Discussion for article #243419
Once again the trillion dollar surveillance complex pays off in spades … after the fact.
And no, I won’t point out that any 10-year-old with a first generation smart phone could do the same thing.
5 Likes
I wonder what kind of scrutiny that was? If the FBI was on to the contacts did they not think it important to check out the folks they were regularly talking to? I’m not so sure any of this “scrutiny” worth a shit. It seems after these tragedies start revealing their backgrounds there s always some “scrutiny” that was not given the concern it should have been.
5 Likes
scenario: wannabee domestic jihadist tries to reach out on social media and gets hooked by undercover FBI who goad him on just a little bit? I can see how the first question to the wannabee would be something like “Oh yeah? Then prove it!”
a bit too much Twilight Zone?
If our “trillion dollar surveillance complex” tries to do better, the Edward Snowdens of the world will have a fit because they believe terrorists deserve absolute privacy in their own affairs, even if those affairs include mass murder. How dare any government interfere with private enterprise!
2 Likes
If our 'trillion dollar surveillance complex" spent a little less money vacuuming up everything they could and a little more actually paying field agents to FOLLOW the leads they get, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If your going to invade American’s privacy, it would help if you aren’t ALSO incompetent at the task.
8 Likes
I’m not exactly a fan of Edward Snowden, but I’m pretty sure that is not what he or his supporters believe. I personally think the private communications of U.S. citizens should not be intercepted without due process, meaning a warrant based on evidence. I wish we had an NRA-sized lobbying group for the Fourth Amendment.
8 Likes
Not sure why this hasn’t been posted anywhere:
US Department of Justice agents now have to acquire a search warrant before utilizing a cell-site simulator, the department said, though the new policy allows for exceptions.
“Could it be both?”
Of course it could, Josh.
And if nuance fit on bumper stickers, all the conservatives would be liberals.
8 Likes
One often hears of the government side seeking a warrant, which means convincing a judge there is a good reason to watch somebody. I’ve never met a government employee paid so well it was worth risking jail by breaking the law to do their job better. Government is very different from business. In business one is encouraged to do more than what is specifically requested, in government you are not allowed to do more than is specifically authorized by law.
I’ve never heard a privacy advocate speak in anything but absolute terms; never adding “except child pornographers, except known criminals, except terrorists …” So it is absolutely correct to say they advocate for absolute privacy for terrorists.
2 Likes
Our male killer was a US citizen. Would the evidence of the contact with extremists be enough evidence for a warrant? We couldn’t even check if he had bought a gun using the federal database since inquiries are not kept–based on not having a “registry” for American gun owners–and I think that would be required. I also have problems with anyone outside of law enforcement and the military who is in possession of body armor as these two apparently were.
We’re really nuts on our gun safety policies in this country…and now it seems the FBI is either constrained or a bit on the dumba$$ side.
7 Likes
Well, we all knew a bigger shit show than the shit being spewed by Republican presidential contenders in days past was going to happen. It’s news like this that only amps up the volume of shit being thrown. It is looking to be a doozy. Get your umbrellas, raincoats, goggles and galoshes. Oh, and for God’s sake, hold your nose or you may vomit.
2 Likes
That’s the problem with trying to maintain constant surveillance on everything. It has very little preventative power because there is too much data to analyze in real time. It’s like having a CCTV camera at every intersection. It doesn’t help prevent crime because no one can watch them all all the time. Mostly they’re only useful for reconstructing what happened after the fact.
9 Likes
The FISA court has granted 35,434 warrants between 1979 and 2013. In that time they denied a grand total of 12. 535 were approved with some modifications. So let’s not pretend it’s burdensome.
2 Likes
If our “trillion dollar surveillance complex” tries to do better, the NRA of these United States will have a fit because they believe terrorists deserve absolute access to weaponry, even if those weapons will be used for mass murder. How dare any government interfere with gun rights.!
2 Likes
Anonymous “Official” supposedly says something that cannot be verified, nor can the person be identified.
AP Washington Bureau RUNS with it as if it is carved in STONE.
Typical Terrorist Porn from the chief source of Neo-Con Fantasy-Factoids.
2 Likes
Extremists like TRump, Cruz and Scaly Fiorina?
THOSE extremists?
Think maybe professionals figure out what a judge finds acceptable and what ticks him off and then, being professionals, they only go to the judge when they believe what they have will be adequate?
That’s Democracy. Obviously you are not doing an adequate job of making your case before the public.
Yay, another poster who doesn’t understand how IP packets work.
1 Like