Non-Americans don't have the same rights as Americans. They may also be looked at more in a more adversarial manner.
I'm not suggesting this is right, just what I'd guess the logic is.
A shocking and terrible event happens, a report identifies that intelligence agencies collectively had all the pieces to prevent it but were unable to see the entire picture due to compartmentalization, and the country decreases that compartmentalization.
Cause, reflection, and effect.
After that, it's been the intertia of "hidden privacy erosion" vs "visible perception of safety." (Yes, actual safety has poor statistical support)
But democracies generally discount hidden evils and multiply visible goods when voting.
Do you have a citation for this assertion?
I'd watch the linked interview below. It gets really interesting when Binney talks about how much money and contracts were awarded to make TrailBlazer. All of the data storage, etc. Huge, massive contracts to keep it going. It also greatly increased their annual budget. ThinThread was internal, and fairly cheap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinThread
A very good interview with Binney who discusses this and a lot more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3owk7vEEOvs
The exceptions written to this by Congress (FISA, USA PATRIOT, etc.) are unconstitutional and should be struck down.
https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/may/14/parallel-...
"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."
Our laws, particularly those restricting government power, apply equally to all humans.
I want them to spy on our enemies. And I want them to roast for spying on us.
Protect you from who?
>I want them to spy on our enemies.
Who are these enemies, and how did we identify them as such? Do we just spy until we found one?
Investigation should begin with crimes that have occurred, suss out those circumstances where there is a bigger picture, and attain warrants for further investigation. Lack of probable cause means no search, a right extended by Amendment IV to all people (at least within US holdings as described above, which is where I think the FBI should be operating).
The fault here lies with Congress. FISA is their doing, and it expressly violates all clauses of Amendment IV. The FBI is at fault for swinging this particular bat in a room full of citizens, but they shouldn't have been given the bat to begin with. Why FISA hasn't had a Supreme Court challenge on constitutional grounds is beyond me, but IANAL.
The fault lies with the idea that there always needs to be an enemy.
I agree with self defense. However, I'm not sure this is always the case.
Is that perhaps a direct result of the USG protecting you from them?
I think the FBI has succumbed to scope creep and overstepped what I perceive as their remit; however, that doesn't mean they're an unnecessary body.
Not for lack of trying. Apparently it's very hard to show standing[1]. This is going to need a legislative solution, or none at all.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172998760/supreme-court-makes...
"It" may decide on courses of action that are in its best interests but detrimental to others, even if it has no history of that behavior.
Same reason the US had war plans targeting essentially the entire world in the interwar years -- you never know.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_wa...
The Bill of Rights is a statement from the people to the government. "These are some of our rights and you will respect them."
One could say there are natural desires, or natural ethics/morals, but these have no weight without a granting and enforcing entity.
E.g. "my personal right to not pay taxes"
At its heart, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a formal trade between the people and the proposed government, each of whom start with some power.
People: "We will give you legitimacy and support, if you give us these rights."
Government: "We agree to give you those rights, in return for your legitimacy and support."
The people and the government can believe they have other rights (e.g. a right to privacy), but until they're codified and agreed to by the government they don't exist.
Hence why it usually takes revolution, civil disobedience, or riots to force a government to grant (natural) rights it doesn't want to.
Which was the same argument that lead (rightly, IMHO) to their enumeration in the Bill of Rights, in contrast to the unenumerated British system.
Individuals protecting "their" un-enumerated rights risk the violent wrath of the state, or are able to do so only because the state chooses to ignore them.
How is an individual supposed to protect their own rights?
That's a strange negative. How about, my personal right to control my body (without harming others including not stealing from others).
I do not have a right to steal from you. Goverment is granted some authorities from the people to the government. People can't grant to others what they don't have (like a non-existent right to steal). Therefore, government does not have a right to steal from you or me.
If you want to enter into a commercial agreement with government for some purpose then sign whatever forms and contacts you desire. For me, taking the fruits of my personal labor is theft.
Do you have friends too? Does being spied on by the states mean you're their enemy?
Basically, anyone "not a Fed" in the USA, is an enemy. And even then ..
When you can't tell who the enemy is then everyone is suspect and the later naturally arises.
It is an overall net negative strategy.
EU human rights law doesn't make this distinction between citizen and non-citizen.
Mass surveillance of this type is always directed at a countries own sphere of influence, domestic and at close allies. There is little camaraderie between people in power and the average citizen. On the contrary, to keep the power, you must collect info on everyone that could become a danger to you.
In racing teams your largest opponent is often your racing partner.
Surveillance of foreign adversaries is best done by getting info on key players. Why would info on the average foreign citizen matter at all? It just isn't interesting information.
You poll 10 random Americans on whether they think the government should have all powers necessary to defend against another January 6th riot and I don't know what they'll say.
>A spokeswoman for the department told Roll Call that Lt. Mike Byrd will be investigated after his Glock-22, which has no manual safety to prevent unintended firing, was found “during a routine security sweep” by another officer in a bathroom on Monday.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/431924-cap...
30+ people were killed during the riots of 2020.
It is precisely this violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that is causing so much calamity in the world today, alas. Americans should really, really not accept this state of affairs - either American lives are human lives, and are thus as valuable as any other human life, or they aren't - and therefore international law need not apply to Americans in other aspects of life, either.
The efforts to which an American citizen will proclaim their exceptionalism over the rest of the world and duplicity in applying that exceptionalism is a major cause of the diminished trust that the world feels for the USA, today.
Not actual law or legally binding.
Pretty much all countries distinguish citizens from non-citizens. This isn't an American thing. And you're committing a category error, namely that rights Americans have aren't a superset of any internationally agreed rights. They are.
In all seriousness though, I've no idea what this means in any practical sense. I don't know what being a subject of a government is, not how it compares to being a sovereign.
Human rights supersede citizenship, which is as it should be - especially for those human beings who want to exercise their rights while not being citizens of any state, whether by choice or by war, etc.
Non-citizens are humans too, and therefore have the same rights citizens do.
It's still the case that spy agencies will have more of a difficult time in court and in public perception dealing with the ramifications of spying on citizens. Nonetheless, I don't think this means very much, and if the Federal government would like to, they could take this 'right' away, lie about not violating it, or violate it and ignore the fact that it's happening.
And this isn't about American citizens proclaiming exceptionalism. I suggested no such exceptionalism, and I highly doubt there are many citizens who agree with this any more. I would guess that somewhere near a majority of Americans prefer that we don't waste money spying on anyone. You can put this on the citizens if you like, but I view it similarly to hearing some Americans complain about "the Chinese" rather than "the Chinese government." It doesn't reflect what I believe reality is, that most normal people are not in support of these policies, and normal citizens from 'foreign adversary' nations are not our enemies, and we should not talk about them that way. (Edit: A caveat on this, the US is a democracy so I can see it being argued that the citizens are complicit in their government's behavior. Briefly stated, I disagree, but that's a really long argument and tangent I don't want to go down this morning.)
Here's a poll touching the subject from 2021 (no idea about the veracity, just a result I found Googling "poll americans who support spying"):
> In particular, 46% of Americans say they oppose the U.S. government responding to threats against the nation by reading emails sent between people outside of the U.S. without a warrant, as permitted under law for purposes of foreign intelligence collection. That’s compared to just 27% who are in favor. In an AP-NORC poll conducted one decade ago, more favored than opposed the practice, 47% to 30%.
https://apnews.com/article/technology-afghanistan-race-and-e...