged?
See my previous comment on the issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5842029
See my previous comment on the issue: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5842029
5 significant figures? I think you need to provide extensive documentation for your claims.
> The idealist's battle against tyranny on one side and anarchy on the other is strewn all across the pages of history. Some idealists lost their way. But the ideals, "Safety and Happiness" – really, the entire Declaration of Independence or the UN Declaration of Human Rights – the ideals don't die.
> They are self-evident. Like 3.14159 and 2.71828.
sounds, I'm with you on this one, being intrinsically inalienable -- incapable of being separated -- as in Plato's Republic, where the individual is homeomorphic to the enveloping state(cops, donuts, coffee cups are topologically equivalent therefore flock together) that you conduct your own personal House, COITUS(Congress), SCOTUS, POTUS, and JUDUS founded on the certain conviction that the mathematical constants will be in the sky tomorrow, we can improve our municipal safety officers by serving EQUAL EXCHANGE(tm) coffees:
http://equalexchange.coop/products/coffee
> They are self-evident. Like 3.14159 and 2.71828.
sounds, I'm with you on this one, being intrinsically inalienable -- incapable of being separated -- as in Plato's Republic, where the individual is homeomorphic to the enveloping state(cops, donuts, coffee cups are topologically equivalent therefore flock together) that you conduct your own personal House, COITUS(Congress), SCOTUS, POTUS, and JUDUS founded on the certain conviction that the mathematical constants will be in the sky tomorrow, we can improve our municipal safety officers by serving EQUAL EXCHANGE(tm) coffees:
http://equalexchange.coop/products/coffee
Did you really just put a Lady Gaga in with SCOTUS? :)
Lady Gaga? Sorry ...beyond my ken.
JUDUS: Justice Department of the United States
"...But Obama’s Justice Department, like Bush’s, has not been above an opportunistic (and occasionally downright Procrustean) reading of particular statutes to permit whatever it is that the White House wants to do."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5961518
"...But Obama’s Justice Department, like Bush’s, has not been above an opportunistic (and occasionally downright Procrustean) reading of particular statutes to permit whatever it is that the White House wants to do."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5961518
We, the people, chose leaders and were betrayed
No, we chose leaders who would give us freebies and security vs leaders who would protect our freedoms.
The fact that we have twice elected a President who talks of "fair share" and we don't recognize that language for the trap that it is tells you exactly why we are in this situation today.
No, we chose leaders who would give us freebies and security vs leaders who would protect our freedoms.
The fact that we have twice elected a President who talks of "fair share" and we don't recognize that language for the trap that it is tells you exactly why we are in this situation today.
> The fact that we have twice elected a President who (...)
The fact that your alternative to re-electing that guy would've been somebody equivalently bad, tells me that there wasn't a lot of choice involved in the first place.
Your betrayal started already before that, with the corruption of choice.
The Simpsons laid it out pretty clearly already some decades ago, and instead it seems to have only gotten worse--from "the lesser of two evils" to "the equivalent of two evils" ...
The fact that your alternative to re-electing that guy would've been somebody equivalently bad, tells me that there wasn't a lot of choice involved in the first place.
Your betrayal started already before that, with the corruption of choice.
The Simpsons laid it out pretty clearly already some decades ago, and instead it seems to have only gotten worse--from "the lesser of two evils" to "the equivalent of two evils" ...
> This ideal is all but gone.
Doesn't slavery demonstrate that this ideal never even existed in the first place?
Doesn't slavery demonstrate that this ideal never even existed in the first place?
It demonstrated that they had the right ideals but were unable to put them into practice in one fell swoop. As Lincoln pointed out - the framework of the Declaration was an ideal to be pursued. The Founders' wisdom in what they put into motion necessitated the eventual end of slavery.
There's a big difference between moving toward the Declaration as an ideal as we still were in the time from the Founding until the early 1900s vs completely running away from those ideals as we have since.
There's a big difference between moving toward the Declaration as an ideal as we still were in the time from the Founding until the early 1900s vs completely running away from those ideals as we have since.
Some of the Founders more than others. While many of them came from the North, where there were no slaves and slavery was generally unpopular, and some of the others like Washington and Jefferson held slaves but felt bad about it, there was a large enough contingent of Southern politicians who just plain favored slavery and had to be politically negotiated with. If you define "the Founders" as "everyone who attended the Continental Congresses or the Constitutional Convention", many of them were idealists, many of them had a vision, but many others were just ordinary politicians with their own agendas.
This also holds true for all American political history from the founding of the country to the Civil War.
This also holds true for all American political history from the founding of the country to the Civil War.
It's also important to remember that this was before the industrial revolution, when almost the entire economy was agricultural, thus the South was far more powerful than the north.
The Civil War started right after the industrial revolution ended. By this time, the balance of power was greatly in favor of the North.
The Civil War started right after the industrial revolution ended. By this time, the balance of power was greatly in favor of the North.
It's also worth pointing out that one of the early products of the industrial revolution--the cotton gin--made slavery far more cost-effective. It would have died out by natural economic causes otherwise.
Agreed. There will never be 100% admirable behavior in any person or political body.
The amazing thing about the Founders, though, was that the admirable forces were able to write the documents.
Compare that to today's "gang of eight" senators who created the immigration bill. That thing was a disaster before they had their first meeting. They had a unique chance to create solid immigration law, but have f'd it up beyond all reasoning.
The Founding documents were philosophical and political works of art. Where are works such as they coming form in today's society? Where are they being enacted into law?
The amazing thing about the Founders, though, was that the admirable forces were able to write the documents.
Compare that to today's "gang of eight" senators who created the immigration bill. That thing was a disaster before they had their first meeting. They had a unique chance to create solid immigration law, but have f'd it up beyond all reasoning.
The Founding documents were philosophical and political works of art. Where are works such as they coming form in today's society? Where are they being enacted into law?
I wish I had some authoritative references for this. Hopefully somebody else can write authoritatively or correct me. Based on my readings, slavery was always a problematic aspect of America.
Even the founders debated whether to abolish slavery, but ultimately punted because they felt uniting the states was more important.
That is, it was a tough compromise.
Take a look at the book The Long March (about Lincoln). There was a several-decade long movement before 1864 to abolish slavery.
Even the founders debated whether to abolish slavery, but ultimately punted because they felt uniting the states was more important.
That is, it was a tough compromise.
Take a look at the book The Long March (about Lincoln). There was a several-decade long movement before 1864 to abolish slavery.
William Freehling's Road to Disunion covers the topic thoroughly. Most of the founders expected slavery to die away gradually. The idea that it should remain permanently didn't appear for another 50 years and was never universal, even in the Deep South.
The book also explores the tensions between slavery and American ideals, and the many complications the tensions produced.
The book also explores the tensions between slavery and American ideals, and the many complications the tensions produced.
An ideal can exist, but take time to be fully realized. It's not as though slavery were universally accepted in America even at the height of its use.
I can't understand the historical perspective that trashes the founders because of slavery. After fighting a long guerrilla rebellion and forming a new nation with a novel form of government, were they supposed to immediately turn on southern slave owners in another bloody war? If so, the American republic would have lasted maybe 10 years.
And Native Americans. They weren't people either.
Perhaps the founding fathers left their aspirations on words and letters hoping that a braver, future generation will make it happen for real.
Actually, it died fairly quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts_of_1798
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts_of_1798
> that they are endowed by their Creator
Okay, so what about all of us that don't believe in the supernatural? Do our rights come from an all-loving God, or are they creations of man like everything else in society?
Okay, so what about all of us that don't believe in the supernatural? Do our rights come from an all-loving God, or are they creations of man like everything else in society?
The idea of rights as creations of man begs the question of how any of our present rights came to exist in the first place, especially considering the sentiments expressed elsewhere in this thread--that is, "might makes right" and that states are just more powerful criminal gangs. On the other hand, the idea of man's rights being endowed by their Creator implies that these self-evident rights are based on the nature of an all-loving creator God and are bestowed on mankind by God. Although such a view may be residue of the influence of Christendom on society and law, it's hard to find a more cogent argument for human rights. At least I haven't heard any compelling secular arguments for their existence.
It says "their creator". You didn't spring up from a cabbage patch so something created you. The total context of what that means to you is up to you. The US is a free country, believe what you want. A lot of people died and do die to give us that, I'm grateful for them and for the US even though I wish and pray for a better choice in the next election.
Well, Enlightenment ideals that were still based in semi-religious terminology aside, "their Creator" does not necessarily require an appeal to the supernatural.
One would, I think, be justified interpreting that to mean the physical processes of the Universe from which humankind arose (justified in interpreting the meaning of 'their Creator', not necessarily possessed of an easily established and defended position regarding how rights themselves rose from the primordial soup (which I must admit would make for an entertaining read)). Science had yet to provide an explanation for the origin of life, as I'm sure you know, and we can safely dispense with the defense that these rights come from a god. To suggest they come from the Universe is equally silly, but it's a hell of a lot better than the supernatural.
One would, I think, be more justified interpreting it properly just as you said--the Creator is humankind itself, like everything else in society. All (nearly all?) notable political theorists have built their analyses of social states on the premise that there are fundamental rights agreed to be important for all persons, for which humankind organizes governments/societies to protect and guarantee in the pursuit of justice. (I can't think of a notable theorist who has argued otherwise, but would be interested in knowing of one.)
Their appeals to the supernatural aside, the founders are certainly the creators of the rights of which we still believe we are endowed.
One would, I think, be justified interpreting that to mean the physical processes of the Universe from which humankind arose (justified in interpreting the meaning of 'their Creator', not necessarily possessed of an easily established and defended position regarding how rights themselves rose from the primordial soup (which I must admit would make for an entertaining read)). Science had yet to provide an explanation for the origin of life, as I'm sure you know, and we can safely dispense with the defense that these rights come from a god. To suggest they come from the Universe is equally silly, but it's a hell of a lot better than the supernatural.
One would, I think, be more justified interpreting it properly just as you said--the Creator is humankind itself, like everything else in society. All (nearly all?) notable political theorists have built their analyses of social states on the premise that there are fundamental rights agreed to be important for all persons, for which humankind organizes governments/societies to protect and guarantee in the pursuit of justice. (I can't think of a notable theorist who has argued otherwise, but would be interested in knowing of one.)
Their appeals to the supernatural aside, the founders are certainly the creators of the rights of which we still believe we are endowed.
> To suggest they come from the Universe is equally silly, but it's a hell of a lot better than the supernatural.
No, it's equally supernatural.
> One would, I think, be more justified interpreting it properly just as you said--the Creator is humankind itself, like everything else in society.
Rights come from your neighbors willing to fight to protect your "rights" whether its your right to life or your right to property.
And that's why rights are not universal. I'll take up arms to defend my neighbors, but not people in China or Russia.
No, it's equally supernatural.
> One would, I think, be more justified interpreting it properly just as you said--the Creator is humankind itself, like everything else in society.
Rights come from your neighbors willing to fight to protect your "rights" whether its your right to life or your right to property.
And that's why rights are not universal. I'll take up arms to defend my neighbors, but not people in China or Russia.
Not that this is much of a surprise. You'll have a hard time reconciling France's last 200 years with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen it birthed
The constitution was written for a world that lacked instant communication and had clearly defined jurisdictions that could be drawn on a map. It is time to extend the bill or rights to everyone.
Welcome to the world outside of the US, there is such a thing as 'human rights' already you know. You can keep your bill of 'rights' where it is, thanks.
Just so we are clear the comment you are replying to is quoting the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. These documents are very different.
I was interested, so I found the original John Yoo opinion on the subject: http://works.bepress.com/johnyoo/9/
That ideal was gone at the time those words were written, when the founders had slaves.
I was going to write a comment to this effect on one of the many threads related to this subject, but figured it would fall on deaf ears.
Americans should not underestimate the damage this scandal has done to the American 'brand'. Growing up, I was the Americophile of my friends. I loved American culture, I aspired to live the American dream, I fully intended to pursue American citizenship later in life.
This is only the latest in a long line of realisations, but my view couldn't have changed more. I don't even want to visit the US again, let alone pledge my allegiance to it.
Americans should not underestimate the damage this scandal has done to the American 'brand'. Growing up, I was the Americophile of my friends. I loved American culture, I aspired to live the American dream, I fully intended to pursue American citizenship later in life.
This is only the latest in a long line of realisations, but my view couldn't have changed more. I don't even want to visit the US again, let alone pledge my allegiance to it.
Without wanting to sound alarmist, but I feel exactly the same way.
