4 ms·

Get a warrant. You can get evidence using one.

mpyne 13y ago
Warrant requires probable cause. How do you get probable cause without any information? How do you even get alerted to the idea that you should be opening an investigation into something, without any information? I mean, how does that work in court? "Yes Your Honor, we would like to obtain a warrant to search Abdi Zullah's Internet-based communications for the next 3 months since we think that he maybe might be planning to blow something up. Maybe. And oh, this is all just a hunch, we've got no evidence at all for this yet." You'd be laughed out of court, and rightfully so.
- revscat 13y ago
  Then so be it. Plenty of criminals have been caught using traditional detective work. No issues, here. Many FEWER criminals have been caught using blanket surveillance, and the cost to democracy is high. I'd rather have the occasional bomber than the government having this kind of access.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Plenty of criminals have been caught using traditional detective work. Yes, but that's on the other side of time's arrow. The whole point to counter-terrorism is to detect it and stop it before (not after) it has happened.
    - Crito 13y ago
      Oh oh, while you are at it can you give us the "ticking bomb" justification of torture to? It's been a while since I've heard it; it's always worth a good laugh. I love ridiculous shit like this.
    - revscat 13y ago
      And that is the cost to living in a free society: occasionally you have to deal with violent assholes. Again, I'd rather live in a society where the innocent are free and unmonitored than one which the NSA, etc., reign supreme. Counter-terrorism efforts are inherently anti-democratic and anti-freedom, despite protestations to the contrary. Not interested.
- Crito 13y ago
  Nobody ever said police work is easy, or is suppose to be easy. There are a number of rights that we could dispense with to make their job easier. Imagine how easy their job could be if they could go wherever they pleased, and detain and interrogate whoever they pleased for as long as they pleased.
- MrZongle2 13y ago
  "And oh, this is all just a hunch, we've got no evidence at all for this yet." Then, really, the 4th Amendment should be tossed out the window because all citizens should be subjected to search at any given time based upon the "hunch" of somebody in law enforcement.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > You'd be laughed out of court, and rightfully so. I included the last sentence of my comment since you apparently missed it the first time.
- Zikes 13y ago
  I think we're all well aware that if the authorities were able to implement a perfectly omniscient surveillance network then it would effectively solve all manner of crimes. The point is, we don't want it.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Yes, that's why they refer to the balance between privacy and security instead of all-or-nothing concepts. No one is asking for omniscience, so feel free to hang the strawman back in the barn. On the other hand, many are asking not to be left completely defenseless.
    - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
      > How do you get probable cause without any information? How do you even get alerted to the idea that you should be opening an investigation into something, without any information? You're missing the fundamental point that we don't think the government should have this power. The police should have to have an explainable reason, backed by some kind of evidence besides "I just feel that way" to use state power to infringe on the privacy or rights of a citizen even if that means some criminals get away with their crimes. The potential abuses of unchecked investigative ability (and other law enforcement powers) is far, far more dangerous than a few mobsters.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        > You're missing the fundamental point that we don't think the government should have this power. I'm not missing that at all, but I am saying it's hypocritical to say "just go get a warrant, geez". If it had been that easy FBI would already being doing it. It's easy to just mandate some social construct you'd like to achieve, but that does mean you also have to accept the consequences. The consequences of "no foreign network intelligence" isn't to merely make it a bit more difficult for NSA to do their job, it's to completely eliminate the ability of NSA to do their job, with all of the counter-terror consequences that will entail from that. While you may be perfectly willing to have the rest of America take on that risk, 3000 people at a time, don't act like you can have your cake and eat it too by simply offering up an alternative course of action which can never be implemented in practice.
afterburner 13y ago
I agree that some kind of permission from a judge is needed for oversight.

mpyne 13y ago

Warrant requires probable cause. How do you get probable cause without any information? How do you even get alerted to the idea that you should be opening an investigation into something, without any information? I mean, how does that work in court? "Yes Your Honor, we would like to obtain a warrant to search Abdi Zullah's Internet-based communications for the next 3 months since we think that he maybe might be planning to blow something up. Maybe. And oh, this is all just a hunch, we've got no evidence at all for this yet." You'd be laughed out of court, and rightfully so.

revscat 13y ago
Then so be it. Plenty of criminals have been caught using traditional detective work. No issues, here. Many FEWER criminals have been caught using blanket surveillance, and the cost to democracy is high. I'd rather have the occasional bomber than the government having this kind of access.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Plenty of criminals have been caught using traditional detective work. Yes, but that's on the other side of time's arrow. The whole point to counter-terrorism is to detect it and stop it before (not after) it has happened.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Oh oh, while you are at it can you give us the "ticking bomb" justification of torture to? It's been a while since I've heard it; it's always worth a good laugh. I love ridiculous shit like this.
  - revscat 13y ago
    And that is the cost to living in a free society: occasionally you have to deal with violent assholes. Again, I'd rather live in a society where the innocent are free and unmonitored than one which the NSA, etc., reign supreme. Counter-terrorism efforts are inherently anti-democratic and anti-freedom, despite protestations to the contrary. Not interested.
Crito 13y ago
Nobody ever said police work is easy, or is suppose to be easy. There are a number of rights that we could dispense with to make their job easier. Imagine how easy their job could be if they could go wherever they pleased, and detain and interrogate whoever they pleased for as long as they pleased.
MrZongle2 13y ago
"And oh, this is all just a hunch, we've got no evidence at all for this yet." Then, really, the 4th Amendment should be tossed out the window because all citizens should be subjected to search at any given time based upon the "hunch" of somebody in law enforcement.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > You'd be laughed out of court, and rightfully so. I included the last sentence of my comment since you apparently missed it the first time.
Zikes 13y ago
I think we're all well aware that if the authorities were able to implement a perfectly omniscient surveillance network then it would effectively solve all manner of crimes. The point is, we don't want it.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Yes, that's why they refer to the balance between privacy and security instead of all-or-nothing concepts. No one is asking for omniscience, so feel free to hang the strawman back in the barn. On the other hand, many are asking not to be left completely defenseless.
  - DerpDerpDerp 13y ago
    > How do you get probable cause without any information? How do you even get alerted to the idea that you should be opening an investigation into something, without any information? You're missing the fundamental point that we don't think the government should have this power. The police should have to have an explainable reason, backed by some kind of evidence besides "I just feel that way" to use state power to infringe on the privacy or rights of a citizen even if that means some criminals get away with their crimes. The potential abuses of unchecked investigative ability (and other law enforcement powers) is far, far more dangerous than a few mobsters.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      > You're missing the fundamental point that we don't think the government should have this power. I'm not missing that at all, but I am saying it's hypocritical to say "just go get a warrant, geez". If it had been that easy FBI would already being doing it. It's easy to just mandate some social construct you'd like to achieve, but that does mean you also have to accept the consequences. The consequences of "no foreign network intelligence" isn't to merely make it a bit more difficult for NSA to do their job, it's to completely eliminate the ability of NSA to do their job, with all of the counter-terror consequences that will entail from that. While you may be perfectly willing to have the rest of America take on that risk, 3000 people at a time, don't act like you can have your cake and eat it too by simply offering up an alternative course of action which can never be implemented in practice.

afterburner 13y ago

I agree that some kind of permission from a judge is needed for oversight.