The precedent created is the single biggest reason why the NSAs warrantless collection of information should have been so concerning to Americans. If the NSA and similarly situated 3-letter agencies are allowed to do it, then the facts dictate that local law enforcement should be far more able to do the same thing: crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of local law enforcement are far more prevalent and result in far greater loss of life and property than those under the jurisdiction of national defense forces. Further, local law enforcement are subject to far more localized political control (its a lot easier to vote out your mayor, sheriff, or even state governor for overreaches of power than it is to vote out the president or congressional committees), so the danger of abuse and inefficient use is, at least theoretically, more mitigated at the local level. Simply put, both the state interest and institutional protections of individual liberty and privacy rights are more in favor of use by local law enforcement than by the NSA. But not only is such use blatantly unconstitutional, it also results in very inefficient police work, resulting in greater loss of public resources and more crime, and thereby results in higher taxes and greater risk to the safety of law enforcement, which to all sane people are bad things. And lest you try to dismiss that argument as some sort of mere theoretical slippery slope: youtube/watch?v=L3GyxLuArDY
Posted on: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 13:30:28 +0000