I've abandoned my intentions of living in the US, or even just visiting there solely because of this scandal. Not because of some deeply hurt morale or feeling, but because i simply wouldn't feel safe in the US anymore.
I've been on the web for a very long time now, have read all kinds of chemistry, pyrotechnics and bomb-making newsgroups and websites and contributed to them.
I've visited a school with over 50% muslim students and lots of my friends are muslim.
I consider myself close to a maker, loving 3D Printers and Arduinos, Quad-Copters and the like...
I post my political views openly on Google+ and Facebook and discus it via Twitter and Mail...
I'm afraid to the extent i'm targeted and what would happen if I tried to visit the US.
I've abandoned my intentions of living in the US, or even just visiting there solely because of this scandal. Not because of some deeply hurt morale or feeling, but because i simply wouldn't feel safe in the US anymore.
I've been on the web for a very long time now, have read all kinds of chemistry, pyrotechnics and bomb-making newsgroups and websites and contributed to them.
I've visited a school with over 50% muslim students and lots of my friends are muslim.
I consider myself close to a maker, loving 3D Printers and Arduinos, Quad-Copters and the like...
I post my political views openly on Google+ and Facebook and discus it via Twitter and Mail...
I'm afraid to the extent i'm targeted and what would happen if I tried to visit the US.
> I've abandoned my intentions of living in the US, or even just visiting there solely because of this scandal. Not because of some deeply hurt morale or feeling, but because i simply wouldn't feel safe in the US anymore.
This is more a case of the straw that broke the camel's back for me, but I consider it a watershed moment nonetheless.
Privacy is a fundamental human right, enshrined in Article 8 of the ECHR, and one that I value dearly. Now it emerges the United States has been willingly violating my right to privacy for years.
Rather than rectifying the matter, officials are saying it's okay because I'm not a US citizen — non-citizens obviously aren't entitled to human rights — and focusing their attention on punishing the person responsible for bringing this to my attention.
That is unforgivable in my eyes.
This is more a case of the straw that broke the camel's back for me, but I consider it a watershed moment nonetheless.
Privacy is a fundamental human right, enshrined in Article 8 of the ECHR, and one that I value dearly. Now it emerges the United States has been willingly violating my right to privacy for years.
Rather than rectifying the matter, officials are saying it's okay because I'm not a US citizen — non-citizens obviously aren't entitled to human rights — and focusing their attention on punishing the person responsible for bringing this to my attention.
That is unforgivable in my eyes.
The week before I flew to the USA, two years ago, I was soooooo stressed out for similar reasons of really actually having "nothing to hide" and the problem where you don't get to decide or find out beforehand whether you had nothing to hide indeed.
In the end everything went fine, here I am, back, still got my laptop. Except those fuckers now have my mugshot and fingerprints on file. Funny thing, had I said that 10 years ago, you'd think I did something wrong and ask "huh for real? what did you do? what happened?" ... well, I entered the country, I left them no choice! :-/
In the end everything went fine, here I am, back, still got my laptop. Except those fuckers now have my mugshot and fingerprints on file. Funny thing, had I said that 10 years ago, you'd think I did something wrong and ask "huh for real? what did you do? what happened?" ... well, I entered the country, I left them no choice! :-/
Bush and Obama have, by acting in concert against the American people and the constitution, fundamentally and permanently undermined global trust in any American company. (Secret courts indeed!)
The US internet industry will be lucky to recover, if indeed it is even possible at this point.
No foreign business or government or municipality paying attention will ever trust high-value confidential data to Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook, or Microsoft ever again.
Remember that all of these companies have substantially more customers outside of the US than they do who are US citizens.
Even if PRISM/MARINA/MAINWAY are provably dismantled (fat chance), we have demonstrated an innate untrustworthiness at the highest levels of government, from both red and blue. Trust is incredibly easy to destroy, and famously difficult to rebuild. We've now got video of them lying under oath - what's to stop them building another in the future and lying about that one, too? We (both US and "foreign entities") would have to be stupid not to expect them to do so, given what we've learned in the last month.
In this case, the regeneration of trust simply won't happen. We'll see tons of national commodity services spring up in dozens of industrialized countries simply because our leaders have destroyed our industry with their reckless, short-sighted, fear-based warmongering.
Indeed, Snowden's disclosures will be the proximate cause of grave and irreparable damage to US interests, industry, and national security. The problem though, is that the root cause of this damage is shitty, warmongering, fear-driven leadership that is willing to shred every last semblance of the enduring values of this country to game the fickle court of public opinion, pretending to pursue security but instead ushering in a totalitarian nightmare that had been previously confined only to fiction.
We passed from the realm of "incompetence" into "malice" territory some time ago— and if you think that's exaggeration, I urge you to review the disgraceful treatment of Bradley Manning at the hands of the US military prior to even being granted a trial.
Sadly, I am vividly reminded of George C Scott's incredible performance as General Turgidson in Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove", explaining excitedly to those assembled in the Pentagon's War Room why it'd simply be best for the USA to launch a nuclear first strike, immediately killing hundreds of millions of people (including dozens of millions in the US)—to preserve American values. The mind reels at the scale of the irresponsibility of these decisions undertaken in our name and on our behalf. There's a damn good reason why they teach the system of fallible humans and interlocking governmental checks and balances to every ten-year-old child in social studies class.
(A corollary to these conclusions: the corporate rulers of this country, should they wish to continue existing, must dismantle the Nash equilibrium formed by the MSM/GOP/Democrats, lest continued destructive collusion between the only two currently viable parties in the US completely destroy the nation's remaining competitive advantage in the global marketplace.)
The US internet industry will be lucky to recover, if indeed it is even possible at this point.
No foreign business or government or municipality paying attention will ever trust high-value confidential data to Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook, or Microsoft ever again.
Remember that all of these companies have substantially more customers outside of the US than they do who are US citizens.
Even if PRISM/MARINA/MAINWAY are provably dismantled (fat chance), we have demonstrated an innate untrustworthiness at the highest levels of government, from both red and blue. Trust is incredibly easy to destroy, and famously difficult to rebuild. We've now got video of them lying under oath - what's to stop them building another in the future and lying about that one, too? We (both US and "foreign entities") would have to be stupid not to expect them to do so, given what we've learned in the last month.
In this case, the regeneration of trust simply won't happen. We'll see tons of national commodity services spring up in dozens of industrialized countries simply because our leaders have destroyed our industry with their reckless, short-sighted, fear-based warmongering.
Indeed, Snowden's disclosures will be the proximate cause of grave and irreparable damage to US interests, industry, and national security. The problem though, is that the root cause of this damage is shitty, warmongering, fear-driven leadership that is willing to shred every last semblance of the enduring values of this country to game the fickle court of public opinion, pretending to pursue security but instead ushering in a totalitarian nightmare that had been previously confined only to fiction.
We passed from the realm of "incompetence" into "malice" territory some time ago— and if you think that's exaggeration, I urge you to review the disgraceful treatment of Bradley Manning at the hands of the US military prior to even being granted a trial.
Sadly, I am vividly reminded of George C Scott's incredible performance as General Turgidson in Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove", explaining excitedly to those assembled in the Pentagon's War Room why it'd simply be best for the USA to launch a nuclear first strike, immediately killing hundreds of millions of people (including dozens of millions in the US)—to preserve American values. The mind reels at the scale of the irresponsibility of these decisions undertaken in our name and on our behalf. There's a damn good reason why they teach the system of fallible humans and interlocking governmental checks and balances to every ten-year-old child in social studies class.
(A corollary to these conclusions: the corporate rulers of this country, should they wish to continue existing, must dismantle the Nash equilibrium formed by the MSM/GOP/Democrats, lest continued destructive collusion between the only two currently viable parties in the US completely destroy the nation's remaining competitive advantage in the global marketplace.)
Exactly. When I was younger I kind of admired Americans and their ideals and I automatically perceived them as the 'good guys'. I did not want to get American citizenship or anything but I had spent couple of months in the US, I loved it and Americans were my friends - I used to defend them every time someone was critical about the US.
Now I would not even want to visit again. TSA alone would be enough for it not to be worth it.
US is like that kid in school who used to be popular and when he got beat up by that bully, everybody wanted to help him. But after that beating he never recovered and became so paranoid and creepy that even his friends abandoned him and now he himself is a bully and everybody ignores or hates him - if he is going to need help again nobody is going to give a shit.
Now I would not even want to visit again. TSA alone would be enough for it not to be worth it.
US is like that kid in school who used to be popular and when he got beat up by that bully, everybody wanted to help him. But after that beating he never recovered and became so paranoid and creepy that even his friends abandoned him and now he himself is a bully and everybody ignores or hates him - if he is going to need help again nobody is going to give a shit.
American Citizens and the US government are not the same thing. While we call ourselves a democracy, the elected officials and legislation they create don't always align with the values of the citizens. It's become a complicated mess but please don't use "America" as a synonym for the US government and their actions. We are all just as upset and betrayed, if not more, than you.
Of course, I still have personal friends who are US citizens and I still think highly of them. I think it's obvious what I meant. And rest assured that I am very aware of the fact that government does not always represent people well - I grew up in a totalitarian regime. But it's also true that they act in your name (especially because you did elect them in democratic elections) and when they do horrible things overseas people might believe that you 'let them', that you did not do enough to stop them... I hope you understand what I mean.
EDIT: I still believe that Americans - the people - have freedom and courage in their blood and some of them will think of something smart and innovative to change the course.
EDIT: I still believe that Americans - the people - have freedom and courage in their blood and some of them will think of something smart and innovative to change the course.
Indeed. I'm American by birth, and definitely love "America" as a people and a set of ideals and a culture... and I mostly abhor the (current) US government as it's practiced. In fact (and NSA, if you're listening, go ahead and take note) it would be quite appropriate to label me about as "anti government" as they get. I think our "leaders" are mostly scum and I don't consider any of them as "representing" me, and especially not my supposed "elected representatives" from North Carolina (Richard Burr, Kay Hagan and David Price). The only members of Congress I really have any respect for are Senators Ron Wyden, Rand Paul, and Mark Udall.
Our system of government started out with nobel ideas and it's served reasonably well for a long-time, but the decay and corruption are really starting to set in. It may also be the case that the divisions in this country are becoming so sharp that it's not even possible to talk about one government that truly represents America as one cohesive whole.
Our system of government started out with nobel ideas and it's served reasonably well for a long-time, but the decay and corruption are really starting to set in. It may also be the case that the divisions in this country are becoming so sharp that it's not even possible to talk about one government that truly represents America as one cohesive whole.
Sadly, I share similar feelings.
I last visited the States in 2007 for a friend's wedding and had all 10 of my fingers scanned at immigration when I arrived. I found the whole experience hugely irritating and wanted to say: "My own country doesn't even have my prints on file and you're taking all 10 fingers and treating me like a fucking suspect when all I'm here to do is spend some tourist dollars and celebrate my best friend marrying one of your citizens?".
It really pissed me off and I had the feeling then that I'd not readily be coming back to the land of the free any time soon. The Snowden revelations have simply sealed it for me. As things stand now, I have zero interest in ever setting foot in the US again.
Which is tragic because the American people themselves are generally lovely. We had a great trip in 2007 and my best friend's wife (who now lives with him and their 4 yr old son in the UK) is one of the most smart, fun and kind people I know.
I want to love you America but damn you're not making it easy at the moment!
I last visited the States in 2007 for a friend's wedding and had all 10 of my fingers scanned at immigration when I arrived. I found the whole experience hugely irritating and wanted to say: "My own country doesn't even have my prints on file and you're taking all 10 fingers and treating me like a fucking suspect when all I'm here to do is spend some tourist dollars and celebrate my best friend marrying one of your citizens?".
It really pissed me off and I had the feeling then that I'd not readily be coming back to the land of the free any time soon. The Snowden revelations have simply sealed it for me. As things stand now, I have zero interest in ever setting foot in the US again.
Which is tragic because the American people themselves are generally lovely. We had a great trip in 2007 and my best friend's wife (who now lives with him and their 4 yr old son in the UK) is one of the most smart, fun and kind people I know.
I want to love you America but damn you're not making it easy at the moment!
Agree about the brand. This business has potential for a very expensive long term impact on US economy starting with cultural exports to tourism and associated services.
We in the US are going to pay for this in the long run big time. Sadly most of us seem to not care.
That's one thing that has annoyed me about the tech world's outrage and objections to the PRISM spying lark. They appear outraged that US citizens are spied on, with the implication that it was ok when non us citizens were spied on. Do I, a non us citizen, not have a right to privacy?
