The 4th Amendement was transcended by the Intel agencies long ago. No president, no Congress will end the government’s authority to monitor everyone. The politicians have been captured by the agencies, as have we all.
3
Sure, why not, who needs laws when you can do whatever you want.
I've spent a lot of time in InfoSec over the last several years, and a recurring self-appellation by many conference speakers from law enforcement agencies is "the good guys." By which they usually mean the Justice Dept., the FBI and other 3-letter agencies--not to put too fine a point on it, the people who killed Aaron Swartz.
The undeniable existence of bad guys is not a proof of the existence of good guys.
Laws? We don't need no stinking laws.
Could the FBI use this rule to surveil the Trump extended family?
Illegal Surveillance Can Continue Illegally, Officials Say
1
All signs point DOWN for the Exceptional People.
The administration has decided that it doesn't need any stinking laws, because when you are king you can do whatever you want. Our Fake So Called President is reminding me more of the Queen Of Hearts in the Alice In Wonderland story every day.
14
First of all, the surveillance is already illegal, as the 4th Amendment hasn't been repealed. Beyond that, the government has never obeyed the law regarding this. If some program is ruled illegal, it just continues under another name.
The only solution is to employ technology to make government surveillance impossible.
23
Nono, you misremember. It was illegal for the government to collect this information to spy on citizens. It's totally ok for the government to outsource spying to private entities like verizon, at&t, or comcast to spy on it's citizens.
It is difficult if not impossible to make targeted government surveillance impossible; the resources of the state are simply too great. It is possible, however, for even the average perosn to use technologies which greatly increase the cost of surveillance to the adversary (in this case, the government). To do so would make prohibitively expensive this driftnet surveillance, which is really the surveillance to which we object as being unreasonable.