Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Border Bouncers Don't Need Big Brother Spying Powers Over Americans

ICE and border patrol agents want access to NSA intel obtained without warrants.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement is reportedly trying to join the network of federal departments that can access warrantless surveillance informationBig BrotherJohn Lund Blend Images/Newscom gathered by the spies at the National Security Agency. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is trying much the same thing.

The prospect of these two law enforcement agencies gaining access to such intelligence should send chills down the spines of illegal immigrants—and all Americans.

The NSA was originally handed extra-constitutional spying tools to keep an eye on foreign threats—not assist in routine law enforcement by domestic agencies. But it hasn't worked out that way. For many years, this spy agency has been sharing all kinds of information with law enforcement. It claimed that it was taking care to scrub out sensitive and private details about innocent Americans. However, since 9/11, it has come under pressure to abandon even such minimal restraint and share unfiltered information so that law enforcement doesn't miss crucial clues about burgeoning threats.

Instead of resisting these demands, President Barack Obama, a constitutional law professor who should have known better, threw open the NSA's entire treasure trove of secret information to 16 agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

However, he pointedly left out immigration enforcement agencies like ICE and CBP. But in Donald Trump, the duo has a simpatico president, which is why they have renewed their quest to join the spy community.

If President Trump obliges, what information will these agencies obtain?

The NSA employs tools of mass surveillance that, in theory, it is supposed to use only on foreigners outside the country. But the reality is very different, if for no other reason than we live in a digital world where information flows seamlessly across borders.

Americans who correspond with any foreigner that the NSA is watching instantly become fair game. Their information is secured on servers abroad that the agency routinely taps. Emails, text messages, and vast amounts of internet data are vacuumed in. The NSA has targeted entire Yahoo and Google data centers abroad, all of which contain communication by Americans. It also intercepts and archives every cell phone call to and from the Bahamas and other Caribbean countries. It gathers millions of text messages in global information sweeps. This is not just metadata, but actual content. The NSA listens in on and records phone conversations, reads and downloads text messages, hacks into emails and copies exchanges. (In one instance, NSA agents were amusing themselves by listening to recorded conversations of Americans engaged in phone sex.)

Nor does this information just sit there in untouched archives. The NSA has powerful search engines to rifle through its databases to dig up information about any American for any reason without ever obtaining a court order, basically eviscerating the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal searches and seizures. Some agents have even used these tools to spy on their exes.

The NSA gets the legal authority for such activity from Section 702 of the recently reauthorized FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) that has nominal congressional oversight but no judicial check —and the notorious Reagan-era Executive Order 12333 that has neither. In other words, the order uses executive authority to give an executive agency unchecked spying powers.

Handing ICE and CBP, which have vast powers to track the physical movements of people in America, unfiltered access to this massive surveillance would be problematic under any circumstances. But it is especially so when these agencies are expanding their own internal spying capacities in the name of interior enforcement.

Last month, ICE signed up with Vigilant Solutions to access license plate databases that the company has created by taking pictures of unsuspecting vehicles on toll roads, parking lots, and other public places. This will give ICE the means to do near real-time tracking of targets suspecting of breaking immigration laws, especially since the Supreme Court has not outlawed remote warrantless GPS surveillance that doesn't require it to plant physical device on vehicles.

Meanwhile, CBP is in the process of creating facial recognition technology that will essentially turn people's faces into their papers. This will mean enhanced tracking of foreigners and citizens any time they go in and out of the country. But border patrol also has near carte blanche to set up interior checkpoints and stop buses and vehicles within 100 miles of the border. This is a huge swathe of land: Two-thirds of Americans live there. So every time anyone—American or not—passes through these checkpoints, their movements will be potentially scanned and recorded.

If ICE and CBP gain access to the NSA's surveillance and combine it with their own spying capacities, they will literally obtain Big Brother-style powers to track and monitor almost anyone on U.S. soil. And they will be able to use this information to detain, arrest, and go after people in other ways. This should be terrifying to all of us.

This column originally appeared in The Week

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If there's a real wolf here, don't blame the townspeople if they don't come running anymore.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    ^^^

  • loveconstitution1789||

    We need illegals bounced out of the USA and unconstitutional domestic spying ended.

