Remember: if you're a non-US citizen outside the US, then the US Constitution protection against search (4th Amendment) doesn't apply to you! We have no 4th Amendment protections!
Morally it's clear that you should treat others by the standards that you believe to be universal.
A government's ability to guarantee and protect these rights is, of course, limited by its geography. Other people may have different value systems which mean they protect a different set of rights than those defined in the US constitution (although the DoI does declare them to be 'unalienable'). But that's not what people are talking about when they talk about US government spying internationally. The US government violates rights it considers to be universal, and many of the people who's rights are violated are in countries with similarly enshrined values, and also who's countries are not at war with the US.
That's not to say there couldn't be ratified treaties between countries which give up some measure of sovereignty in order to set some better ground rules. We ratify all sorts of treaties like that, Obama ratified (by executive order, which I didn't know was possible) the Paris accord just last week. But I don't know of any treaties the US has signed to limit non-domestic wiretapping.
We covered some of this in our class on 'staatsinrichting' where not only the Dutch but also other important European countries organizations were discussed. This one stands out for me because it seems that at least one European country got this one exactly right.
Of course in practice things haven't always followed the theory. For example in French colonies, although indigenous people were supposed to enjoy the same protections than the French colonists, it didn't happen that way. The excuse was that they needed to be put "up to speed" first.
Of course, enforcing it is problematic because the USA is the most powerful country in the world and other governments are not keen on protecting their citizens' rights in this regard. On the contrary, they seem acutely envious of US surveillance powers and are trying to get some of them themselves.
For the record, I agree 100%.
Why would there be such an obligation for unlimited spying?
Spying is the cheapest and most effective way to provide for these goals.
How so?
In addition, spying can give a leg up to domestic commercial interests over foreign commercial interests.
Yes, Germany.
Almost all of German constitution applies to any "Person", not even just any human.
And the government has the constitutional requirement to help ensure those rights are granted to people globally.
The most important basic rights are enjoyed by everyone.
Only citizens enjoy some basic rights (freedom of assembly, for example).
But there is a "catchall" basic right (Article 2, paragraph I) that can be used by non-citizens to claim those rights, as well.
The difference is that this catchall basic right is weaker when weighing it against conflicting basic rights (practical concordance) and it has imminent limitations (statutes can override it – although that must be useful and proportional).
Semantic point, do you differentiate between a "human" and "person"? This may be a translation issue, but to me there's no practical difference between the two.
The most famous example is the concept of corporate personhood.
See also : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood
This is my opinion, though a lot of it was shaped by the German education system, so it's definitely possible that when this question becomes actually relevant in a decade or two that a judge might rule this the official interpretation.
Well, just in case Lt.Cmdr. Data ever comes to Germany ;)
Why does it apply this way? Think of the history of the Third Reich violating the rights of noncitizen nonnationals.
Secret services obey no law other than their own internal regulations, regardless of what people might see on TV series.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union protects you too! If you're non-US & non-Canadian, and use Facebook, then your data is under the control of Facebook Ireland Ltd, in Ireland. And the CFREU will protect you!
1. That's not a valid analogy. The EU has no control over how people travel in other countries and any restrictions they may face. The US government does have control about how it treats people outside US borders. They're not remotely analogous.
2. The US constitution could easily be interpreted as a way that the US government should treat human beings, which means the 4th amendment describes how they should approach search and seizure of any person's property, wherever the US government has influence. Given the internet, influence now extends to computers across borders.
If you were willing to ignore English grammar and definitions, and several centuries of precedent, and many many other things, you could interpret it that way. But it would be ridiculous to do so. The Constitution is "We the people" laying down a basic framework for governing ourselves. It lays out how the government we create will act towards us. It specifically puts foreign affairs (how the government will act towards not-US people) under the jurisdiction of the President and does not extend rights to them.
This is well trodden ground. Your interpretation is facetious.
Wow, talk about being uncharitable. I'll just ignore your insult that I'm an ignoramus talking out of my ass and just address the content: the Supreme Court has ruled only twice on the interpretation of "the people", but there is still considerable debate over its true meaning [1].
The declaration of independence also makes a broad statement that all men are created equal with unalienable rights. It's not at all a stretch that the bill of rights is an enumeration of how a government should preserve some subset of those rights. This is precisely how constitutional protections have been interpreted in other countries, for instance.
> The Constitution is "We the people" laying down a basic framework for governing ourselves.
It's actually "the People" in the constitution and the declaration of independence when referring to the governed, and only "the people" in the bill of rights. Capitalization matters, particularly if we're talking about intent.
Further, the constitution lays the basic framework for establishing a government, and "governing yourselves" is only ONE purpose. Or did you forget about "provide for the common defense" aspect of government? It's in the opening paragraph of your constitution.
> This is well trodden ground. Your interpretation is facetious.
No, this is objectively not well-trodden ground, and you're kind of acting like a dick. I recommend not doing that.
[1] http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_t...
>The declaration of independence also makes a broad statement that all men are created equal with unalienable rights.
So? The Declaration of Independence is not part of the laws of the United States. Its statements have no bearing on them.
> This is precisely how constitutional protections have been interpreted in other countries, for instance.
Luckily, we're not talking about other countries.
> Or did you forget about "provide for the common defense" aspect of government?
That aspect would argue more that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are applicable by the US government only to US citizens, residents, or visitors, and not to all people everywhere. The Insular Cases support this view.
>No, this is objectively not well-trodden ground, and you're kind of acting like a dick. I recommend not doing that.
Yes, it is well trodden ground. That you refuse to acknowledge it does not make a difference.
Excuse me, but tons of hoopla is made about the intentions of the founding fathers. The declaration of independence obviously has direct bearing on this question, and therefore obviously has direct bearing on interpreting the constitution.
> Luckily, we're not talking about other countries.
That's a weak reply. The point you've failed to grasp is that a constitution requires interpretation, and interpretations change, even despite contrary precedent. The Supreme Court has changed interpretations on fundamental rights multiple times over the US's existence. The US constitution can be interpreted in the same way as other countries have done.
Insofar as the intent of framers of the Constitution (a set distinct from, though overlapping, the drafters and signatories of the Declaration of Independence) has relevance to interpreting the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence has very little value in establishing that intent, not only because the people are different, but because it is separated by fairly critical events from the drafting of the Constitution, which was, after all, not a response to the conditions that the DoI was drafter in response to, but a response to the perceived failures of the system of government adopted under the Articles of Confederation.