I don't think countries (the U.S., Norway, whoever) should be required or require themselves to get warrants to surveil citizens of other countries.
And where then does it stop? Should countries also not be required or require themselves to provide due process to citizens of other countries when they visit? How about not recognizing property rights, and confiscating their belongings? Why not go the whole way and just shoot the ones you don't like?
The reason that international human rights treaties exist is that adopting isolationist policy in the area of human rights is a move that creates no winners. We just seem to have forgotten that in the context of the Internet, because the violations take place at home while the immediate victims are abroad. But the indirect consequences will probably come back to haunt those who don't respect citizens of other nations all too quickly, whether it is in loss of tourist trade, or loss of control of technologies like the Internet because a single nation is no longer trusted to administer that technology impartially, or more direct consequences to the bottom line if for example technology companies with cloud-based offerings are no longer trusted by foreign customers.
The US seems to be particularly at risk today, because it has been a natural leader in some of these fields and has been trusted to act responsibly in that capacity. That trust is rapidly being eroded, and the US has more to lose as a consequence than most. Still, the general us-and-them attitude in today's international politics is a plague on all our houses.
"And where then does it stop? Should countries also not be required or require themselves to provide due process to citizens of other countries when they visit? How about not recognizing property rights, and confiscating their belongings? Why not go the whole way and just shoot the ones you don't like?"
Well, something like that is already considered quite legal, right? A Uruguayan citizen who buys some pot from his local government store and then boards a plane to Singapore isn't going to have a nice time in Singapore, even though by Uruguayan standards he's done nothing wrong: his property rights in that pot will not be recognized, at the very least, and probably he will be severely punished for something not considered a crime in his home country.
When country A is doing violence to the citizens of countries B and C inside country A, the usual response is merely that B and C recommend that their citizens not go to A. If the citizens were considered important, sometimes there's a protest of some sort.
And where then does it stop? Should countries also not be required or require themselves to provide due process to citizens of other countries when they visit? How about not recognizing property rights, and confiscating their belongings? Why not go the whole way and just shoot the ones you don't like?
The reason that international human rights treaties exist is that adopting isolationist policy in the area of human rights is a move that creates no winners. We just seem to have forgotten that in the context of the Internet, because the violations take place at home while the immediate victims are abroad. But the indirect consequences will probably come back to haunt those who don't respect citizens of other nations all too quickly, whether it is in loss of tourist trade, or loss of control of technologies like the Internet because a single nation is no longer trusted to administer that technology impartially, or more direct consequences to the bottom line if for example technology companies with cloud-based offerings are no longer trusted by foreign customers.
The US seems to be particularly at risk today, because it has been a natural leader in some of these fields and has been trusted to act responsibly in that capacity. That trust is rapidly being eroded, and the US has more to lose as a consequence than most. Still, the general us-and-them attitude in today's international politics is a plague on all our houses.