> Technology will always be moving faster than courts can define how the law applies, and thus interpretation is a part of law enforcement's daily job. Imagine

> Technology will always be moving faster than courts can define how the law applies, and thus interpretation is a part of law enforcement's daily job. Imagine using the same logic in gun control. Imagine there were no laws against certain kinds of ammunition and law enforcement just went around saying certain guns are illegal just because what was in the officer's coffee that morning. People always throw around the phrase "we're a constitutional republic, not a democracy" when I say the Connecticut compromise ought to be scrapped but the same people are for a massive overreach by law enforcement. Imagine someone shot and killed you in the street for no reason and said they thought it was their right. Would that absolve them? No. Neither should this kind of overreach by the FBI be legal.