Wouldn't it be lovely if we considered citizens of other countries to be (sorry to abuse the term) "first class citizens" w.r.t. what rules we apply to them / how we govern or limit ourselves when surveilling them?
We could hold ourselves to a higher standard, but we take the (without a doubt efficacious, but) low road.
Possibly impractical nowadays from a national security standpoint in the "you can't get there from here" sense, but lovely nonetheless.
If we did that, they would also be governed by things like federal drug law and tax law. It does not seem desirable to apply the same rules both to citizens and non-citizens.
Rights are different from laws. There is no 'right to be taxed', but there are rights to privacy. Alleging that basic rights do exist but should only apply to human beings who live inside the borders of your own country is just a fundamentally bigoted position.
It's essentially admitting that certain lines should not be crossed in allowing people a decent and dignified existence, but then proclaiming only 5% of the world deserves that dignity due solely to the accident of where they're born. You might as well be separating the world into 'people who matter' and 'people who don't', which, as we've learned through history both ancient and recent, provides a great basis for activities like torture and genocide. Not exactly what you'd hope for from an enlightened democracy.
We could hold ourselves to a higher standard, but we take the (without a doubt efficacious, but) low road.
Possibly impractical nowadays from a national security standpoint in the "you can't get there from here" sense, but lovely nonetheless.