4 ms·

"The FBI wants to access N without a warrant." Sane answer: no, for all values of N.

gherkin0 10y ago
If the FBI asks for the power to access N without a warrant, it should be automatically be required to get two warrants from two separate judges to get access.
- giancarlostoro 10y ago
  I'm surprised this hasn't become the standard. We would then have more checks and balances in this regard at the very least.
- knieveltech 10y ago
  I like the way you think.
omginternets 10y ago
>"The FBI wants to access N without a warrant." Sane answer: no, for all values of N. You're repeating a common fallacy, namely that warrants are a sine qua non condition for search and seizure. This is false. In the United States, one enjoys constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure. While a warrant goes a very long way towards making a search or seizure reasonable, the two are not to be equated. A few notable exceptions where warrants are not required: - The so-called motor-vehicle exception - The so-called "in hot pursuit" exception I think we share the same feeling towards this particular case, but it's important to understand the legal arguments being made. The FBI is essentially claiming that it is reasonable to search browser history without a warrant.
- knieveltech 10y ago
  No, I'm saying warrants should be a required condition for any search or seizure, not that they are currently. Law enforcement's job shouldn't be easy.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    That's absurd. There are plenty of good reasons to conduct search and seizures without warrants. Simple example: a cop hears someone screaming for help inside of an apartment. With respect (really!), I think you have a bit of an ideological blind-spot. I can relate, as I used to have the same one (and probably still do in some cases).
    - knieveltech 10y ago
      What do you think is more common, the "screams coming from apartment" edge case or corrupt cops abusing "probable cause"?
      - omginternets 10y ago
        >corrupt cops abusing "probable cause"? This is why we have a court system. There is (in principle) remedy for the latter, but not for a failure to help someone in immediate distress.

If the FBI asks for the power to access N without a warrant, it should be automatically be required to get two warrants from two separate judges to get access.

giancarlostoro 10y ago
I'm surprised this hasn't become the standard. We would then have more checks and balances in this regard at the very least.
knieveltech 10y ago
I like the way you think.

omginternets 10y ago

>"The FBI wants to access N without a warrant." Sane answer: no, for all values of N. You're repeating a common fallacy, namely that warrants are a sine qua non condition for search and seizure. This is false. In the United States, one enjoys constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure. While a warrant goes a very long way towards making a search or seizure reasonable, the two are not to be equated. A few notable exceptions where warrants are not required: - The so-called motor-vehicle exception - The so-called "in hot pursuit" exception I think we share the same feeling towards this particular case, but it's important to understand the legal arguments being made. The FBI is essentially claiming that it is reasonable to search browser history without a warrant.

knieveltech 10y ago
No, I'm saying warrants should be a required condition for any search or seizure, not that they are currently. Law enforcement's job shouldn't be easy.
- omginternets 10y ago
  That's absurd. There are plenty of good reasons to conduct search and seizures without warrants. Simple example: a cop hears someone screaming for help inside of an apartment. With respect (really!), I think you have a bit of an ideological blind-spot. I can relate, as I used to have the same one (and probably still do in some cases).
  - knieveltech 10y ago
    What do you think is more common, the "screams coming from apartment" edge case or corrupt cops abusing "probable cause"?
    - omginternets 10y ago
      >corrupt cops abusing "probable cause"? This is why we have a court system. There is (in principle) remedy for the latter, but not for a failure to help someone in immediate distress.