3 ms·

"A warrant requirement would amount to a de facto ban" Yeah Chris, that is the point.

• naasking 3y ago
  It's almost like some people don't get that some tools should only be selectively applied only when absolutely needed.
  • ethanbond 3y ago
    The determination of probable cause has nothing to do with whether the invasion of privacy/warrant is "absolutely needed" or not. The FBI's position is that that should be a consideration.
    • toomuchtodo 3y ago
      They have proven themselves unworthy of this power and legal exception process. > He did address the FBI's earlier abuses of Section 702 to spy on protesters, campaign donors, and even elected officials. > "To be sure, no one more deeply shares Members' concerns regarding past FBI compliance violations related to FISA, including the rules for querying Section 702 collection using US person identifiers, than I do," Wray said. > The FBI "responded rigorously" to these violations, he added, and that already "dramatically" reduced the 702 searches on US persons, he added. > "Moreover, as we publicly announced in June, the FBI is implementing further measures both to keep improving our compliance and to hold our personnel accountable for misuse of Section 702 and other FISA provisions, including through an escalating scheme for employee accountability, including discipline and culminating in possible dismissal." Anchorman Ron Burgundy I don't believe you meme here.
      • ethanbond 3y ago
        I mean... there obviously shouldn't be an exception to the legal process. That's the whole point of the legal process. GP was suggesting that exception should still exist and they should just use it selectively, which of course is the entire debate.
        • naasking 3y ago
          No, that's what I said.
          • naasking 3y ago
            Err, NOT what I said.
  • nullserver 3y ago
    But think of the poor people that just want target to political opponents!
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]