3 ms·

The FBI is living in the hole it dug for itself. Where was the "conversation" about warrantless wiretapping? I certainly don't remember it. What about the conve

The FBI is living in the hole it dug for itself. Where was the "conversation" about warrantless wiretapping? I certainly don't remember it. What about the conversation about secret FISA courts? Sorry our constitution is making your job harder. Feel free not to cash your paycheck next week if you think it's too hard for you.

equalarrow 10y ago
I don't think it's that much harder, unfortunately. They just take a million or so of tax payer money and hire a firm to crack the target. I'm not sure they're too worried about the constitution, sadly. Why they need to have a 'discussion' about it, I'm not sure.
- tedunangst 10y ago
  Quite right. There's a point where it's not really harder, just more expensive. And when it's other people's money...
jliptzin 10y ago
I don't even understand why they care so much if they can't solve a case due to lack of access to electronic data. Just move on to the next case. Are they getting paid on commission based on how many cases are solved? If anyone asks why a specific case wasn't solved just point to the encryption and move on
- Veratyr 10y ago
  I understand your point but imagine working in the FBI. How do you tell the victims of the crime that the people who harmed them is still out there because you can't get access to the last piece of evidence you need? I'm not at all saying that encryption should be removed but I can definitely see how people who see the harm caused by crime every day could be a little upset about being unable to do anything about it.
  - krapp 10y ago
    > How do you tell the victims of the crime that the people who harmed them is still out there because you can't get access to the last piece of evidence you need? If they had a solid case, they wouldn't need that one last piece of evidence.
  - thwarted 10y ago
    Probably the same way the State Department tells the families of journalists detained by foreign governments that they are "working on it", but that it just not worth it, financially and politically, to unleash the full power of the Department of Defense to recover an individual.
  - jliptzin 10y ago
    Well it should be the victim or victim's family lobbying to amend the constitution in that case to make encryption illegal, not the investigators. They're agents of the government who are supposed to do their job with the current legal tools at their disposal. They are not supposed to be victim's advocates. In some cases there is no victim, like in drug possession cases.
- kakarot 10y ago
  I often wonder this myself. Perhaps they don't understand it, but when they adhere to a certain unspoken agenda everyone seems to get raises

equalarrow 10y ago

I don't think it's that much harder, unfortunately. They just take a million or so of tax payer money and hire a firm to crack the target. I'm not sure they're too worried about the constitution, sadly. Why they need to have a 'discussion' about it, I'm not sure.

tedunangst 10y ago
Quite right. There's a point where it's not really harder, just more expensive. And when it's other people's money...

jliptzin 10y ago

I don't even understand why they care so much if they can't solve a case due to lack of access to electronic data. Just move on to the next case. Are they getting paid on commission based on how many cases are solved? If anyone asks why a specific case wasn't solved just point to the encryption and move on

Veratyr 10y ago
I understand your point but imagine working in the FBI. How do you tell the victims of the crime that the people who harmed them is still out there because you can't get access to the last piece of evidence you need? I'm not at all saying that encryption should be removed but I can definitely see how people who see the harm caused by crime every day could be a little upset about being unable to do anything about it.
- krapp 10y ago
  > How do you tell the victims of the crime that the people who harmed them is still out there because you can't get access to the last piece of evidence you need? If they had a solid case, they wouldn't need that one last piece of evidence.
- thwarted 10y ago
  Probably the same way the State Department tells the families of journalists detained by foreign governments that they are "working on it", but that it just not worth it, financially and politically, to unleash the full power of the Department of Defense to recover an individual.
- jliptzin 10y ago
  Well it should be the victim or victim's family lobbying to amend the constitution in that case to make encryption illegal, not the investigators. They're agents of the government who are supposed to do their job with the current legal tools at their disposal. They are not supposed to be victim's advocates. In some cases there is no victim, like in drug possession cases.
kakarot 10y ago
I often wonder this myself. Perhaps they don't understand it, but when they adhere to a certain unspoken agenda everyone seems to get raises