14 ms·

How a federal spy case turned into a child pornography prosecution

258 points by hackuser 11y ago

ekianjo 11y ago
> In Gartenlaub’s case, the government made sealed filings, so neither the defense nor the public was able to see them. Based on the secret filings, the judge held that the government had shown probable cause that the house to be searched belonged to “an agent of a foreign power." That's typically what you read about foreign police states.
- nxzero 11y ago
  Might seem repeative or unwarrented, but to me, it's very clear that the... US is a police state.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    More like, it has become like that. Because of complete disregard/disrespect for the US constitution. The constitution had numerous safeguards to restrict abuse of power, but the Federal Government is completely sitting on it.
    - X86BSD 11y ago
      "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." -Lysander Spooner
      - webjprgm 11y ago
        Democracy is a form of government that can destroy itself. The French voted to put in an emperor their first time around. So we may have a good constitution but if the people vote to make bad laws that break it, and permit those laws to function, then it is the people's fault, not the founder's fault.
        kazagistar 11y ago
        I mean, the binary choice clusterfuck that is modern politics is certainly the fault of the founders, and is certainly partially responsible for the current problems. And because of the reverence of the founders and the constitution as it exists, the self destruction and rebirth is looking likelier then meaningfully repairing the system.
        tajen 11y ago
        Tomorrow we'll have infinite disdain for binary-party democracies, just like we currently have for monoparty democracies. It baffles me that people still immigrate to Singapore. What a total disrespect for a thousand years fighting for the right to vote.
        SixSigma 11y ago
        I guess it's not so bad if you can leave when you feel like it. Singapore is a cool place if you're on the right side. Dubai is another even more extreme example.
    - Govannon 11y ago
      >but the Federal Government is completely sitting on it. Arguably in a democracy we Americans should all be blaming ourselves for that. Because of the whole voting/paying attention/holding elected officials accountable thing. The Federal Government is representative of our collective ability to do that well, plus our historic ability to do that well I suppose.
      - ekianjo 11y ago
        > Arguably in a democracy we Americans should all be blaming ourselves for that Maybe as a nation if you consider that the term makes any sense, but for the most part this has started to happen before most Americans alive today were born. Like always there is not a single date in History where you can pinpoint a decisive moment where the Constitution was destroyed, it's been a progressive and "death by thousands cuts" kind of thing.
        rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
        I would argue that date was in 1917, when President Wildon founded the Committee on Public Information to sell WWI to Americans. The committee then hired Edward Bernays, who was struck by the ability for war to motivate people, and used his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories on psychoanalysis to contrive ways to get people to do or buy things they normally wouldn't. The stunning success of psychologically tuned propaganda taught generations of political masterminds how to not only rile up the public to make big changes, but to structure society as a disconnected atomized collection of individuals too caught up with their own lives and consumerism to seriously challenge the powers that be. From then on, it becomes easier and easier to circumvent the constitution and even basic ethics because people are less likely to care for longer than a news cycle.
        mindslight 11y ago
        What about 1861, when the mutual agreement of the Constitution was reinterpreted as an inescapable suicide pact? I don't think there's necessarily a specific turning point - it seems a long line of gradual erosion.
    - enlightenedfool 11y ago
      It will get worse when electorate instead of choosing the right candidates, chooses the more electable ones. The constitution cannot provide safeguard against ill-informed electorate. Not just the US, applies to any democracy. Most democracies have similar awesome constitution texts.
      - ekianjo 11y ago
        One of the key issues in elections is that candidates promise stuff to specific interest groups - which is basically the same thing as buying votes (with future government funds, on top of that). That kind of behaviour should be explicitly forbidden and should be prosecuted because it actively damages Democracy.
        webjprgm 11y ago
        It would be interesting if candidates were not allowed to promise what they would do, but merely campaign on their morals and good standing in the community so we can pick people who would make intelligent decisions but not necessarily ones that would choose a specific way on a specific issue. That's what you're asking for here.
      - lettergram 11y ago
        That's actually why historically only land owners could vote. They had the most to lose and we're the most educated. Regardless of "right or wrong" that did provide a safeguard against the likes of people like Trump, probably Hillery and Bernie as well.
        tremon 11y ago
        Would it have safeguarded against Nixon, Reagan, Bush or McCarthy though? (yes, I know, the latter was never president -- but still elected)
        tracker1 11y ago
        If you're throwing Reagan in as a bad president, you should throw JFK in too, since regarding policy/politically they were very close to each other.
