>I see a problem with collecting information without probable cause or a warrant.
>I do not see the problem with convicting individuals who are committing crimes regardless of how that information was collected...
The second case is not possible without making an exception to the first, which then leads to the selective application of fundamental rights and that is paradoxical.
Mass surveilance will undoubtedly unearth crimes that would not otherwise come under suspicion in a free society. By definition, the surveilance will also target those who have commmited no crimes. The question is whether that risk is worth it. The Fourth amendment says no. Making exceptions for certain classes of people (even if probable criminals) is just a slippery slope.
I interpreted it as meaning that btipling does not like such information collection but as long as they're doing it, any criminals they catch should still be prosecuted anyway. I think this is a terrible idea, but there seem to be many out there who do not consider the consequences and think that people should be put in prison regardless of any potential police actions that got them there.
>I see a problem with collecting information without probable cause or a warrant.
>I do not see the problem with convicting individuals who are committing crimes regardless of how that information was collected...
The second case is not possible without making an exception to the first, which then leads to the selective application of fundamental rights and that is paradoxical.
Mass surveilance will undoubtedly unearth crimes that would not otherwise come under suspicion in a free society. By definition, the surveilance will also target those who have commmited no crimes. The question is whether that risk is worth it. The Fourth amendment says no. Making exceptions for certain classes of people (even if probable criminals) is just a slippery slope.