14 Comments

True. There's very little problem getting drugs.

Expand full comment

More important, which one of you put dicks in Congress and the White House?

Expand full comment

The request forms are conveniently pre-printed with the court's approval. Sort of like One-Click shopping on Amazon: <i>For instant approval of your warrant, click here.</i>

Expand full comment

Oddly, this is the one issue where Scalia is hard-core in favor of anybody's rights. According to Tony, the gov't can kill you even if they know for a fact that you're innocent -- but you can die secure in the knowledge that at least they can't take an infrared photo of your garage roof without a warrant. (Heat from your grow-lights gives away the game).

It's weird, but it's what Jeebus and the Founders (band name, etc.) intended.

Expand full comment

Because they might need it someday. (Actual reason; I only wish it was snark.)

Expand full comment

Less amusing when you consider that they'll notice you doing it...

Expand full comment

<i>[I]t is highly speculative whether the Government will imminently target communications to which respondents are parties. Since respondents, as U. S. persons, cannot be targeted under §1881a, their theory necessarily rests on their assertion that their foreign contacts will be targeted. Yet they have no actual knowledge of the Government’s §1881a targeting practices. Second, even if respondents could demonstrate that the targeting of their foreign contacts is imminent,they can only speculate as to whether the Government will seek to use §1881a-authorized surveillance instead of one of the Government’s numerous other surveillance methods, which are not challenged here. Third, even if respondents could show that the Government will seek FISC authorization to target respondents’ foreign contacts under §1881a, they can only speculate as to whether the FISC will authorize the surveillance. </i>

That's the Supreme Court, <a href="https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/files\/assets\/amnesty_v_clapper_scotus_opinion.pdf" target="_blank">dismissing the ACLU challenge to FISA. </a> Because it was all just way too speculative. (Bonus: the kafkaesque concept that you can't complain without "actual knowledge" of what the Gov't is doing in complete secrecy.)

Expand full comment

Ahem - librarians have been screaming about shit like this since 2001.

Expand full comment

As long as they stay out of my profile on ChristianMingle then we're good.

Expand full comment

As long as they don't dig too deeply into my stuff on various dating sites then we're good.

Expand full comment

Meh. Call, don't call... whatever.

Expand full comment

If PRISM found evidence of calls from Bank of America to Barclay's at about the time of the LIBOR rigging, would the WSJ change its position?

Expand full comment

I know where we are going, but what is with the handbasket?

Expand full comment

The same wingers and their cohorts who applaud this data collection are vehemently opposed to requiring background checks for guns because it might be used somehow, someday to create a national gun registration database.

Expand full comment