Specifically in this context -- 9/11 and perceived ongoing threats from international terror.
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.
Bill Binney, technical director of NSA at that time, disagrees. He already had a system in place that heavily used filters to only collect what was needed and excluded citizens, which was called "ThinThread." Later, Gen Michael Hayden (NSA Director at the time) switched priorities and went after everything, called TrailBlazer. They got way too much data and couldn't sift through it, even though they had the info in their systems. Binney quit the day after 911 and later revealed the program and the Gov't went after him, along with Thomas Drake and others.
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.
Not to detract from your point, which I agree with- it's very arguable that the order is wrong. The Patriot Act was written and ready before 9/11- it just needed a catalyst to allow it to be passed.
Feel free to watch this interview with Bill Binney, who was technical director of the NSA at the time. He goes over it in detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3owk7vEEOvs
I am aware of ThinThread. The assertion made was "The Patriot Act was written and ready before 9/11". Do you have any specific pointers into where in this 2 hour 35 minute video that claim is made? Or better yet, does anyone have a pointer to anything in writing?
Yes. I believe that myopic, reactive legislators were able to go to the NSA/CIA/FBI and get lots of input on what they would like in a new bill. I am skeptical that "the Patriot Act was written and ready before 9/11".
9/11 is what people point to but it's really just modern national security ops. We live in a time of peace for those lucky enough to be in developed nations with democracies, but war is always one button press away. When WW3 happens any and all information will be an asset for maintaining stability and enabling attacks in wartime operations, particularly with how the next world war will be fought by causing direct harm to the economy and companies of foreign nations via cyber attacks and stealing information.
There you have it, all the reasons you ever need to explain why foreign countries are not very thrilled about the prospect of having to share personal data about their citizens. Given this attitude, and the evidence of misuse, why should any sane country cooperate willingly and put their citizens at risk?
Constitutionally, I believe this is largely untrue. Non-citizens can't vote or hold federal office, but are otherwise granted the privileges assigned to all people by the remainder of the US Constitution. This likely (IANAL) only applies within the bounds of US borders/territories/holdings, but that's where the FBI should only be operating, IMHO.
The exceptions written to this by Congress (FISA, USA PATRIOT, etc.) are unconstitutional and should be struck down.
One of the differences in the US is that evidence obtained by espionage is rarely admissible in court. Often spying bypasses constitutional and legal protections and renders evidence unusable. In the US, cases get dismissed all the time because evidence was "fruit of the poisonous tree" where law enforcement attained evidence unconstitutionally or illegally. This evidence is not allowed in court. This often renders the work of agencies like the CIA, DIA and NSA fairly useless BUT NOT ALWAYS useless for law enforcement. A lot of the problem with FISA and PATRIOT act is they create loopholes in the line between espionage and law enforcement.
I agree. The ethos of the US is described in the 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."
Our laws, particularly those restricting government power, apply equally to all humans.
This logic doesn't work because in many cases the spying is on things like communications. And you can't tell whose communications they are until after you've spied on them. Bytes don't have little US flag stickers on them.
EU human rights law doesn't make this distinction between citizen and non-citizen.
All enemies, foreign and domestic, specifically those operating within the federal borders of the United States, it's territories, and any foreign holdings (e.g., embassy grounds).
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.
What experience, metrics, literally any data are you basing this on? Do you believe Russia is a current enemy of the US? How about North Korea and China?
The life I've lived would be my experience. I have had zero direct interactions with any of these enemies. Enemies to the US aren't necessarily enemies to me. Should I be forced to inherit these enemies?
I agree with self defense. However, I'm not sure this is always the case.
Do you believe nuclear or conventional weapons choose only military targets when they explode? Do you believe standing in any major city that you are safe from any kind of bomb? Or are we going to play the game of “it hasn’t happened yet”? Perhaps the US military should just lay down their weapons cause there’s clearly no threat?
There doesn't need to be an enemy, but there is never not an enemy. I mean this on the petty, day to day, citizen level, not the global political scale. Organized crime exists and must be investigated and prosecuted to avoid endangering the everyday life of the citizenry. When this crime crosses state borders, a federal investigatory body can be an asset.
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.
Classic self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't think the spying made any friends, on the contrary. And in effect it didn't increase security either because people are way more distrustful.
It think this ignores the simple economics of surveillance and information gathering.
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.
I strongly suspect that post-January 6, the ease with which Americans can draw that border has decreased.
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.
1 person was murdered on January 6 and she was a Trump supporter killed by a careless trigger happy cop that was known for leaving his gun in the bathroom
>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.
You are aware that you are conversing with many such "enemies" every day, through venues like this site? What about US citizens that regularly converse with your enemies? Can they be spied on too?
There are no natural rights absent power to enforce 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.
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.
This is contrary to Enlightenment philosophy, that influenced the Founders, that reasoned that the rights of man exist outside of government. Yes, the US government was established to protect those rights. But, individuals can protect their own rights as well absent government.
That's muddling hypothetical rights with de facto rights.
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.
>Non-Americans don't have the same rights as Americans.
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.
> It is precisely this violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
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.
Bah, this is just another example of how Americans' can be convinced to buy their own doom by packaging it as exceptionalism instead.
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.
Sure, no. The cop with a gun pointed at you shouts your rights at you; rights which the government wrote down.
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.
But is this is not missing the point? Just as with any country, if the US didn't agree them, then they aren't agreed. Thus they aren't an example of the US differentiating between its citizens and its non-citizens on its agreed human rights.
I agree with the counter-conclusion you propose, which is that these international laws need not apply to Americans either. (Although I agree with the notion, in a reply, that they aren't 'real' or binding law anyway.)
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%.
American law enforcement also has the power to throw Americans in jail. Therefore it is much more important to strictly regulate what information they obtain and how they obtain it when it pertains to Americans. Non-Americans generally don't run the risk of having their civil rights violated by US agencies (barring extraordinary cases, eg. extradition requests). And even then, extraditions can be contested if the evidence was obtained through improper means.
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.