    Shikha does not cover the actual ICE raids and describes what is going on. The media that does seems to show that ICE is raiding known havens for illegals and issue notices to provide paperwork on employees within "x" number of days based on current immigration law.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Securing the border might help with both, too.

    If there were fewer people coming in illegally, there might be less rationale for internal surveillance.

    If there were fewer people coming in illegally, there might be fewer people to bounce out in the future.

    If there were fewer people coming in illegally, there might be more pressure to allow more legal immigration.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Another reason that I want the border as secure as we can make it and get our immigration policy straightened out so the people pushing eVerify and National IDs get chopped at the knees.

    These people have been playing both sides. They're using an American feeling of our immigration laws being ignored as an excuse to expand tagging Americans that America rejected before. The social security number is all tied into that as a way to tag Americans too.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Another way to accomplish that is to advocate for less restrictive immigration policies. That way you get the free migration of people that you clearly want plus a secure border because people will have no incentive to cross illegally.

    Then you can point out that immigrants aren't causing any problems that eVerify and National ID will solve, and voila.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maybe after deporting every illegal that can be found and making sure everyone knows that Americans decide what immigration policy is, not non-Americans.

    The easiest way to have Americans go back to being okay with fairly open immigration is to stop attacking Americans for wanting to control their borders and have that sense of security.

    Its like telling property owners they have no say on whom or what happens on their property, it makes them defensive and pissed off.

  • chemjeff||

    "Maybe after deporting every illegal that can be found"

    How are you going to find them all without some sort of identity verification system?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    They go on tv and say that they are illegals.

    When they try and reenter the USA with a border wall.

    Audit every company that is known to violate the law for tax evasion relating to hiring illegals.

    Give rewards for people turning in the criminals. Crimestoppers and put illegals on there.

    There are numerous constitutional ways to find illegals.

  • Agammamon||

    Almost no company that hires illegals is evading taxes - they are still withholding against that worker's SSN. The SSN may belong to someone else and is being used by 500 guys named 'Juan Valdez' - but the proper tax is still being paid.

    The reason for eVerify is because a lot of companies wouldn't put up any effort to crosscheck - if they even had the capability - not because of under-the-table hiring.

    If anyone's getting fired off the books in the US, its citizens on welfare that are looking for extra money but dealing with the 'welfare cliff' they run into when they start working.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    When someone in my town tells a neighbor he's looking for some quick work, the first thing the neighbor asks is whether the work should be under the table or over the table.

  • Kivlor||

    Give rewards for people turning in the criminals. Crimestoppers and put illegals on there.

    I'm as far right, nativist, anti-immigrant as you can get, but I don't think I'd advocate that. Rewarding people for turning someone in... this seems like a great way to overload the system with false claims in hopes of payment and simultaneously create perverse incentives to try to harm innocent people that a malicious actor just plain doesn't like.

    Look at the abuses in similar programs like asset forfeiture, where you get a percent of the spoils, and the accused gets denied their constitutional rights.

  • chemjeff||

    Well I never thought I would agree with Kivlor on something, but I do, turning citizens into Stasi and having them turn in their brown neighbors who "look like" illegal immigrants is a very bad idea.

    But eventually Kivlor and others will come around to that idea, if for no other reason than on purely utilitarian grounds.

  • BYODB||


    But eventually Kivlor and others will come around to that idea, if for no other reason than on purely utilitarian grounds.


    I wouldn't be so sure of that since you would need to demonstrate feasibility, cost, and effectiveness for such a program to be warmly received on utilitarian grounds. If it doesn't work, utilitarian arguments don't apply kiddo.

  • chemjeff||

    Well in the border restrictionist bubble, the cost of illegal immigration is wildly inflated. So I would expect them in the end to conclude that the cost of turning citizens into Stasi is worth the benefit of eliminating the "yuuge costs" of illegal immigration.

  • BYODB||

    And in the open borders bubble, illegal immigrants are more noble than Americans in virtually every metric yet there is very little evidence that genetics makes one people morally superior over another.

    Both sides seem to inherently ignore utilitarian arguments. Probably because the system we have now is actually utilitarian.

  • Kivlor||

    But eventually Kivlor and others will come around to that idea, if for no other reason than on purely utilitarian grounds.

    what it would take for me to come around on that would be a shift in my values. Not impossible, but unlikely. I think we should be shipping the immigrants out, but that has to be weighed against other things.

