2 ms·
This seems mostly harmless (insofar as tailing random innocent people could be) but also a collosal waste of time that could be spent doing nearly anything else
by roywiggins 8y ago
This seems mostly harmless (insofar as tailing random innocent people could be) but also a collosal waste of time that could be spent doing nearly anything else.
Mind you, it's hard to see it as security theater (they won't admit it's happening!). It sounds like they have a power envy thing going on vis a vis the FBI, but even the actual marshals doing it seem to think it's dumb. If it were the FBI just tasking FBI Surveillance Vans onto random people without a predicate, there'd potentially be hell to pay as they generally have regulations on what is a valid reason for opening an investigation.
- forapurpose 8y ago> It sounds like they have a power envy thing going on vis a vis the FBI What makes you say that? I didn't see it in the article, but maybe I missed something. > mostly harmless (insofar as tailing random innocent people could be) Hmmm ... I hate to start from scratch this very common discussion (i.e., the harm in surveillance). Is there anything new to add?
- roywiggins 8y agoI mean, it's obviously bad for the same reasons dragnet surveillance is always bad. But this particular instance so ham-handed (tailing an executive that went to Turkey one time?) and so manpower intensive it's kind of hard to take seriously. > What makes you say that? I didn't see it in the article, but maybe I missed something. The article mentions that they first got into the business of tracking people through airports and in the sky after the FBI asked them to help on existing investigations, so I wonder if they are just trying to show that they can do investigations on their own like big boys.