3 ms·
"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 w
by 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.
- candiddevmike 3y agoWho watches the FBI director?
- nyc_data_geek1 3y agoCongress? LOL
- kornhole 3y agoTMK he reports to the DOJ that reports to the president. Wray->Garland->Biden
- quadcore 3y agoThat is very calculated I think. If people let him get away with saying it, that's it, it's done, it's banalized, it's normal. That's a technique often used by toxic people. (Disclaimer: im no american)
- skygazer 3y agoWhy do you have to disclaim that? It’s nothing to be ashamed of. I have friends that are also not American, and I’m even okay being seen with them in public. You can feel safe fully disclosing!
- htss2013 3y agoWhy do you take it that way? I took saying "not American" to mean his perspective is from outside looking in, which is useful context.
- skygazer 3y agoOh, I was perhaps unwisely playful: “disclaimer” (a denial or risk) and “full disclosure” (adding context) are different but occasionally confused.
- smegsicle 3y agowatch as mass shootings go down when they have a harder time profiling patsies
- moehm 3y ago'No way to prevent this,' says only nation where this regularly happens.
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y agoShortly followed by ‘thoughts and prayers’. Most other countries probably have far less legal and/or ethically grey surveillance at their fingertips, and still dont have this problem.
- squirrel6 3y agoAgree. It shocks me that anyone would stand against this— there’s so much anti Patriot Act rhetoric, this is one of the only ways to make a step toward achieving justice in the situation