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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

Oh right, not unfettered access, just access when somebody has a "hunch". Very different!

Did you even read what I wrote, or is pattern-matching against text all you're able to do in these threads?

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.

> 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.

I don't believe that anybody is suggesting that the CIA or NSA should request search warrants for non-citizens located outside of the US. Even if you had probable cause the courts would just be perplexed that you were coming to them with something from outside of the country.

(Many people, myself included, think that there is something wrong with how we are currently handling those situations, but search warrants for non-citizens outside of the country are obviously not the answer we are looking for there.)

Domestic terrorists? Get a warrant.

What are you talking about? Domestic terrorists already require a warrant.

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.

"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.

> 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.