[soraminazuki]

Where do I even start? Let's first reiterate that even when it's technically legal to screw over non-citizens, it doesn't make it right. That's not the standard expected of a free nation.

But let's ignore that for a moment and move on to the next point. Your example is still hoovering up communications from citizens who are supposed to be protected by due process of law. En masse. How does this not run afoul of the law?

The problem is compounded by the fact that the internet blurs geographical borders. Wholly domestic communications can and does end up crossing borders. Also, I'd bet a large part of our communications aren't even between people. The majority of the traffic likely are sent to or from computer programs. They happen without most people even realizing it, but contains highly personal information. The simple telegraph analogy doesn't translate well to the internet.

What's more, there's currently no meaningful system in place to prevent abuse. And no, a rubber stamp court authorizing dragnet surveillance isn't it.

[twoodfin]

OK, you want FISA to be stricter. But way up thread, someone made the point that it’s FISA itself that puts any meaningful balancing constraints at all on the Constitutional power of the executive. This includes the FISA court—made up of real, lifetime-tenured federal judges of the same robes you would like approving warrants—that is there by law to be watching out for just your parade of horribles.

The poster was roundly criticized for being correct.

[soraminazuki]

No, FISA should not be a thing. Wiretap warrants should be reasonably scoped and acquired on an individual basis. There shouldn't be a secret court issuing do-whatever-you-want warrants.

[twoodfin]

To get that you have two choices: Do your best to persuade your fellow citizens to elect a President who will choose to forego this part of his Constitutional powers—or get a Constitutional amendment passed.

What I keep trying to explain is that this FISA vote can’t address your concerns one way or the other. If you disagree, I wish you’d explain how.

[soraminazuki]

The Constitution grants the president unlimited spying powers? That's news to me.

Whether the FISA vote can fix all the problems isn't the point. The problem is that current surveillance practices looks illegal to begin with.

[twoodfin]

Intercepting communications between US persons and foreign non-citizens isn’t “unlimited spying powers” and is not illegal.

Do you disagree?

[soraminazuki]

We're running in circles now.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40100565

[int_19h]

Yes