“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.”
-Thomas Paine, ‘Common Sense’
The Fourth Amendment, on its face, no matter what sophistry government lawyers offer to the contrary to subvert it, is unambiguous in the constraints it places on law enforcement:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
-United States Constitution, Fourth Amendment
Unfortunately, the ease with which the government now enjoys the ability to surreptitiously, without meaningful oversight or the knowledge of the mark, stock large amounts of highly personal information on American citizens — which, unlike the physical search of a residence, for example, are not easily documented by watchdogs — complicates that ability to restrain the government, which, by its nature, as is the case for any human organization, as the Founders warned, is constantly interested in expanding its powers and authorities.
Related: German Minister Announces Pre-Crime Surveillance, Prosecution of ‘Far-Right Extremists’
From the transcript:
“Wyden:
Fine. Director Patel, a question for you. In 2023, your predecessor testified that, and I quote, “To my knowledge, we do not currently purchase commercial database information that includes location data derived from internet advertising.” Is that the case still? And if so, can you commit this morning to not buying Americans’ location data?
Patel:
Thank you. The FBI uses all tools, Senator, thank you for the question, to do our mission. We do purchase commercially available information that’s consistent with the Constitution and the laws, under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. And it has led to some valuable intelligence for us to be utilized with our private and partner sectors.
Wyden:
So, you’re saying that the agency will buy Americans’ location data. I believe that that’s what you’ve said in kind of intelligence lingo. And I just want to say, as we start this debate, doing that without a warrant is an outrageous end run around the Fourth Amendment. It’s particularly dangerous, given the use of artificial intelligence to comb through massive amounts of private information.”
Related: AG Pam Bondi Vows Federal Crackdown on ‘Hate Speech’
The justification by which the government permits itself to scrape mass reams of data on Americans not under official investigation for any crime is a crafty legal fiction called “third-party doctrine,” which permits the government to harvest data that is “voluntarily” (in theory) given to third-party tech firms, thus allegedly circumventing any requirement, as expounded in the Constitution, to obtain any warrants based on probable cause.
Via Notre Dame Law School (emphasis added):
“Today, information is shared almost constantly. People share their DNA to track their ancestry or for individualized health information; they instruct Alexa to purchase products or provide directions; and, now more than ever, they use videoconferencing technology in their homes. According to the third-party doctrine, the government can access all such information without a warrant or without infringing on Fourth Amendment privacy protections. This exposure of vast amounts of highly personal data to government intrusion is permissible because the Supreme Court has interpreted the third-party doctrine as a per se rule.”
Third-party doctrine is a thing of bipartisan consensus among the Swamp, as exemplified in the MSNBC (or MSNOW since the rebrand, whatever; lipstick on a pig) clip below.
Related: MSNBC News Actor, Race Scholar ‘Confront the First Amendment’s Dark History’
The job of this former FBI Executive Assistant Director of the Science and Technology Branch turned MSNBC news actress after her firing in February by Trump, Jacqueline Maguire, is to defend the institution while smearing the political leadership that she opposes (Trump).
She does her job in this segment, attacking Trump and Kash Patel in predictable fashion. However, when her fellow news actress, Katy Tur, broaches the segment of Patel’s testimony above, she suddenly finds herself in complete agreement with the Director’s sentiments as expressed in his testimony.
“Do you see that as a problem?” Tur asks, referencing the FBI using Tech companies to circumvent the Constitution.
“I think the FBI should continue to use all the tools at its disposal as the continue to track down terrorism… I would hope that they’re using every tool, every resource they have,” the Deep State agent replies.
(The “terrorists” she’s referencing here include the traditional white housewives producing TikTok videos about motherhood whom the Biden CIA framed as “domestic terrorists” in its newly released Intelligence Assessment, as I reported on previously.)
Related: TSA Rolls Out ‘Voluntary’ Face Scans at Over a Dozen American Airports
Whereas Republicans — at least the dissident rank-and-file ones who aren’t creatures of Washington, which is to say almost all of Congress and the bureaucracy — during the Trump administration correctly assessed and stated publicly that the entire national security apparatus, especially the career “public servants” in leadership (i.e., the Deep State), is corrupt and needs to be entirely overhauled if not “scattered the to the wind,” as JFK suggested doing with the CIA before he got a hole blown in his head in broad daylight with a magic bullet, the Democrat line, because the party fundamentally loves institutions as a tool for ushering in its aspirational totalitarian technocracy, are only going to criticize Trump but never the institution itself.
Thus the panoptical machine runs on, from administration to administration, ever more capable of exerting totalitarian control.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Thinking Conservative.
