The difference between concerns about ICE having powerful spyware used by authoritarian regimes to spy on dissidents and immigration policy.
Dear Ryan -
Your October 3rd response to my letter about Pegasus spyware purchases by ICE confuses my concern about a Federal law enforcement agency illegally monitoring communications and an immigration policy issue.
You have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. The fourth amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Funds Congress has authorized are procuring spyware that will be used illegally and without warrants. This will infringe on constitutional rights.
My request if for you to use Congress' legislative, oversight, budget, and investigative powers to ensure DHS and ICE limit surveillance to where probable cause is established and a warrant issued.
Once again, your flaccid and impotent language "if a specific piece of legislation is ever introduced..." is ridiculous.
If you don't share my concerns about warrant-less surveillance, certainly feel free to explain your position.
What is your position on warrant-less surveillance A.K.A. wiretapping?
Sincerely,
John
