3 ms·

I'm not sure why anyone would expect the agencies to actually adhere to these laws (they didn't before anyway). Having a nice bucket of kompromat on every relev

• DanBC 10y ago
  They claimed to. The fact that oversight failed for years doesn't mean the agencies ignored the law - there are reasonable interpretations to most law. It's good some of it has been test by the courts. It's frustrating it took so long. It's worrying that new law is drafted that appears to ignore previous court rulings. There are exemptions in English an European law about crime prevention but it's surprising that "slurp all the data" meets the prpotional test.
• rl3 10y ago
  The ultimate justification for spying on politicians is under the guise of counterintelligence. Have to make sure they're not under the influence of foreign powers, or leaking classified information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIPAC_allegations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#2009_wiretap.2FAIP... Of course, sometimes it's just easier to poorly fabricate supposedly-intercepted communications, do the political damage, and then refuse to divulge any evidence citing either classification grounds or the absence of an investigation.
• Already__Taken 10y ago
  But now you've just got exactly that for every potential upcoming politician up to the point they take office.