5 ms·
> would not meet the legal standard to win court approval; That is to say, they're targeting individuals who they have no substantial reason to believe actuall
by ClarityJones 3y ago
> would not meet the legal standard to win court approval;
That is to say, they're targeting individuals who they have no substantial reason to believe actually did anything wrong.
- ethanbond 3y agoThat isn't true. It means it wouldn't reach probable cause. There are plenty of crimes and suspected crimes for which it's hard to gather enough evidence to reach probable cause. He said it correctly: it wouldn't meet the legal standard. That should mean, correctly, you cannot invade people's privacy, but again it's pretty unrelated to "are they investigating crimes or not." Edit: GP's comment was edited from "That is to say, they're not even investigating a crime." That claim is untrue.
- frumper 3y agoIf they don't have enough evidence it's hard to say that have substantial reasons. It sounds like they have a hunch.
- chatmasta 3y agoThey don't even need to have a hunch. They just need to say they do, and in the cases where it even goes in front of a judge, it gets rubberstamped with a 97%+ approval rate.
- ethanbond 3y agoSure, different claim than "they're not investigating a crime."
- frumper 3y ago> That is to say, they're targeting individuals who they have no substantial reason to believe actually did anything wrong. > That isn't true. It means it wouldn't reach probable cause. So, investigating a crime should lead you to some evidence that you would than have a substantial reason to request a warrant to target an individual. You're letting the tail wag the dog if they can do the targeting before they know who to target. If they don't have any evidence to target a person but they suspect that person of doing something illegal then that's called a hunch. Scooby doo and his gang were great at following hunches, but that shouldn't be how the FBI operates.
- ethanbond 3y agoGP's comment was edited. It originally said: "That is to say, they're not even investigating a crime."
- x86x87 3y agoIf it doesn't meet legal standard nop the fuck out of here. Why even have a legal standard if you can bypass it and do whatever you want?
- ethanbond 3y agoI didn't suggest they should. I'm saying a "doesn't meet the legal standard" != "not investigating a crime."
- x86x87 3y agoi see. when you are investigating a crime and you break or bypass the law I would say that the investigation should not happen in the first place. Everything has to be done within the legal framework that our society is allegedly built on or we descend into anarchy.
- ethanbond 3y agoLegally this is already the case in the US. Obviously not always followed, but investigators do get hit on the point very frequently.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- salamandersss 3y agoFeds got a search warrant for me because an unnamed dog I never met accused me of wrongdoing and told an unnamed officer who told a named detective who told a judge. The bar is low. Sounds like they need an imaginary dog that can't be held to testify so we'll just have to believe it .
- Clubber 3y agoTechnically that unnamed dog accusing you of wrongdoing is all it takes for a search of your car and person.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jtbayly 3y agoBut they aren't investigating a crime! The reason for allowing them to spy on foreigners isn't because foreigners are criminals. It's because we believe surveillance of foreigners might provide some protection for us. They are trying to prevent crimes, not solve them.
- UncleMeat 3y ago"We have to spy on you to know whether you are worth spying on." Remember that you can't even sue for having been warrentlessly wiretapped unless you can prove the government did it ahead of time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapper_v._Amnesty_International_USA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clapper_v._Amnesty_Internation...)