> this is just a new instance of an age old problem.
The issue of limiting state force is extremely old but it is entirely a solved problem. It was solved by warrants, given by judges, and policy scrutinized by the public and constitutional limitations on executive power. Aka civilian oversight. The issue is that these agencies are operating in total secrecy, with their own rubber-stamp courts for domestic surveillance and absolutely zero oversight if the targets are foreign.
People try to frame this as a technology problem. Technology creating new opportunities and everyone (even the state) was caught off guard and our legal/political system was ill prepared for it. But thats not true. The entire growth of SIGINT was on the basis of the government utilizing state secrecy laws more often than ever in history. Entirely bypassing any scrutiny or limitations.
The issue of limiting state force is extremely old but it is entirely a solved problem. It was solved by warrants, given by judges, and policy scrutinized by the public and constitutional limitations on executive power. Aka civilian oversight. The issue is that these agencies are operating in total secrecy, with their own rubber-stamp courts for domestic surveillance and absolutely zero oversight if the targets are foreign.
People try to frame this as a technology problem. Technology creating new opportunities and everyone (even the state) was caught off guard and our legal/political system was ill prepared for it. But thats not true. The entire growth of SIGINT was on the basis of the government utilizing state secrecy laws more often than ever in history. Entirely bypassing any scrutiny or limitations.