Privacy? If only. We have no rights as human beings, let alone privacy. The worst part is that America claims to have rights over us, where ever we are. It is a disgusting abuse of humanity that American asserts that its laws apply to world citizens, while denying them even the few rights Americans think they have.
Few countries stand up to the US, and if they dare, they get threatened. How vile is it to say to a country that they are to co-operate or get bombed back tho the stone age, or deny them aid or trade, which America knows mean food and water? Might as well just bomb them. How vile is it to kidnap people and torture them, then hold them indefinitely with out open due process? How vile is it to send flying killer robots over foreign soil to blow up families in order to kill one single person? If that isn't terror, I don't know what is. Essentially Americans treat foreigners like slaves, subhumans with less rights than proper humans, or "Americans".
But most Americans think this is a justifiable fantastic demonstration of American supremacy and power. They absolutely love it when America "kicks ass". They love all the military power. They love that other countries bow to America, out of fear. Its all "USA, USA, USA".
(Which, BTW, sounds to many non Americans like "Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil". We even see the the fist punching the air, which again looks a bit like a Nazi salute. If Americans reading this can change one single thing, please stop that. It a very scary thing to see. Or do average Americans know this already, and like it as much as the Germans did?)
Of course, the US has abused the rest of the world so much, that it knows that it has literally zero god will. Note how even the UK is reaching out across the world to forge new alliances. America doesn't have allies at all. Its has lackeys who fear it. There is no respect or love, just fear.
Saddest of all, and I have tried to say this many times before, is that the good in America and Americans is fantastic. There is a baby in this bath water. Yeah, we will lap up America's blue jeans, music, movies, internet, (not the cars, they are crap!), porn, diet coke, burgers, hot dogs, space program, silicone women, etc, etc. Every American I have ever met has been decent. A bit annoying, but basically decent.
Please, Americans, sort your country out before it falls like every other empire. I don't want Chinese porn....
Few countries stand up to the US, and if they dare, they get threatened. How vile is it to say to a country that they are to co-operate or get bombed back tho the stone age, or deny them aid or trade, which America knows mean food and water? Might as well just bomb them. How vile is it to kidnap people and torture them, then hold them indefinitely with out open due process? How vile is it to send flying killer robots over foreign soil to blow up families in order to kill one single person? If that isn't terror, I don't know what is. Essentially Americans treat foreigners like slaves, subhumans with less rights than proper humans, or "Americans".
But most Americans think this is a justifiable fantastic demonstration of American supremacy and power. They absolutely love it when America "kicks ass". They love all the military power. They love that other countries bow to America, out of fear. Its all "USA, USA, USA".
(Which, BTW, sounds to many non Americans like "Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil". We even see the the fist punching the air, which again looks a bit like a Nazi salute. If Americans reading this can change one single thing, please stop that. It a very scary thing to see. Or do average Americans know this already, and like it as much as the Germans did?)
Of course, the US has abused the rest of the world so much, that it knows that it has literally zero god will. Note how even the UK is reaching out across the world to forge new alliances. America doesn't have allies at all. Its has lackeys who fear it. There is no respect or love, just fear.
Saddest of all, and I have tried to say this many times before, is that the good in America and Americans is fantastic. There is a baby in this bath water. Yeah, we will lap up America's blue jeans, music, movies, internet, (not the cars, they are crap!), porn, diet coke, burgers, hot dogs, space program, silicone women, etc, etc. Every American I have ever met has been decent. A bit annoying, but basically decent.
Please, Americans, sort your country out before it falls like every other empire. I don't want Chinese porn....
> Its all "USA, USA, USA". (Which, BTW, sounds to many non Americans like "Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil". We even see the the fist punching the air, which again looks a bit like a Nazi salute. If Americans reading this can change one single thing, please stop that. It a very scary thing to see. Or do average Americans know this already, and like it as much as the Germans did?)
I hardly ever hear the "USA" chant outside of sporting competitions that involve some type of US national team, and just about any country is prone to outbreaks of patriotic fervor in those situations: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/World_Cup...
I hardly ever hear the "USA" chant outside of sporting competitions that involve some type of US national team, and just about any country is prone to outbreaks of patriotic fervor in those situations: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/World_Cup...
> I hardly ever hear the "USA" chant outside of sporting competitions
Watch some of the videos from gatherings and rallies leading up to last years presidential election. Anytime any single heckler tried to make a scene, they were immediately drowned out with the "USA!" chant.
As a US citizen it's embarrassing and frankly, idiotic.
Watch some of the videos from gatherings and rallies leading up to last years presidential election. Anytime any single heckler tried to make a scene, they were immediately drowned out with the "USA!" chant.
As a US citizen it's embarrassing and frankly, idiotic.
I guess I don't watch enough political rallies. Ugh.
I agree with you that many of the things that America has done are gross and contradict "American ideals", but I think you're underselling the power and influence of European nations. Why are they so easily bending to the will of such a belligerent turd?
Because fighting should be the last resort. If you are persevering enough, then diplomacy is enough to resolve most conflicts of interest. Way cheaper and nicer than warfare (and maybe more successful). The "problem" is, it's boring and compromises might come across as bending to the other's will (even though it's not).
I don't think they should wage war, but couldn't they put economic pressure on the US? Revoke the Nobel Peace Prize? Put pressure on the US via the UN?
You, as a non-US citizen, are not protected by our constitution. Nor am I, a US citizen, protected from your government.
I have no grounds to "raise outrage" at my government for spying on foreigners, much as I might disapprove. They don't break any laws when they do that. Moral rules, yes; disrespect to our friends and allies, yes; laws, no.
When they spy on US citizens, they tear up our Constitution in doing so. The outrage is less about the spying - although that is obviously very important - and more about the laws they are breaking.
I have no grounds to "raise outrage" at my government for spying on foreigners, much as I might disapprove. They don't break any laws when they do that. Moral rules, yes; disrespect to our friends and allies, yes; laws, no.
When they spy on US citizens, they tear up our Constitution in doing so. The outrage is less about the spying - although that is obviously very important - and more about the laws they are breaking.
You are factually wrong.
You, as a US citizen, are most certainly protected from my government by the German constitution. Not when it comes to all basic rights in the constitution (only Germans have freedom of movement, freedom of labor and freedom of association), but most are universal and apply to every person.
The US constitution is out of date and simply wrong on this point. Human rights are universal and every human has them. Citizenship shouldn’t come into play. (I really hope that when it comes to freedom of movement, labor and association the limitation on Germans can also be lifted one day. For now the pest of nationalism lives on and makes lifting those limitations a practical impossibility. To me it seems clear that morally it is very wrong to have such limitations.)
Oh, and by the way, breaking moral rules is a hell of a good reason to raise outrage. I don’t understand why you seem to think that something being legal is reason to not be outraged.
You, as a US citizen, are most certainly protected from my government by the German constitution. Not when it comes to all basic rights in the constitution (only Germans have freedom of movement, freedom of labor and freedom of association), but most are universal and apply to every person.
The US constitution is out of date and simply wrong on this point. Human rights are universal and every human has them. Citizenship shouldn’t come into play. (I really hope that when it comes to freedom of movement, labor and association the limitation on Germans can also be lifted one day. For now the pest of nationalism lives on and makes lifting those limitations a practical impossibility. To me it seems clear that morally it is very wrong to have such limitations.)
Oh, and by the way, breaking moral rules is a hell of a good reason to raise outrage. I don’t understand why you seem to think that something being legal is reason to not be outraged.
The US Constitution is mostly the same. If you're in the United States, regardless of your nationality, you have the right to free speech, the right to remain silent when questioned by police, the right to demand a search warrant before letting the police into your home or automobile, the right to purchase and possess firearms, the right to espouse whatever political opinions you may have, and even the right to refuse to quarter troops in your home. You don't even have all of those rights in Germany!
Spying is a corner case. Every country spies on every other country. Do the Germans wiretap international communications? Absolutely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesnachrichtendienst Have they ever spied on their own people? Even worse: their own journalists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesnachrichtendienst#Spying_...
The question is what "spying on other countries" actually looks like, and one of the legal barriers is that, well, if you're spying on Americans in America then you're not really spying on other countries at all, so let's make a rule that US citizens are exempt from NSA or CIA surveillance. Does this mean US citizens are exempt from being spied on? Of course not! That's what the FBI is for!
If there's a human right of "not being spied upon", it's violated by every country that spies. Germany is factually one of them.
Spying is a corner case. Every country spies on every other country. Do the Germans wiretap international communications? Absolutely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesnachrichtendienst Have they ever spied on their own people? Even worse: their own journalists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesnachrichtendienst#Spying_...
The question is what "spying on other countries" actually looks like, and one of the legal barriers is that, well, if you're spying on Americans in America then you're not really spying on other countries at all, so let's make a rule that US citizens are exempt from NSA or CIA surveillance. Does this mean US citizens are exempt from being spied on? Of course not! That's what the FBI is for!
If there's a human right of "not being spied upon", it's violated by every country that spies. Germany is factually one of them.
There is a right to privacy (in case of the German constitution literally, by the way). And I take issue with anyone saying that violating the privacy of non-citizens is totally ok.
I do not want to claim any kind of superiority – that is very clearly not the case. The German government consists of many, many people who do not respect privacy at all and are disgusting scumbags. No question about that.
I just want to say that from a moral point of view the statement that it’s ok that non-citizens have no right to privacy is totally bankrupt and idiotic.
I do not want to claim any kind of superiority – that is very clearly not the case. The German government consists of many, many people who do not respect privacy at all and are disgusting scumbags. No question about that.
I just want to say that from a moral point of view the statement that it’s ok that non-citizens have no right to privacy is totally bankrupt and idiotic.
If you interpret the right to privacy to entail never having foreign intelligence agencies, you take a position that almost no government in the world actually follows, because almost every national government has foreign intelligence agencies. Holding up Germany as a counterexample on this issue is, in your words, factually wrong.
Oh, and by the way, breaking moral rules is a hell of a good reason to raise outrage. I don’t understand why you seem to think that something being legal is reason to not be outraged.
IMHO something I deem immoral being legal and happening is actually worse than it "just" happening. It's adding insult to injury, if you will, and of course it makes it much more likely to happen again, or even more and more.
IMHO something I deem immoral being legal and happening is actually worse than it "just" happening. It's adding insult to injury, if you will, and of course it makes it much more likely to happen again, or even more and more.
I'm not sure exactly what your referencing, but if you are talking about all the stuff that's been going down in the U.S., Glenn Greenwald said at the Socialism Conference yesterday that a lot of what's going on isn't legal and has been ruled unconstitutional in the secret FISA court.
Link to video: http://youtu.be/Uulv4ve6RJ8
Skip to 45:00 and watch for a couple minutes if you're interested in hearing just that. Though if you have time I recommend watching the whole thing.
Link to video: http://youtu.be/Uulv4ve6RJ8
Skip to 45:00 and watch for a couple minutes if you're interested in hearing just that. Though if you have time I recommend watching the whole thing.
I'm not sure exactly what your referencing
What I said was general, I wasn't thinking of anything in particular.. but thanks for that link, I will be sure to listen to it in full when I have time.
What I said was general, I wasn't thinking of anything in particular.. but thanks for that link, I will be sure to listen to it in full when I have time.
What about the Dutch government, and the Swedish government, U.K. government, and Canada, etc.? The EU itself has a data retention law that Germany doesn't follow, but don't the rest of the EU member nations participate?
FWIW I do feel that American citizens should have to 'participate' just as much in these schemes as the rest of the world, if these schemes are to exist at all.
I suppose what I can't figure out is why the reaction is devoted solely at the U.S., when it seems Germany is the only major Western society that cares that deeply about it.
FWIW I do feel that American citizens should have to 'participate' just as much in these schemes as the rest of the world, if these schemes are to exist at all.
I suppose what I can't figure out is why the reaction is devoted solely at the U.S., when it seems Germany is the only major Western society that cares that deeply about it.
Make clear what you mean by 'nationalism' before you use perjorative words like pest - as if your assertion is axiomatic.
If you have a definition by which it's not a pest, I'd love to hear it, honestly.
Wikipedia:
Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves a voluntary accepted or coercively imposed mode of identification with individual persons and a nation.
George Orwell:
http://www.george-orwell.org/Notes_on_Nationalism/0.html
I'd say identifying with anything other than oneself is even bigger a delusion than identifying with oneself, and since it's so widespread, calling it a pest is actually polite.
Wikipedia:
Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves a voluntary accepted or coercively imposed mode of identification with individual persons and a nation.
George Orwell:
http://www.george-orwell.org/Notes_on_Nationalism/0.html
I'd say identifying with anything other than oneself is even bigger a delusion than identifying with oneself, and since it's so widespread, calling it a pest is actually polite.
