If we allow the NSA to continue unrestrained, every other government will accept that has green light to do the same.
I think his point, and it's an important and valid one in my opinion, is that those Americans who feel unconcerned about the violation of the rest of the world's rights can expect to see this apparatus turned against them, both by other enemy governments, and by allies in the 5-eyes spying for the NSA on demand and for their own purposes (like GCHQ attacking Google communications).
I don't think he's implying that other countries don't spy and might start (presumably this is what you think is risible), he's pointing out that thinking this mass surveillance is acceptable for others while it is unacceptable for Americans is simply naive and untenable in the world we live in. Either we are all subject to mass surveillance by various unknown state actors, or we can all push back against it for everyone, and restore the original purpose of our intel agencies - to protect the people in the countries they work for from attacks (both on life and information), a purpose which they have subverted and betrayed by becoming the agents of attack themselves, undermining crypto standards etc.
Privacy rights, like human rights, should not depend on the country you come from or where you happen to be, and I agree with his position that targeted surveillance is acceptable in some circumstances, but mass surveillance is not, whoever is doing it; it's just too dangerous.
China might look to what the U.S. is doing once in a while to make sure they are doing it too, but it's weird to expect that they are going to respond to the tone we set. And that's pretty much exactly what the talk of green lights sounds like.
But apparently rhetoric and posture are of great importance in geopolitics and I'm an idiot (because I'm pretty sure most of the rhetoric and posturing that happens in a geopolitical context is aimed domestically).
You can't blame that on the people who wrote the US Constitution, which constitutes the basic law of government in the US. Reading it reveals no distinction between citizens and non-citizens. It relies heavily on the idea of natural rights. It is addressed to the government, not the people. That is, it assumes the people have all the rights, and it carves out a space in which the government is allowed to operate. It is remarkably future-proof. If you hear someone say "They didn't have computers" or similar horseshit you can bet heavily that they are an enemy of freedom.
I think his point, and it's an important and valid one in my opinion, is that those Americans who feel unconcerned about the violation of the rest of the world's rights can expect to see this apparatus turned against them, both by other enemy governments, and by allies in the 5-eyes spying for the NSA on demand and for their own purposes (like GCHQ attacking Google communications).
I don't think he's implying that other countries don't spy and might start (presumably this is what you think is risible), he's pointing out that thinking this mass surveillance is acceptable for others while it is unacceptable for Americans is simply naive and untenable in the world we live in. Either we are all subject to mass surveillance by various unknown state actors, or we can all push back against it for everyone, and restore the original purpose of our intel agencies - to protect the people in the countries they work for from attacks (both on life and information), a purpose which they have subverted and betrayed by becoming the agents of attack themselves, undermining crypto standards etc.
Privacy rights, like human rights, should not depend on the country you come from or where you happen to be, and I agree with his position that targeted surveillance is acceptable in some circumstances, but mass surveillance is not, whoever is doing it; it's just too dangerous.