12 ms·
FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections
- pipo234 3y agoBrilliant. I particularly liked the first comment (Anonymous Coward): > Wray meant: > Of course, we have probable cause. > We always have probable cause for everything we do–well, mostly anyway. > Well, I mean, we could maybe get probable cause, but it’s too complicated and it takes too long. > You see, by the time we find an excuse that might double for probable cause, so much time will have passed, that we will all have died of old age. > And that’s assuming we can really find an excuse in the first place.
- olliej 3y agoYeah it was such a bizarre argument that highlights just how unconstitutional this is: "if we need a warrant to do this, we wouldn't be able to do it because we'd fail the probable cause part". That's not a good argument dude, that's an admission that this program is unconstitutional.
- xt00 3y agoThe acid test for this is, if its OK for the FBI to spy on you as a citizen, then cool, we need the right to spy on the FBI agent and his family members -- why does he get to spy on me and my family members when there is zero reason for them to do that? I don't have anything to hide, and neither should he, so its all kosher right?
- soulofmischief 3y agoYou should be able to do just about anything they claim is legal without needing probable cause or a warrant. I don't know what America Chris Wray is from, but in my America, law officers should not get any special treatment when it comes to this. The same arguments that would constitute your actions as stalking should apply to the FBI, if they are engaging in the same set of behaviors while operating outside of any special judicial framework such as a warrant.
- phpisthebest 3y agoThe single greatest problem we have in government today is the fact that over the years we have added more and more exclusions, exemptions, and privileges for "law enforcement" Rules for thee but not for me is the height of government tyranny, and today that is at all levels of governance from something as simple as parking enforcement all the up to lethal force No government agent should be exempt from the law, no government agent should have special rights.
- blooalien 3y ago> "The single greatest problem we have in government today is" ... Well, *one* of the greatest problems, anyway... Another similar related one is most of our politicians bein' pretty much fully "bought and paid for" by corporate interests, and money / power bein' far more important to them than human lives.
- rightbyte 3y agoNational insecurity something something. You know. Some are more equal than others.
- Teever 3y agoI agree with this one hundred percent. I wish there was some sort of organization that coordinated OSINT efforts on law enforcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
- aa-jv 3y agoDon't worry. The grass roots have got this .. https://www.youtube.com/@AuditTheAudit https://www.youtube.com/@AuditTheAudit
- kenjackson 3y agoI think I believe the problem isn’t lack of privacy, buts unilateral privacy. I’d be willing to get rid of most of my privacy, iff everyone else did too. But when you’re a target and you don’t even know who is looking, that feels like the problem.
- li2uR3ce 3y agoFBI: See the problem we face is finding a needle in a haystack. Morons in congress: Oh, we're really sorry to hear that, what should we do? FBI: Give us more hay for the stack.
- EMCymatics 3y agoIt's just so slow
- Terr_ 3y agoOn the subject of FBI/NSA/CIA insincerity, that makes me think of various post-9/11 debates often involving "ticking bomb" Hollywood scenarios. I'd like to reiterate that any kind of "OMG there's no time we must stop the NYC WMD ASAP" scenario already has a special exception route: Just commit the necessary spying/theft/torture crime, and plan for a Presidential pardon after explaining the extraordinary circumstances that totally justified your action. If they aren't willing to put their own skin in the game, then the situation cannot be as clearly dire as they claim.
- realce 3y agoThe proof is in the pudding! Since there have been no horrible events since the ultra-law was enacted, it must be working!
- kenjackson 3y agoThat’s insincere. Even if you truly believe a catastrophe may happen you may not be willing to risk life in prison because the President doesn’t like your bosses boss.
- CoastalCoder 3y agoI'm sure it would end badly, but sometimes I fantasize about the U.S. citizens having a LEO that actively investigates / prosecutes government officials who violate the constitution.