You don’t have to agree with me. That was just an aside and certainly my personal opinion. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the main point I was making.
I do think, though, that nation states are a fundamentally bad model for governance and both too large and too small. I’m not sure what could replace them (and not a fan of pre-nation governance models), though something like the EU can provide some (tiny and obviously deeply flawed) hints at how to approach the “too small” problem, I’m not so sure what to do about the “too large” problem.
I do think, though, that nation states are a fundamentally bad model for governance and both too large and too small. I’m not sure what could replace them (and not a fan of pre-nation governance models), though something like the EU can provide some (tiny and obviously deeply flawed) hints at how to approach the “too small” problem, I’m not so sure what to do about the “too large” problem.
Yet, I - a non-US citizen - am subject to all your whims and power grabs. You can't simply hide behind the assertion that the US is just another one of many countries vying for supremacy. For better or worse, the US sets the tone and the precedences for all of the Western countries' policies, and to top it off it is by far the most powerful when it comes to the military and secret services. You - a US citizen - might interpret this to mean that things are going well and that "might makes right" and all that, but the moral bankruptcy of such a view should be obvious to pretty much everybody.
I'm a EU citizen and as such subject to yet more surveillance from my home countries and that's bad enough in of itself. However, the EU does not project its power outward at such a massive scale as the US does. In effect, the sum of US policy, international role, and military action means that I am subject to the US at all times, yet I do not have "real person" status.
Germany is by far not perfect, and has its own share of secret service scandals to look back on, but at least the German constitution grants fundamental rights to every human being, not just citizens. In an era where state and corporate powers are used so abundantly, so disproportionally, and with so much moral corruption, this kind of constitutional scope is clearly the way to go forward. Yes, citizens need special protection, but that doesn't mean everybody else is just a bag of meat. In fact, as a member of the civilized world, I kind of expect the many host countries I travel to to protect me as well.
The US lulls other Westerners into the illusion that you're our friends, yet this is evidently an absolutely one-sided pact. You take for yourselves sweeping rights and powers without oversight (both external and, let's not kid ourselves, internally as well), and you expect other people to bow and be exploited. Your response to this as a US citizen cannot with any ethical justification be along the lines of "well, if you can't make us stop doing this, you are too weak and deserve everything we deem appropriate".
Even if you're not interested in ethics, and you really should be because it has everything to do with protecting groups of people you are not a part of, you could at least view it from a practical perspective: this attitude is incredibly damaging to the Western civilization as a whole. Whether you like it or not, we're going to need each other moving forward.
I'm a EU citizen and as such subject to yet more surveillance from my home countries and that's bad enough in of itself. However, the EU does not project its power outward at such a massive scale as the US does. In effect, the sum of US policy, international role, and military action means that I am subject to the US at all times, yet I do not have "real person" status.
Germany is by far not perfect, and has its own share of secret service scandals to look back on, but at least the German constitution grants fundamental rights to every human being, not just citizens. In an era where state and corporate powers are used so abundantly, so disproportionally, and with so much moral corruption, this kind of constitutional scope is clearly the way to go forward. Yes, citizens need special protection, but that doesn't mean everybody else is just a bag of meat. In fact, as a member of the civilized world, I kind of expect the many host countries I travel to to protect me as well.
The US lulls other Westerners into the illusion that you're our friends, yet this is evidently an absolutely one-sided pact. You take for yourselves sweeping rights and powers without oversight (both external and, let's not kid ourselves, internally as well), and you expect other people to bow and be exploited. Your response to this as a US citizen cannot with any ethical justification be along the lines of "well, if you can't make us stop doing this, you are too weak and deserve everything we deem appropriate".
Even if you're not interested in ethics, and you really should be because it has everything to do with protecting groups of people you are not a part of, you could at least view it from a practical perspective: this attitude is incredibly damaging to the Western civilization as a whole. Whether you like it or not, we're going to need each other moving forward.
So what is your point? That I'm not spending time writing blogs about how broke up I am that foreigners are also being targeted? Ok, I'll go write a blog.
Personally I feel America is in a crisis right now, and I'd prefer to focus my energy on fighting something I actually have a legal basis for fighting and might win. We aren't talking morals, we are talking LAW.
Do you think that if we lose this in America, that will still be able to carry on and fight on your behalf?
Personally I feel America is in a crisis right now, and I'd prefer to focus my energy on fighting something I actually have a legal basis for fighting and might win. We aren't talking morals, we are talking LAW.
Do you think that if we lose this in America, that will still be able to carry on and fight on your behalf?
Law is the codification of morality.
It's the codification of the parts of morality that we bargain & wrestle into a set of rules we decide to enforce.
Not all "morality" turns into law, nor is all law based on morale principals.
Not all "morality" turns into law, nor is all law based on morale principals.
All law is based on value judgements, and, therefore, on moral principles.
Of course you have grounds to "raise outrage", if you disapprove at what they are doing. If you don't, that's a choice. Whether or not they break the law is irrelevant - they are meant to represent you - if their actions are immoral, it reflects badly on you, in particular if you do not speak up against them or otherwise do anything to reign them in.
Personally, I feel outraged when "my" government acts immorally towards foreigners just as much as when they do to citizens and residents. The distinction means nothing to me.
EDIT: I'm Norwegian, but I live in the UK and I've got plenty to be outraged about with respect to UK law and GCHQ etc. I haven't been politically active in about 20 years other than posting stuff online, but this is the first time I've started considering getting politically active again.
Personally, I feel outraged when "my" government acts immorally towards foreigners just as much as when they do to citizens and residents. The distinction means nothing to me.
EDIT: I'm Norwegian, but I live in the UK and I've got plenty to be outraged about with respect to UK law and GCHQ etc. I haven't been politically active in about 20 years other than posting stuff online, but this is the first time I've started considering getting politically active again.
> You, as a non-US citizen, are not protected by our constitution.
This is a myth, recently revived by Republicans to justify "enhanced interrogation techniques" (ie, abominable torture methods that used to qualify as 'war crimes').
The most important articles of the Bill of Rights don't refer to "citizen" but to "people" in general. Here's the full text of the 4th Amendment, most relevant in this case
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is a myth, recently revived by Republicans to justify "enhanced interrogation techniques" (ie, abominable torture methods that used to qualify as 'war crimes').
The most important articles of the Bill of Rights don't refer to "citizen" but to "people" in general. Here's the full text of the 4th Amendment, most relevant in this case
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Sure, but the whole Constitution begins with "We the People of the United States". You can argue that it should include non-citizens, but the constitution itself and subsequent applications are very clear that it does not. It is a somewhat odd proposition to claim the constitution of one country apply to all. Should the rest of the world have stopped drinking in 1919?
(Not a Republican mythmaker who loves torture, just stating the facts)
(Not a Republican mythmaker who loves torture, just stating the facts)
The purpose of the US Constitution is not to tell people what to do or not do, it is to define very precisely what the US Government can and can't do (and how it should function), and therefore it seems more than logical that it would talk about what the US Government can or can't do to people in general (or animals, or nature).
I don't know where you get the idea that the purpose of the Constitution is only about how the government functions. It is clearly the majority of the Constitution, but plenty of the Constitution is about what people (American citizens) can or cannot do. Constitution says you have to be eighteen to vote, you can't own slaves, and you can't sell booze from 1920-1933.
I think a lot of people are viewing the Constitution how they want it to be (a set of ideals about liberty and even then only the ideals they espouse) and not what it is (a legal document with centuries of practical use). You can say America is not being moral actors about how they are treating foreign people who don't live within its jurisdiction, but the Constitution has very little to do with this issue. To say it does is cherry picking what you like about the document without acknowledge the realities of it.
I think a lot of people are viewing the Constitution how they want it to be (a set of ideals about liberty and even then only the ideals they espouse) and not what it is (a legal document with centuries of practical use). You can say America is not being moral actors about how they are treating foreign people who don't live within its jurisdiction, but the Constitution has very little to do with this issue. To say it does is cherry picking what you like about the document without acknowledge the realities of it.
It is not at all clear that "the people" means "people in general". If they had meant people in general, they could have simply omitted the article, and thereby not referred to any specific group of people.
But you certainly are protected by the Finnish constitution. At the start it says like this: "All humans are equal in the eyes of the law".
I think a few of you don't understand my point, so perhaps I didn't explain it very well.
The US government is on the verge of becoming a totalitarian regime.
The US government is on the verge of throwing out the Constitution & just doing whatever the hell it wants from now on.
The US government is on the verge of declaring that there is no such thing as a law, only some rules it has decided to enforce to its own benefit
You want Americans to focus on fighting this, using our laws and Constitution as a legal basis, or do you want us to waste our time gnashing our teeth in front of the Fox News crowd that foreigners - which to the Fox News crowd means, "al Queda, Mexican drug cartels, smugglers, etc" - are having their email read?
In WWII there were a lot of sacrifices made so that Hitler & the Nazis didn't win. The war was more important than the battles or the individuals.
Spying on foreigners is an important issue. It just isn't the most important issue right now, so you'll have to take a backseat for a while. If we don't block this for Americans, you have absolutely no chance of having it blocked for you.
The US government is on the verge of becoming a totalitarian regime.
The US government is on the verge of throwing out the Constitution & just doing whatever the hell it wants from now on.
The US government is on the verge of declaring that there is no such thing as a law, only some rules it has decided to enforce to its own benefit
You want Americans to focus on fighting this, using our laws and Constitution as a legal basis, or do you want us to waste our time gnashing our teeth in front of the Fox News crowd that foreigners - which to the Fox News crowd means, "al Queda, Mexican drug cartels, smugglers, etc" - are having their email read?
In WWII there were a lot of sacrifices made so that Hitler & the Nazis didn't win. The war was more important than the battles or the individuals.
Spying on foreigners is an important issue. It just isn't the most important issue right now, so you'll have to take a backseat for a while. If we don't block this for Americans, you have absolutely no chance of having it blocked for you.
> The US government is on the verge of becoming a totalitarian regime.
> The US government is on the verge of throwing out the Constitution & just doing whatever the hell it wants from now on.
> The US government is on the verge of declaring that there is no such thing as a law, only some rules it has decided to enforce to its own benefit
The US government is rampantly, and problematically, violating its constitution and its founding principles in a dozen different ways. But this much has always been true. Are we closer to a totalitarian regime than when we imprisoned all Americans of Japanese descent, or when we threw people in prison for speaking out against World War I, or when COINTELPRO and MKULTRA were going on?
The bulk of the system remains safely in place. A government on the verge of throwing out the constitution does not have a Supreme Court throwing out federal laws.
> The US government is on the verge of throwing out the Constitution & just doing whatever the hell it wants from now on.
> The US government is on the verge of declaring that there is no such thing as a law, only some rules it has decided to enforce to its own benefit
The US government is rampantly, and problematically, violating its constitution and its founding principles in a dozen different ways. But this much has always been true. Are we closer to a totalitarian regime than when we imprisoned all Americans of Japanese descent, or when we threw people in prison for speaking out against World War I, or when COINTELPRO and MKULTRA were going on?
The bulk of the system remains safely in place. A government on the verge of throwing out the constitution does not have a Supreme Court throwing out federal laws.
No, I think you do have the right to raise that issue. That's why we have "international" human rights. But even those didn't all exist from the very beginning. People have to fight to introduce some of them to that list. Didn't the EU recently say that Internet access is a human right?
I think being able to use anonymous speech should be a human right, too, if it's not already, and a right to reasonable privacy. If there are no proper legal structures internationally for that, then maybe there should be.
Net neutrality is also not a law in most countries, but seeing how carriers are increasingly salivating at abusing their power so they can charge different content providers for their content, maybe we should be looking at net neutrality becoming some sort of international law, too.
I think being able to use anonymous speech should be a human right, too, if it's not already, and a right to reasonable privacy. If there are no proper legal structures internationally for that, then maybe there should be.
Net neutrality is also not a law in most countries, but seeing how carriers are increasingly salivating at abusing their power so they can charge different content providers for their content, maybe we should be looking at net neutrality becoming some sort of international law, too.
Actually, the 4th Amendment doesn't just apply to US persons - it's a blanket requirement. The restriction of the various agencies' activities to non-US persons is not because (directly, anyway) of any constitutional issue but rather to do with the division of labour between the various agencies - the NSA (et al) is meant to be doing foreign-focused stuff and the FBI to focus on domestic spying.
Outrage generally isn't triggered by breaking laws; rather, "moral rules" and "disrespect".
