Sort of

> CONCEALING A TIP

> One current federal prosecutor learned how agents were using SOD tips after a drug agent misled him, the prosecutor told Reuters. In a Florida drug case he was handling, the prosecutor said, a DEA agent told him the investigation of a U.S. citizen began with a tip from an informant. When the prosecutor pressed for more information, he said, a DEA supervisor intervened and revealed that the tip had actually come through the SOD and from an NSA intercept.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409S/

The problem did not occur at the NSA, because the NSA is not law enforcement, but at the DEA which is law enforcement. The DEA should have applied for a warrant and immediately notified their attorneys of the evidence source.

That is expecting the fox to watch the hen house.

It is expecting the DEA to do their jobs so that a half competent defense attorney does not invalidate the evidence.

While you've been expecting that, they've been doing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

Already responded to that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39190257

> A good defense attorney would get that tossed.

Sure. Easy to object to something secret, which has a carefully crafted cover story. My defense attorney is psychic too. /s

History does not agree: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/04/03...

It is the government though and the law makes no distinction.

It does. If a person’s rights are not violated there is no cause to limit government access, at least according to the fourth amendment.

Rights are being violated simply by the government accessing the information

Let me rephrase what you said in a way that makes it clearer:

The government can do anything that is legal.

I people believe purchasing data is a violation of the 4th amendment and it may not yet be illegal but it should be.

> The government can do anything that is legal.

That's true, but the federal government has a limited number of things it can do, as specified in our memorandum of understanding between the people of the united states and the federal government. That ought to be the framing under which all federal actions are seen.

To put it another way, for individuals, unless something is illegal, you are entitled to do it. Whereas for the federal government, everything is illegal except that which was made legal.

Congress necessarily delegates some tactical authority to the agencies it creates and funds under the executive branch. Once we find out one of those agencies is doing nasty shit , like purchasing citizen’s data, the question for me is who do I complain to? The current president isn’t going to side against his IC otherwise he’ll get figuratively or literally Dallas-ed. Congress 503s after midterms. The courts are going to say “whatever LOL! what standing do you have?” If I dislike what the IC is doing, what should I do?