9 ms·

Defense Claims Courthouse Was Illegally Bugged

171 points by morninj 11y ago

Amorymeltzer 11y ago
>To continue reading, become a free ALM digital reader. Requiring registration to view even a limited number of articles is a great way to get me to never read your articles.
- clamprecht 11y ago
  http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fD4utplPmmMJ:www.therecorder.com/id%3D1202742595279/Defense-Claims-Courthouse-Was-Illegally-Bugged+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ar http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fD4utpl...
daguava 11y ago
Sorry, won't register just to view the article. I also really enjoy how the full site link takes you to a full site of ads and clickbait with zero content.
sologoub 11y ago
"According to court papers filed Friday, federal agents placed secret recording devices in at least three locations around the entrance to the San Mateo County courthouse in Redwood City without first getting judicial approval." The part of not getting a warrant is really the problem.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  I don't disagree, but isn't it also a problem since they'll be indiscriminately gathering a lot of irrelevant data? It's not like bugging a suspect's house; they're bugging a lot of unrelated people.
  - pyre 11y ago
    Presumably judicial oversight would take these factors into consideration. Lack of judicial oversight allows them to value their own goals over the rights of other people.
  - GauntletWizard 11y ago
    Recording cameras on buses also catch plenty of indiscriminate random conversation. These recording devices were placed in a public space, so you have no expectation of privacy. However that doesn't mean that they should be permitted in court or is that the FBI isn't quite rude in having placed them. It really is up to the judges to prevent tainted evidence and flat out fishing from being made cases of. The method is not unreasonable, in the right circumstances, but the justification and building of a case makes all the difference.
    - gohrt 11y ago
      > so you have no expectation of privacy. > However that doesn't mean that they should be permitted in court Really? I thought these two items were quite tightly connected.
    - gleenn 11y ago
      They also don't record sound which is a huge difference. You can try and read people's lips but that's a whole different ball game. Recording voice without explicit consent in California is illegal.
    - sologoub 11y ago
      The expectation to privacy and the admissibility of the evidence is closely tied together. The problem here is that I would argue that a reasonable person would not expect that his or her conversation in "hushed voices" (from the article) would be recorded by the normal security cameras located in the public space. Without knowing the details, it's really hard to say, but it sounds like this was a very targeted operation more similar in nature to bugging the home than to a general purpose security camera catching a glimpse of someone on the street.
andrewclunn 11y ago
Though I'm all about civil liberties, and very wary of the surveillance state, this was public property outdoors. I mean no, there really isn't an expectation of privacy there, and no warrant is or should be required in that situation. EDIT - Yeah, that's right. Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down. Dear (non-existent) God, echo chambers everywhere, with just different brands of stupid.
- koenigdavidmj 11y ago
  Having an agent standing there would be entirely acceptable. Use of surveillance equipment, especially the hidden kind, has always had a higher standard, even in public. So much so that one of the main ethical questions right now regards the use of publicly placed microphones that supposedly can only hear gunshots, in order to triangulate where those gunshots took place. > Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down It's faster to produce bullshit ideas than to respond to them civilly, as anyone who has an incompetent coworker can attest to. You aren't owed anything.
  - rtl49 11y ago
    His or her edit wasn't tactful, but I also think the reply represented a common opinion that hadn't been represented on this thread and deserved the consideration you were good enough to provide. I've seen even well-educated people espouse the belief that anything goes as far as monitoring the behavior of people while in "public." I wouldn't defend this view myself, but it's an idea worth engaging, if only because of its prevalence.
  - andrewclunn 11y ago
    This can come back to bite you. Protect recordings in public places from admission and suddenly the only law enforcement is able to admit such evidence, as only they could ever get a warrant before hand (not private citizens). Letting public spaces be fair game for admissible recordings will protect the public because it can be used by the public. A clear example here being a drone you're flying in a park. With that interpretation only law enforcement's drones' recordings would ever have a chance of being used in court. This is about protecting your right to have equal footing with law enforcement for evidence.
atom_enger 11y ago
It's not perfect but I'd much prefer this plaintext than that garbage website any day: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/anonymous/2a3fda72943396ac11b1/raw/a52e4bc82154c444bd1bdc61f01b78ca6c445976/gistfile1.txt https://gist.githubusercontent.com/anonymous/2a3fda72943396a...
- fabulist 11y ago
  For those ctrl+f'ing for "non-paywall", see above.
  - Bud 11y ago
    Or, just click on the "web" link, right before the article title, at the top of this comment page. This functionality is built-in to Hacker News.
    - fabulist 11y ago
      Some of us have ethical issues with Google, and prefer not to give them traffic.
- hackuser 11y ago
  IMHO it's not fair to the website, no matter how poorly designed, to appropriate their content.
  - rtl49 11y ago
    I would agree the reproduction is quite possibly a violation of copyright, but this isn't an "appropriation." It isn't as though the OP has placed his or her ads around the text and seized revenue that would otherwise have gone to the original website. The intentions seem to be positive, even if society has deemed that the act itself is unacceptable.
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
