You claimed he misread the story. He did not. The government is using illegal evidence as probable cause and then lying and saying something else is probable cause. That is, the real probable cause, the thing that actually turned them on to these suspects, is made "not public". It doesn't get much more "responsive" than that.
Yes, I see that you claim to not support the program. It's hard to tell with how vigorously you are defending indefensible aspects of the program and seem to support parts of it on legalistic grounds when the issues at stake are legal AND moral. You continue to parse the posted article in an odd way that gives huge benefits of the doubt to the government when it would appear to deserve none.
You don't understand the point I was making, or have seized on a part of the conversation where there's enough ambiguity that it's easy to jump in and generate faux outrage about.
Meanwhile, your comment is yet another instance† of someone not being satisfied that we agree that the program is bad, but instead demanding that we find it bad for exactly the same set of reasons. Again: case in point for why HN is a terrible venue for political discussions.
Incidentally, you might do better than "yes, I see that you claim not to support the program" [em: mine] when in effect admitting that you were not only wrong, but wrong in the entire premise of your response to me.
I'm not sure the point you were making was entirely clear. Having read the article, and your replies, I don't see how the original poster misread the article.
It's entirely possible that I don't understand the situation. Could you rephrase the reason you believe the original poster was wrong? i.e. That the evidence trail is public.
Again: the "evidence" gleaned from tip-offs from unlawful surveillance can't be introduced into court in any fashion; for instance, it can't be the stated cause of a search, which must still be justified from first-principles by some defensible claim of probable cause.
It's a shadow, secret set of facts, but it isn't evidence and can't be used as such.
And, to be clear: I think the program is bad news and don't support it. But my reasons are probably different from those of many other HN readers, and have more to do with precedent (I think if we're going to do extensive foreign SIGINT --- and, sorry, we just are going to do that --- we should at least firewall it off from domestic law enforcement).
The police had every reason to stop you: you failed to signal a turn (or you did not come to a complete stop at a stop sign, or you were speeding, or any number of other violations).
The real problem here is that there are far too many laws, which has led to a situation where the police can find a "legitimate" reason to arrest/search anyone. There is also the matter of victimless crimes (like possession of certain drugs), which can turn minor infractions like speeding into 20-year prison sentences. The massive increase in police budgets and power over the past few decades added fuel to the fire, but we were in trouble from the beginning.
>I think if we're going to do extensive foreign SIGINT --- and, sorry, we just are going to do that --- we should at least firewall it off from domestic law enforcement
A personal question, sorry: legality and constitutionality aside, are you comfortable with ample surveillance of other countries? If so, why? From your posts on HN since the PRISM leaks, you've stressed NSA's mandate to spy on other countries. NSA exists and has this function, yes, but why is it acceptable for the US to spy on all foreigners?
Yes, I am, for a bunch of reasons, not worth going into here. The simplest response to this would be that broad surveillance of US citizens violates our Constitution, but surveillance of foreigners abroad does not.
Yes, I see that you claim to not support the program. It's hard to tell with how vigorously you are defending indefensible aspects of the program and seem to support parts of it on legalistic grounds when the issues at stake are legal AND moral. You continue to parse the posted article in an odd way that gives huge benefits of the doubt to the government when it would appear to deserve none.