Does the NSA need a warrant to purchase information that's being legally gathered and sold?
While it's extremely immoral and unethical, I'm not sure about unconstitutional.
this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
53 points (100.0% liked)
U.S. News
2244 readers
16 users here now
News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.
Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Post the original source of information as the link.
- If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
- Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
- Social media is not a news source.
For World News, see the News community.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Does the NSA need a warrant to purchase information that’s being legally gathered and sold?
The governments in the US shouldn't be collecting non-public information without a warrant if acquiring that information directly would require a warrant. Seems like a clear infringement of the 4th amendment.
No, no more than its illegal for a detective to use evidence seized in a raid against a thief ring, to arrest drug dealers because there was a photo of them holding big bags of cocaine with "We Love Dealing Drugs" written and autographed on the back. They'd never have a search warrant for the dealers' house normally, but because it was robbed by someone else and the photo turned up somewhere else for them to find, it's fair game.
Well if a thing is immoral and unethical, then isn't it reasonable to call for it to be MADE illegal?
Sure, but ex post facto is a thing. If people feel that this should be illegal they should write their representatives, but this headline is disingenuous.
Actions are only illegal if they were against the law at the time they were taken. If fireworks become illegal on July 5th I can't be found guilty for shooting them off on July 4th.
The headline implies the NSA broke a law that does not exist, actively misleading those who read it. Shame on the "journalist" or editor that wrote it. Fabricated criticisms and grievances dilute genuine ones.
If people feel that this should be illegal they should write their representatives
Waste of time and paper and you know that. Our representatives that would support us in this, and not just reply with a form letter, already know and push the issues but they are a minority in congress.
If fireworks become illegal on July 5th I can’t be found guilty for shooting them off on July 4th.
I'm more concerned with making sure it doesn't happen in the future. If that means everyone being shitbags in the past get a free pass, maybe that's worth it.
The headline implies the NSA broke a law that does not exist,
It sure would be nice if the PATRIOT act hadn't fucked everyone's opinion on privacy.
All of this is at best tangential.
The NSA broke no law. The article's headline implies that the NSA broke the law. This headline is misleading.
You don't need to simp for an agency that spies on innocent civilians, you really don't.
Yes, wanting factual, unbiased journalism truly is the greatest form of simping.
You clearly didn't read the tail end of my original comment. Fabricated grievances dilute genuine ones. This publication is crying wolf. This makes people pay less attention when news breaks about an actual fuckup.
So many fucking government bootlickers in this thread, starting to think you're all sockpuppets.
The fact that the NSA was apparently not breaking the law is actually more infuriating and shifts focus on the need to change the law, which is opposing the government. You see, it's always better to stick to the facts if you want to change things to the better.
And I've found that facts have been largely irrelevant in nearly every level of social discourse for the last 15 years.
Especially when it comes to government.
I know it's comforting to believe that isn't the case, that humanity is at base level rational and reasonable.
Unfortunately this is a lie. The significant majority of humanity only follow rationality as far as it will help them achieve their goals.
I cannot even count any more how often I have been objectively, factually right and was dismissed for not saying it in a way that they would like, which is abandoning factual accuracy to preserve certain comfortable illusions.
So I've largely given up on wasting my time and effort to bring objective facts to people on the internet and in my government.
I find that the best way to change things for the better is to get out in the streets and shout a lot.
Dude, what the actual fuck is your malfunction?
Either a troll or a learning disability.
For real. It's like a living version of the principal Skinner meme.
"Multiple people are bringing cohesive arguments against my viewpoint? They must be sick puppets."
It absolutely is
then maybe you should limit your 'chilling effect' replies as to not damp down the fervor for change that is starting to develop in response to government overreach.
Arguing that it isn't unconstitutional isn't productive if you want to see it changed.
You don't have to be a Devil's Advocate for bad government policy.
Maybe you should work on your chill, buddy, because I was asking a question. I don't know if the SC has ever ruled on whether the government is allowed to purchase commercially available information without a warrant.
I made no argument in favor of the practice. In fact, I went out of my way to state that I disagreed with the practice.
But you're well aware of that, aren't you?
I bet you think if you lick that boot good enough they won't step on your neck with it.
So fucking naive.
Also I already reported your sockpuppets, enjoy the ban.
I'm sorry about your reading comprehension, buddy. It must be hard going through life with a learning disability.
This is why people should start using Tor alongside their regular browser every day, even if it is for trivial things. Eventually it'll be the difference between life and death for some poor bugger and the least everyone else can do is provide a bit of obfuscating cover.
As if the NSA isn't running an army of exit nodes.
TOR was originally a DARPA project and everyone seems to forget this.
I mean, it's caught a ton of pedos so I can't really be angry but anyone who thought a DARPA project wasn't going to be massively salted with 3 letter agency tracking servers are just plain naive.
Hell I wouldn't be surprised if a ton of those bitcoin doublers weren't NSA agents making some sidecash.
You don't need to outrun the tiger you just have to be faster than the slowest villager.
We should look out for all the villagers and reduce the risk of tiger attacks.