    I want to reassert and advance my values and those we were founded on. doing that comes with a cost. This would utterly destroy those values, or at least pave the way for their ultimate destruction. that's a price I am not willing to pay

  • BYODB||

    'Less restrictive' meaning that a million a year isn't enough?

  • chemjeff||

    "Another reason that I want the border as secure as we can make it and get our immigration policy straightened out so the people pushing eVerify and National IDs get chopped at the knees."

    You can't have it both ways. If you start with the premise that only individuals who have government permission are allowed to be here, then it follows that individuals will have to show proof of said government permission when requested.

    Yours is basically the position of those who oppose voter IDs. They evidently want "secure elections" but they don't want voters to have to prove their identity. Well, you can't have secure elections without some voter identity verification system. You can't have strict border controls without systems like a National ID.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    You can't have it both ways. If you start with the premise that only individuals who have government permission are allowed to be here, then it follows that individuals will have to show proof of said government permission when requested.

    And that hasn't happened, yet. Alien Residents have been required to have their green cards them (at all times) since the late 30s, but so far I still don't need to carry my ID with me everywhere I go.

  • chemjeff||

    Well according to the border restrictionist crowd, the laws aren't really enforced anyway. So the only reason you aren't hassled for your papers is because, evidently, no one is bothering to check anyone's papers.

    It is no secret that it's the restrictionists who are pushing for things like National ID and mandatory e-Verify.

  • Agammamon||

    You guys don't get it.

    A 'secure' border will *require eVerify and national ID - because a secure border does not stop at the border.

    Once you have your wall then you'll need to line it with guns. Once you've done that then you'll need to divide the interior up. eVerify, National ID, internal passports - all those are going to become mandatory.

    Its sort of like communists who insist that if you keep increasing the power of the state eventually the state will magically disappear.

  • Agammamon||

    In the end, the question is 'what's worse'?

    My opinion on this is that its like drug prohibition - or any prohibition - the stuff that needs to be done to make it 'work' ends up being worse than the problem its intended to stop.

    I'd rather deal with the problems brought on by a large amount of illegal immigration than the problems brought on by giving the state the tools and privileges it needs to 'secure the border'.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Yeah, I'm willing to put up with a few more years of strict border enforcement. The segments of America that benefited from illegal immigration did very little to advocate for more legal immigration. Perhaps the prospect of strict immigration law enforcement will finally create the pressure necessary to make our legal immigration system quicker and more generous.

  • Longtobefree||

    Yawn. Nothing new here.
    The feds have always wanted to spy on everyone.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yes, but this time it's about immigration.

    IMMIGRATION!!!

    . . . and that changes everything.

  • BYODB||

    That does seem to be the argument, which is...unusual given that it's arguably a program aimed at foreign nationals in the first place (although functionally, it spies on everyone). I'm against it in either case, but it's an unusual argument for getting rid of it for sure.

    Fact: If American's don't give a shit that they are being spied on, they don't give a shit if illegal aliens are spied on.

  • Juice||

    I was once at a conference hosted by "the government" and a guy who was a director of whatever at "the government" was speaking and he said that he would love it if they could know where everyone is at all times and what they are doing at that moment. That was his ideal situation, he said.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Libertarian Axiom #1: Any expansion of government surveillance and police power is justified so long as it prevents one person from getting a job without express government permission.

  • Libertymike||

    Libertarian Axiom #2:

    Panopticians gonna use the panopticon.

  • Jerryskids||

    Thanks, Obama! He's the one who, on his way out the door, threw open the NSA vault doors to a bunch of other federal law-enforcement agencies to go rummaging around in the raw data on fishing expeditions. Why did he do that? There's a theory that he was ejecting chaff like a jet fighter with a missile on its tail - any leaks and misuse of the data is easier tracked if there's only a few people with access to the data, open it up to everybody and their brother and it makes it much tougher to track down the guilty party. My guess is that Obama himself has second-hand access to that data through an obedient mole or two somewhere within the DoJ. Hillary has even more moles on the payroll.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Do they have secret access terminals in the basement of Comet Ping Pong, or is that just where the servers are located?

  • damikesc||

    Also, in what universe was he a professor? He was a lecturer. I know UC tried to claim he "really" was, but he turned down the offer.

