The theory is that when a policy choice affects everyone in an indistinct way, the proper forum for the dispute is the political process, not the courts.

Re: non-citizens, no, for even better reasons. If one country's policy actions are hurting the citizens of another country, the proper forum isn't a lawsuit, but rather the battlefield.

The U.N. is a way to keep a thumb on the little countries, not a way to enforce anything against the major powers (i.e. permanent members of the security council).

As for the WTO, international surveillance is not a trade issue, it's a security issue. It's totally outside the domain of the WTO. One country's maneuverings for its security interests impinging the citizens of another country is the classic use-case for war.

I'm not talking about enforcing, I'm talking about having a forum for heated but peaceful discussion and dealmaking. I'm pretty sure US and URSS in the '60s and '70s disagreed on more immediate stuff than a generic right to privacy, and they managed to resolve many such disagreements through the UN at various points in time. For all the corruption that goes on in ITU and similar institutions, these are venues where issues at the intersection of technology and politics can be debated and progressed. Stuff like the monitoring of Petrobras for economic gain could also be configured as disruption of fair commerce under WTO rules. WTO processes, albeit very slow and clumsy, can have real repercussions on everyday economic activity. I don't see anyone going to war with the US because of some overzealous spying. There will be stern words, and somebody might see it as a good occasion to do away with the American dominance of stuff like ICANN and IETF, but I don't think anybody wants to deploy tanks to defend their routers -- not yet, at least

You have to show proof that you've been harmed in some way. Unfortunately, and via circular logic inanity, because the "harm" that is befallen you is unknown to you, you don't have the ability to prove harm. Someone with more legalese skills could put it better than I but that's essentially the gist of it.

It doesn't need to be through the logical inanity, surveillance by itself is benign. If you choose to self-censor your online activities because you worry about surveillance then that would be your prerogative (the government didn't force you to change your expression of opinion to something less politically sensitive).

The inanity you're referring to is this: surveillance of the communications of any individual American would reveal that all Americans are under regular surveillance. It's not really as inane as you think, however that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

But if that is the case then record companies shouldn't be able to sue people who download their content no?

Considering that US federal court can summon non-citizens under the Alien Tort Claims Act, non-citizen should be allowed to sue USA government as well. Till early this year, it used to even be possible for foreigners to bring suits in U.S. courts against other foreigners, for human rights violations in foreign countries: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_ch...

This was in the news last week itself: http://news.oneindia.in/international/us-federal-court-summo...

The logic goes like this: You can't sue, because the actions aren't being taken against you. They're being taken against companies. Therefore the companies must sue.

Some actions are being taken against companies and some are being taken against citizens. There isn't just one class of victims in this fiasco.