[dmix]

We already have a warrant system in place that is more than adequate for protecting privacy and excessive dragnet fishing expeditions.

I don’t see why modern surveillance is allowed to bypass these laws in the name of security or w/e goal. When it’s clear investigators have more than enough to work with, just justify it first in court to a justice or judge.

Secret courts are extremely dangerous precedent too and basically defeats the whole purpose.

[staplers]

The founding fathers literally said we have to use lethal violence against those who want to restrict our freedom in this exact scenario.

Take that as you will. Their method worked.

[clubm8]

>We already have a warrant system in place that is more than adequate for protecting privacy and excessive dragnet fishing expeditions.

Do you have a citation for that claim?

There are vast[1] systems in place that violate laws and norms, so much so the IETF has labeled pervasive monitoring as an "attack"[2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7258

[dmix]

None of the things you linked to use the traditional warrant system. Particularly the whole FISA system and our terrorist laws here in Canada which sidestepped criminal courts entirely.

[clubm8]

not really sure what your point is so maybe you can clarify: are you saying it's ok to have a separate type of warrant for terrorists?

"traditional warrant system" is not a legal term. FISA warrants are warrants. Highly problematic, but warrants.

You may be interested in reading about how even FISA felt the NSA overstepped:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/d7axey/this-is-the-secret...

[carapace]

How do the good guys ensure that the bad guys aren't abusing the tech without using it themselves?