Someone send this to your local officials. We dug deep and discovered an obscure document called the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. After dusting off the ancient document, we found the following text: 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.

Earlier this month, Reclaim the Net covered Kentucky Senator Rand Paul’s confrontation of FBI Director Christopher Wray about FBI’s alleged collusion with social media companies and whether the FBI compiles private information to identify users. 

“Is Facebook or any other social media company supplying private messages or data on American users that is not compelled by the government or the FBI?” Paul questioned Wray. “No warrant, no subpoena, they’re just supplying you information on their users?”

“I don’t believe so, but I can’t sit here and be sure of that as I sit here,” Wray responded.

“Can you give us a yes or no by going back to your team and asking? Because it’s a very specific question. Because if they are, it’s against the law,” Paul inquired, alluding to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. “This was done to protect the privacy of people so we could feel like we can send an email or direct message to people without having that information given over. It’s a very specific question: Will you get with your team of lawyers and give us a specific answer? Because this is the law. If you’re doing it, then we need to go to court to prevent you from receiving this information.”

“Well, I can tell you that I’m quite confident that we’re following the law —, ” Wray proclaimed.

“Well, that’s not the answer, ” Paul replied.

“ — but what I will also follow up with you to make sure we get you more information; more detailed information,” Wray continued.

“Is the FBI obtaining anonymous social media data and then using technical methods to pierce the anonymous nature of the data?” Paul asked.

Wray asked, “Anonymous social media data?”

“So you purchase data,” Paul declared. “People purchase data all the time and we sort of tolerate it for advertising and things because it’s anonymous data. Are you purchasing what is said to be anonymous data through the marketplace and then piercing the anonymous nature to attach individual names to that data? Are you purchasing data and then piercing the anonymous nature of that data?”

“So the manner in which we use — we usually use the term commercial data — is probably longer than I can explain here. But again, let me —, ” Wray responded in an effort to dodge Paul’s question.

“So you will not answer the question of whether or not you’re attaching names to anonymous data,” Paul declared.

“I think it’s a more complicated answer than I can give here,” Wray replied.

“So, so far we’re 0 for 2 at getting you to answer this, but you’re pledging you will actually answer the question because you have to realize the frustration; we’ll write you a letter and your team of lawyers will write back with a 15-page letter that says nothing and you won’t answer the question. These are very specific. This is whether you’re obeying the law, whether we can have confidence. I want to have confidence,” Paul observed.

“We are obeying the law,” Wray said in response.

“Well, you’re saying that, but you won’t tell us the answer,” Paul said in exasperation. “You aren’t telling me the answer. And the answer is: Are you collecting data not compelled by a warrant? That would not be in compliance with the law. But you won’t answer that you’re not collecting that data.”

Paul then inquired, “Are you getting tips and leads from social media companies?”

“We get tips and leads from companies, absolutely,” Wray noted. 

“You may think this is jolly well to get all this stuff without a warrant that people volunteer to you, but many of us are alarmed that you’re getting this information that are private communications between people because it is against the law – it’s against the law for Facebook or social media companies to give it to you, but it’s also against the law for you to receive it,” Paul said in a concluding statement.

It’s no secret that Big Tech and Deep State have a cozy relationship. For example, In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm that the CIA has funded, was alleged to have raised capital for social media giant Facebook in its early days.

Many BigTech CEOs are cut from a different cloth compared to their 19th and 20th century predecessors who at least still believed in the nation and did not try to undermine its foundational principles. By contrast, this modern crop of business leaders is more aligned with the political class’s post-national, multicultural agenda. As a result, they’re more than willing to work with the Deep State to harass Americans and make their lives miserable.

Along with the federal government, sooner or later, America First nationalists must rein in Big Tech’s power. This is one institution that should not be allowed to wield so much power in our politics.