Skip to comments."Dots need to be collected so as to be connected." (What about suspicionless dots, per the NSA?
Posted on 01/24/2014 10:18:56 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
I have heard more than once (from Dems, Dem-e's and RINOs as well) concerning the NSA that "we need to be able to collect the dots so that we can connect the dots."
But what about suspicionless dots, as in suspicionless wiretaps or suspicionless meta data mining/gathering?
Was it ok for the British to serve a search warrant for an entire city (big or small), so as to try to find the one person they were looking for in that city?
No evidence of abuse? Has Congress had near unlimited access to the NSA's activities to see if any abuse has occured? Apparently not. So, without that, how can we believe the talking heads?
I never would have questioned what the NSA was doing until I saw the regime using personal data to go after its political enemies. And handing personal data over to their political action groups so they can go after their enemies.
Sure, they can collect whatever dots exist in the public domain. When they force a private entity to turn over their property (i.e., data collected in the course of business) they need a 4th amendment warrant.
But the dot collecting has to be on an individual basis, and in most cases per prior approval of a court must be had.
Or would you support the British just saying “Let’s collect all the dots in this huge city...forget going door to door...”
Are you advocating for blanket sweeps? And this has occured with friendly heads of state all over the globe.
Precisely. When I said 4th amendment warrant, I was attempting to make it clear it has to be done on an individual basis.
Got it. Missed the last few words as I scanned over the sentence.
But I wonder if Congress has seen enough to cause them to agree with the contentions made by people like Peter King?
I’m now tempted to send them a yard or two of polka-dot fabric...