Thanks for proving my point.
You not once called for anything to be done to the FBI, specifically stated they were wrong, or even gave half the venom towards them you did other posters.
All you did was give passing nods to them not being "above the law" while IMMEDIETELY jumping into excusing it and saying why they SHOULD be above the constitution by legalizing this kind of thing.
For example, your last quote has you saying how the right to privacy is important and violating it is bad....and IMMEDIETELY excuse it by saying security is more important.
The one above that you point out no ones above the law, but then you excuse their ACTUAL breaking of the law as simply a "minor" thing despite it being done to a large amount of people and is CLEARLY illegal.
The one above that, again, acknowledges it was law violating, in the midst of completely and utterly justifying and excusing it.
Thanks Apoc, you saved me some time. Your quotes are perfect examples of what little condemnation you had for the FBI, which was half hearted "it was bad" type statements surrounded by excuses, justifications, and rationalizations for why that's completely okay...
But all you posters that disagree with it, clearly you're all planning criminal activites.
There there now, Zyph, let's keep things in proportion;
* I have indeed stated that the action was wrong, unlike what you are claiming here, and my evidence is my previous post above.
* I did not "give any venom" to any of the posters here, the statements you are referring to were done in a cynical manner.
* It
is a minor violation of the freedom to privacy, there's no way going around it - it's only a phone record.
I would have strongly opposed it if the FBI were spying on people with cameras, that is a major violation of the individual's privacy and it is severely wrong.
* What I was proposing was a partial legalization, with an emphasis on partial. I did not propose to completely change the definition of what counts as a violation of the individual's privacy, but only to allow this specific action in a limited form.
So basically what I'm saying here is that the act was wrong, but was contributing, and hence, a partial legalization of the act should be considered.
Since the action was taken at a time when there is a law against it, it was in violation of the law and therefore should receive the appropriate consequences, keeping in mind the seriousness of the violation.
You've pretty much taken things to a completely-different level of severity, as if the FBI were monitoring individuals 24/7 and uploading the videos to you-tube.
