Hacker News Reader

Comment by dictum | Hacker News Reader

I'm yet to see a clear explanation for citizens not being as much of a risk as, say, a random foreigner located far away from your country.

If anything, a citizen is more capable of carrying out a terrorist attack, or just doing any action some foreign power wants to perform in that country.

The exception for domestic citizens seems to be just a concession for the masses and their representatives, not a pragmatic choice.

Edit: a pragmatic reasoning could be compartmentalization — keeping citizens under the watch of a separate entity (e.g. FBI) but it doesn't explain why domestic mass surveillance should be ruled out.

View on HN

> "...it doesn't explain why domestic mass surveillance should be ruled out."

It's a matter of who we have a responsibility towards.

The government we elect in our own country is responsible to us, and as a people we widely do not want our government spying on us. (This is true in most if not all countries.)

But that same government is NOT responsible to the citizens of other nations. The CIA has no responsibility towards Canadians (like myself) or anyone else who isn't American.

I'm not arguing that this is ethically right. I'm just saying it's pragmatic.

If you're not a citizen of my country, my country has no legal obligations to you outside of international law. And no country, to my knowledge, has ever tried to introduce the right to privacy into international law. Every country hates spies within its own borders, but seeks to have them inside of everyone else's.

Domestic threats are outside of the CIA's scope.

The constitution and amendments to it give us certain rights. It really doesn't matter if citizens are a much larger risk or not.

The American revolution was started because citizens did not want the government in their homes.

I don't think that's historically accurate. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the battle cry of the revolution "no taxation without representation"? It wasn't about privacy, it was about wanting to be more than just a backwater colony.

> wasn't the battle cry of the revolution "no taxation without representation"?

That was a slogan of the revolution, but there were more than one; it wasn't the unique complaint. There was also a fairly specific list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence.

"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." -- The 3rd Amendment

The early revolutionary war history overly simplified is something like this. Britain increases taxes on America. America stops paying taxes. Britain increases military presence to force America to pay taxes. America fought against the British military.

During the increased British military presence in America the British goverment did terrible things, including living in civilians homes and eating their food. This is what the parent comment meant when he said "The American revolution was started because citizens did not want the government in their homes." Ultimately, the British goverment was in American homes to help the tax collection effort, so your idea of early Americans caring a lot about taxation is also true.

Ah, gotcha. I took it as suggesting the revolution was about privacy, but I see where I was mistaken.

Thanks!

Also, bootleggers who made money by smuggling stuff for cheap and selling it right below the full tariff price and weren't happy about the British ending their tariffs and making them lose money.

Also, the whole trial by jury of peers was really great for those like John Hancock (the guy who signed his name really big on the Constitution) who got in trouble with the British for smuggling and then would be invariably found not guilty by his employees. When military trials came into place, Hancock and his distributor buddies started getting jail time.

Also, by the way, Hancock shipping basically had a mob, who were responsible for a bunch of the rioting in Boston and likely the related Tea Party.

Just wanted to point out that America wasn't exactly formed out of ideology.

By the way- that big signature? Essentially the largest political middle finger ever.

I did say my history lesson was oversimplified. The question of _how_ Americans avoided paying taxes is always interesting, not just during this time period.

There is an unbelievably good show about this called Turn, Washington's Spies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn:_Washington%27s_Spies

There was this document called the "Declaration of Independence" that I believe you might find useful in clarifying the answer(s) to your question.

if it was exclusively no taxation without representation, we would be witnessing the H1-B armed revolt by now

That's the fairy tale version.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com