Obama Department of Justice Takes Ass. Press phone records

[Tero]

You're going on the assumption tgat Gubment is corrupt.

Us Libruls always say: we can fix it.

[Coito ergo sum]

You're going on the assumption tgat Gubment is corrupt.

Us Libruls always say: we can fix it.

Yet you never do, and it's only the other guy's corruption that you want fixed. Democrat corruption is ok because it is corruption that serves a greater good.'

I don't think it's accurate to call yourself liberal, given the positions you seem to be taking on government surveillance, monitoring of the press, and all that. Your view of it would be welcomed heartily in the Nixon admnistration. Lots of gubmint intelligentz getting protected there...

[Tero]

Well, I'm not president. I would take the NSA activity and put some limits on it. First, they can snoop all they like, they just can't use any of it in court. They can only use it to prevent acts violence. Such as Boston, such as the Colorado movie shooter.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, I'm not president. I would take the NSA activity and put some limits on it. First, they can snoop all they like, they just can't use any of it in court. They can only use it to prevent acts violence. Such as Boston, such as the Colorado movie shooter.

So, when they snoop all they like, and find out fraud schemes, evidence of murders, rapes, illegal racketeering, counterfeiting, public corruption, etc. they just look the other way?

[pErvinalia]

We can trust them.

[Tero]

Well, I'm not president. I would take the NSA activity and put some limits on it. First, they can snoop all they like, they just can't use any of it in court. They can only use it to prevent acts violence. Such as Boston, such as the Colorado movie shooter.

So, when they snoop all they like, and find out fraud schemes, evidence of murders, rapes, illegal racketeering, counterfeiting, public corruption, etc. they just look the other way?

They have to hand new investigation to FBI. It is considered a tip. FBI goes to court and does its own wiretapping. All evidence at NSA is destroyed after tip is given to another agency.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, I'm not president. I would take the NSA activity and put some limits on it. First, they can snoop all they like, they just can't use any of it in court. They can only use it to prevent acts violence. Such as Boston, such as the Colorado movie shooter.

So, when they snoop all they like, and find out fraud schemes, evidence of murders, rapes, illegal racketeering, counterfeiting, public corruption, etc. they just look the other way?

They have to hand new investigation to FBI. It is considered a tip. FBI goes to court and does its own wiretapping. All evidence at NSA is destroyed after tip is given to another agency.

In other words, they can search you, find out what they need, then tell the FBI all about it, and the FBI can just go out and do it again and use the second round of searches?

That's like searching your house, finding cocaine in their, telling the cops that you have cocaine, and then they raid your house and finds the cocaine and prosecutes you.

Well thought out system.

[orpheus]

Well, I'm not president. I would take the NSA activity and put some limits on it. First, they can snoop all they like, they just can't use any of it in court. They can only use it to prevent acts violence. Such as Boston, such as the Colorado movie shooter.

So, when they snoop all they like, and find out fraud schemes, evidence of murders, rapes, illegal racketeering, counterfeiting, public corruption, etc. they just look the other way?

They have to hand new investigation to FBI. It is considered a tip. FBI goes to court and does its own wiretapping. All evidence at NSA is destroyed after tip is given to another agency.

One huge problem is that there is no oversight. We're simply told to trust them that they're not doing anything nefarious. Even your last sentence: if they said they would destroy the information, there is at present no oversight to make sure they actually do it. And why would they? It's not to their advantage. Right now it's a rogue entity.

[laklak]

We can trust them.

Of course we can! Big Brother loves us all, just like Jebus. Difference is Jebus doesn't have the Stasi to show us just how much he loves us.

[Tero]

Well, I'm not president. I would take the NSA activity and put some limits on it. First, they can snoop all they like, they just can't use any of it in court. They can only use it to prevent acts violence. Such as Boston, such as the Colorado movie shooter.

So, when they snoop all they like, and find out fraud schemes, evidence of murders, rapes, illegal racketeering, counterfeiting, public corruption, etc. they just look the other way?

They have to hand new investigation to FBI. It is considered a tip. FBI goes to court and does its own wiretapping. All evidence at NSA is destroyed after tip is given to another agency.

One huge problem is that there is no oversight. We're simply told to trust them that they're not doing anything nefarious. Even your last sentence: if they said they would destroy the information, there is at present no oversight to make sure they actually do it. And why would they? It's not to their advantage. Right now it's a rogue entity.

OK, put in oversight. More Gubment jobs for us.

The cocaine, above, would have to come from wiretapping info. If the NSA do a physical search, they need a court order for that address by a "real" judge.

My tips, above, only deal with suspected felonies.

[Coito ergo sum]

You do realize that your proposed system doesn't make sense from a law enforcement perspective? You can't close Pandora's box. Once they've searched you, the damage is done and the information will get used.

The unreasonable search is the damage, Tero. It's not how they make use of the information. It's the search.