quantumavs

Hi, Anthony, thanks for taking our questions.

Why doesn't the ACLU defend an interpretation of the Second Amendment that protects an individual's right to bear arms?

Hi Chris,

On a CNN interview in May, a former FBI counter-terrorism expert said that the government could access the contents of a phone call between Tamerlan Tzsarnaev and his wife -- a call that had occurred in April. Do you have any idea what technical and legal mechanisms they would use to pull that content?

Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1305/01/ebo.01.html

Relevant section:

"BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

Hi everyone, thanks for taking our questions!

It seems to me that an expansive, 'dragnet' ALPR program that doesn't require warrants would be very useful in stemming criminal activity. That said, I understand that unchecked use of surveillance devices like ALPRs can be abused (like if a police station starts harassing people whose presence it recorded at a political protest).

Given those comments, my questions are: should we reject the 'legal warrant-less' use of ALPRs wholesale? Why can't we just deal with abuse post hoc, if it happens?