3 ms·

Sorry but I disagree (partially). Where I agree is that covert agents operating abroad are by-definition criminals. Foreign governments don't give permission

by furyg3 6y ago

Sorry but I disagree (partially). Where I agree is that covert agents operating abroad are by-definition criminals. Foreign governments don't give permission for spies to be present, and they break all sorts of their nations host laws while there. Morally this is questionable... if you believe that 'all men' have 'certain unalienable rights' then surely those should apply to how you treat all humans on earth and not only your own citizens; but most countries and their citizens accept the cat and mouse game that is spying abroad. Where I disagree is that these powers are unchecked and tolerated when used on a country's own citizens. The mandate of both of these organizations is crystal fucking clear - do bad shit abroad but not to your own citizens. There has to be oversight of this, that oversight has to be built into the system, and there have to be consequences. Knowingly collect data on US citizens: go to jail. Fail to regularly audit whether or not you are inadvertently collecting data on US citizens: go to jail. Torture, steal, trespass, hack? Jail. Know that someone has done this and look the other way? Jail. But what about domestic terrorism, or important exceptions? No problem! Get a warrant. This whole business of "we don't want spies to be afraid to their job" is bullshit... As a business owner it would be much easier to not pay my taxes, defraud investors, avoid safety regulations, and have my competition murdered. But I don't do it (and I'm not preoccupied with dread about it). Either our shared values (e.g. the constitution) are important or they are not.

nescoiquid 6y ago
At a tangent to your (marvelous) response: > But what about domestic terrorism, or important exceptions? No problem! Get a warrant. I've heard about accounts of police investigations being aided with access to the mass surveillance data (through the FBI, I believe). It never goes to a FISA court, and the police use the information to develop a pretext for a warrant. So even with a warrant, the power may still be unchecked. I believe it reasonable to conclude that conducting mass surveillance can't reliably done without abridging constitutional rights. I guess that leads us back to the unresolved conversation from early in this century about the trade-offs between liberty, privacy, and security.
- chaboud 6y ago
  The practice of obtaining warrants with artificial but believable evidentiary basis to conceal the illicit means by which the basis was actually obtained is called "parallel construction", and the intentional practice or facilitation of it should be a felony with a maximum penalty of imprisonment of up to 50 years (2.5x evidence tampering, and I'd be fine with a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years). It is a heinous perversion of the public trust, knowingly undertaken by unchecked law enforcement personnel to wilfully conceal unconstitutional acts. Parallel construction is a stain upon the very fabric of our nation... Or, you know, business as usual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
  - somesortofsystm 6y ago
    Parallel construction combined with the repeal of Habeus Corpus is reason enough to be rioting in the streets.
hyperdimension 6y ago
> do bad shit abroad but not to your own citizens Well, yeah, that's the entire point of the Five Eyes: each member can spy on the others and share the results with the rest of them, but if one member were to spy on its own people, perish the thought! That would be unconstitutional!
- g00gle-hort 6y ago
  Backwardly? Media and the wrong picture of a "good america" ? ^^

by furyg3 6y ago

nescoiquid 6y ago

At a tangent to your (marvelous) response: > But what about domestic terrorism, or important exceptions? No problem! Get a warrant. I've heard about accounts of police investigations being aided with access to the mass surveillance data (through the FBI, I believe). It never goes to a FISA court, and the police use the information to develop a pretext for a warrant. So even with a warrant, the power may still be unchecked. I believe it reasonable to conclude that conducting mass surveillance can't reliably done without abridging constitutional rights. I guess that leads us back to the unresolved conversation from early in this century about the trade-offs between liberty, privacy, and security.

chaboud 6y ago
The practice of obtaining warrants with artificial but believable evidentiary basis to conceal the illicit means by which the basis was actually obtained is called "parallel construction", and the intentional practice or facilitation of it should be a felony with a maximum penalty of imprisonment of up to 50 years (2.5x evidence tampering, and I'd be fine with a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years). It is a heinous perversion of the public trust, knowingly undertaken by unchecked law enforcement personnel to wilfully conceal unconstitutional acts. Parallel construction is a stain upon the very fabric of our nation... Or, you know, business as usual. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- somesortofsystm 6y ago
  Parallel construction combined with the repeal of Habeus Corpus is reason enough to be rioting in the streets.

hyperdimension 6y ago

> do bad shit abroad but not to your own citizens Well, yeah, that's the entire point of the Five Eyes: each member can spy on the others and share the results with the rest of them, but if one member were to spy on its own people, perish the thought! That would be unconstitutional!

g00gle-hort 6y ago
Backwardly? Media and the wrong picture of a "good america" ? ^^