[bilbo0s]

And they'd still say, "You're not the government."

And they'd be right. If you were part of the government, you wouldn't need to ask to see the data on her Facebook or whatever. You'd probably already have some secret access.

I mean they're right. "You're not the government, and if you were you wouldn't need to ask."

Point is, they trust the government implicitly. (And, for most voters, completely, in matters of security.)

[state_less]

And I'd say, "My party cares enough about safety that we voted that any card carrying party member can do a citizen search if they sense anything suspicious about another citizen. So hand over the phone"

Hopefully we can install a sense of where things can lead to.

Most folks aren't familiar with such strong tactics, but hopefully they are starting to become more so with party sanctioned violence (e.g. punch that opposing guy in the face).

[bilbo0s]

There's the trap they'd get you into though. With mass and ubiquitous surveillance, they don't even need citizen searches anymore. So the person you are talking to would likely report you for impersonating. An agent who was really acting on behalf of the government doesn't need to execute a citizen search of that data.

What I'm trying to point out is that your line of questioning would not impact her view of the government at all, it would only raise her suspicions about you. To the extent that, at some point, she would call the government to report you. Because the government also conditioned her with the whole mantra:

"If you see something, say something."

Trust in the government, particularly on matters of security, is not so easily undermined.

[state_less]

She would probably agree that the government is made up of officials that we elect though right?

So what if the people in the majority party want to usurp power from the minority citizens. Even if only for the reason that they want to keep a 'dangerous party' from taking power. Practicalities about search techniques don't matter in such circumstances. Just imagine a party that is ready to punch the minority party members in the face. Such a party wouldn't think twice about a party member taking the liberty to search suspicious non-party members...

In such cases, it'd be nice if no matter who's in power, there are some laws that must be followed. That's pretty much what the bill of rights is about and it includes protection against unreasonable search. The 4th's a good one because it limits a majorities ability to overpower a minority.

[bilbo0s]

What you're not getting is that the people doing this don't care about the 4th Amendment. (Or, more accurately, they are more than willing to rationalize away their violation of the 4th Amendment. Like the beat cop doing a "Stop and Frisk" on some black kid. The 4th just doesn't mean anything to him.)

The people controlling access to these datasets are not from either party. They are not elected. In the vast majority of cases, they are not even known.

You're assuming politicians are in control of these datasets. I'm just asking you to consider the very real possibility that they are not. In most cases, I'm betting politicians can't even request access to these datasets without tripping flags. (And "leaks" if the people in charge think leaking that politician's request will serve them.) Politicians learned long ago, (ABSCAM), not to mess with these people.

I just don't think you appreciate the depth of the problem if you're thinking on the level of the politician.

[state_less]

I get that the people doing this don't seem to care, just as the woman you describe doesn't seem to hold the 4th in high regard.

I'm not assuming politicians are in control of these datasets. I'm assuming the politicians and the judges they elect are control of the laws and rules that govern the government agencies and employees. And the politicians are elected by Americans.

You point out that many Americans don't feel they have anything to hide, so the 4th doesn't seem to matter to them. I've noticed that too. And so what I see in government and the agencies is a reflection of the these priorities (e.g. Patriot Act, no pushback against NSA, etc). I don't think Americans can absolve themselves of responsibility of the surveillance state. That'd be too convenient.