Here’s a fact: if a right only applies to US Citizens, and not to anyone else, then it’s not an inalienable right. Which means it’s essentially not a human right. This is foundational to why America’s exists in the first place, just take a look at the declaration of independence.
Now, take a look at this part of the bill of rights:
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
In my view, it’s pretty fucking obvious that the founders would apply this to digital data. My Instagram account is after all, just a digital personal effect.
It’s my right that this data is secured from the government’s eyes. Whether or not the government wants that to be a right is irrelevant. If digital data is a clear extension of property rights, then it’s inalienable — a fundamental human right that the government is violating, albeit lawfully.
And if it’s fundamental, then it applies to any human. If it’s not fundamental, then it’s not a right, and digital data can’t be protected. Not a foreigners, and not mine.
So when the dumbasses in charge of the federal government want to violate the human rights of a foreigner, that really just means they don’t view it as a human right in the first place.
This applies to social media here, but also to due process with respect to ICE.
kashunstva · 19h ago
> So when the dumbasses in charge of the federal government want to violate the human rights of a foreigner, that really just means they don’t view it as a human right in the first place.
With the current U.S. president, nothing is seemingly foundational; it’s transactional and personal. Before either of his terms in office, these characteristics were in clear view throughout his adult life. Even close family members were subject to transactional evaluation. Small wonder that human rights are so contingent. If there is a moral bedrock on which he can organize his policies and actions, it is inapparent.
rolph · 1d ago
not only privacy violation, also compelled speech.
id say 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment issues.
mdp2021 · 1d ago
> The State Department also indicated that if applicants ... otherwise don’t maintain a social media presence, the government may interpret it as an attempt to evade the requirement or deliberately hide online activity
Reality again passing the worst fiction.
JohnFen · 14h ago
As someone who hasn't had an actual social media presence in years, I was wondering about this. Effectively requiring people to use social media is perverse.
Now, take a look at this part of the bill of rights:
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
In my view, it’s pretty fucking obvious that the founders would apply this to digital data. My Instagram account is after all, just a digital personal effect.
It’s my right that this data is secured from the government’s eyes. Whether or not the government wants that to be a right is irrelevant. If digital data is a clear extension of property rights, then it’s inalienable — a fundamental human right that the government is violating, albeit lawfully.
And if it’s fundamental, then it applies to any human. If it’s not fundamental, then it’s not a right, and digital data can’t be protected. Not a foreigners, and not mine.
So when the dumbasses in charge of the federal government want to violate the human rights of a foreigner, that really just means they don’t view it as a human right in the first place.
This applies to social media here, but also to due process with respect to ICE.
With the current U.S. president, nothing is seemingly foundational; it’s transactional and personal. Before either of his terms in office, these characteristics were in clear view throughout his adult life. Even close family members were subject to transactional evaluation. Small wonder that human rights are so contingent. If there is a moral bedrock on which he can organize his policies and actions, it is inapparent.
id say 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment issues.
Reality again passing the worst fiction.