3 ms·
Mine was that I thought this might stop once it became common knowledge - that courts would find it massively unconstitutional and it would end.
by themartorana 11y ago
Mine was that I thought this might stop once it became common knowledge - that courts would find it massively unconstitutional and it would end.
- cmurf 11y agoA big part of this problem was standing. There was no acknowledgment, in fact denial, that these things existed and were being used. It therefore was incumbent on the claimant to prove they existed. But now it's understood they exist, so that finally might work its way through the court system to see whether or not this is a legal search/seizure.
- Joof 11y agoIt's still up to the claimant to prove it was used on them personally and in some damaging manner. This has been a problem for people (Wikipedia) suing the NSA. Despite statistical analysis showing it's probably true, there isn't any 'beyond a doubt' evidence.
- cmurf 11y agoI don't think they have to show beyond a doubt. But you're correct they have to somehow demonstrate not just that this capability exists, but that it was used on them, and that the court can provide a remedy. This is just one example of why whistle blower protections are necessary.
- shiven 11y agoBasically, someone needs to go Snowden and publish the kitchen sink of Stingray records to allow people to even build a case and then to prove it went beyond reasonable use (if any).