      Just do it via Google, eg Google's cache, mass tortious infringement is fine so long as it's done through a major for profit ad business. [that's sarcastic but also seemingly true]
jimrandomh 11y ago
> The defense motion claims that beginning in December 2009 government agents planted microphones in three locations near the entrance of the courthouse at 401 Marshall Street in Redwood City: inside a metal sprinkler box attached to the wall, in a large planter box and in vehicles parked on the street. The hidden microphones were activated at least 31 times through September 2010, according to the filing. > > The only authorization came from attorneys working for the FBI and Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, the motion states. In one sense, this is a small thing. There isn't any allegation that the recordings caught privileged attorney-client communication or jury deliberations. But it is an attack on the integrity of the legal system, and it's part of a pattern of attacks on the legal system that adds up to a serious threat to the rule of law. Defendants are asking for these recordings to be quashed. That is what is customary, but it is not sufficient; there need to be consequences for those who did it and who authorized it. The defendants are only incentivized to argue as far as necessary for their own defense; it is up to the judges to censure the parties responsible.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Read Glen Greenwald's book Liberty and Justice for Some. The rule of law is largely a joke that the powerful trick the weak into accepting. The constant drilling away at the supposed sanctity of the legal system is evidence that the people who run things really don't care so much about attorney client privilege or due process.
  - jimrandomh 11y ago
    The rule of law was a real thing for much of American history, and it's a real thing in many other countries. If we want it back, we can't be tricked into thinking this problem is in any way universal or inevitable.
    - davidw 11y ago
      There have always been problems in the US and elsewhere. It's a continual fight. Saying "woe is us, it's all rotten, we can't do anything" is capitulating in the worst sort of way to those who would take away our rights.
rayiner 11y ago
The title doesn't paint the full picture of what happened. The bugs were placed near the courthouse entrance at public auctions held at the courthouse. The defense "maintain[s] that their clients had a reasonable expectation of privacy when they gathered to speak in hushed voices away from other auction participants." Unsettling nonetheless.
- samstave 11y ago
  But, I still dont understand why they felt they needed to record anything? Can you explain their motive?
vonklaus 11y ago
> FBI agents caught bugging courthouse. > therecorder.com
- pyre 11y ago
  Do you also point out articles in the Free Press about people in jail?
  - herbig 11y ago
    Or New York Times articles about events in Syria?
zerooneinfinity 11y ago
Out of curiosity if I wanted to place microphones in random public places and record could I? Isn't it legal to take someones photo in public? So could I also place a camera where I'd like and record people?
- zerooneinfinity 11y ago
  I suppose I could be convicted of littering...
- herbig 11y ago
  http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/24/8652925/freelance-spies-nsa-recording-conversations-nyc http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/24/8652925/freelance-spies-ns...
- tghw 11y ago
  While it's legal to take someone's photo in public, because they don't have an expectation of privacy, it's generally not legal to record audio without their knowledge. It depends on states, but almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party. In one-party states, at least one person being recorded must be aware of the recording. In all-party states, all parties being recorded must be informed. These laws were originally written for telephone tapping, but my understanding is that they have been used in cases of bugging as well, even when no phone was involved.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    Hmm... how does that play with video recording? We argue that it is fine to take video in public because of no expectation of privacy, but video implies an audio track too.
    - pauloday 11y ago
      It applies to video recordings. Most cctv cameras don't record audio for this reason.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
henryw 11y ago
Google link to pass registration https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAGoVChMI-o3Vv5CYyQIVBJmICh1GWgxl&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.therecorder.com%2Fid%3D1202742595279%2FDefense-Claims-Courthouse-Was-Illegally-Bugged&usg=AFQjCNEpnNa24zWZT6lhv7yeHkAIlPvqoQ&sig2=YS7IclkDtIr6ytEDSQg0DQ https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
- insensible 11y ago
  FWIW I tried to register and it wouldn't accept any password I tried to register with. So thanks.
ajmarsh 11y ago
Read "Enemies" by Pulitzer Prize winner Tim Wiener. This is not that out of character for the FBI really. http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/dp/0812979230 http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/dp/0812...
criddell 11y ago
Does anybody know what the technical specs of the bug microphone is? Is there some equivalent piece of equipment a civilian can buy? Do the recorders have their own power supply? Their own cellular connection? Are they essentially phones with giant batteries and a good external microphone? As an aside, it's always annoyed me that cell phones don't all come with built-in call recording capabilities.
- christiangenco 11y ago
  > it's always annoyed me that cell phones don't all come with built-in call recording capabilities. Oh but they do! Haven't you read the Snowden docs? You just don't have access to the recorded files ;)
unabridged 11y ago
The bugs were planted to catch people colluding at public foreclosure auctions held at the courthouse steps, it had nothing to do with recording lawyers, juries, or judges. I like how they start some huge investigation to to try to fix the auctions instead of just building an auction website and opening it up to the entire US public. This would probably make collusion impossible and get better prices for the property.
- MaysonL 11y ago
  it had nothing to do with recording lawyers, juries, or judges. Even though it probably did that as well.

