warrantless

I'm OK with a bit of fear mongering if it means that warrantless spying actually becomes an election issue.

I disagree with warrantless surveillance; I also disagree with police brutality; that doesn't mean that I want to eliminate the police.

Other commenters have mentioned warrantless wiretapping-- she served as National Security Advisor for George W.

When will the govt get it once and for all that overarching warrantless surveillance is illegal and stop trying for it?

The country had a public debating about warrantless wiretaps and congress wrote laws about it.

After the Section 215 warrantless wiretapping program was first revealed back in 2006, he voted for the Protect America Act[1] to legalize it.

It is extremely well established that at international borders the government can conduct warrantless searches and seizures, as long as they are reasonable.

They still allow warrantless searches, and there will still be such searches.

There is protection against warrantless searches, but once due process is given, a court's power to compel the disclosure of evidence is almost unlimited.

That's why there has to be warrantless wiretaps.

> Illegal: telecom metadata, various personal abuses by employees Note that warrantless metadata collection is not illegal, per Smith v.

Such a laizze-faire attitude about such potential for warrantless, unbounded, infinitely intelligent surveillance (and control, which it implies) is inconsiderate of most people, to say the least.

By granting legal immunity for service providers to share so-called "threat" data—potentially containing unminimized private customer data—law enforcement agencies are opening a huge backdoor for uncontrolled warrantless mass surveillance.

Seems anyone who says "no" is either disputing the tone and narrative (emphases on metadata) or assuming the circumstances warrant it in Lebanon but not elsewhere I'm a firm believer of universal civil liberties and if we justify or ban warrantless bulk metadata collection anywhere it must apply (either ban or justification) everywhere.

> By granting legal immunity for service providers to share so-called "threat" data—potentially containing unminimized private customer data—law enforcement agencies are opening a huge backdoor for uncontrolled warrantless mass surveillance Section 4(d)(2) requires removal of personal information before sharing unless that personal information is directly related to a cybersecurity threat.

Warrantless searches is what I worry about, plus in some countries there are laws protecting people that don't want to disclose their password, like the fifth amendment in the US.