Originally Posted by Proxy3scapist
I strongly agree with this concept, wouldn't be in my line of work if I didn't...I can't follow up with anything else without sounding like a complete ******* who dislikes civilians so I'll just leave it at that
When your doing active investigation, sure I guess you could treat civilians with a little scrutiny. The problem is, if you start treating people in a specific way you will get them to act that way. The prison experiment is one of the biggest examples, they also have other examples. So if you honestly do this all the time, or if everyone in your line of work did, you would create a much bigger problem. You would get people who do not normally act out to start doing ambiguous things. This becomes a problem, now you would have civilians who will cover for those that do illicit things. They will do so willingly, which makes your job even that much harder.
You can't just blindly treat people as a criminal, it will create criminals. So while you might do this, most people in your position won't. It would open up all sorts of issues in any legal system. If you are searching for something, you'll end up finding "links" to it. You would overload the judicial system with trials and paperwork that is unnecessary, also causing much angst and hate among the civilians. Might as well put us all in camps, watch our every move and lock us up at that point.
Originally Posted by NotUrAverageJoe
I think we have a miscommunication friend. I am in no way advocating the criminalization of people.. My main points were a) You have a ridiculous amount of both false positives and accidental discoveries - which to me brings into question the effectiveness of their methods. b) How ridiculous some people are. You can surrender all your rights and you still won't catch 100% of the criminals, so people that are advocating we to go to a police state need to wake up. It's amazing the extent people are willing to go to for their false sense of security.
I agree with your points. Bottom line: If the feds of all people can't get a search warrant you better believe they don't have justification - they're just blindly shooting in the dark.
Originally Posted by Fyrwulf
It's not that they can't, it's that any court proceeding must immediately be made public and in the case of national security I can guarantee that 99% of judges have no security clearance at all, never mind a compartmentalized one. Any spy or terrorist worth their salt would be checking the court records daily if the FBI couldn't do this. That said, the fact that they don't have to disclose what they did immediately upon an investigation wrapping up gives me the shivers.
I quoted these both, because it's a joint response? Sometimes they don't have the evidence to get a warrant, sometimes it's because they can't get one in time. Since all trial information is closed to the public until the trial they normally don't worry about that.. Not only that, a lot of evidence doesn't go to trial. Only the best does, I doubt getting a warrant would make that information public. You also have judges with enough clearance, just sometimes they do want things kept hush hush. So they have various reasons to circumvent this. I don't think it's right, they could have implemented a better system than this. How, I don't know and can't discuss anyways.