The examples show circumstances separated by a matter of degrees regarding application of trust. >It's a simple case of the system working as planned to protec

The examples show circumstances separated by a matter of degrees regarding application of trust. >It's a simple case of the system working as planned to protect innocent victims. I'm not going to be a yahoo about this, but that's just plain naive. I'm not getting the point across, which is that when a government asks you to act as an agent for their benefit, that government appeals to your assumption of trust without providing any evidence for that trust. A warrant may be enough insurance in return for consulting, but would I go on a raid? Absolutely not. What if your consulting involved providing private information on citizens just because someone in the government assured you that what you were doing was legal. Would you still do it? If you would only with a warrant, then what if they told you that this was some kind of FISA thing that didn't require a warrant? I cited Hatfill and Convertino because they're examples of one-sided trust relationships with the government that went terribly wrong.