White House discussing plan to expand domestic, warrantless surveillance(twitter.com)
twitter.com
White House discussing plan to expand domestic, warrantless surveillance
https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1389346694597337091
17 comments
Its basically abusing the the 3rd party doctrine to get around legal requirements.
Its definitely against the spirit of the law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
Its definitely against the spirit of the law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
It's more accurate to say the 3rd party doctrine goes around rights, not just legal requirements. The 3rd party is forced to betray its clients to the government, even against its will.
In other words, this doctrine doesn't only let government agents do something they otherwise wouldn't be allowed - it also lets them force others to do something, pressing them into government service.
In other words, this doctrine doesn't only let government agents do something they otherwise wouldn't be allowed - it also lets them force others to do something, pressing them into government service.
I’m not one of those people who think that the US is broken (I’ve seen other countries, and am thankful for being born in NA) but the third-party-doctrine is one of the few things that just baffles me. How can a precedent which is so obviously malicious be allowed to exist?
Wonder what the "but they're private companies" crowd's take on this one will be.
Yes, they are; yes, the government is abusing a loophole and they also should be stopped; no, it's still not okay no matter who does it.
So you're saying that delegating the suppression of people's fundamental rights to corporations is a hallmark of a fascist state, even if those rights are technically not protected by a written law when attacked by corporations as opposed to government? Well then you're not a "but they're private corporations" weak bootlicking apologist who bemoans "the rights of the corporation" in response to any pushback are not okay
To what end?
If they were indeed upending terrorist plots once a year I could maybe understand.
What is the goal other than power and authority?
If they were indeed upending terrorist plots once a year I could maybe understand.
What is the goal other than power and authority?
If they were indeed upending terrorist plots once a year I could maybe understand.
Do they not? I feel like I read about the FBI foiling plans to blow up this or that multiple times a year.
For example this, which happened in the past month: "FBI arrest man over alleged Amazon centre bomb plot" (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56719618)
"He believed that there were 24 buildings that 'run 70% of the internet', including services used by the CIA and FBI, according to a conversation detailed in the criminal complaint against him."
Do they not? I feel like I read about the FBI foiling plans to blow up this or that multiple times a year.
For example this, which happened in the past month: "FBI arrest man over alleged Amazon centre bomb plot" (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56719618)
"He believed that there were 24 buildings that 'run 70% of the internet', including services used by the CIA and FBI, according to a conversation detailed in the criminal complaint against him."
The FBI approached him and offered to help him carry out the plot so they could arrest him. Would he have actually blown up anything if they hadn’t entrapped him? Who knows.
What I do know is it’s not worth surrendering my liberties for.
What I do know is it’s not worth surrendering my liberties for.
That's just one of many examples. As my previous comment suggests, I'm replying to a very specific part of the parent comment.
"FBI says man killed in Missouri wanted to bomb hospital amid coronavirus epidemic"
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-says-man-killed-mis...
"FBI says man killed in Missouri wanted to bomb hospital amid coronavirus epidemic"
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-says-man-killed-mis...
You should look more into the many other examples too then because a lot more of them are... well let's say the authorities are more directly involved than I can accept for a use of the word "foiled."
Yeah, the pattern is always the same:
1. Reach out to some young, impressionable, and vaguely angry kid.
2. Radicalize him, then convince him to carry out some plot.
3. Arrest him when he starts to go through with it.
4. Hold a press conference about how you foiled yet another terrorist plot.
5. GOTO 1
1. Reach out to some young, impressionable, and vaguely angry kid.
2. Radicalize him, then convince him to carry out some plot.
3. Arrest him when he starts to go through with it.
4. Hold a press conference about how you foiled yet another terrorist plot.
5. GOTO 1
Offering to sell someone C4 who is seeking explosives for a concrete plan, and then arresting him after he purchases (which is what happened) is not anywhere close to entrapment.
But anyway I agree that a few arrests a year like this are not worth the surveillance.
But anyway I agree that a few arrests a year like this are not worth the surveillance.
I agree not entrapment, but certainly suspicious how the fbi always seems to every 3 months or so, somehow miraculously save us all from a plot they created...I mean "helped" .... i.e. selling whatever to whoever on camera to make a bust...
Seems they need to justify their budget request(s); truly what better way then to show everyone why their needed with another 9/11 reference of doom and horror to scare the masses in to compliance.
Seems they need to justify their budget request(s); truly what better way then to show everyone why their needed with another 9/11 reference of doom and horror to scare the masses in to compliance.
How does doing something you're not supposed to do suddenly legal because you pay someone else to do the bad thing?
It's been 20 years since the WTC/9-11. This is just inertia and it's not going to stop at the government's hand. People need to demand that all those provisions get sunset and all organizations built around it dismantled and sent home.