Re: What's next?
This seems to be an argument that because government actors might do something when it is illegal, they should be prevented from doing it when it is legally permitted. A somewhat comparable example might be to argue that because police officers could make illegal traffic stops and shake down their victims they should not be allowed to make traffic stops at all. Even as egregious as some of the authorized procedures are, I am not sure that really makes sense.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
