Here in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), they saves lives. People are afraid to go out to drink driving and lost the car (with stay with the police) and the driver's license (1-year without the license and have to go through all the classes to get the license again) plus a fine of R$1,915.65(around US$980).
It works here, a lot of people are preferring a cab over the car to go out to places they know they will drink.
If he did indeed see the plane, it's good for everyone involved. People can take his observation, calculate likely final trajectories for the plane, and radically narrow the search area. That would at least help recover the black box, and might even give any (admittedly unlikely) survivors what could well be their last chance for rescue.
As the Aussies and, I believe, the Kiwis say, "Good on him."
I'm reminded of a scene in The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys, with Kieran Culkin and Emile Hirsch. (Great movie, btw.) Minor spoilers:
The boys are riding their bicycles along a country road, and happen upon a dog that's been struck by a passing vehicle, and is dying. Hirsch's character, Francis, says (paraphrased), "Someone needs to come for it. They need to do something." Tim, played by Culkin, responds, "There is no 'they'. We are they."
What always stuck with me was the end: "No one was coming for this dog, I hope you realize that. Nobody around here, no one who passed it, not even the guy who hit it. I hope you realize that. Don't you ever tell me to get real. I know what fucking real is, okay?"
And that symbol is called 'ampersand' but originally was just 'and'. The alphabet song used to include it at the end (w, x, y and z, and per se 'and'). So 'ampersand' is supposed to be a corruption much like 'Saint Nicholas' turned into 'Santa Claus'. Or is this apocryphal?
Well, she's not just complaining about inter-branch stuff.
> And she said that the CIA appears to have violated the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as various federal laws and a presidential executive order that prevents the agency from conducting domestic searches and surveillance.
Possibly because she felt that there was some level of oversight. If she believes that the CIA are intimidating the people meant to be providing that oversight you can see how that might change someone's view of such things.
The CIA (part of the executive branch) isn't allowed to interfere in a congressional investigation. In that sense, yes, this is very different than any of the fourth amendment debate that has been going here. Quoting the Feinstein transcript:
Based on what Director Brennan has informed us, I have grave concerns that the CIA's search may well have violated the separation of powers principle embodied in the United States Constitution, including the speech and debate clause. It may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function.
Separation of powers? Is Feinstein now supporting states rights? Advocating a limited executive? A reasonable interpretation of the interstate commerce clause?
Jesus, this thing is like a hypocrisy onion, you peel back unreasonable search and seizure only to find, separation of powers, what more could this hold? I have a feeling by the end of this Feinstein is going to sound like a libertarian for a week before the constitution interferes with some power she wants and tosses it aside again.
IT looks like this genuine misconduct on the part of a paranoid intelligence agency trying to cover themselves from an investigation. This is what many allege the NSA was doing w/ bulk collection- individual people actively snooping around.
W/ the NSA program, you're just a row in a database, if you're not a terrorist* and do not associate with terrorists nobody has time to give rat's ass about what you're doing unless one can relate you to another suspicious character. That's national security stuff, sorry if ya don't like it, but tough.
THIS is different. This is real domestic spying by spies.
*"But how do we define terrorism, isn't one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter wahhhh" -Tsarnaevs & people like them? Those are terrorists. Bad guys, got it?
"W/ the NSA program, you're just a row in a database, if you're not a terrorist* or associate with terrorists nobody gives rat's ass about what you're doing unless one can relate you to another suspicious character. That's national security stuff, sorry if ya don't like it, but tough."
This "if you are not a terrorist don't worry" reasoning is flawed. GCHQ was capturing all Yahoo! webcams. That's not anti-terrorism, that's fodder for blackmail. You also don't surveil WoW to find terrorists. The Snowden leaks have shown many projects that have nothing to do with "national security", but if you say those magic words nobody can oversee what you're doing.
The CIA, NSA should be disbanded and replaced with new institutions. Those institutions should have limited scope and much tighter oversight.
That doesn't make it different. An important reason for (ignored) prohibitions against what the NSA is doing is because of the possibility of misconduct. We must expect that, because it's humans running these programs, they will behave as humans.
So it's incorrect to say that we should view the violations as separate from the programs themselves. It's all part of the same discussion, which must include weighing what might go wrong, and the damage that it might do.
W/ the NSA program, you're just a row in a database,...
Which vastly multiplies both the opportunity for malfeasance, and the potential scope of damage that would result from it.
UPDATE: to whoever downvoted the parent, I don't think that's correct. Although I strongly disagree with its message, it is a common feeling that needs to be addressed. Even if it's wrong, having the comment as part of the discussion is valuable, as it allows us to explore why it's wrong. I have compensated with an upvote of my own.
> An important reason for (ignored) prohibitions against what the NSA is doing is because of the possibility of misconduct.
Not exactly. FISA wasn't adopted because of the abstract possibility of abuse of domestic surveillance, it was adopted because of actual and substantial abuse of domestic surveillance, including for political purposes.
Whats sad is a few years ago I wouldn't believe that our gvt would waste money on combating negative views in online forums, but with your user being created 43 minutes ago and everything they've done so far. I don't put it past them that your account/post is paid for buy our tax dollars in some idiotic effort to change the views of the tech community.