> Why are you making it sound like that's some profound revelation?
I've never claimed any of my musings are profound revelations. That's an exercise left to the reader.
> Law enforcement is allowed to run stings, serve warrants and make arrests, you aren't.
Specifics matter. "The Government" is not some monolithic entity. Even "law enforcement" could be local, State level, FBI, CIA, or some other part of the executive branch. Each has its own restrictions on when and how it can operate.
> The military is allowed to invade countries and drop nukes, you aren't.
> Yes it is legal when they do it and not some average Joe who wants to play hero.
It's an untested open question whether it's legal for them to do it to US civilians or infrastructure that they know is owned by US civilians.
It might be the right thing to do. The world might be better for it. It might even be decided one day that they do in fact have that power (there's a pretty clear argument that stopping a botnet qualifies as "Hot pursuit": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_pursuit).
> That's how the world works, and it is a good thing.
There's plenty of "ends justify the means" situations involving the government that are not good things applied more generally. Hence, specifics matter.
I've never claimed any of my musings are profound revelations. That's an exercise left to the reader.
> Law enforcement is allowed to run stings, serve warrants and make arrests, you aren't.
Specifics matter. "The Government" is not some monolithic entity. Even "law enforcement" could be local, State level, FBI, CIA, or some other part of the executive branch. Each has its own restrictions on when and how it can operate.
> The military is allowed to invade countries and drop nukes, you aren't.
The military is expressly disallowed from interfering in civilian affairs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
> Yes it is legal when they do it and not some average Joe who wants to play hero.
It's an untested open question whether it's legal for them to do it to US civilians or infrastructure that they know is owned by US civilians.
It might be the right thing to do. The world might be better for it. It might even be decided one day that they do in fact have that power (there's a pretty clear argument that stopping a botnet qualifies as "Hot pursuit": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_pursuit).
> That's how the world works, and it is a good thing.
There's plenty of "ends justify the means" situations involving the government that are not good things applied more generally. Hence, specifics matter.