Uhhh no. I pay taxes and uphold my civic responsibilities (jury duty, selective service, etc.).
I earn those rights.
Unless those foreigners decide to become US citizens and take on the same responsibilities, no, those rights do not extend to them.
The same works the other way around.
Wouldn't it make sense to have reciprocity so it ends up being a game of citizen collaboration, rather than of competition (as in many other areas of international diplomacy and law)?
Yes, I'd be perfectly happy with that. In fact, I'd be thrilled to have the same protections when travelling abroad. Unfortunately, most countries don't provide such protections for even their own citizens.
May be other governments in other countries are doing the same, we don't know. If that's the case, this is very depressing - pretty soon, everyone will be spying on everyone else (if that is not already happening), and this wouldn't be a nice way to live
Mostly I avoid the issue by not visiting Weibo, etc., but I realize that's not very helpful for those not in the U.S. since there's really only the one Facebook, Google, etc.
Perhaps this kind of thing would lead to either increased federation of website (e.g. there's be a U.S. Google and a E.U. Google and swapping amongst them would not be completely frictionless).
Either that or reciprocal agreements between different nations to increase the privacy rights of their citizens (in fact I thought these already existed). But I don't see a solution that involves not having all these nations intelligence agencies simply skipping out on the collection of intelligence part.
But with that in mind I'm not sure how much you're really asking to be different.
He who lives by the sword...
There are many non-racket variants of this, including an actor or famous athlete hiring a bodyguard.
Of course it is not accurate to state that the government is running a protection racket because his initial premise from which that follows is stunningly idiotic in the first place. Rights are not given in return for tax money, not even in America. Non-taxpaying non-citizens enjoy basic protection under the law if they happen to be physically located in America; they don't have to "buy" that.
That "physically located" qualification is what needs to be changed. "They don't pay taxes to us" is not an excuse.