You’re getting many replies, and having scrolled through much of them I do not see one that actually answers your question truthfully.

The reason why there is an explicit call out for surveillance on American citizens is because there are unquestionable constitutional protections in place for American citizens on American soil.

There is a strong argument that can be made that using AI to mass surveil Americans within US territory is not only morally objectionable, but also illegal and unconstitutional.

There are laws on the books that allow for it right now, through workarounds grandfathered in from an earlier era when mass surveillance was just not possible, and these are what Dario is referencing in this blog post. These laws may be unconstitutional, and pushing this to be a legal fight, may result in the Department of War losing its ability to surveil entirely. They may not want to risk that.

I wish that our constitution provided such protections for all peoples. It does not. The pragmatic thing to do then is to focus on protecting the rights that are explicitly enumerated in the constitution, since that has the strongest legal basis.

▲

8note 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

given that the US likes to declare jurisdiction whenever somebody touches a US dollar, any thoughts on why those same constitutional protections wouldnt follow?

▲

mothballed 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I agree with your premise because this seems to be the modern interpretation of the courts, but it is not the historical interpretation.

The historical basis of the bill of rights is that they are god given rights of all people merely recognized by the government. This is also partially why all rights in the BoR are granted to 'people' instead of 'citizens.'

Of course this all does get very confusing. Because the 4th amendment does generally apply to people, while the 2nd amendment magically people gets interpreted as some mumbo-jumbo people of the 'political community' (Heller) even though from the founding until the mid 1800s ~most people it protected who kept and bore arms didn't even bother to get citizenship or become part of the 'political community'.

	▲	3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	selimthegrim 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		There have been cases of illegal immigrants demanding 2nd amendment rights and getting them ever since it was incorporated to the states in McDonald

▲

CamperBob2 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The reason why there is an explicit call out for surveillance on American citizens is because there are unquestionable constitutional protections in place for American citizens on American soil.

Those unquestionable protections are phrased with enough hand-waving ambiguity of language to leave room for any conceivable interpretation by later courts. See the third-party 'exception' to the Fourth Amendment, for instance.

It's as if those morons were running out of ink or time or something, trying to finish an assignment the night before it was due.

	▲	mothballed 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Since at least the progressive era (see the switch in time that saved 9), and probably before, the courts have largely just post facto rationalized why the thing they do or don't agree with fit their desired pattern of constitutionality. SCOTUS is largely not there to interpret the constitution in any meaningful sense. They are there to provide legitimization for the machinations of power. If god-man in black costume and wig say parchment of paper agree, then act must be legitimate, and this helps keep the populace from rising up in rebellion. It is quite similar to shariah law using a number of Mutfi/Qazi to explain why god agrees with them about whatever it is they think should be the law. If you look at a number of actions that have flagrantly defied both the historical and literal interpretation of the constitution, the only entity that was able to provide legitimization for many acts of congress has been the guys wearing the funny looking costumes in SCOTUS.