81–86 of 86 posts
Of course if they don't have a file on you, and you send them a FOIA request, they may open up a file on you just for the purposes of handling your request...
Before I put up MyNSARecords, I was curious as to whether more people would want a copy or want them deleted. Thought you might find it interesting: the "want a copy" crowd outnumbers the "delete" crowd by about 4 to 1.
I'd like to see more my whole file instead of just the phone records, because I'm curious how accurate their information is.
Also, NSA likely doesn't have too much of a file on you. FBI, CIA, DHS, on the other hand...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct that this appears to be their argument, but that argument holds not a chance. Imagine if police searched houses randomly but "weren't allowed to use what they found unless they got a warrant." I believe this argument will be squarely and unanimously rejected by SCOTUS.
> Imagine if police searched houses randomly but "weren't allowed to use what they found unless they got a warrant." The main remedy for illegal police searches is exclusion of the evidence if, and when, the government attempts to use it in court (and then, usually, only if they attempt to use it against the specific person whose rights were violated by the search, and not always even then [e.g., good faith exception…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like the distinction that the NSA is trying to make is that, it's not illegal to possess the data, only to look at it. That argument may even extend to automatic processes that aren't seen by human eyes, who knows. If you happen to get a warrant in the future, you'll be able to "travel back in time" to see all communications of the person in question. The most maddening part of all this is that no one outsid…
Correct that this appears to be their argument, but that argument holds not a chance. Imagine if police searched houses randomly but "weren't allowed to use what they found unless they got a warrant." I believe this argument will be squarely and unanimously rejected by SCOTUS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct that this appears to be their argument, but that argument holds not a chance. Imagine if police searched houses randomly but "weren't allowed to use what they found unless they got a warrant." I believe this argument will be squarely and unanimously rejected by SCOTUS.
It would be more like if robots searched your house and no human was allowed to look at what they collected without a warrant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be more like if robots searched your house and no human was allowed to look at what they collected without a warrant.
The closest ruling I can find on something like that is that sending drug sniffing dogs into a house without a warrant is illegal: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/drug-sniffing-dogs-...