I wasn't aware that was the only option. I wonder if there are any nations out there which are able to conduct investigations in accordance with the law, but without tipping off those being investigated?
I'm completely oblivious to non-US law, but I think, in general, you cannot both have your cake and eat it. As far as I can see it, there are two choices:
* Publish the standards and practices of the government. Lawbreakers know what to avoid, ala Denmark.
* Keep the S&P secret. The law-abiding populace has no say in the rule of law, ala the US.
I'd love if there was some middle ground here, but I think there is none. In direct response to your question, it could be argued that the US's actions (specifically, the interception and storage of telecommuniques by government entities) have been completely in accordance with the law, though I won't be the one to make the argument.
Well the middle ground (and what the U.S. does) is to publish the general standards and practices specifying what the government is to do in law, and then leaving the how secret.
E.g. the FBI is given authority to wiretap with a warrant, telecom providers are ordered to make it possible to comply with such warrants, but it's left up to the FBI and telecom providers to figure out the actual operational details.
This is, after all, why people were protesting against PATRIOT ACT, FISA Amendments Act, etc., was because they were worded to permit activities much like (if not exactly like) were revealed by Snowden.
For the non-foreign surveillance things (like DEA's "SOD") I'm not so sure they're fully legal, but if they are illegal they'd still be just as illegal under a general law as they would be under detailed S&P.
I agree with you in large part, but I do believe Snowden's revelations show government conduct that is far beyond a reasonable reading of Patriot, FISA, etc. Things like the "three hops rule" don't even pass the laugh test.
Man, even 'three hops rule' is one of those things where I have to say, "if you guys only knew...".
The normal judicial discovery process itself can encompass far more needless data than even '3 hops' and few people would bat an eye, because the assumption is that the investigators are sifting through the data to find the evidence instead of just capturing everything to use for nefarious deeds afterward.
Given the stated purpose of that search it even makes sense: To find connections between terrorists in cells that are directly connected you would need 1 hop, for cells directly connected through only 1 intermediary you would need 2 hops, etc.
So if you're willing to limit yourself to discovering connections between cells that directly share a connection to a given other cell then 2 hops would be fine. But somehow I don't think that's the most prudent means of uncovering connections between terrorist groups and their ongoing recruits.
