[marze]

You'd think terrorism/spy cases would be a small minority of overall cases. And not that hard to justify a warrant. Seems odd that they feel it is important to skip the warrant step for such cases.

Why not require a warrant? The more checks and balances the better.

[wickedlogic]

Because it isn't about terrorism/spy cases.

[wrsh07]

Is it a speed thing? Like do you think they're fighting with their own layers of bureaucracy?

Is there a way to make obtaining warrants more transparent and straightforward?

It honestly seems like they could design a better system that doesn't get rid of the checks, increases citizen trust, and solves their issues.

[mtgx]

If it was a speed thing, the FBI could show "good faith" [1] and say that a judge should verify the request post-facto and (in)validate it.

But of course it doesn't do that, because the FBI doesn't operate in "good faith", and because it would prefer as little oversight as possible - which is what this request is really about anyway: the removal of judicial oversight, even beyond its rapidly growing abuse of NSLs [2].

[1] - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160605/09111034626/appea...

[2] - https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2016/04/14/keeping...

[voxic11]

Its not a speed thing. There are already many ways to speed the warrent process. They can be obtained remotely from a judge with an electronic signature. And they can be obtained in good faith with the judge only reviewing the evidence after granting the warrent. Like how much easier does it need to be?

[titzer]

It's basically testing whether the frog responds to increases in water temperature.