171 points by morninj 11y ago

>To continue reading, become a free ALM digital reader. Requiring registration to view even a limited number of articles is a great way to get me to never read your articles.

clamprecht 11y ago
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fD4utplPmmMJ:www.therecorder.com/id%3D1202742595279/Defense-Claims-Courthouse-Was-Illegally-Bugged+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ar http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fD4utpl...

daguava 11y ago

Sorry, won't register just to view the article. I also really enjoy how the full site link takes you to a full site of ads and clickbait with zero content.

sologoub 11y ago

"According to court papers filed Friday, federal agents placed secret recording devices in at least three locations around the entrance to the San Mateo County courthouse in Redwood City without first getting judicial approval." The part of not getting a warrant is really the problem.

pavel_lishin 11y ago
I don't disagree, but isn't it also a problem since they'll be indiscriminately gathering a lot of irrelevant data? It's not like bugging a suspect's house; they're bugging a lot of unrelated people.
- pyre 11y ago
  Presumably judicial oversight would take these factors into consideration. Lack of judicial oversight allows them to value their own goals over the rights of other people.
- GauntletWizard 11y ago
  Recording cameras on buses also catch plenty of indiscriminate random conversation. These recording devices were placed in a public space, so you have no expectation of privacy. However that doesn't mean that they should be permitted in court or is that the FBI isn't quite rude in having placed them. It really is up to the judges to prevent tainted evidence and flat out fishing from being made cases of. The method is not unreasonable, in the right circumstances, but the justification and building of a case makes all the difference.
  - gohrt 11y ago
    > so you have no expectation of privacy. > However that doesn't mean that they should be permitted in court Really? I thought these two items were quite tightly connected.
  - gleenn 11y ago
    They also don't record sound which is a huge difference. You can try and read people's lips but that's a whole different ball game. Recording voice without explicit consent in California is illegal.
  - sologoub 11y ago
    The expectation to privacy and the admissibility of the evidence is closely tied together. The problem here is that I would argue that a reasonable person would not expect that his or her conversation in "hushed voices" (from the article) would be recorded by the normal security cameras located in the public space. Without knowing the details, it's really hard to say, but it sounds like this was a very targeted operation more similar in nature to bugging the home than to a general purpose security camera catching a glimpse of someone on the street.

