posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:22 PM
A strong comparison dawned on me recently.
If you send mail, are you giving the postal company that information? You are given them the paid task of bringing the information to someone else,
but they don't have a right to the contents of your letters.
Why then does facebook have a right to the information you pay(via adverts) them to digitally bring to another person? If the cops read my mail,
that'd be one thing. If they read my mail and sealed it up so that I couldn't know they had read it, I would strongly disagree.
-
I remember a recent case where, after the fact, the judge admitted not knowing the details before signing the arrest warrant. Judge, implied, though
I don't think directly said, that he wouldn't of signed it if he'd known the details.
Situation with not letting people know, is that even if warrants are used, it gives the judge no incentive to check what they're signing. If gives
the cops no incentive to slow down and gather good evidence first. If you're not getting found out unless you find someone guilty, you don't need
justification for any search because any search unjustified would go unheard of. Plus it's at least polite to let someone know when their privacy is
invaded.
Obviously with some situations, where continued surveillance is necessary, there'd be an exception. The person doesn't need to know right away, but
should still be alerted after the fact even if it doesn't lead to an arrest.