I'll suggest it's right. I elected the government in large part to protect...us.
I want them to spy on our enemies. And I want them to roast for spying on us.
I want them to spy on our enemies. And I want them to roast for spying on us.
EU human rights law doesn't make this distinction between citizen and non-citizen.
Protect you from who?
>I want them to spy on our enemies.
Who are these enemies, and how did we identify them as such? Do we just spy until we found one?
Investigation should begin with crimes that have occurred, suss out those circumstances where there is a bigger picture, and attain warrants for further investigation. Lack of probable cause means no search, a right extended by Amendment IV to all people (at least within US holdings as described above, which is where I think the FBI should be operating).
The fault here lies with Congress. FISA is their doing, and it expressly violates all clauses of Amendment IV. The FBI is at fault for swinging this particular bat in a room full of citizens, but they shouldn't have been given the bat to begin with. Why FISA hasn't had a Supreme Court challenge on constitutional grounds is beyond me, but IANAL.
Not for lack of trying. Apparently it's very hard to show standing[1]. This is going to need a legislative solution, or none at all.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172998760/supreme-court-makes...
The fault lies with the idea that there always needs to be an enemy.
I agree with self defense. However, I'm not sure this is always the case.
Is that perhaps a direct result of the USG protecting you from them?
I think the FBI has succumbed to scope creep and overstepped what I perceive as their remit; however, that doesn't mean they're an unnecessary body.
When you can't tell who the enemy is then everyone is suspect and the later naturally arises.
It is an overall net negative strategy.
Mass surveillance of this type is always directed at a countries own sphere of influence, domestic and at close allies. There is little camaraderie between people in power and the average citizen. On the contrary, to keep the power, you must collect info on everyone that could become a danger to you.
In racing teams your largest opponent is often your racing partner.
Surveillance of foreign adversaries is best done by getting info on key players. Why would info on the average foreign citizen matter at all? It just isn't interesting information.
You poll 10 random Americans on whether they think the government should have all powers necessary to defend against another January 6th riot and I don't know what they'll say.
>A spokeswoman for the department told Roll Call that Lt. Mike Byrd will be investigated after his Glock-22, which has no manual safety to prevent unintended firing, was found “during a routine security sweep” by another officer in a bathroom on Monday.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/431924-cap...
30+ people were killed during the riots of 2020.
"It" may decide on courses of action that are in its best interests but detrimental to others, even if it has no history of that behavior.
Same reason the US had war plans targeting essentially the entire world in the interwar years -- you never know.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_wa...
The Bill of Rights is a statement from the people to the government. "These are some of our rights and you will respect them."
One could say there are natural desires, or natural ethics/morals, but these have no weight without a granting and enforcing entity.
E.g. "my personal right to not pay taxes"
At its heart, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are a formal trade between the people and the proposed government, each of whom start with some power.
People: "We will give you legitimacy and support, if you give us these rights."
Government: "We agree to give you those rights, in return for your legitimacy and support."
The people and the government can believe they have other rights (e.g. a right to privacy), but until they're codified and agreed to by the government they don't exist.
Hence why it usually takes revolution, civil disobedience, or riots to force a government to grant (natural) rights it doesn't want to.
That's a strange negative. How about, my personal right to control my body (without harming others including not stealing from others).
I do not have a right to steal from you. Goverment is granted some authorities from the people to the government. People can't grant to others what they don't have (like a non-existent right to steal). Therefore, government does not have a right to steal from you or me.
If you want to enter into a commercial agreement with government for some purpose then sign whatever forms and contacts you desire. For me, taking the fruits of my personal labor is theft.
How is an individual supposed to protect their own rights?
Which was the same argument that lead (rightly, IMHO) to their enumeration in the Bill of Rights, in contrast to the unenumerated British system.
Individuals protecting "their" un-enumerated rights risk the violent wrath of the state, or are able to do so only because the state chooses to ignore them.
Do you have friends too? Does being spied on by the states mean you're their enemy?
Basically, anyone "not a Fed" in the USA, is an enemy. And even then ..