4 ms·

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 ha

by 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.
Zikes 13y ago
It is no strawman. You're advocating that the government be given unfettered access to information that would normally require a warrant in order to be given permission to get a warrant.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > You're advocating that the government be given unfettered access to information Where have I advocated completely unfettered access? I'd be interested to see that.
  - Crito 13y ago
    Oh right, not unfettered access, just access when somebody has a "hunch". Very different!
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Did you even read what I wrote, or is pattern-matching against text all you're able to do in these threads?
      - Crito 13y ago
        Give to to me straight: Do you think that a search warrant should be obtained before violating the privacy of Abdi Zullah? My question uses the word "should", not the word "could". Because it sounds like you are saying that the investigation of Abdi Zullah should be permitted to circumvent the courts because the courts and the protections that they rightfully confer would not permit the violation of Abdi Zullah. It sounds like you think the 4th amendment is great under 'normal circumstances', and it sounds like you think that "terrorism" and "I've got a hunch" should be a secret password for a process that circumvents it. If this is a misunderstanding, then I do not seem to be the only one misunderstanding you. You should work on your delivery.
        mpyne 13y ago
        > Give to to me straight: Do you think that a search warrant should be obtained before violating the privacy of Abdi Zullah? For law enforcement? Yes, at least to the extent that an "unreasonable" search would be performed. For military applications (such as, yes, counter-terrorism)? No, for the same reason we didn't get a warrant to wiretap Hitler's generals. I would still say that searches against any particular individual be supported by more than a single analyst's "hunch", or that non-individualized searches should be looking for particular things instead of just trawling what they can, if only for resource efficiency reasons.

by mpyne 13y ago

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.

Zikes 13y ago

It is no strawman. You're advocating that the government be given unfettered access to information that would normally require a warrant in order to be given permission to get a warrant.

mpyne 13y ago
> You're advocating that the government be given unfettered access to information Where have I advocated completely unfettered access? I'd be interested to see that.
- Crito 13y ago
  Oh right, not unfettered access, just access when somebody has a "hunch". Very different!
  - mpyne 13y ago
    Did you even read what I wrote, or is pattern-matching against text all you're able to do in these threads?
    - Crito 13y ago
      Give to to me straight: Do you think that a search warrant should be obtained before violating the privacy of Abdi Zullah? My question uses the word "should", not the word "could". Because it sounds like you are saying that the investigation of Abdi Zullah should be permitted to circumvent the courts because the courts and the protections that they rightfully confer would not permit the violation of Abdi Zullah. It sounds like you think the 4th amendment is great under 'normal circumstances', and it sounds like you think that "terrorism" and "I've got a hunch" should be a secret password for a process that circumvents it. If this is a misunderstanding, then I do not seem to be the only one misunderstanding you. You should work on your delivery.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        > Give to to me straight: Do you think that a search warrant should be obtained before violating the privacy of Abdi Zullah? For law enforcement? Yes, at least to the extent that an "unreasonable" search would be performed. For military applications (such as, yes, counter-terrorism)? No, for the same reason we didn't get a warrant to wiretap Hitler's generals. I would still say that searches against any particular individual be supported by more than a single analyst's "hunch", or that non-individualized searches should be looking for particular things instead of just trawling what they can, if only for resource efficiency reasons.