So you're in favor of the government bugging and installing cameras secretly? Because you can't really bug say, Enron's corporate office without a warrant served, and so they'd know they're being watched.
The alternative is breaking and entering. So since retroactive paper trails will be devalued, the government will have to switch to preemptive collection and entrapment scenarios.
I'm not sure this is better for privacy or democracy.
There are far more investigative alternatives than few you have mentioned.
Serving warrants rarely involves "bugs", and warrants are not the only tool available. For example, a judge can order people to produce documents, enforced with the threat of contempt of court. Other witnesses can be found (with any data they bring), and simple observation of public actions can reveal a surprising amount.
> so they'd know they're being watched
So what.
The warrant requirement is intended to be a burden to law enforcement. The entire point is that a civilized and fair society that follows the rule of law prioritizes the restrictions and procedures we call "due process" above the demands and desires of law enforcement.
If letting some criminals walk free is a necessary consequence of the the rights retained by the people, then some crimes go unpunished. Anybody suggesting that we should accept punishing some small amount of innocent people as "collateral damage" is working against the foundation of a free society.
This sounds like a bunch of crap (re: the warrant for Enron's corporate office). I admit I'm not aware of exactly what the legalities are right now, but for the sake of argument, I don't see why the government shouldn't be able to secretly bug a corporate office, provided that a proper warrant is in place. So yeah, if they get a warrant to do so and convince a judge that this is necessary, they should be able to get some government spy to be able to sneak in somehow (maintenance worker?) and plant bugs.
The whole key here is having a warrant, a specific warrant for a specific target looking for specific things. I don't think most Americans have a problem with law enforcement being able to snoop on people of suspicion provided the proper channels are followed, only particular persons of interest are snooped on, and it isn't just a fishing expedition. This is exactly why we have warrants: so that law enforcement can gather evidence of crimes and prosecute people, but without overly infringing on the civil liberties of the people.
So no, it wouldn't be "breaking and entering" if you have the correct warrant in place, just like it isn't "breaking and entering" when the police have a warrant to enter your house looking for evidence and they enter when you aren't home.
I'm not a lawyer, but aren't you supposed to be notified of warrants? Sure, they could knock on your door and break in to serve a warrant if you're not home, but aren't they required to notify you they've done so?
> I'm not a lawyer, but aren't you supposed to be notified of warrants?
Think about a warrant issued for the use of a Stingray, or for a wiretap. There is no notice requirement when running the searches permitted by those warrants.
I find it very hard to believe that performing warranted, clandestine on-premises surveillance on a target is legally impossible. (See the first season of The Wire, ferinstance.)
No, you don't have to be notified. Have you never heard of a wiretap? They've been doing wiretaps for as long as telephones have been around (about a century now, I think). Obviously you don't have to notify a suspect that they're being tapped.
As for your link, that's completely irrelevant: that only talks about when officers are allowed to enter your home when you're there. It doesn't even mention what the law is if no one's home. It does say they're allowed to enter if they announce their presence and no one answers after some time. It does not mention whether they have to notify you, and the reasons they'd be busting down your door after announcing themselves are totally different from the reasons they'd be spying on you, so these aren't even comparable scenarios.
Jeesh, all you have to do is watch TV for the last 50 years or so: police (or other law enforcement investigators, more likely FBI) absolutely can and do spy on people with warrants, including using "bugs". They've been doing this for ages, it's nothing new. And until recently, there was a legal process for this, requiring a proper warrant.
You might be right, but telling me to get facts from Hollywood cop shows is a rather strange assertion. I mean, seriously, these shows regularly show cops doing all kinds of things, like torturing suspects for information.
They've only been showing that crap on cop shows since 9/11. And yes, TV shows aren't always perfectly reflective of reality, but they usually do get things nominally right to a decent degree.
You can't tell me you really think wiretaps are something that never have happened.
The alternative is breaking and entering. So since retroactive paper trails will be devalued, the government will have to switch to preemptive collection and entrapment scenarios.
I'm not sure this is better for privacy or democracy.