andrewclunn 11y ago

Though I'm all about civil liberties, and very wary of the surveillance state, this was public property outdoors. I mean no, there really isn't an expectation of privacy there, and no warrant is or should be required in that situation. EDIT - Yeah, that's right. Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down. Dear (non-existent) God, echo chambers everywhere, with just different brands of stupid.

koenigdavidmj 11y ago
Having an agent standing there would be entirely acceptable. Use of surveillance equipment, especially the hidden kind, has always had a higher standard, even in public. So much so that one of the main ethical questions right now regards the use of publicly placed microphones that supposedly can only hear gunshots, in order to triangulate where those gunshots took place. > Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down It's faster to produce bullshit ideas than to respond to them civilly, as anyone who has an incompetent coworker can attest to. You aren't owed anything.
- rtl49 11y ago
  His or her edit wasn't tactful, but I also think the reply represented a common opinion that hadn't been represented on this thread and deserved the consideration you were good enough to provide. I've seen even well-educated people espouse the belief that anything goes as far as monitoring the behavior of people while in "public." I wouldn't defend this view myself, but it's an idea worth engaging, if only because of its prevalence.
- andrewclunn 11y ago
  This can come back to bite you. Protect recordings in public places from admission and suddenly the only law enforcement is able to admit such evidence, as only they could ever get a warrant before hand (not private citizens). Letting public spaces be fair game for admissible recordings will protect the public because it can be used by the public. A clear example here being a drone you're flying in a park. With that interpretation only law enforcement's drones' recordings would ever have a chance of being used in court. This is about protecting your right to have equal footing with law enforcement for evidence.

atom_enger 11y ago

It's not perfect but I'd much prefer this plaintext than that garbage website any day: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/anonymous/2a3fda72943396ac11b1/raw/a52e4bc82154c444bd1bdc61f01b78ca6c445976/gistfile1.txt https://gist.githubusercontent.com/anonymous/2a3fda72943396a...

fabulist 11y ago
For those ctrl+f'ing for "non-paywall", see above.
- Bud 11y ago
  Or, just click on the "web" link, right before the article title, at the top of this comment page. This functionality is built-in to Hacker News.
  - fabulist 11y ago
    Some of us have ethical issues with Google, and prefer not to give them traffic.
hackuser 11y ago
IMHO it's not fair to the website, no matter how poorly designed, to appropriate their content.
- rtl49 11y ago
  I would agree the reproduction is quite possibly a violation of copyright, but this isn't an "appropriation." It isn't as though the OP has placed his or her ads around the text and seized revenue that would otherwise have gone to the original website. The intentions seem to be positive, even if society has deemed that the act itself is unacceptable.
  - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
    Just do it via Google, eg Google's cache, mass tortious infringement is fine so long as it's done through a major for profit ad business. [that's sarcastic but also seemingly true]

jimrandomh 11y ago

> The defense motion claims that beginning in December 2009 government agents planted microphones in three locations near the entrance of the courthouse at 401 Marshall Street in Redwood City: inside a metal sprinkler box attached to the wall, in a large planter box and in vehicles parked on the street. The hidden microphones were activated at least 31 times through September 2010, according to the filing. > > The only authorization came from attorneys working for the FBI and Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, the motion states. In one sense, this is a small thing. There isn't any allegation that the recordings caught privileged attorney-client communication or jury deliberations. But it is an attack on the integrity of the legal system, and it's part of a pattern of attacks on the legal system that adds up to a serious threat to the rule of law. Defendants are asking for these recordings to be quashed. That is what is customary, but it is not sufficient; there need to be consequences for those who did it and who authorized it. The defendants are only incentivized to argue as far as necessary for their own defense; it is up to the judges to censure the parties responsible.

