We've expanded the wording of such threats from terrorism and cyber warfare to now cyber crime. While I'm glad we're not weakening terminology for more serious threats, it's concerning that we're now asking for broad partnerships to go after (petty?) crime.
Just like how legislators should be wary of what constitutes a criminal offense, in light of Eric Garner's death and similar tragedies, we should be careful about what we're having the federal government monitor.
And in some respects, I think news of things like PRISM was hard for people to fathom, whereas this will be pretty clear to anyone: the government is watching. And people are already acclimated to this. Eventually the government will be able to argue in court that nothing on the Internet has a reasonable expectation of privacy and that all surveillance is constitutional.
Just like how legislators should be wary of what constitutes a criminal offense, in light of Eric Garner's death and similar tragedies, we should be careful about what we're having the federal government monitor.
And in some respects, I think news of things like PRISM was hard for people to fathom, whereas this will be pretty clear to anyone: the government is watching. And people are already acclimated to this. Eventually the government will be able to argue in court that nothing on the Internet has a reasonable expectation of privacy and that all surveillance is constitutional.