> And there is no denying there has be a reasonable cause to in the last four years.

If there's actually reasonable cause go to a court, get a warrant and investigate.

We can't let archaic and outdated conventions like the Fourth Amendment get in the way of protecting citizens from themselves.

Getting a hand-picked guy in a wig to sign off on it is just too much effort.

> And there is no denying there has be a reasonable cause to in the last four years.

Isn't this the same as saying that you don't think there should be fundamental rights for people you don't agree with?

Not at all, it’s saying that sometimes rules have to bent in order for the intelligence services to go about their mission to protect the citizens of their country (including their rights). Sometimes potential threats come from within (even potentially from government ministers or civil servants) making them legally difficult to investigate quickly. Asking their mates to take a “quick look” is a good way of checking out if there is a problem that warrants further investigation.

Having said all that, I’m no expert, I’m just a John Le Carre fan.

>> And there is no denying there has be a reasonable cause to in the last four years.

Yea who needs laws when we can just instate shadow government agencies with shadow budgets and their own set of alternative laws.

That’s not for a second what I am suggesting.

Really? Because from your original comment, the NSA is circumventing protections that are in place to spy on US citizens

That is exactly what you are suggesting. These rules should not be "bent" because there are legal mechanisms to investigate that are being blatantly bypassed to make things easier

First, artificialLimbs comment has been edited and toned down significantly since it was first posted.

Second, my personal opinion on how intelligent agency’s operate is irrelevant. I am only trying to inform on my understanding how they sometimes operate in relation to the original far more interesting article.

Checks and balances are obviously essential and are the priority in all cases.

Finally, while I don’t believe in the boogie man, people, anyone, can be bad.

>> First, artificialLimbs comment has been edited and toned down significantly since it was first posted.

No it wasn't. Unless you could see what I typed into the web form before I hit submit.

>> while I don’t believe in the boogie man

Well you should. They're here. They are the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, and other government agencies that regularly operate out of bounds of legality. If the horrible things that they have done and continue to do don't shock you and create the desire for their radical change or elimination entirely, you are stupid or malicious.

Apologies if I’m mistaken, I just thought I recalled it being phrased differently. I’m not renowned for my short term memory.

I’m not American and so have little interest in their internal politics other than as a spectator.

I think you should be interested, because whether you like it or not the politics and actions of these organisations effect everyone globally

That's why we should all care

Collection and analysis of intelligence on a US person by a US intelligence agency is subjected to the same laws no matter where it came from. There is no way around it. If GCHQ collected and NSA analyzed and used that intelligence in any way then the law regarding US persons applies. I'm not aware of anywhere in the law that makes exceptions for these cases.

There is a way around it for people subject to a background investigation. The 4A gets suspended for them by EO12333. Technically not "the law" but you don't see Congress doing anything about executive overreach.

You choose to get a clearance. You choose to allow investigators access to protected health records. None of it is done without consent; it's effectively at the applicant's request.

Don't like it? Don't apply for a job that requires a clearance.

There are practical reasons for the US to work with Danish intelligence (and others) that would have nothing to do with circumventing the law.

> The NSA for example would find it difficult to spy on Senators,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/cia-admits-spy...

> And there is no denying there has be a reasonable cause to in the last four years.

Yes there is. The US has domestic intelligence agencies, why should the NSA be engaging in domestic intelligence when it's explicitly not their mandate?

This may be an extreme belief, but I don't think we need intelligence services to operate anywhere wear regular courts would be an answer. The FBI can get a warrant if they have a reason and the intelligence services obviously don't stop things they should, such as corruption and child sex abuse.

> It’s long be standard practice for intelligence agencies in 5/9 Eyes to ask each other to spy on the others citizens when it would be illegal to do so themselves.

This goes against the actual agreements in place, where they have to treat the other citizens as their countries do.