Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by i_am_jl | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

i_am_jl·

"A warrant requirement would amount to a de facto ban"

Yeah Chris, that is the point.

View on HN

It's almost like some people don't get that some tools should only be selectively applied only when absolutely needed.

The determination of probable cause has nothing to do with whether the invasion of privacy/warrant is "absolutely needed" or not. The FBI's position is that that should be a consideration.

They have proven themselves unworthy of this power and legal exception process.

> He did address the FBI's earlier abuses of Section 702 to spy on protesters, campaign donors, and even elected officials.

> "To be sure, no one more deeply shares Members' concerns regarding past FBI compliance violations related to FISA, including the rules for querying Section 702 collection using US person identifiers, than I do," Wray said.

> The FBI "responded rigorously" to these violations, he added, and that already "dramatically" reduced the 702 searches on US persons, he added.

> "Moreover, as we publicly announced in June, the FBI is implementing further measures both to keep improving our compliance and to hold our personnel accountable for misuse of Section 702 and other FISA provisions, including through an escalating scheme for employee accountability, including discipline and culminating in possible dismissal."

Anchorman Ron Burgundy I don't believe you meme here.

I mean... there obviously shouldn't be an exception to the legal process. That's the whole point of the legal process. GP was suggesting that exception should still exist and they should just use it selectively, which of course is the entire debate.

No, that's what I said.

Err, NOT what I said.

But think of the poor people that just want target to political opponents!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com