On 4/1/15 10:34 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:

   2015-04-02 0:32 GMT+09:00 Stephen D. Williams <[1]sdw@lig.net>:

   Since the First Amendment is strained here, reasonable people could
   conclude that the conflicting law is unconstitutional.  That could lead
   to a sense of responsibility to do the right thing.

   What's this First Amendment thing that I have absolutely no protection
   from? Oh, right, something American! Geez, don't you Americans realize
   the constitution is something of a moral code that you should uphold in
   law and practice, with force (hint: guns, militia's) if need be?
   Anyway, again, unless you're one of the fortuitous/doomed 322 million
   people that have a US citizenship this grants NO PROTECTION AT ALL
   EVER. Not even when in the US or whilst using a US service. FISA and
   "National Security Letters" prove the threadbare legal holdfasts
   snapped ages ago anyway. I would swear there was something compelling
   the people to revolt when the government acts against the people/the
   public's interests, but I cannot find it now. Filter bubble or a lively
   imagination, who knows what to blame.

   If you are inside the US, you do have full protection of US laws,
   including the First Amendment, although there are some specific
   exceptions.  Outside the US, it varies.  Ideally, a local law provides
   similar protection.  US companies will operate as if you do have the
   same rights, so in some sense and range of situations, the rights
   extend to everyone globally.
   [2]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do
   _noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html

   the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an
   immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the
   right to [3]due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights
   protected by the [4]Fifth and [5]Sixth Amendments. [6]This fact sheet
   from the National Lawyers Guild outlines a host of rights afforded to
   immigrants and citizens alike. (There are a few rights reserved for
   citizens. Among them are the right to vote, the right to hold most
   federal jobs, and the right to run for political office.)

   But immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not
   criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your
   immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has
   nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from
   the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national
   security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that
   immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can
   make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to
   citizens.

   Somebody else wrote:

     works... IF EVERYONE cooperates to flaunt, flaut, and disregard it.
     Could you IMAGINE the gubmint trying to take every internet provider
     and
     major website operating in the US to court?
     Shut down Twitter and Yahoo!'s US ops?
     Really!

   Have you heard of "punitive punishment"? Do you know the percentage of
   people breaking the Computer Fraud Act? What about Copyright? How many
   people have been selectively convicted of drug use? (bonus points for
   racial profiling!)
   Simply put: oh no, you are so, so very wrong.

     But then, one simply doesn't do business in Australia that needs
     warrant
     canaries. What am I missing?

   Uhh.. What?...

   sdw

References

   1. mailto:sdw@lig.net
   2. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html
   3. http://encarta.msn.com/find/concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761570222
   4. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv
   5. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentvi
   6. http://www.nlg.org/wtc/know your rights.htm