cryoshon 11y ago
Read Glen Greenwald's book Liberty and Justice for Some. The rule of law is largely a joke that the powerful trick the weak into accepting. The constant drilling away at the supposed sanctity of the legal system is evidence that the people who run things really don't care so much about attorney client privilege or due process.
- jimrandomh 11y ago
  The rule of law was a real thing for much of American history, and it's a real thing in many other countries. If we want it back, we can't be tricked into thinking this problem is in any way universal or inevitable.
  - davidw 11y ago
    There have always been problems in the US and elsewhere. It's a continual fight. Saying "woe is us, it's all rotten, we can't do anything" is capitulating in the worst sort of way to those who would take away our rights.

rayiner 11y ago

The title doesn't paint the full picture of what happened. The bugs were placed near the courthouse entrance at public auctions held at the courthouse. The defense "maintain[s] that their clients had a reasonable expectation of privacy when they gathered to speak in hushed voices away from other auction participants." Unsettling nonetheless.

samstave 11y ago
But, I still dont understand why they felt they needed to record anything? Can you explain their motive?

vonklaus 11y ago

> FBI agents caught bugging courthouse. > therecorder.com

pyre 11y ago
Do you also point out articles in the Free Press about people in jail?
- herbig 11y ago
  Or New York Times articles about events in Syria?

zerooneinfinity 11y ago

Out of curiosity if I wanted to place microphones in random public places and record could I? Isn't it legal to take someones photo in public? So could I also place a camera where I'd like and record people?

zerooneinfinity 11y ago
I suppose I could be convicted of littering...
herbig 11y ago
http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/24/8652925/freelance-spies-nsa-recording-conversations-nyc http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/24/8652925/freelance-spies-ns...
tghw 11y ago
While it's legal to take someone's photo in public, because they don't have an expectation of privacy, it's generally not legal to record audio without their knowledge. It depends on states, but almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party. In one-party states, at least one person being recorded must be aware of the recording. In all-party states, all parties being recorded must be informed. These laws were originally written for telephone tapping, but my understanding is that they have been used in cases of bugging as well, even when no phone was involved.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  Hmm... how does that play with video recording? We argue that it is fine to take video in public because of no expectation of privacy, but video implies an audio track too.
  - pauloday 11y ago
    It applies to video recordings. Most cctv cameras don't record audio for this reason.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

henryw 11y ago

Google link to pass registration https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAGoVChMI-o3Vv5CYyQIVBJmICh1GWgxl&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.therecorder.com%2Fid%3D1202742595279%2FDefense-Claims-Courthouse-Was-Illegally-Bugged&usg=AFQjCNEpnNa24zWZT6lhv7yeHkAIlPvqoQ&sig2=YS7IclkDtIr6ytEDSQg0DQ https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

insensible 11y ago
FWIW I tried to register and it wouldn't accept any password I tried to register with. So thanks.

ajmarsh 11y ago

Read "Enemies" by Pulitzer Prize winner Tim Wiener. This is not that out of character for the FBI really. http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/dp/0812979230 http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-Weiner/dp/0812...

criddell 11y ago

Does anybody know what the technical specs of the bug microphone is? Is there some equivalent piece of equipment a civilian can buy? Do the recorders have their own power supply? Their own cellular connection? Are they essentially phones with giant batteries and a good external microphone? As an aside, it's always annoyed me that cell phones don't all come with built-in call recording capabilities.

christiangenco 11y ago
> it's always annoyed me that cell phones don't all come with built-in call recording capabilities. Oh but they do! Haven't you read the Snowden docs? You just don't have access to the recorded files ;)

unabridged 11y ago

The bugs were planted to catch people colluding at public foreclosure auctions held at the courthouse steps, it had nothing to do with recording lawyers, juries, or judges. I like how they start some huge investigation to to try to fix the auctions instead of just building an auction website and opening it up to the entire US public. This would probably make collusion impossible and get better prices for the property.

MaysonL 11y ago
it had nothing to do with recording lawyers, juries, or judges. Even though it probably did that as well.