  • chemjeff||

    https://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

    From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Interesting that people who supposedly study the law and the Constitution enter politics and then openly disregard the Constitution and the law.

  • Longtobefree||

    To quote almost every military member ever, "Know the enemy".

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Obama never could resist the communist call.

  • Rhywun||

    He enjoyed lecturing so much he decided to pursue it on a somewhat larger scale for eight more years.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Obama also worked with his cabinet people to convert thousands of appointees across several federal departments from appointees to federal GS employees so Trump couldn't get rid of them. Now they still do the bidding of their progressive masters.

  • DajjaI||

    If we really want to make America safe again, we need to deport PSYCHIATRISTS to wherever they came from. Or at least to Mexico and let them find their way back home themselves. And build a wall so they can't get back in.

    Now see, the key is to target just ONE group. Are you listening, Mr President?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    No, just deport all the progressives. Then we can keep the illegals.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I think deporting psychiatrists is a great idea. What type of person decides to go through nearly a decade of college and residency to get a license from the state to alter other people's brains with chemicals, forcibly if necessary?

  • JoeBlow123||

    This article is littered with untruths and lies.

    It is troubling that governments, corporations, groups, people, etc. can track everything you do electronically. That does not mean the NSA is rifiling through all your electronic correspondences or holding it in some giant server so they can look through it later. It is illegal to do this, this is hammered into peoples heads the first time you get a clearance and access to information.

    What exactly is notorious about EO 12333? EO 12333 defines what is an American and what can be collected on what and by who, namely that it is illegal to collect on Americans or American corporations.

    NSA needs to be watched over just as we need to keep track of new technological developments to make sure we are not opening ourselves up to constant surveillance by the government. That being said, making up bullshit stories open nonexistent powers of the NSA does not help.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Procedures For The Availability Or Dissemination Of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the NSA
    Section V - Retention / Point C. / Pg. 10

    "Domestic communications inadvertently retrieved during the selection of foreign communications will be promptly destroyed upon recognition unless the Attorney General determines that the contents indicate a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person."

    Same in Point D. / Pg. 11

    Communications between U.S. persons are to be destroyed unless it has intel or counterintel threat, must be approved by Director NSA or there is evidence of a crime or threat of death.

    There are abuses that happen but the hyperventilating about NSA domestic spying is a bit much. You can either have the NSA do its job and spy on the internet and make sure they do not spy on US persons through strict enforcement with the caveat that some scumbags will exploit the system or say the NSA will not spy on anyone at all and their will be no exploitation of a system because it does not exist. Pick your poison.

  • chemjeff||

    "the NSA will not spy on anyone at all and their will be no exploitation of a system because it does not exist."

    I pick this option.

  • JoeBlow123||

    This is a fair choice. It does have downsides though as the NSA does a ton of good work. It would leave us blind to a big, fat, chunk of information that we are pretty good at exploiting and that everyone else and their mother would be exploiting. We have to remember that the primary customer of the NSA is the military and high up strategic decision makers, they would be the ones supremely hardest hit.

    If you want to make that choice though it is your choice. I personally do not.

  • Agammamon||

    What good work?

    What has the NSA prevented?

  • JoeBlow123||

    I will use an analogy to explain my understanding of the NSA. Let us say you are in a chess match with an equally matched opponent. It would sure help a lot if you knew the moves he was planning to make 2 to 3 moves from now, which moves he would see if you moved your rook here. This would probably help you win the match all else being equal.

    This is what the NSA provides, they provide vision, provide an information advantage. It may be cheating in chess, but it certainly is not between nations or nonstate entities like terrorist groups.

  • Agammamon||

    That's what it is *supposed* to provide.

    There is no evidence *at all* that it actually provides that. From what I've seen, from its inception, there's been no time the NSA has provided information useful enough to allow us to stay one step ahead of anyone. Not even cave dwellers in Afghanistan.

    And then there's the whole 'the Constitution doesn't give the government the privilege of violating human rights'. Things like the right to privacy are human rights and do not go missing because someone was born in another country.

  • Agammamon||

    That's what it is *supposed* to provide.

    There is no evidence *at all* that it actually provides that. From what I've seen, from its inception, there's been no time the NSA has provided information useful enough to allow us to stay one step ahead of anyone. Not even cave dwellers in Afghanistan.

