If there is a legitimate threat of someone making nuclear weapons / WMDs, then there is 100% legitimacy for this kind of request - as for the constitutionality, under EU/US/Canada Constitution, it would pass, hands down, without question.
The reason I use the 'nuclear weapon / WMD' argument is because it's fairly extreme, and it's to get people to snap out of the default anti-government/dystopian mindsets to remind us what the law is effectively there for.
While such situations are rare, they do exist, and they demonstrate the length at which we have to go to keep civic order - and very legitimately so.
So it would be 'authoritarian' to conduct such searches when looking for someone not paying their taxes, and definitely unlawful for politicians using this on their opponents.
But it would be 'practical and lawful' in this scenario.
But it's all moot - in reality, if there were a 'real threat' - the National Guard, Police, FBI etc. would be doing full searches of everyone's home, block by block, helicopters, dogs, SWAT Teams, Firemen, the whole thing. There wouldn't even be popular outrage, the ACLU wouldn't be putting up a fuss, everyone would be at home, in fear, watching CNN, until the 'found the guy'.
It's basically false to suggest that warrants or information can't be used legally in pursuit of a crime - it's a knee-jerk reaction I feel by the anarcho/privacy ethos common here on HN.
It entirely depends on the situation - risk, proportionately, oversight, tactics of execution etc..
And it's never perfectly clear, that's why civilization is hard.
> While such situations are rare, they do exist, and they demonstrate the length at which we have to go to keep civic order - and very legitimately so.
No, they don't. Such situations are so rare that society can tolerate their once-in-a-lifetime occurrence.
A rule that applies 100% of the time is much more than 1% better than a rule that applies 99% of the time. Don't open the door even a crack, because someone will get their foot in and add more exceptions, exemptions, and caveats. And as I've said before, exceptions are a leading indicator of corruption.
(Also as other comments point out, there exist plenty of effective policing techniques to solve even these hypothetically dire situations without requiring mass surveillance.)
The reason I use the 'nuclear weapon / WMD' argument is because it's fairly extreme, and it's to get people to snap out of the default anti-government/dystopian mindsets to remind us what the law is effectively there for.
While such situations are rare, they do exist, and they demonstrate the length at which we have to go to keep civic order - and very legitimately so.
So it would be 'authoritarian' to conduct such searches when looking for someone not paying their taxes, and definitely unlawful for politicians using this on their opponents.
But it would be 'practical and lawful' in this scenario.
But it's all moot - in reality, if there were a 'real threat' - the National Guard, Police, FBI etc. would be doing full searches of everyone's home, block by block, helicopters, dogs, SWAT Teams, Firemen, the whole thing. There wouldn't even be popular outrage, the ACLU wouldn't be putting up a fuss, everyone would be at home, in fear, watching CNN, until the 'found the guy'.
It's basically false to suggest that warrants or information can't be used legally in pursuit of a crime - it's a knee-jerk reaction I feel by the anarcho/privacy ethos common here on HN.
It entirely depends on the situation - risk, proportionately, oversight, tactics of execution etc..
And it's never perfectly clear, that's why civilization is hard.