You do bring up a good point that others seem to be dismissing; I’m the title seems to be using a method of mitigating preconditioning, lean into the topic (gro

You do bring up a good point that others seem to be dismissing; I’m the title seems to be using a method of mitigating preconditioning, lean into the topic (gross violation of the most fundamental natural God given, Constitutionally protected right of privacy and the law against warrantless and unreasonable, i.e., unjustified searches.), which the author then proceeds to spin as a positive, i.e., a huge reduction … don’t ‘cha know … which is a good thing; totally sidestepping that the warrantless, secret police searches should be ZERO, not one, not two, not 57,000. So what people take away is a conditioning to accept some level of illegal and treasonous surveillance.