If you were never going to use the information, and tie it to a phone line, it wouldn't be an invasion- but it wouldn't be useful then either, would it?
I'm glad we agree that it wouldn't be an invasion until and unless it was tied to a person. We agree, too, that it wouldn't be useful until and unless it was tied to a person. So far, no harm, no foul. And no utility.
So, if among those snippets there was something that set off the alarms, if they could then trace back and tie that snippet to a person, and if then they could get a warrant and listen in on what else that person had to say, there could be utility.
There are three parts to that. So far we agree that the first part, having computers listen to anonymous snippets, is not a problem and neither is the third part, tapping the line of the speaker with a warrant, then we have left in question only the middle bit, the process of tracking that snippet back to the originator, assuming such a thing is feasible. Is there a violation of the fourth amendment in that middle part, the process of identifying the originator of the snippet? |
