Is anyone particularly surprised by this?
'Section 213 was included in the Patriot Act over the protests of privacy advocates and granted law enforcement the power to conduct a search while delaying notice to the suspect of the search. Known as a “sneak and peek” warrant, law enforcement was adamant Section 213 was needed to protect against terrorism. But the latest government report detailing the numbers of “sneak and peek” warrants reveals that out of a total of over 11,000 sneak and peek requests, only 51 were used for terrorism.'
The "War on Terror" (called that or not) has been a fabulous justification for law enforcement and national security groups to get all the powers they ever wanted to get, trumping the previously restraining protests with the threat of TERROR! and the consequences thereof.
I don't see that changing any time soon. And, of course, the longer it goes that way, the more "invaluable" such tools and practices will e considered, and the more normalized their use will become.
I guess it's not unintended consequences, but fully intended consequences.
When we approved a lottery in California, the proponents' tagline was "our schools win too," because the lottery was going to provide a wonderful source of funds for education. Which is why the California public education system is awash in resources today. Or something.
In 1989, "the lottery was pulling in $2.6 billion a year, 39% of it, or $1.04 billion, earmarked for education. But state education officials say the gain is offset by cuts in legislative funding. Many schools, expecting individual allotments, are getting nothing because school districts are appropriating the money to cover their budget deficits."
http://articles.latimes.com/1990-02-23/business/fi-1222_1_state-lottery