No, Mike is conflating things (something he usually rails against).
Hayden was talking about asking questions about the meta-data. The President said that after querying the meta-data if they want to actually tap that phone number, then they have to go back and get a warrant.
Hayden wasn't saying that at all.
I'd argue it's bad that they can query the data all they want without oversight, but it isn't content which is what the President was talking about.
""The whole point of the 4th Amendment is that you're not allowed to collect the haystack. You're only supposed to be able to, on narrow circumstances, go looking for the needle with proper oversight."
Citation needed. Do you have any actual analysis, or just more of your trademarked conclusory statements?"
Uh, the 4th Amendment is that citation.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Specifically you have to be SPECIFIC if you want to collect data on someone. Not, collect everything and then be specific about what you ask the collection of data at a later date about last week.
False comparison. The laws have changed to allow seat belt use to be a primary offense. They haven't been abusing seat belt violations to pull you over (they have numerous ways to do this already). Seat belt use is also better for society, less deaths, less serious injury, less emergency care needed.
Abuse of a system does not mean a system shouldn't be used. It means we should fix the system though the issues with post 9/11 security theater are vast.
#1 - a valid argument...for now. Technology improves and it will be quite possible to take that stray hair from your head and do the same thing before too long.
#2 - Are fingerprints taken during arrest used to match you to unsolved crimes? My assumption is that is the current case. If so, then taking DNA for the same reasons is no different.
#3 - Same argument for #1 applies. You describe 'today' and perhaps that's valid, but it won't be all that long before star trek tricorder type tech IS available and can do what you say is impossible. Basing your objections on the state of tech rather than the actual legal arguments is rather like the Music Industry saying pre-Napster internet sharing wasn't a problem.
I just don't see the issue with checking people who've been arrested against the list of unsolved crimes.
I DO see (and have) a problem with said arrestee's information being stored forever if they're acquitted but the 2 issues are very different.
"law enforcement and governments wont listen to anyone that talks sense"
The people who won't listen are the "ZOMG it's Bieber" public. They don't want to be bothered to even listen let alone vote (US - I believe Aussies are required to vote).
If the public is too much sheep and not enough people actively involved, you only get the truly psychotic in office making the rules. Think about politics in the US. Would *you* want to have your life raked over the coals ever 2/4/6 years? Sane people say no. Only people who have purposely lived a life so devoid of anything interesting can be elected - or people who have actively hidden their true selves from anyone else. Neither are what I'd consider good choices for leadership, yet it's all we get now.