A certain strand in the US considers the constitution an almost sacred document. Their outrage is less about laws being broken, and more about a perceived violation of sanctity. I'm fairly confident they don't feel the same way about e.g. driving 5mph over the limit.
A certain strand in the US considers the constitution an almost sacred document. Their outrage is less about laws being broken, and more about a perceived violation of sanctity. I'm fairly confident they don't feel the same way about e.g. driving 5mph over the limit.
Constitution is the highest form of law. IANAL but from what I understand all laws are made in such way that they shouldn't contradict constitution. If laws openly go against the constitution it weakness its position as the supreme law of a state/nation (for better or for worse).
There is another important reason why you, as a US citizen should be worried about spying on non-US citizens. Now that everyone knows about this, other countries are probably going down the same route - in fact, it looks like some already are, and this is going to be net loss for everyone - both US citizens and everyone else.
well, what hitler and stalin did also was didnt break any laws, because they had changed them, just like US
But a US citizen's rights are not derived from the Constitution. It's clearly hypocritical to say a German has no natural right to privacy. We could declare war on Germany, then we could morally justify violating their rights.
But we can't pretend they have no such rights. And I'd contend that this does violate the US organic law, although this is a minority opinion. It depends on how you define "all men" and rationalize the fact that every human right existed before any government ever did.
But we can't pretend they have no such rights. And I'd contend that this does violate the US organic law, although this is a minority opinion. It depends on how you define "all men" and rationalize the fact that every human right existed before any government ever did.
That's not true. The outrage is often mentioned as violation of privacy, as a police state, as spying on innocent people. If it was some rule breaking legal reason, then the FISA courts should make US citizens happy, but it demonstratidly doesn't.
However it appears the people outraged font consider me a full person.
However it appears the people outraged font consider me a full person.
So human rights are unique feature only for US citizens in US constitution?
Yes you are protected in civilized countries nobody can read your letters without your consent, no matter your citizenship. It's criminal offence if they do.
True. But do any civilized countries exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence
Polish constitution (in Polish, but I'll translate):
http://www.msw.gov.pl/portal/pl/193/24/Konstytucyjne_wolnosc...
Article 49:
"Zapewnia się wolność i ochronę tajemnicy komunikowania się. Ich ograniczenie może nastąpić jedynie w przypadkach określonych w ustawie i w sposób w niej określony." = "[The state] ensure everybody has freedom of ommunication and secrecy of communication, this can only be limited in cases specified in the law, and in a way specified in law".
Article 37:
"Kto znajduje się pod władzą Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, korzysta z wolności i praw zapewnionych w Konstytucji. Wyjątki od tej zasady, odnoszące się do cudzoziemców, określa ustawa. " = "Who is on the Polish territory - has the same rights and freedoms as Polish citizen. Only exceptions are specified in the law".
The exceptions are mostly about the right to be elected to government etc.
Poland isn't particulary civilized country, this is really common sense.
Polish constitution (in Polish, but I'll translate):
http://www.msw.gov.pl/portal/pl/193/24/Konstytucyjne_wolnosc...
Article 49:
"Zapewnia się wolność i ochronę tajemnicy komunikowania się. Ich ograniczenie może nastąpić jedynie w przypadkach określonych w ustawie i w sposób w niej określony." = "[The state] ensure everybody has freedom of ommunication and secrecy of communication, this can only be limited in cases specified in the law, and in a way specified in law".
Article 37:
"Kto znajduje się pod władzą Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, korzysta z wolności i praw zapewnionych w Konstytucji. Wyjątki od tej zasady, odnoszące się do cudzoziemców, określa ustawa. " = "Who is on the Polish territory - has the same rights and freedoms as Polish citizen. Only exceptions are specified in the law".
The exceptions are mostly about the right to be elected to government etc.
Poland isn't particulary civilized country, this is really common sense.
I totally agree, I have been watching this totally pointless discussion about domestic spying all over the net. I was going to write about the topic, but someone did it already. My conclusion is that at least 95% of US population are so bad in geography that they don't know that they represent only less than 5% of world population. After all, it seems that only people who are voting in elections do matter at all. Maybe it would be a good time to vote with our wallets. It's also really funny how scared Americans are about Chinese manufactured hardware & backdoors. I just guess it takes a one to know one. Btw. WatchGuard firewall registration is very revealing, they want to know way too much about what the firewall is being used for.
> My conclusion is that at least 95% of US population are so bad in geography that they don't know that they represent only less than 5% of world population.
Uh-huh. You've been watching those candid videos where they interview stupid Americans haven't you? Of course you probably realized that they are always filmed in heavily populated areas and there is always a cut between every interview. You know why? Because you can find ignorant people in any crowded place anywhere in the world. It's just more funny when it's Americans.
Uh-huh. You've been watching those candid videos where they interview stupid Americans haven't you? Of course you probably realized that they are always filmed in heavily populated areas and there is always a cut between every interview. You know why? Because you can find ignorant people in any crowded place anywhere in the world. It's just more funny when it's Americans.
I know from experience that Americans in fact, don't know their geography.
Many couldn't find where they lived if you pointed it to them on a map. I had a neighbor who thought Amsterdam was a city next to Athens, Georgia (US State) and even after explaining where it was, that it was part of Holland, he asked me how the Germany trip was when I returned.
And yesterday, the Indian gas station owner was flabbergasted that I knew about and where his home town was (Goa - relatively well known at least I thought). He actually asked 'how do you know that' and I wanted to say because I'm not a zombie.
Many couldn't find where they lived if you pointed it to them on a map. I had a neighbor who thought Amsterdam was a city next to Athens, Georgia (US State) and even after explaining where it was, that it was part of Holland, he asked me how the Germany trip was when I returned.
And yesterday, the Indian gas station owner was flabbergasted that I knew about and where his home town was (Goa - relatively well known at least I thought). He actually asked 'how do you know that' and I wanted to say because I'm not a zombie.
To be fair, the US has an internal geographic complexity that other places don't have, though admittedly it is still irksome that so many people support a war when they can't find the enemy on a map.
He actually asked 'how do you know that' and I wanted to say because I'm not a zombie. I occasionally get the similar question 'how do you know these things', and my response is, depending on context of course, 'how do you not know these things?'.
He actually asked 'how do you know that' and I wanted to say because I'm not a zombie. I occasionally get the similar question 'how do you know these things', and my response is, depending on context of course, 'how do you not know these things?'.
I know plenty of people in Europe that would have trouble locating major US cities on a map, but I wouldn't be so bigoted to say Europeans don't know geography.
I'm not expecting them to find the city on a map (aside from their own), but you'd be hard pressed to find a European that didn't know that New York or L.A. was located in the United States.
The tremendous amount of US culture exported by through movies, TV, and sports makes a lot of American people, places, and things household names around the world.
Not sure I see how this is germane. Are you saying your geography is good, but your statistics are absolute shite?
I'm saying from general interactions with American neighbors, people on the street and my own family, they don't know geography. Mine's not great - pretty elementary compared to the rest of the world.
Okay obviously my reply went right over your head so I'll give it to you straight: neither you nor the GP has any basis to make that claim. In another reply actual data was presented showing that American ignorance of basic geographical facts is nowhere near 95%.
There has been some research done in this area [1]. What interests me more is how does this compare to the other countries, if someone has the link please post it here.
[1] http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/pdf/FINALReport2...
[1] http://www.nationalgeographic.com/roper2006/pdf/FINALReport2...
The other dangerous thing about this attitude of, oh, it's only foreigners, is that GCHQ and other US allies routinely sweep up communications from all over the world (in the case of GCHQ probably mostly from the US). So if you send information to Europe from the US, you're being spied upon, and the information relayed back to the NSA. The same goes for citizens of the UK subject to NSA spying who have data or contacts in the US. This distinction between us and them is used to tranquillise dissent in the US even as the NSA blithely ignores their own rules.
In our increasingly connect world, does it even make sense to define rights based on where a person lives, or what country they happened to be born in? We should expect the same basic rights (right to a free trial, right to a free press, protection from torture) to apply to all people even if citizenship of a nation confers certain privileges.
In our increasingly connect world, does it even make sense to define rights based on where a person lives, or what country they happened to be born in? We should expect the same basic rights (right to a free trial, right to a free press, protection from torture) to apply to all people even if citizenship of a nation confers certain privileges.
What worries me is that their spying "partnerships" are so broad, that NSA receiving data on Americans from GCHQ, and GCHQ receiving data from NSA, works effectively as themselves doing the spying in their own country.
So then this argument that "we don't spy on our own people", implying that "we have no data on our own people" is potentially misleading to the extreme.
Of course, NSA already spies on Americans, but other countries (Canada, Australia, UK, and others) might not be so "brave", and they could be getting data about every one of their citizens from NSA, which makes it just as bad as themselves doing all the spying. So the "legal boundaries" of these spying agencies are effectively useless.
So then this argument that "we don't spy on our own people", implying that "we have no data on our own people" is potentially misleading to the extreme.
Of course, NSA already spies on Americans, but other countries (Canada, Australia, UK, and others) might not be so "brave", and they could be getting data about every one of their citizens from NSA, which makes it just as bad as themselves doing all the spying. So the "legal boundaries" of these spying agencies are effectively useless.
The sad thing is, we don't have international law for these things. Thus, it is usually easier to ask a foreign intelligence agency if they could spy on a domestic suspect than to deal with it within the country.
And this hurts so much, because the internet is perceived to not be bound by countries and borders, while still residing mostly on US soil. But the rules for spying are most certainly governed by borders; This leads to this weird asymmetric situation where one particular domestic intelligence agency is able to collect almost all international data.
What we really would need is citizenship for data. In a way, it does not make sense that Facebook owns my data. My data should be my own, and thus be governed by whatever jurisdiction I happen to live in.
Or put differently, one way out of this is to host your own email, backup, syncing, etc. That way the data is yours, and governed by the same rules as you. This is what I am doing.
Or maybe, Google should split up into several legal entities that each are accountable for the data for one country. But clearly, that would just leave us all flocking to Iceland or the Vatican or something like that...
And this hurts so much, because the internet is perceived to not be bound by countries and borders, while still residing mostly on US soil. But the rules for spying are most certainly governed by borders; This leads to this weird asymmetric situation where one particular domestic intelligence agency is able to collect almost all international data.
What we really would need is citizenship for data. In a way, it does not make sense that Facebook owns my data. My data should be my own, and thus be governed by whatever jurisdiction I happen to live in.
Or put differently, one way out of this is to host your own email, backup, syncing, etc. That way the data is yours, and governed by the same rules as you. This is what I am doing.
Or maybe, Google should split up into several legal entities that each are accountable for the data for one country. But clearly, that would just leave us all flocking to Iceland or the Vatican or something like that...
> And this hurts so much, because the internet is perceived to not be bound by countries and borders, while still residing mostly on US soil. But the rules for spying are most certainly governed by borders; This leads to this weird asymmetric situation where one particular domestic intelligence agency is able to collect almost all international data.
Pretty much this exactly. I don't think any part of our legal frameworks for security amongst the nations is really prepared for the migration to the Internet.
Pretty much this exactly. I don't think any part of our legal frameworks for security amongst the nations is really prepared for the migration to the Internet.
Some kind of peer to peer encrypted data storage system (think bitcoin for data) would go a long way towards solving this. You could give sub keys to sites that want to access some of this data and because it's encrypted, distributed and peer to peer no one owns it and you control your data.
Yes this would be crazy with todays infrastructure but in 10 - 20 years when internet is as previlent as electricity and everyone has many terabytes of space it's definitely viable.
I really hope some smart minds are working on something like this in light of these revelations.
Yes this would be crazy with todays infrastructure but in 10 - 20 years when internet is as previlent as electricity and everyone has many terabytes of space it's definitely viable.
I really hope some smart minds are working on something like this in light of these revelations.
How is this any different than hosting your own federated OpenID service? Hell, I'm basically doing this already with XMPP, Email and a blog, but not OpenID because it's not as prevalent as it could be. This is already a solved problem that doesn't take terabytes of storage space. Though, like any common service or protocol, it could be more secure.
[deleted]
Maybe Mozilla could invent some standardized encryption technology. They are the only ones that are remotely trustworthy enough to do something like that.
I went to this expecting to find a slightly puzzled reaction along the lines of, "even given the leaked surveillance, we all know that our own governments are doing similar stuff to us all the time and that we are protected neither by law nor by convention against it".
I know that's a bit of an overstatement but it's particularly amusing to see Snowden sheltered by two of the world's most enthusiastic users of surveillance, namely Russia and China.
