2 ms·
I think part of the point is that if it was in your house it would be more difficult, and require more steps for the government. You've got: 1. Government can
by pyre 14y ago
I think part of the point is that if it was in your house it would be more difficult, and require more steps for the government. You've got:
1. Government can just go to one of 3 top email providers (Yahoo / Google / Hotmail) to get access to surveil most people.
2. Government can do surveillance, but must deal with hundreds or thousands of email providers.
3. Government must get a warrant (or at least have someone physically infiltrate your house) to start surveillance on you.
The point here is ramping up the cost / difficulty, so that the government adopts a more conservative approach to using these tools.
- superuser2 14y ago1,000 physical searches is not exactly unreasonable for the federal government, given that it's responsible for more than 300 million citizens. The New York Police Department in one year alone served almost 3,000 warrants to actually invade people's homes and search for narcotics. And that was 1997[1]. I would also point out that GMail has more than 400 million users. Investigation of 2,000 of them does not constitute mass surveillance or evidence that it's too easy to get people's data. Is it really outrageous for 0.0006% of the population to be persons of legitimate interest in investigations? [1]http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/26/nyregion/raids-and-complaints-rise-as-city-draws-on-drug-tips.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/26/nyregion/raids-and-complai...