Maybe he thinks other governments aren't anywhere near having the capability "to do the same", depending on what "the same" is. (Most states could tap cell phone calls off the air or make domestic carriers turn over lots of data, but not tap undersea cables, and probably not extensively compromise commercial telecommunications infrastructure in other countries.)
Maybe he thinks pretty much all governments have been trying to spy on everyone they can for some time now and none of them have so far perceived significant legal, political, economic, or moral deterrents in doing so.
Personally, I think your fingerprinting example is instructive because the practices of one state do have an influence on the practices of another -- though fingerprinting is something that the general public can see directly, unlike most electronic surveillance. After all,the fingerprinting is quite overt. I take Snowden's (and Eben Moglen's) point that states and spooks have talked together for a long time about their deeply shared understanding of spying, and never thought it was necessary to tell or ask the public.
"Maybe he thinks pretty much all governments have been trying to spy on everyone they can for some time now and none of them have so far perceived significant legal, political, economic, or moral deterrents in doing so."
I think that's it. Clearly enough to eject drink from nose
to suggest that something that is essentially a secret activity
will be stopped merely because the US doesn't do it anymore.
Will point out though that in reverse maybe not as true.
In other words it's quite possible that something that you perceive someone as doing
that you hadn't thought of then becomes something that you contemplate.
Let's take an example.
Red light cameras. You see it done in one city and so
you say "hey we can do red light cameras".
A bit later another city (say NYC) decides to remove red light
cameras (assuming they have them I'm using NYC as "well known and large"
for the purposes of this example). Doesn't mean other cities will
stop (once the cat is out of the bag or the genie out of the bottle etc.)
Presumably all governments already consider themselves to have a green light for mass surveillance.
All the same, I do think it's possible for someone to take a lead in allowing their citizens privacy. And even if that isn't possible, surely there's virtue in a democratic discussion about the reasons we all have to be surveilled.
There's also the issue that the US government and other members of the five eyes appear to be egging each other on to ever more elaborate ways round local restrictions.
I agree that the U.S. pioneered terrible rules in both of these areas and then helped spread those rules around the world. The drug war and copyright law, though, have both been spread by treaties:
(Some people have coined the term "policy laundering" to describe creating domestic policy by agreeing to a treaty demanding it, and then pointing to the treaty obligation as a reason that the domestic policy can't be changed -- maybe even within the country whose negotiators first proposed adding it to the treaty!)
I don't think there are many treaties that require states to engage in surveillance. There are civil rights treaties that can be interpreted to restrict it. The closest I can think of is that the Chicago Convention
says that civil air carriers must comply with immigration rules, which might be one legal basis for collecting ever more information in identity documents, and for requiring carriers to verify them and share information about travelers with states. (I guess there are similar rules in treaties about ships, too?)
Treaties don't negotiate themselves into existence.
As far as copyright law, the last two examples, TPP and ACTA, were both essentially negotiated in secret, by large corporate interests. After negotiating a treaty (TRIPS, say) the bueacrats get to propagate the skullduggery.
Wasn't the DMCA an example of policy laundering - raising domestic policies "up to the level required by treat"?
I think one of the big worries with "Intellectual Property" treaties is that they end up (practically) mandating deep packet inspection, which is surveillance by another name.
Why not? See that logo in the upper-right of the page? That's the UN logo. Know who elects its members? ECOSOC, another UN body. Know who nominates at least five of them? The WHO, yet another UN body.
A commission of ECOSOC is also responsible for the scheduling of drugs under the same treaty that set up the INCB.
"Independent" agencies are not unusual in governmental contexts. The FCC, FDA, and FTC are all prominent US examples. "Independent" doesn't mean they're not part of the government, they're just outside the direct control of other parts of the government.
Every time, for example, the FDA bans an import of <whatever>, headlines spring up both inside and outside the US about "the US" banning <whatever>, generally followed within the article by explicit explanation that it's the result of an FDA action. It is not unfair nor even misleading, the FDA is part of the US government, and on the world stage, the US is answerable for its actions.
In theory it's the NSA's job to defend us from foreign intelligence agencies. Instead, their behavior has the effect of equipping those agencies with both motivation and moral authority.
That may have been what tptacek was guffawing at. If so, it's hard to argue with him.
He must have some interest on the NSA continuing their mass surveillance efforts, or something. Juicy federal contracts aren't something you turn your back on when you're a 20 year old kid with a public voice.
I disagree with Tptacek in this particular instance; but to allege a conflict of interest like this is petty. AFAIK his security firm specifically does not do defense contracting.