FWIW I'm in the UK, where we're a lot luckier than most in terms of accountability, oversight and convention, but don't have an explicit constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. That said, it often bemuses people in Europe to look at the US and see almost no protection for what we understand as a basic right of "privacy".
I know that's a bit of an overstatement but it's particularly amusing to see Snowden sheltered by two of the world's most enthusiastic users of surveillance, namely Russia and China.
FWIW I'm in the UK, where we're a lot luckier than most in terms of accountability, oversight and convention, but don't have an explicit constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure. That said, it often bemuses people in Europe to look at the US and see almost no protection for what we understand as a basic right of "privacy".
Don't you folks get watched by big brother everywhere you go? Isn't London the CCTV capital of the world?
This outrage at American reactions is terribly hypocritical. Yes, people -- regardless of nationality -- should be upset when they realize their privacy is being grossly violated without cause, by any government.
However, people seem to think Americans should be more concerned about other people's rights than their own, when the real problem is the violation of everyone's rights. Despite this, all anyone is really interested is their own rights, which is quite obvious considering the central complaint here is that Americans are wrapped up in themselves while the rest of the world has the same issue. How is that rational? Your rights are being violated, and that's supposed to matter to me more than the fact that my rights are being violated by my government in the same way? Yes, it's selfish, but it's also self-preservation. If people don't stand up for themselves when they need to, they will not be around to stand up for anyone else later.
Many of us wring our hands at the various European financial crises; many of us worry about North Korea's potential to harm its neighbors; many of us anxiously watch for improvement in Middle Eastern politics. But just like anyone else, when we find out things where we live are worse than we thought, we look inwards to our own problems; that they effect others is terrible, but it's irrational and unreasonable to expect that to be our primary motivation.
However, people seem to think Americans should be more concerned about other people's rights than their own, when the real problem is the violation of everyone's rights. Despite this, all anyone is really interested is their own rights, which is quite obvious considering the central complaint here is that Americans are wrapped up in themselves while the rest of the world has the same issue. How is that rational? Your rights are being violated, and that's supposed to matter to me more than the fact that my rights are being violated by my government in the same way? Yes, it's selfish, but it's also self-preservation. If people don't stand up for themselves when they need to, they will not be around to stand up for anyone else later.
Many of us wring our hands at the various European financial crises; many of us worry about North Korea's potential to harm its neighbors; many of us anxiously watch for improvement in Middle Eastern politics. But just like anyone else, when we find out things where we live are worse than we thought, we look inwards to our own problems; that they effect others is terrible, but it's irrational and unreasonable to expect that to be our primary motivation.
I don't think the author is saying "treat my rights as your primary motiviation", nor is he saying "you should be more concerned about other people's rights than your own."
What he is saying is that the American discourse over these violations — violations perpetrated by agencies within America upon as you say everyone's rights — tends to dehumanize anyone who isn't American. It seems that if the NSA had been using their Prism dragnet to target only non-Americans, then there would be no public outcry at all — as if the real outrage is the fact that American citizens might be the target of these blatantly illegal and wide-reaching abuses of power.
Perhaps, as you say, this is simply the American public "looking inwards" to it's own problems, but I'd argue that this is not your own problem. It's everyone's problem, and we all deserve equal treatment.
What he is saying is that the American discourse over these violations — violations perpetrated by agencies within America upon as you say everyone's rights — tends to dehumanize anyone who isn't American. It seems that if the NSA had been using their Prism dragnet to target only non-Americans, then there would be no public outcry at all — as if the real outrage is the fact that American citizens might be the target of these blatantly illegal and wide-reaching abuses of power.
Perhaps, as you say, this is simply the American public "looking inwards" to it's own problems, but I'd argue that this is not your own problem. It's everyone's problem, and we all deserve equal treatment.
No, no one thinks that Americans should be concerned more with other people's rights than their own. We think that Americans should be concerned by something more than only the rights of Americans. What pisses us off is that the biggest excuse in the whole prism debacle is that they don't spy on Americans. And then debate circles around if it is true that only Americans are spied on or not. Very few question the validity of the fundamental idea that it is perfectly alright to spy on all non-Americans.
This is the heart of the matter: the nation state is an unfit instrument in a globalized economy. We need to move towards a one-nation planet with equal protection under the law for all human beings, as well as equal obligations.
I'm just not sure how the voting system should work, because current voting systems mostly produce poor results.
I am reminded of Childhood's End where humanity is forced to grow up under alien guidance. Somehow we need to figure out a way to grow up as a species in a similar way.
I'm just not sure how the voting system should work, because current voting systems mostly produce poor results.
I am reminded of Childhood's End where humanity is forced to grow up under alien guidance. Somehow we need to figure out a way to grow up as a species in a similar way.
Your utopia would have a single point of failure. What if the one government gets corrupted? We could not even draw comparisons.
[deleted]
Perhaps its because our rights (as foreigners) are not being recognised at all. One thing is to violate whilst recognising, the other is to just not recognise (in which case no violation exists).
what you're missing (are you american?) is that most countries generally don't make the distinction between their own people and others. laws typically apply to everyone.
Do non-US foreign intelligence agencies have equal interest in everyone? They do not.
sure, but when something happens like the recent GCHQ scandal in the uk, people don't get angry because "the english" are being tapped. they get angry because "people" are being tapped.
there's not the same enshrined "us v them" attitude that you see so often in american countries.
really, it's a thing. americans come off as extremely insular.
there's not the same enshrined "us v them" attitude that you see so often in american countries.
really, it's a thing. americans come off as extremely insular.
sorry "american politics", not "american countries".
Nothing will change until all Americans get it once and for all that the attitude of being at war with the world and planning to win at all cost is actually opposite to being competitive and fighting hard to be the best in the world.
We the foreigners that buy into the american dream always think of the latter as the "american attitude" whereas US gov and corporations always go for the first. And they only coincide in very restricted contexts, basically in fewer and fewer contexts as the world changes and becomes more homogeneous. To "win the war" when you're well above everyone else tends to equate to playing fair most of the time, you just use what you have and what you have is always better so you always win, but when the economical and cultural ground levels, if your goal is still to "win the war", you end up playing dirty and forgetting about human rights and values.
...the USA's attitude will only change when they wake tf up and realize that there is now war to be won, it's just about competing in a healthy "jungle". The current US gov's attitude to everything seems to us foreigners similar to your classical story of the PTSDd Vietnam war veteran that gets home after the war and keeps fighting imaginary wars, butchering his family and blowing up the neighborhood in the process, just because that's all he's good at.
We the foreigners that buy into the american dream always think of the latter as the "american attitude" whereas US gov and corporations always go for the first. And they only coincide in very restricted contexts, basically in fewer and fewer contexts as the world changes and becomes more homogeneous. To "win the war" when you're well above everyone else tends to equate to playing fair most of the time, you just use what you have and what you have is always better so you always win, but when the economical and cultural ground levels, if your goal is still to "win the war", you end up playing dirty and forgetting about human rights and values.
...the USA's attitude will only change when they wake tf up and realize that there is now war to be won, it's just about competing in a healthy "jungle". The current US gov's attitude to everything seems to us foreigners similar to your classical story of the PTSDd Vietnam war veteran that gets home after the war and keeps fighting imaginary wars, butchering his family and blowing up the neighborhood in the process, just because that's all he's good at.
Yes but this is happening in other countries for both citizens and non-citizens, it is naive to think otherwise. Just as it was for Americans after 9/11, and even before. If there is lack of backbone on the people to stop it and they allow giving up rights with no fight or questioning it, it will continue. It is not distinct to the US, this is happening everywhere.
Now we know factually (previously assumed) that it happens in the US as well, I think most people here in the US are just surprised it is also happening to them. That was the last place people assumed privacy, as a citizen. You'd expect intel agencies in every country to gather as much information as possible unless the people of that country object loud enough, I am not for it at all but it is the new game.
I am sure this is also happening at gov't levels all over the world in addition to private companies. Business ideas and data stolen everyday, gov't intelligence agencies sifting right off the lines.
The age of digital privacy just seems to be over sadly, too many technology tools to not abuse out there. Changing it will be difficult, encryption doesn't even help. Personal servers, computers etc are the easiest thing to get into. The only real protection would be at the service/cloud level and having stronger security/monitoring like financial + trading markets have. But then you have the situation where gov't intel agencies just go to them to gain access. Not even sure how to change it. Explicit protections in the Constitution are footnoted away with executive orders and fear based legislation.
The permanent record your teachers used to warn you about, that exists now for real.
Now we know factually (previously assumed) that it happens in the US as well, I think most people here in the US are just surprised it is also happening to them. That was the last place people assumed privacy, as a citizen. You'd expect intel agencies in every country to gather as much information as possible unless the people of that country object loud enough, I am not for it at all but it is the new game.
I am sure this is also happening at gov't levels all over the world in addition to private companies. Business ideas and data stolen everyday, gov't intelligence agencies sifting right off the lines.
The age of digital privacy just seems to be over sadly, too many technology tools to not abuse out there. Changing it will be difficult, encryption doesn't even help. Personal servers, computers etc are the easiest thing to get into. The only real protection would be at the service/cloud level and having stronger security/monitoring like financial + trading markets have. But then you have the situation where gov't intel agencies just go to them to gain access. Not even sure how to change it. Explicit protections in the Constitution are footnoted away with executive orders and fear based legislation.
The permanent record your teachers used to warn you about, that exists now for real.
I see a lot of disillusion in Europe about the US. It's been going since the Iraq, but now it's a real wake up call. What's more alarming, it's slipping into anger and open opposition. This is not the change we've been anticipating.
Americans are in a tricky situation now. Who do you elect at this point to make things right? Does it even work? I think we've reached a major milestone here. I'm both frightened and curious as to what will happen. I believe what we do now will define our lives for decades to come.
Americans are in a tricky situation now. Who do you elect at this point to make things right? Does it even work? I think we've reached a major milestone here. I'm both frightened and curious as to what will happen. I believe what we do now will define our lives for decades to come.
I think the article isn't really about elected representatives, it's about the attitudes of ordinary Americans. Like the author and many other pro-American Europeans, I've been pretty disillusioned by the recent reaction to PRISM. Like drone assassination before it, most Americans aren't saying "how dare our government do this" but "how dare our government do this TO US CITIZENS".
(I'm not talking about spying on political leaders, the military etc - everyone does that to everyone else. But it seems that most Americans think it's perfectly fine to invade the privacy of ordinary people on a massive scale, just as long as those people don't hold a US passport.)
(I'm not talking about spying on political leaders, the military etc - everyone does that to everyone else. But it seems that most Americans think it's perfectly fine to invade the privacy of ordinary people on a massive scale, just as long as those people don't hold a US passport.)
As an Australian this is exactly how I feel. Over the past few weeks I've been moving many of my business systems off the cloud and onto self hosted servers and using less and less American servers because they clearly have no issue with taking foreigners information and with tens of thousands of contractors and employees able to access that information I wonder how long it's going be before big companies are able to effectively spy on competitors through having a 'friend' with access to prism.
"I wonder how long it's going be before big companies are able to effectively spy on competitors through having a 'friend' with access to prism."
How long? I think this has been happening for some time now. There's no mechanism for watching the watchers. Furthermore as software developers we know that there's always an unaudited path to the data and people _will_ access it for their own benefit.
Bloomberg had access to how Goldman-Sachs uses Bloomberg's terminals so Bloomberg employees took advantage. The NSA can see Bloomberg, Goldman-Sachs and every financial firms' queries and transactions, all telephone calls and all e-mails, all internet surfing (for starters), where they eat lunch and what road they drive home on. NSA employees will be tempted (or possibly allowed or even encouraged) to take advantage.
And what better way to get money to pay for unauthorized or secret black operations? There may be much happening right now that is completely unauthorized (even by NSA) and completely out of the purview of those who supposedly are in charge.
We may never, ever see the size of this iceberg. It could be spawning sizable financially autonomous mini-icebergs that continue to function even after this one has been melted down. This is a fscking nightmare scenario.
How long? I think this has been happening for some time now. There's no mechanism for watching the watchers. Furthermore as software developers we know that there's always an unaudited path to the data and people _will_ access it for their own benefit.
Bloomberg had access to how Goldman-Sachs uses Bloomberg's terminals so Bloomberg employees took advantage. The NSA can see Bloomberg, Goldman-Sachs and every financial firms' queries and transactions, all telephone calls and all e-mails, all internet surfing (for starters), where they eat lunch and what road they drive home on. NSA employees will be tempted (or possibly allowed or even encouraged) to take advantage.
And what better way to get money to pay for unauthorized or secret black operations? There may be much happening right now that is completely unauthorized (even by NSA) and completely out of the purview of those who supposedly are in charge.
