As a non-American, I have a problem with this seemingly widespread idea even among privacy advocates in the USA that only Americans are entitled to the protection of their rights from the American government.
As a non-American, I have a problem with this seemingly widespread idea even among privacy advocates in the USA that only Americans are entitled to the protection of their rights from the American government.
Personally, I don't like the existence of national borders of any kind, but I also can't wish them away. And when you draw a line, that says there's something you want to exclude on the other side of it, and the stuff over there just might decide to cross the line in a way you don't like.
My general strategy has been to support inclusive immigration policies, globalization efforts, and joint international operations. The more of these that exist, the less meaningful national boundaries become, the less necessary national defense will be.
Your country may be perfectly at peace with the US now, but there is no way to guarantee that peace unless we have people to continually watch for potential threats. Even that is, in itself, no guarantee, but it's better than nothing.
Maybe someday, mankind will be able to share universal goodwill and peace, but until that time, trust, but verify, at a minimum.
For all of the talk about "all men created equal" and "do to others as you would have them do to you", fundamentally Americans are brought up to believe they are different or "exceptional" to other humans. This belief let's them distort reality so that spying on innocent foreigners is ok but spying on innocent Americans is an abomination. Hypocrisy.
Timothy McVeigh and others prove that the domestic threat to the US is as serious as the foreign.
/s
Without such an agreement, this is nothing more than international espionage, which is a natural (and arguably necessary) part of having different nations that don't always see eye-to-eye. Do you take issue with spying in all forms, or only the 21st century brand of spying?
Widespread unchecked surveillance is evil in and of itself, it doesn't matter _who_ is doing the surveilling.
Following your argument, if the Chinese government engaged in exactly the same sort of surveillance against you that the NSA does, you'd be fine with it, since it would merely be international espionage. But in the end, the same information about you is being stored. And your information is probably less trustworthy with the Chinese government than even with the NSA!
'Spying' in the traditional meaning is qualitatively different to dragnet surveillance of all communications.
I understand that all countries engage in a level of spying, and that friends may not always remain so, but the US' seemingly widespread lack of trust in _any_ other country, only works when you're (1) right and (2) the most powerful country.
These may not always hold true, and it's when bad things happen that you need friends you can trust (and that can trust you).
In the case of the NSA, the NSA coerced/worked with many private US companies and took the data from them (rather than somehow collecting the data themselves). Such coercion of American companies is what I believe should be curtailed.
The thing is, China has no such reach in my life. I don't use any Chinese websites to store my data. I don't use any Chinese social networks to keep up with my friends. I don't use a Chinese email service.
The religious ones thought these rights came from God but in any case most all agreed these are "Natural Rights" that you have because you are a human being. Such rights can only be violated by governments. They cannot be granted or taken away.
This attitude that rights only adhere to citizens of the US, common among united statesians, is a pathetic indicator of the level of indoctrination. It's also morally and philosophically appalling. It's the same attitude that allows united statesians to support bombing brown people on the other side of the world for whatever reasons their leaders give them.