    And then there's the whole 'the Constitution doesn't give the government the privilege of violating human rights'. Things like the right to privacy are human rights and do not go missing because someone was born in another country.

  • JoeBlow123||

    Intelligence work is always greeted with a double edged sword, similar to the way people think of IT things. No one cares how your computer works or how your email works as long as you can access it, but by God help the dude in the call center when it is not working. No one pays any attention to intelligence when it is working, it is only the massive fuckups that are publicized. Also intelligence a lot of the time is not necessarily predictive, it is noting trends and regular behavior so irregular behavior can be highlighted when it happens. Also I am not sure it is possible to isolate the role intelligence plays either, but I feel pretty confident saying it is pretty important in every single decision made by higher ups both in business and government. No one likes playing blind.

    Also the Constitution does not safeguard the rights of all humanity, it safeguards the rights of American citizens.

  • BYODB||


    Communications between U.S. persons are to be destroyed unless it has intel or counterintel threat, must be approved by Director NSA or there is evidence of a crime or threat of death.


    I see they left themselves a pretty gaping and subjective hole there to drive their surveillance vans through.

  • chemjeff||

    Climate change is a national security threat, don't you know? Citizen! Put down that SUV!

  • BYODB||

    Exactly. That 'limitation' is basically no limit at all.

    Consider that the use of Stringray interceptors is almost certainly more widespread than anyone is actually reporting, and we're not even positive if they need a warrant to use them.

  • Agammamon||

    You can either have the NSA do its job and spy on the internet and make sure they do not spy on US persons through strict enforcement with the caveat that some scumbags will exploit the system or say the NSA will not spy on anyone at all and their will be no exploitation of a system because it does not exist. Pick your poison.

    1. Who made it the NSA's job to spy on the internet? Because from what I'm seeing its something the NSA just decided to do on their own.

    2. And since it is physically impossible to do the first thing, I'll pick the latter - disband the NSA.

  • JoeBlow123||

    I see all of your guys arguments, but I do not find the possibility of abuse to outweigh the gain of the NSA. You want to limit their activities to purely foreign entities, sure, I think that is more than reasonable. But to do away with the NSA completely seems irresponsible in my opinion. I still have a reasonable trust in the government even if you have none.

    There are boatloads of laws and regulations on protection of American civil liberties, if you do not trust these laws and the people working at the NSA to stick to these laws, that essentially laws are paper and nothing more, then I believe the logical conclusion of this line of thinking is anarchy. If that is what you advocate that is fantastic, but I do trust our system even though sometimes it needs a kick in the nuts to get it back in line.

  • Verbum Vincet||

    Senator Church didn't trust them:

    [NSA's] capability...could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything—there would be no place to hide.
    If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

    I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return!
    ------
    Considering Senator Church said this 50 years ago when NSA and CIA were being investigated for egregious abuses and outright criminality, I look around and don't have much faith things have improved. Look at what leaks have revealed. Do you really want to wager that NSA isn't storing everything? I held TS/SCI in the military, and I don't trust them!

  • Agammamon||

    I see all of your guys arguments, but I do not find the possibility of abuse to outweigh the gain of the NSA.

    Not even having the DNI lie about the illegal activities the NSA was involved in?

  • JoeBlow123||

    NSA could do everything you are talking about. What exactly stops them? Laws and the humanity of the people working there. I think some of you guys seriously underrate the quality of people we have in the United States on many different levels. There is not an army of communists/fascists running around willing to subvert the Constitution that are all keeping their mouths shut about egregious abuses by the NSA.

    And yes I would wager the NSA is not storing everything. One, because it is illegal and two because too much data is sent every single day.

    " One way to estimate the communication capacity of the Internet is to measure the traffic moving through it. According to Cisco's Visual Networking Index initiative, the Internet is now in the "zettabyte era." A zettabyte equals 1 sextillion bytes, or 1,000 exabytes. By the end of 2016, global Internet traffic will reach 1.1 zettabytes per year, according to Cisco, and by 2019, global traffic is expected to hit 2 zettabytes per year.

    One zettabyte is the equivalent of 36,000 years of high-definition video, which, in turn, is the equivalent of streaming Netflix's entire catalog 3,177 times, Thomas Barnett Jr., Cisco's director of thought leadership, wrote in a 2011 blog post about the company's findings."