We may never, ever see the size of this iceberg. It could be spawning sizable financially autonomous mini-icebergs that continue to function even after this one has been melted down. This is a fscking nightmare scenario.
Hopefully the data was encrypted while you were moving, since they're listening on the wires too.
> we all bought into the dream..
The American dream didn't even work out for most US citizens. Merely the upper class. The rest of the world bought into practical consumerism more than into a diffuse dream.
The American dream didn't even work out for most US citizens. Merely the upper class. The rest of the world bought into practical consumerism more than into a diffuse dream.
Is the european model better? I will trade my european passport for the US one anytime.
But, sure, I also feel there is two kind of people, and if you are not an US citizen, you are screwed.
But, sure, I also feel there is two kind of people, and if you are not an US citizen, you are screwed.
> Is the european model better?
Better? Depends on who you are, I guess If you are part of the lower classes you have far better support systems available pretty much anywhere in Europe, with the exception perhaps of a couple of non-EU/EEA states. But just like the US, there's huge differences depending on where you are.
Better? Depends on who you are, I guess If you are part of the lower classes you have far better support systems available pretty much anywhere in Europe, with the exception perhaps of a couple of non-EU/EEA states. But just like the US, there's huge differences depending on where you are.
I would have to respectfully disagree on this one and at least say that this is highly subjective.
For me personally and based on my values I would be crazy to give up my EU passport for the US one when EU passport gives me right to live in countries like Finland or some other European countries that seem to be not only more free/democratic than the US but are also wealthier and have better health care, education, lower crime rate etc.
For me personally and based on my values I would be crazy to give up my EU passport for the US one when EU passport gives me right to live in countries like Finland or some other European countries that seem to be not only more free/democratic than the US but are also wealthier and have better health care, education, lower crime rate etc.
I think that's generally a very bad idea if you don't want to live in the US. The USA is one of the very few countries in the world that will tax you even for your gains abroad while being resident abroad.
Try scandinavian countries.
Just to put it out there, while I agree that the sheer volume of snooping being performed by the NSA, why is it a surprise to anyone, anywhere, that any government is snooping on as much foreign traffic as they can? This is, and has pretty much always been, standard operating procedure for every major intelligence agency in the world.
What hurts me is that people are acting surprised that spy agencies are spying on people. Their job is to collect intelligence. If they can read your emails, they will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intelligence_agencies
Their job most certainly isn't mass surveillance of civilian populations. If they thought it was, they need to be disbanded.
No one is saying that at all. I am amazed that people still do not understand the problem.
And that really hurts, hurts us all.
And that really hurts, hurts us all.
And I'm surprised they need to at least respect the law of the nation they are working over.
Also I'm surprised people are acting like the being a corporate scumbag is something weird. Corporate scumbags are by their very definition corporate scumbags and must behave scumbaggy.
Also I'm surprised people are acting like the being a corporate scumbag is something weird. Corporate scumbags are by their very definition corporate scumbags and must behave scumbaggy.
But should they do so without oversight and without limits?
Interestingly, it seems as if a lot of my fellow Canadians are pacified by this line of thinking, perhaps not realizing that they're fair game.
Practically speaking, context matters in privacy. For instance, if a person invades my privacy to learn my sexual orientation, I would feel violated. But if that person was my boss, I would feel much more violated.
For an American like myself, domestic spying is scary for the same reason. The US government is my local government. They run our children's schools. They make me send in reams of silly tax documents. They make me wait in line at the DMV. They patrol the streets of my neighborhood with guns. When I call 911 (the emergency number), it's the US government who answers. In short, the US government -- my government -- is in a great position to abuse the knowledge gained from spying. It's this immediacy that heightens fear of domestic spying.
Another thing to note is that there is a subtle but important distinction for Americans between the CIA and the FBI. The connotative equivalent of the FBI is the police and the connotative equivalent of the CIA is the army. Thus, watching the CIA spy on Americans feels ominous and sinister. It's the spying equivalent of martial law.
What Americans don't realize, I think, is that for foreigners it is an issue of respect. That is, the underlying context of domestic spying outrage is that US citizens were _not_ outraged by foreign spying; that it's perfectly acceptable to spy on the foreigners as long as we protect our own privacy.
In the end, privacy is about perception. To those who, like me, feel their privacy is being violated, please continue to make your feelings heard, both inside and outside the US. The more voices (especially tenacious ones) the better.
For an American like myself, domestic spying is scary for the same reason. The US government is my local government. They run our children's schools. They make me send in reams of silly tax documents. They make me wait in line at the DMV. They patrol the streets of my neighborhood with guns. When I call 911 (the emergency number), it's the US government who answers. In short, the US government -- my government -- is in a great position to abuse the knowledge gained from spying. It's this immediacy that heightens fear of domestic spying.
Another thing to note is that there is a subtle but important distinction for Americans between the CIA and the FBI. The connotative equivalent of the FBI is the police and the connotative equivalent of the CIA is the army. Thus, watching the CIA spy on Americans feels ominous and sinister. It's the spying equivalent of martial law.
What Americans don't realize, I think, is that for foreigners it is an issue of respect. That is, the underlying context of domestic spying outrage is that US citizens were _not_ outraged by foreign spying; that it's perfectly acceptable to spy on the foreigners as long as we protect our own privacy.
In the end, privacy is about perception. To those who, like me, feel their privacy is being violated, please continue to make your feelings heard, both inside and outside the US. The more voices (especially tenacious ones) the better.
The way the US talks about non-citizens has convinced me more and more of my (rather controversial) opinion that in order to have rule of law, we need one legal system for the whole world. I am skeptical of the idea of a world government, of course - it would have too much power, but I do think that governments need to be put on trial as frequently as citizens, in an international court system. I've blogged about this before[1], although I intend to rewrite much of what's on that old site since I don't think it's communicated very well.
I will (when time allows) be stopping my use of American cloud services one by one as a result of this scandal. Gmail, Dropbox, and so on. It will take a while for me to write/borrow my own implementations, and self host them, so that all my stuff works the same way (or similar enough). It was nice while it lasted, but I'm now going to have to start taking my skepticism of US law seriously, and avoid coming into contact with it where ever I can.
[1] http://politicomaniac.net/category/internationalism/
I will (when time allows) be stopping my use of American cloud services one by one as a result of this scandal. Gmail, Dropbox, and so on. It will take a while for me to write/borrow my own implementations, and self host them, so that all my stuff works the same way (or similar enough). It was nice while it lasted, but I'm now going to have to start taking my skepticism of US law seriously, and avoid coming into contact with it where ever I can.
[1] http://politicomaniac.net/category/internationalism/
A legal system as only as good as those who control it.
One way to define what the law is, is that it's the will of the strong imposed upon the weak. In the Middle Ages for example the "strong" were barons who imposed laws upon the peasants through their men-at-arms.
Today we have various competing legal systems fighting either for global control or defending their local "sovereignty". When we reach the point of one global legal system, we will have found a winner.
One way to define what the law is, is that it's the will of the strong imposed upon the weak. In the Middle Ages for example the "strong" were barons who imposed laws upon the peasants through their men-at-arms.
Today we have various competing legal systems fighting either for global control or defending their local "sovereignty". When we reach the point of one global legal system, we will have found a winner.
> A legal system as only as good ad those who control it.
Bingo!
Bingo!
Funny how citizenship seems to be a thing of the past to many people. Another weird side effect of globalization...
Many people now feel patriotic to ideals than imaginary lines drawn thousands of years ago. It's an interesting shift, and in some ways was started by the US having a constitution (set of ideals) as it's foundation rather than a particular leader, king, or ruler.
Nationalism is a relatively modern phenomenon. The founding of the US was part of the rise of Nationalism. The idea that your nation (I assume you are american?) represents 'higher ideals' than others is rather nationalistic don't you think?
From wikipedia:
With the emergence of a public sphere and integrated economy in the 18th century, a broader sense of identification with one's country began to permeate society. In England, the early emergence of a patriotic nationalism can be traced to the period 1740-1790 and was spurred on by many of the writers and leading intellectuals of the day. Many symbols of national identity became widespread, such as the Union Flag being increasingly adopted as a national flag, the composition of patriotic songs such as Rule, Britannia! and the creation of John Bull as the personification of Britain by John Arbuthnot.
The movement intensified and became overtly political with the late-18th century American Revolution and French Revolution; specifically the ultra-nationalist party in France during the French Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#History
From wikipedia:
With the emergence of a public sphere and integrated economy in the 18th century, a broader sense of identification with one's country began to permeate society. In England, the early emergence of a patriotic nationalism can be traced to the period 1740-1790 and was spurred on by many of the writers and leading intellectuals of the day. Many symbols of national identity became widespread, such as the Union Flag being increasingly adopted as a national flag, the composition of patriotic songs such as Rule, Britannia! and the creation of John Bull as the personification of Britain by John Arbuthnot.
The movement intensified and became overtly political with the late-18th century American Revolution and French Revolution; specifically the ultra-nationalist party in France during the French Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism#History
Nationalism is a relatively modern phenomenon.
How do the ancient Spartans not count as a prime example of nationalism? They had a very clear self-identity aligning with their nation.
How do the ancient Spartans not count as a prime example of nationalism? They had a very clear self-identity aligning with their nation.
And in two sentences after your excerpt, it says it's closely related to the push for popular sovereignty. This "higher ideal" that the American and French Revolutions prided themselves on is called the Citizen. Let's not forget we were serfs living before this in a time of oppressive monarchies and a very corrupt and powerful Catholic Church.
I have a candid question then: what did drive the mess of wars in Europe before that? Germany, Switzerland and Italy were a mess of little independent territories fighting each other.
I don't think all of those wars where based on religious grounds.
I am afraid anon1385's text puts the 200-300 year old rise of nationalism in a wrong light.
Before that nationalism, people were not global citizens, quite opposite: their circle of life was even smaller (in a geographic sense). Cities, city-states and small kingdoms. England alone was a patchwork of small quarreling kingdoms ( http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/pics/heptarchy.gif ).
So the rise of nationalism widened people's perspective, it was a step towards larger geographical areas being united and living in peace within themselves.
So the nationalism was progress. Maybe Germans started to fight wars against the French. But at least now you have countries and larger scale organization, not just a patchwork cities and city-states and local warlords fighting their local neighbours.
Before that nationalism, people were not global citizens, quite opposite: their circle of life was even smaller (in a geographic sense). Cities, city-states and small kingdoms. England alone was a patchwork of small quarreling kingdoms ( http://www.thehistoryofenglish.com/pics/heptarchy.gif ).
So the rise of nationalism widened people's perspective, it was a step towards larger geographical areas being united and living in peace within themselves.
So the nationalism was progress. Maybe Germans started to fight wars against the French. But at least now you have countries and larger scale organization, not just a patchwork cities and city-states and local warlords fighting their local neighbours.
You're skipping about 1000 years of history there to make your point. By the time of the rise of nationalism, many parts of Europe had shifted back and forth in control between larger empires for hundreds of years, and it mostly was not a continent of tiny little city states and small kingdoms any longer. The era of the city states started fading quickly after the renaissance, and were in the first place mostly limited to small parts of Europe - most of Europe had seen ongoing consolidation of smaller kingdoms for a millennia or two by the time nationalism became a factor.
See this map from 1713, for example: http://victoriavane.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/western_euro...
Even of the smaller states, many were parts of larger empires for most of their existence, though the control might shift back and forth between empires.
E.g. Germany did not exist as a united country, sure, but the Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the Roman Empire) encompassed most of the smaller countries on the territories of present day Germany and at various times part of Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, France, Switzerland, Poland, Croatia, Slovenia, Czech Republic. Even within the Holy Roman Empire, many of the constituent states were at various times larger than their succeeding present day European states (though there were also many smaller states).
Nationalism in many instances erected substantial new borders in Europe in places where borders meant little to ordinary people before.
See this map from 1713, for example: http://victoriavane.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/western_euro...
Even of the smaller states, many were parts of larger empires for most of their existence, though the control might shift back and forth between empires.
E.g. Germany did not exist as a united country, sure, but the Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the Roman Empire) encompassed most of the smaller countries on the territories of present day Germany and at various times part of Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, France, Switzerland, Poland, Croatia, Slovenia, Czech Republic. Even within the Holy Roman Empire, many of the constituent states were at various times larger than their succeeding present day European states (though there were also many smaller states).
Nationalism in many instances erected substantial new borders in Europe in places where borders meant little to ordinary people before.
> You're skipping about 1000 years of history there to make your point.