- underseacables 3y agoI could not think of something more that America needs. The government accountability office publishers reports all the time about government waste and malfeasance, but it is consistently, dare I say, pointedly, ignored. Having a separate independent agency, cast with investigating and prosecuting crime and criminals within the government itself would be amazing. Same with congress.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3y agoThis would be good, right up until it itself becomes as corrupted as the entities is prosecutes. The problem is that 'unconstitutional' is in the eye of the beholder. Take for example the classic "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Does this mean all gun control laws are unconstitutional or does it mean that gun control laws are implicit in what it means to be a 'A well regulated Militia'; the army for example has a ton of rules about guns. Good arguments can be made for either of these views (and others). Interpretation is everything.
- Clubber 3y ago>or does it mean that gun control laws are implicit in what it means to be a 'A well regulated Militia' People who use this argument are disingenuous because they wouldn't argue the same thing about press being limited to printing presses or speech being limited to the spoken word.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 3y ago
- datadrivenangel 3y ago"A warrant requirement would amount to a de facto ban, because query applications either would not meet the legal standard to win court approval" I hope that we get that de facto ban. It would be good for society.
- progne 3y agoThe fourth amendment is a de jure ban, and shouldn't a de jure ban be a de facto ban for law enforcement? The lawful way to make it de facto is to make it de jure first by repealing that pesky amendment.
- datadrivenangel 3y agoDe jure, de jure is de jure, de facto, de jure is not de facto? To absolutely mangle paraphrasing yogi berra's quote about the difference between theory and practice.
- tehjoker 3y agoThe US government flouts the constitution constantly, for example the UN charter which according to the constitution, treaties are part of the supreme law of the land. It's a security state designed to squelch popular resistance to a global imperial project (that is currently floundering).
- hellojesus 3y agoYes, but treaties are still subjugate to the Constitution. Congress isn't authorized to violate the constitution, amd thetefore isn't authorized to enter into treaties which would do so.
- nyc_data_geek1 3y agoThis is literally what warrants and probable cause are for. Really shocking degree of impunity on display that he would have the balls to say this out loud, in public, on the record.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y agoIt’s a good thing an organization like this doesn’t have the power to act politically.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago/s, I presume...
- smeeth 3y agoA clarification, because I'm seeing a lot of misunderstanding: This is about whether or not the FBI needs a warrant to see information that was already collected legally by another part of the gov't. This is not about whether or not the gov't can collect this specific data in the first place, everyone involved seems to agree they do.
- jfengel 3y agoCorrect. There is a strong dividing line between those two organizations, resulting from some very bad misbehavior by the FBI and CIA in the 1950s and 60s. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was set up to allow some agencies to collect information on non-Americans using techniques they'd never allow on citizens, while other agencies can use a more restricted set of techniques on Americans. After 9/11 they breached that somewhat, because of a (not entirely well-founded) belief that the separation kept them from preventing the attack. Those are the two ends of the spectrum being debated here: harassing Martin Luther King on the one side, and 9/11 on the other. No compromise is going to make everybody happy. In fact, no matter what, it's going to make everybody mad.
- landemva 3y agoHow is 9/11 on the other side of harassing MLK? FBI had been told before 9/11 about non-citizens paying with cash at flights schools for heavy aircraft simulator time. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-was-warned-about-flight-schools/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-was-warned-about-flight-sch...
- dylan604 3y agoThe people having the data collected are also involved and I doubt they agree
- ssnistfajen 3y agobut but gais hear me out, TikTok is the REAL problem here! /s
- fnordfnordfnord 3y agoI don't believe it. I've been scolded so many times, including by users here, that the FBI would never. There must be some misunderstanding!
- wolverine876 3y ago“A warrant requirement would amount to a de facto ban, because query applications either would not meet the legal standard to win court approval; or because, when the standard could be met, it would be so only after the expenditure of scarce resources, the submission and review of a lengthy legal filing, and the passage of significant time — which, in the world of rapidly evolving threats, the government often does not have,” The serious issue for IT professionals is, as always, to find a solution that meets all needs: Efficiency (resource consumption), privacy, legality. I don't know enough of the requirements, but a couple possibilities: * Automate warrant submissions (obviously). * Provide warrantless views of the data that preserve privacy and allow rapid review. For example, hide all proper nouns and only allow a GPT and intelligence agent to review it. If something is found, it can be passed to law enforcement for warrant requests. Again, I really don't know nearly enough about the requirements, process, etc., but it would be interesting to hear from someone who does.