  • Agammamon||

    It is illegal to do this, this is hammered into peoples heads the first time you get a clearance and access to information.

    1. It is illegal for *you* to do this. Its not illegal for higher ranked people if they don't get caught.

    2. It still happens. From the city to the Federal level. Hell, a few years back a bunch of these guys got reprimanded for looking up info on girlfriends.

  • Kivlor||

    It is illegal for *you* to do this. Its not illegal for higher ranked people if they don't get caught.

    So it's illegal for the higher up people too, right?

    That said, I'm all for eliminating the NSA. The idea that this won't happen because it is illegal for them to do it is like saying "murders won't happen because it's illegal to murder people."

  • Agammamon||

    Apparently not.

    Clapper isn't under investigation.

    Clinton isn't.

    Some Representative got caught taking classified documents out of a secure area *in his trousers* - didn't even get a slap on the wrist.

  • BYODB||

    That's the thing, if the person breaking the law is literally law enforcements boss what do we expect to happen?

    Well, nothing. And that's what happens.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "This article is littered with untruths and lies."

    Which are expected hallmarks of every article Shikha writes.

  • Mark22||

    Instead of resisting these demands, President Barack Obama, a constitutional law professor who should have known better, threw open the NSA's entire treasure trove of secret information to 16 agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. However, he pointedly left out immigration enforcement agencies like ICE and CBP. But in Donald Trump, the duo has a simpatico president, which is why they have renewed their quest to join the spy community.

    This is what Reason has become: Reason tolerates spying on American citizens for pretty much everything other than immigration enforcement. I guess when Obama does it it's OK (according to Reason), and when Trump does it it's not.

  • Agammamon||

    wat?

    Reason does not tolerate spying on Americans *for any reason* - immigration enforcement is just a NEW front on this fight.

  • BYODB||

    A new front that is even more unwinnable as we have conclusive evidence that American's don't seem to have much problem with domestic spying.

    The idea they would care more about spying on foreign nationals is perhaps the most dumbfuck thing I've read here at Reason.

  • Mark22||

    The idea they would care more about spying on foreign nationals is perhaps the most dumbfuck thing I've read here at Reason.

    And that's what tells you that this whole article isn't really about Reason's opposition to spying, but just another stupid, roundabout "open borders good, Trump bad" article.

  • chemjeff||

    Reason tolerates spying on American citizens for pretty much everything other than immigration enforcement.

    Yeah because Reason has such a solid history of supporting domestic spying in every other context. /sarc

  • chemjeff||

    Reason tolerates spying on American citizens for pretty much everything other than immigration enforcement.

    Yeah because Reason has such a solid history of supporting domestic spying in every other context. /sarc

  • chemjeff||

    And they evidently support squirrels.

  • Kivlor||

    Reason's support for the squirrels has long been noted.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    The squirrels tolerate Reason's existence. As long as Reason doesn't cross the squirrels.......

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r6oCsAjM1dg

  • Mark22||

    Yeah because Reason has such a solid history of supporting domestic spying in every other context. /sarc

    Oh, please, opposing domestic spying is fashionable; even Obama opposed it, before he actually implemented more of it. And that's pretty much the way Reason writers behave: they simply say what they think people want to hear.

  • m.EK||

    I'm confused again!!
    When did we forgo the warrant process? Isn't the NSA a governmental agency (overseen by the cabal, admittedly), that is required by the 4th Amendment to get a warrant to spy in America?
    Do we really believe that legislation can over-ride the Constitutional Amendments???

    Do You?

  • Heddin_South||

    The NSA could be great at keeping this country safe from foreign enemies. It's the FBI office inside the NSA building (and in FBI field offices too) that has unfettered access to raw NSA intercepts, using powerful NSA search software, that gives me the willies.

  • ||

    I have been in a long distance marriage because of the nature of my job, My wife cheated on me times without number but since I wasn't around to get her caught in the act I decided to hack my wife cell phone to get all the data activities on her cell. I got in contact with (mastershield55@gmail.com) through the head of the IT department in my workplace. According to him,this hacker is the best in the game right now. After I got in contact with him,we made a deal and i paid him. In 24hours,I got access to my wife's cell phone activities,I don't know how he did it but it looked like magic. You can also text/call him via +1(321) 999 3583 .

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online