So the congress invites someone, and the NSA branch steps in to block it by censoring the speaker at the border.

I wonder whats next in this hollywood movie. Drone strike in central london to take out an embassy? A firewall blockade directed at news paper articles? Secret kill lists and torture?

Maybe someone should sneak a telepresence robot to congress, give it a dark trench coat and a code name. This is Truth Teller congress members, let the robot speak!

> the congress

No, not THE congress. The original article means a convention/conference.

Thank you. Still a bit of an movie plot move, but slightly less so than if it had been the congress.

I guess visiting speakers should always have a backup plan, and be able to do a video conference stream from the airport directly to the conference. That is if they are allowed to keep their electronics equipment intact at the border, which I guess is doubtful. Maybe a prerecorded speech?

Or maybe organize your convention in a country that doesn't pull such shenanigans, just because they don't like the speaker?

In the long term moves like this can't be good for the US.

As a U.S. citizen, this is actually my biggest concern - this is all going to hurt us economically. Of course most people will think it is Snowden's fault for making it known, rather than the government's fault for doing it.

> As a U.S. citizen, this is actually my biggest concern - this is all going to hurt us economically.

Of course it is. Always the effect on you "as a US Citizen". Because that's the only way you can think. What about the rest of the World?

Are you not a "World citizen" too?

Think about this for a moment. Is your economy really your biggest concern? What is the US doing to the rest of the world? Do you disapprove of this behaviour just because of the effect it might have on you, economically? Of course it is a reason, but is it really the first and foremost reason? When you look at it in the light of what the US is actually doing in your name?

You do realize that when you write things like this you post them in front of an international audience, right?

I'm not singling you out, I see this attitude everywhere. In particular in regard to the blatant spying and thrashing of our privacy. If it's your privacy it is an outrage, if it's everybody else's privacy it is "expected".

I just can't understand this attitude. If my country would be engaging in such behaviour, in my name, I would strongly denounce it because it is wrong to treat people like this regardless of where they live! Sure I might think "huh this could be bad for trade-relations of the Netherlands, and we're a trade country", but not for a single moment would I consider this a major reason to fault those actions. It is wrong because you should not treat people that way.

Like, what you just said is basically, if this couldn't hurt you economically, it would be much less of a concern to you. Because economically is your biggest concern. So all the other concerns must be so much smaller.

Hm.

How nice.

Say that to my face?

First of all, no, saying something is my biggest concern does not imply that barring it this would all be "much less of a concern" because all other things are "so much smaller" concerns. Those conclusions simply don't follow from what I said.

The rest of your points are pretty good and they are well taken. It is possible that U.S. citizens generally view ourselves less as "World citizens" than we should. For me, personally, I feel like this is because we have (largely through our own past mistakes!) made many enemies throughout the world, and I struggle to feel like there is any useful world citizenship that includes both me and those enemies. So yes, it royally pisses me off that you in the Netherlands are being spied on, and that German writers are being mistreated, and that European embassies are being bugged, all in my name, but no, it really doesn't bother me that we are spying on the North Koreans. I'm mad that we don't seem to know our friends from our enemies and are embarrassing ourselves by just drag-netting everything, but from a legal standpoint, within my own government, I think there is a useful line between U.S. citizens, and non-citizens.

For what it's worth, I absolutely think that I belong on the other side of that line for you in the Netherlands, and if I found out your government was spying on me, I would be more upset with my own government for failing to protect me than with your government for the spying.

I'm sure none of that made you like me or other Americans any more, which bums me out, and I wish there were a big happy World family for me to feel a part of, but as far as I can tell, there isn't.

Thanks, that was pretty good, thanks for saying that.

And I do like many/most Americans that I've met, it's just that the discourse on this subject on HN had started feeling a little bit one-sided. As I said, I wasn't trying to single you out, it was something that had been bubbling under my skin for a while now (and others too).

For what it's worth, if my government was spying in NK, the way yours is intercepting, recording, cataloguing and datamining the lives of all (Internet/technology-using) humans on this planet, I would in fact not be okay with this. Because it's no way to treat people, anywhere. As we've seen every single time, just because something that is actually wrong seems justifiable, doesn't mean it should be done because it'll just lower the threshold for it to be used again in situations where you wouldn't agree with it. Because you can't close that door, you can't say "I trust your judgement, this time", because in a few years it'll be somebody else making that call, and the machinery is already there.

