Like hypothetically if they had social graphs and cell phone records showing a US citizen was kidnapped and murdered they can't act on it or pass it to the local police? Doesn't that seem illogical?
Like hypothetically if they had social graphs and cell phone records showing a US citizen was kidnapped and murdered they can't act on it or pass it to the local police? Doesn't that seem illogical?
The NSA is primarily tasked with overseas collection. IE tapping Osama bin Laden's satellite phone. And they report up the chain to the DoD. Meaning they aren't even looking for domestic criminals and may not notice if they surveilled one. If they're doing anything beyond their legal parameters or beyond their remit, they wouldn't broadcast it or expose themselves by using it to arrest someone.
I like to point to the Gestapo as a counterexample. They are the archetype for police state surveillance. And they did it in a country where most people didn't have even a rotary phone let alone the internet. The distinction between a police state and a free society is entirely up to will and not technology.
but the morality/legality of something like that is cool to think about as a thought exercise :- if they're doing anything beyond their legal parameters or beyond their remit, they wouldn't broadcast it or expose themselves by using it to arrest someone even in a hypothetical scenario where the data points to a person being kidnapped from an apartment, driven across state lines, and murdered which in my head seems worse than the collection but idk the laws feel not mallable enough for the age we live in
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/bush-lets-us-spy...