Here's predicting the law is found unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Corporate lawyers are experts at twisting constitutional law to support their clients' needs and don't care who else's Rights get trampled.
Expect the first challenge before the ink of the President's signature is dry.
Inevitably, when the police deal with confidential informants, most of them will be criminals. That's because the best lever the police have to create an informant is threat of criminal punishment.
But that means that care must be taken to detect malfeasance on the part of the informant...and these police did none of that. They didn't watch the buys; they made no factual checks (not even so much as to notice that the "seller" was in jail at the time of the so-called buy).
These officers were operating an arrest mill; they didn't care whether the arrested individuals committed a crime or not. So they were complicit in falsification of evidence, they solicited perjury, and they filed false charges; resulting in wrongful conviction of citizens.
For whatever good they do, CI programs invite this kind of abuse. The problem is two-fold: high benefit and secrecy. The benefit of an arrest mill on a career is high, encouraging officers to overlook such "minor details" as citizen innocence. The secrecy makes it difficult or impossible for a defendant to challenge CI evidence. This makes the program a hunting ground for the "1-3%" of police officers who place their career--their personal advantage--above the Rights of citizens.
Wherever high benefit and secrecy exist, the criminal elements always congregate. It's no different with the criminals that wear a badge.
Re: "We don't need you to give us a bad reputation, we can do that ourselves!"
Mmmm Belgian chocolate versus just plain dark chocolate...I think I "gots" to go to Trader Joe's.
Which is the whole point, of course: When a company makes a mediocre product and sells it dear, there's room for another company to make something a bit better and sell it less expensively. To steal customers from the first company. Isn't competition a bitch?
But wait: "Let's file a trademark lawsuit...make them stop competing!"
The new American competitive model: IP lawsuit. Companies run by people too dumb to compete in a "free market", using the government to crush competitors.
I think discussion on this point is irrelevant. Never underestimate what a secretary can misspell. My name is misspelled on an award my company gave me, and the secretary that ordered it had corporate email to use for a reference.
So I couldn't find a download for it (for Android). But if I could, I'm guessing the permissions needed would be something like this:
* Determine your exact location * Determine your network state * Monitor and change your WIFI state * Access and modify your accounts * Create, listen to, and delete your voicemail * Monitor battery state * Initiate, monitor and terminate phone calls * Create, read, and delete text messages * Listen via your microphone * View via your camera * Monitor VPN connections * Monitor Bluetooth * Monitor body sensors * Install, remove, and administer applications * Read, create or modify all your accounts * Monitor your tasks, initiate new tasks, terminate any task * Read and update your calendar * Record audio and/or video * Download, upload and change, or remove fingerprints * Read and/or update your external storage * Device administration
But it's not like that list should concern you: what, you worry?
"as long as there was an older counterterrorism investigation still open, the court could keep issuing Section 215 orders to phone companies indefinitely for that investigation."
...and since the previous Section 215 had a counterterrorism investigation open that just happened to cover everyone on the planet, well, long live the investigation. The reasoning supporting the investigation might be perverse but, hey, a bootstrap is a bootstrap--and any bootstrap in a storm.
Foreign terrorists are not NSA's primary concern. Oh, maybe they watch them, too; just for giggles.
But all of their legal efforts, all of the laws they've sought, all their reinterpretations of the law that exists, all of the arguments they've made, their strategies for concealing their data sources, and now their outsourcing of data collection to other countries; these all demonstrate the same thing: the NSA's primary concern is U. S. citizens. Ordinary, everyday, U. S. citizens.
I think NSA doesn't care about foreign nationals, because U. S. citizens are the most dangerous enemy, in their view.