Of course irony has it that not even the US gov is spying on NK in that manner, because they can't really get a useful intelligence foothold in that place. So the comparison doesn't actually quite work, because they're doing all this very deep hard-core intercepting/recording/datamining on pretty much all places except NK, and a few others that you might consider "justified". Why is it that the places where they far exceeded the boundaries of what can be reasoned as "justifiable intelligence" are in fact not the places where it might actually matter? Because they were allies. The UK hacked Belgium, FFS! It is an abuse of trust. For what, for nothing, well I'm guessing for business intelligence.

So yeah, that's a bit of a conundrum. With "national security" and all. Some tough choices maybe? But really, nobody said it would be easy. If you're dealing in global politics, affecting the lives of billions of people all over the world, all with different attitudes and beliefs, that's what you're signing up for. And there is no easy way out, 100% "Total Information Awareness" isn't a solution, for similar reasons as "let's bomb the ever-loving shit out of everybody" is not (as the US seems to be slowly learning).

See, the Dutch NSA, called AIVD, is doing just as bad. At some point they were tapping more phones than the US. If you buy Bitcoin you're on a list. They are already tracking our locations via the cellphones and "invisible text messages" and "Bob" knows what. It's pretty bad. But they're doing it to just these 17M people and it's our problem. This is why I donate money to Bits of Freedom, which is like the Dutch version of the EFF. One thing they're very good at, is informing politicians what all this new-fangled technology can do, so they can make better choices. So I hope B.o.F. can put some brakes on that. However, if my government were to turn its eyes outward, and decide it can just invade and intercept the personal lives of, well, anybody guilty of the crime of not being a Dutch citizen, I'd damn well be outraged, and expect my gov to cut it the hell out. ("Some of my best friends aren't Dutch citizens!!", Americans, in fact). And I'd demand that even though B.o.F. is a Dutch foundation, they'll work to put a stop to that as well even if it doesn't directly affect Dutch citizens.

Because, really, should allies have to be protecting their citizens from each other? Well they should protect their citizens, that's one thing a government is for, but ostensibly the point of having allies is that you're not trying to screw one another over.

Okay, and sorry this is getting a bit long, but I must point out that it is in fact more complicated than this :) Now it seems like I say just the US is screwing over its allies (and I also said the UK was). But part of the reality of the situation is also that many of these both-heavily-spied-upon-as-well-as-allied countries, are in fact governments screwing over their own citizens, with agreements that say basically "you spy on my back, I'll spy on yours". Which is another reason why you need to look past your own boundaries instead of asking/expecting your gov to better protect just your privacy. Because they don't really want to. And they use the excuse of spying on other countries as a distraction. As has been pointed out many times already, in the US there's some things in your Constitution that says, if anyone was listening, roughly that they shouldn't spy on US citizens for no good reason. That is why they have the deals with other countries, we can't legally spy on our own people, so you spy on ours, we spy on yours, deal? (this has been the case since ECHELON, it's right there on Wikipedia).

And THAT, is why you should not just expect your government to protect you from the other spying eyes, but why you should demand that they stop the type of intrusive surveillance / intercepting / recording / datamining they're doing to others as well. Because you're not alone in this world. Or, if only, to view from an economical perspective again, it removes the bargaining chip, if they don't have the deep intelligence on their "allies" they cannot trade it back for the deep intelligence that they are legally prohibited from gathering on their own citizens.

A secondary plan is definitely a possibility, but should by no means constitute a viable alternative in a free democracy.

One should refer to the US federal legislative body as "Congress"; capitalized and without 'the'.

States each have their own legislatures and can be referred to as "the state legislature of X" or "X state legislature". But they all have their own names, New York's is called the New York State Assembly. California simply calls theirs the California State Legislature. Either way works.

>I wonder whats next in this hollywood movie...Secret kill lists and torture?

That's already the case...

Well, not the congress, just a conference, but still...

Is this a case of incompetence at the junior levels or conspiracy at the senior? We tend to blame the latter, when it's frequently the former. (The folks at the airline terminal seem to be too incompetent to be entrusted with any kind of grand plan.)

Well, they've already managed to shut down the government..