Hacker News Reader

Comment by datadrivenangel | Hacker News Reader

"A warrant requirement would amount to a de facto ban, because query applications either would not meet the legal standard to win court approval"

I hope that we get that de facto ban. It would be good for society.

View on HN

This is literally what warrants and probable cause are for. Really shocking degree of impunity on display that he would have the balls to say this out loud, in public, on the record.

Who watches the FBI director?

Congress? LOL

TMK he reports to the DOJ that reports to the president. Wray->Garland->Biden

That is very calculated I think. If people let him get away with saying it, that's it, it's done, it's banalized, it's normal.

That's a technique often used by toxic people.

(Disclaimer: im no american)

Why do you have to disclaim that? It’s nothing to be ashamed of. I have friends that are also not American, and I’m even okay being seen with them in public. You can feel safe fully disclosing!

Why do you take it that way? I took saying "not American" to mean his perspective is from outside looking in, which is useful context.

Oh, I was perhaps unwisely playful: “disclaimer” (a denial or risk) and “full disclosure” (adding context) are different but occasionally confused.

The fourth amendment is a de jure ban, and shouldn't a de jure ban be a de facto ban for law enforcement? The lawful way to make it de facto is to make it de jure first by repealing that pesky amendment.

De jure, de jure is de jure, de facto, de jure is not de facto?

To absolutely mangle paraphrasing yogi berra's quote about the difference between theory and practice.

The US government flouts the constitution constantly, for example the UN charter which according to the constitution, treaties are part of the supreme law of the land. It's a security state designed to squelch popular resistance to a global imperial project (that is currently floundering).

Yes, but treaties are still subjugate to the Constitution. Congress isn't authorized to violate the constitution, amd thetefore isn't authorized to enter into treaties which would do so.

Agree. It shocks me that anyone would stand against this— there’s so much anti Patriot Act rhetoric, this is one of the only ways to make a step toward achieving justice in the situation

watch as mass shootings go down when they have a harder time profiling patsies

'No way to prevent this,' says only nation where this regularly happens.

Shortly followed by ‘thoughts and prayers’.

Most other countries probably have far less legal and/or ethically grey surveillance at their fingertips, and still dont have this problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com