This varied by area. Some nation states developed early (England, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland), while other areas was dominated by city states much longer, like Italy and Germany that did not become a nation states before around 1870.
This varied by area. Some nation states developed early (England, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland), while other areas was dominated by city states much longer, like Italy and Germany that did not become a nation states before around 1870.
Not really
For the most part these countries were monarchies whose territories waxed and waned with the power of their ruling houses, where the idea of a nation with a specific government did not develop much earlier than elsewhere. Their development into nation states in fact largely happened as they contracted into core territories with common cultures and languages and the power of their monarchs was put under increasing challenge.
As for Germany and Italy, while they did not become nation states until late in the game, a large part of that was that they were part of empires and other kingdoms long before.
The Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the Roman Empire), the West Roman Empire, the Ostrogothic Kingdom ("heir" to the West Roman Empire, including Italy), the Frankish (Carolingian) Empire, the Bysantine Empire (East Roman Empire); Habsburg Spain; Habsburg Austria; the original Roman Empire.
The period of scattered small autonomous city states was a historical "blip" of not much more than two hundred years due to a temporary political and military vacuum caused by the constant tug of war of various of these larger empires.
The core areas of Germany and Italy had been dominated by organized larger scale governments for the most part of the preceding two millenias (depending on region) before nationalism existed.
For the most part these countries were monarchies whose territories waxed and waned with the power of their ruling houses, where the idea of a nation with a specific government did not develop much earlier than elsewhere. Their development into nation states in fact largely happened as they contracted into core territories with common cultures and languages and the power of their monarchs was put under increasing challenge.
As for Germany and Italy, while they did not become nation states until late in the game, a large part of that was that they were part of empires and other kingdoms long before.
The Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the Roman Empire), the West Roman Empire, the Ostrogothic Kingdom ("heir" to the West Roman Empire, including Italy), the Frankish (Carolingian) Empire, the Bysantine Empire (East Roman Empire); Habsburg Spain; Habsburg Austria; the original Roman Empire.
The period of scattered small autonomous city states was a historical "blip" of not much more than two hundred years due to a temporary political and military vacuum caused by the constant tug of war of various of these larger empires.
The core areas of Germany and Italy had been dominated by organized larger scale governments for the most part of the preceding two millenias (depending on region) before nationalism existed.
There's a gap of a millennium between the 18th century and the link you posted. I was taught William the Conqueror of Normandy came and, well, conquered around 1066 and mark the turning point in England's society by the introduction of the Feudal System. If you we're a mere peasant you tended to stay in your village and work the land for the knights/barons. They might not be interested in nationalism at that point.
What about the Mongols? Romans? I'm not seeing the distinction. Can you please explain?
Power. Money. Prestige.
Land
Started by the US? I can't think of a country whos people are more fervently patriotic than the US...
This concept has been formalized in Munich: http://www.transnationalrepublic.org/
You can have multiple transnational republics, based on ideas. :)
You can have multiple transnational republics, based on ideas. :)
No. The debate is which rights should be universal and not linked to citizenship.
Why so black and white? US vs the rest? I don't care about what government says or does something, I care about what people do to each other, because in the end we are all people. It is not ok for a group of people to take it upon themselves to hurts everybody's privacy like has been done now. We'd have to stop whoever is doing this.
Ugh! I cringed reading that.
We wear blue jeans, drink Coke & eat McDonalds. We favor American companies (hands down) when we make purchases
Well, thanks, but as an American I'd rather if people didn't have this subservient attachment to the U.S.
We wear blue jeans, drink Coke & eat McDonalds. We favor American companies (hands down) when we make purchases
Well, thanks, but as an American I'd rather if people didn't have this subservient attachment to the U.S.
Yeah, the article could have done without that part and still stood upon its core argument. I think the author intended to start out with a little flattery to soften the blow, but it just comes across as patronizing and/or a bit outdated.
My sentiment exactly. I cringed at the thought of an argument based entirely on that. The last part, however
> George Bush famously proclaimed: “You’re either with us, or against us”. He asked foreigners the world over to choose. The wholesale spying on “foreigners” says how we chose made little difference at all..
redeemed the views to me.
> George Bush famously proclaimed: “You’re either with us, or against us”. He asked foreigners the world over to choose. The wholesale spying on “foreigners” says how we chose made little difference at all..
redeemed the views to me.
Neither flattering nor patronizing, I can see, merely a description of what the author saw. However a bit of condescension might well be in order from some quarters.
A lot of American companies make high quality, often cheaper-than-domestic goods. Favouring them is hardly a matter of subservience.
> George Bush famously proclaimed: “You’re either with us, or against us”. He asked foreigners the world over to choose. The wholesale spying on “foreigners” says how we chose made little difference at all..
Maybe we should just create the "terrorist party", as in, we are all terrorist in the eyes of the US, so we might just have to get comfortable with the label.
Maybe we should just create the "terrorist party", as in, we are all terrorist in the eyes of the US, so we might just have to get comfortable with the label.
I'd argue that there are several countries that are more free than the United States in both terms of social issues and economics that make better role models.
This might all be 'news' to the tech community - but Libertarian circles have been talking about this trend towards totalitarianism since what, the 70s? It might feel like it all started after 9/11, but this framework has been building up for decades. In fact, it's the natural trajectory to unopposed empire.
The only thing I hope is that foreign nations accept us liberty loving Americans into their arms when the expatriation wave begins and are able to distinguish us from the assholes. It's coming - just look at the uptick in expatriation: www.nestmann.com/expatriation-statistics There's even publications dedicated to this like www.sovereignman.com and www.escapefromamerica.com/about
This might all be 'news' to the tech community - but Libertarian circles have been talking about this trend towards totalitarianism since what, the 70s? It might feel like it all started after 9/11, but this framework has been building up for decades. In fact, it's the natural trajectory to unopposed empire.
The only thing I hope is that foreign nations accept us liberty loving Americans into their arms when the expatriation wave begins and are able to distinguish us from the assholes. It's coming - just look at the uptick in expatriation: www.nestmann.com/expatriation-statistics There's even publications dedicated to this like www.sovereignman.com and www.escapefromamerica.com/about
Which countries would those be? I'm really on the fence at the moment, between becoming active in trying to change politics for the better, or just packing up and going somewhere that doesn't spy on literally everybody and throw you in jail over a stupid joke or rap song on facebook.
Well, it depends on your political preference. Strong social liberty or strong economic liberty or something in between? It depends on what's important to you.
Economic Freedom: http://www.heritage.org/index/
Democracy Index: https://portoncv.gov.cv/dhub/porton.por_global.open_file?p_d...
Human Development Index: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr4press/press/outreach/figures/HDI_Tre...
Gun Freedom: http://www.freeexistence.org/gunindex.html
Press Freedom: http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html
Drug Freedom: http://www.freeexistence.org/drugindex.html
Various other stats: http://www.eiu.com/default.aspx
Just notice the trends - which countries are you seeing at the tops of most of the lists?
Economic Freedom: http://www.heritage.org/index/
Democracy Index: https://portoncv.gov.cv/dhub/porton.por_global.open_file?p_d...
Human Development Index: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr4press/press/outreach/figures/HDI_Tre...
Gun Freedom: http://www.freeexistence.org/gunindex.html
Press Freedom: http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html
Drug Freedom: http://www.freeexistence.org/drugindex.html
Various other stats: http://www.eiu.com/default.aspx
Just notice the trends - which countries are you seeing at the tops of most of the lists?
It's curious that you mention libertarianism in your first comment, but the leaders in most of those lists are the social democracies.
Just providing options. Personally, I'm skewed towards economic freedom.
Sure, though there are plenty of small government countries out there that aren't hell-holes (eg Vanuatu). It's just that social democracy is really quite philosophically different to libertarianism - the underlying ethos being 'everyone gets support' instead of 'every man for himself'.
Perhaps it's because I'm Canadian and have lived in a world of "constantly aware of US politics but not governed by them" but I find the attitude the OP is now discarding to be superbly and painfully naive. Basically delusional. Imagine the feeling you would get when someone tells you "I entered by credit card number in that 'check if your credit card has been stolen' banner ad and it said I was safe, so that's good news". Same feeling.
So while I'm glad the realization has been had, and the childish notion has been discarded, I'm really worried that this is some kind of common idea among educated non-Americans. Is the ability to read newspapers or follow politics (actual politics, not the circus of party politics) of any kind in that much of a decline?
So while I'm glad the realization has been had, and the childish notion has been discarded, I'm really worried that this is some kind of common idea among educated non-Americans. Is the ability to read newspapers or follow politics (actual politics, not the circus of party politics) of any kind in that much of a decline?
Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos), Woody Guthrie:
[...]
The sky plane caught fire over Los Gatos Canyon,
A fireball of lightning, and shook all our hills,
Who are all these friends, all scattered like dry leaves?
The radio says, "They are just deportees"
Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can grow our good fruit?
To fall like dry leaves to rot on my topsoil
And be called by no name except "deportees"?
This is some time after 1948. Then, just as now, there were people who saw non-citizens as barely humans, in the US and everywhere else. But then there was Woody Guthrie as well, and the many people like him who saw the human in the foreigner.
What has changed in recent years is the reach of the mightiest power, and sheer number of people who find ourselves in the wrong end of its struggle for control.
[...]
The sky plane caught fire over Los Gatos Canyon,
A fireball of lightning, and shook all our hills,
Who are all these friends, all scattered like dry leaves?
The radio says, "They are just deportees"
Is this the best way we can grow our big orchards?
Is this the best way we can grow our good fruit?
To fall like dry leaves to rot on my topsoil
And be called by no name except "deportees"?
This is some time after 1948. Then, just as now, there were people who saw non-citizens as barely humans, in the US and everywhere else. But then there was Woody Guthrie as well, and the many people like him who saw the human in the foreigner.
What has changed in recent years is the reach of the mightiest power, and sheer number of people who find ourselves in the wrong end of its struggle for control.
This is going to be a little inflammatory but it's true.
Why I will never take seriously foreigners' reactions to our wars, surveillance, human rights violations, etc:
You people, and the governments and central banks who represent you, keep buying our debt and financing all of this. The US Government would be incapable of funding these programs and wars at low cost without YOU stepping up to the plate every single auction to buy up our treasuries at ridiculously low yields.
I'll believe your outrage when I see action behind it.
Why I will never take seriously foreigners' reactions to our wars, surveillance, human rights violations, etc:
You people, and the governments and central banks who represent you, keep buying our debt and financing all of this. The US Government would be incapable of funding these programs and wars at low cost without YOU stepping up to the plate every single auction to buy up our treasuries at ridiculously low yields.
I'll believe your outrage when I see action behind it.
Either I'm wrong, or reality is unpopular on HN. It doesn't take much to google for the TIC data[1]. You really do finance this stuff. Average net purchases represent nearly 30% of the US Government's budget. The USG would have to curtail its programs by about this much if you didn't consistently buy our toilet paper.
[1] http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/ti...
[1] http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/ti...
I can't ever recall seeing 'buy US debt' pitched as an election issue, though it's nice of you to shift the blame to people who generally wouldn't understand what you're even talking about, let alone be aware of it going on.
Many in "our" community assign a fair amount of credence to the statement: Information is power.
We see the trend. A... -- I seldom haul out this word, but I will now -- "neo-Fascist" [1] regime absorbing a potentially exponential increase in information while seeking to increasingly restrict our access to and control over same.
That is, I think, in good part what it boils down to.
We see the trend. A... -- I seldom haul out this word, but I will now -- "neo-Fascist" [1] regime absorbing a potentially exponential increase in information while seeking to increasingly restrict our access to and control over same.
That is, I think, in good part what it boils down to.
Foreign citizens have a very powerful ally when being spied on by the U.S. government: your own government. When the U.S. government is spying on its own citizens, who do we have to turn to?
Brilliant and succinctly put!
This ideal is all but gone. Today, the American government baldly proclaims that rights do not belong to human beings, but are conferred only by citizenship. the starkest example of this remains John Yoo's rationale (embraced by the Bush administration) for why the Geneva Convention does not apply to the Taliban: that the rights guaranteed by the Convention were not human rights, but rights granted to combatants of UN member states. Yoo argued that human rights did not exist, and that rights derive solely from citizenship.
To be fair, the roots of that doctrine long preceded the Bush administration, and have continue to grow since. But when I look at framing of debate about rights -- and this applies not only to the NSA spying, but also to the outrage over the fact that the US President would order the drone assassination of, gasp, American citizens (as opposed to the thousands of other non-combatants he has killed in the same way) -- when I see this, it becomes clear that the ideals which inspired the declaration of independence are long since gone.