8 ms·
"They use terms to find evidence of whether someone is trying to hide their activities because evidence of a cover-up is frequently more potent than the evidenc
by Todd 11y ago
"They use terms to find evidence of whether someone is trying to hide their activities because evidence of a cover-up is frequently more potent than the evidence of the alleged crime"
Each of these steps towards a surveillance state would be easier to stomach if the path weren't so clearly identified in 20th century fiction.
- codyb 11y agoThis doesn't really sound like the surveillance state to me. This is regulators combing through the e-mails of the people they regulate who control vast swathes of the United States and global economies. And unless you want to bug every single person's office which sounds a lot more like a surveillance state to me, I don't particularly think looking at the activities of people who are taking things offline is particularly egregious. The funny thing is, if the people just discussed it by e-mail, they might get away if no one ctrl-f's for their terms! Ha!
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoI think the issue raised is that it sets a bad precedent for the presumption of innocence. Do away with that, and we may as well be in China, being sentenced to life in prison for corruption by a secret court. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/asia/zhou-yongkang-former-security-chief-in-china-gets-life-sentence-for-corruption.html?referrer= http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/world/asia/zhou-yongkan...
- kevin_thibedeau 11y agoWhen investigators are sifting through e-mails they have already executed a search warrant* to get them in the first place so there is established probable cause to investigate further leads based on suspicious contents. This isn't government overreach in any way. * Assuming the Judiciary is doing its job properly and not just rubber stamping everything and that investigators would never lie to a judge.