    - at-fates-hands 11y ago
      >>> More like, it has become like that. Because of complete disregard/disrespect for the US constitution. Which has infected every level of government. From the president's "executive orders" every time he wants something done and congress refuses to do it, so he simply writes a new law and enacts it. From supreme court nominees who believe more in "social justice" then interpreting the constitution which is their job, not to dole out fairness when they feel their has been an injustice done to some party. From the do-nothing congress that simply doesn't work at all in the completely divided partisan environment they've created. No laws get passed, there is no working together for their constituents - which is their job. You can also toss in there the Republicans stone walling the supreme court nominee which has become high theater now - on both sides. Our government is being run like a fucking game now and its infuriating and depressing all at the same time. Remember those days when the two parties would work together and pass acts and laws that were good for the country? Remember when the economy was shit and both parties worked together and solve the problems? Yeah, I don't either.
      - tracker1 11y ago
        Is there really a need for more/new laws? Seriously. I mean most of what congress does is budgetary and campaign fund raising... very litle effectively gets done regardless... much of what passes, does so with very little backpressure, exception to some hot-potato political issues.
    - alanwatts 11y ago
      This is the great fallacy of the theoretical ideal of "rule of law" which is the basis for the idea of a "republic". In physical reality, a law is a piece of paper with words on it. If you sit on it, it's not going to sprout arms and do something about it.
- tptacek 11y ago
  It is, but isn't it also the case that secret court filings are as old as the US courts? How else would espionage prosecutions work? Similarly, how would complicated organized crime investigations work without secrecy? Isn't the alternative that prosecutors get exactly one bite at the apple, and if they're wrong, the target of the investigation is tipped off? The case that ultimately appears before the court, of course, needs to be transparent. And the evidence collected by the prosecution must be made available to the defendant. But this isn't that.
  - sneak 11y ago
    For espionage, your argument makes a little bit of sense. When they cross over into non-espionage routine prosecutions, this stuff should get thrown the fuck out. A warrant that can't be challenged for legality by the accused is a clear denial of due process. Also, scroll down the thread. The CP prosecution was used as a stick to further their espionage prosecution for which it turns out the guy was innocent.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > Similarly, how would complicated organized crime investigations work without secrecy? Secrecy is one thing, however the key issue here is the lack of civilian oversight. The whole FISA system is behind closed doors without any third party representative to confirm the lawfulness of investigations. That's what makes a difference between police state methods and due process: the fact that there is somehow some decentralization of responsibilities.
  - fiatmoney 11y ago
    "Secret court filings" that are hidden from the defense during a trial are ridiculously uncommon. Sealed filings for, eg, warrants are common. They are typically made available to the defense & the public for the trial. Otherwise the evidence amounts to "trust us, we're the government". In counter-espionage cases, it is very common for the government to balance concern about disclosing its methods with likelihood of a conviction. If they fuck up the investigation and tip off the target before the trial, or tip off other targets during the trial, it's not the court's job to give them a do-over.
- mineshaftgap 11y ago
  If the US is a police state then there is no country that isn't, but at least you get a lot of up votes.
nobody_nowhere 11y ago
Not even bothering with parallel construction in this one
fweespee_ch 11y ago
> In Gartenlaub’s case, the government made sealed filings, so neither the defense nor the public was able to see them. Based on the secret filings, the judge held that the government had shown probable cause that the house to be searched belonged to “an agent of a foreign power” or a spy. > “The government is increasingly using national security tools to investigate domestic criminal cases, bypassing key constitutional protections,” said Patrick Toomey, a staff lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. “This problem is only compounded in the digital age, where the FBI is collecting vast amounts of our data for intelligence purposes but then goes sifting through all that information in unrelated criminal investigations.” This is bullshit. You shouldn't be able to withhold evidence from the defense when you are talking about throwing someone in jail. They just want to get around the normal domestic constitutional protections because it makes their job easier. Yeah, well, you make the prosecution's job easier and you end up with prisons full of people because their key performance indicators are convictions and their conviction rate. > RIVERSIDE, Calif. — FBI agents entered Keith Gartenlaub’s home in Southern California while he and his wife were visiting her relatives in Shanghai. Agents wearing gloves went through boxes, snapped pictures of documents and made copies of three computer hard drives before leaving as quietly as they had entered. > In Gartenlaub’s case, the defense unsuccessfully argued that he could not be linked to identical copies of child pornography videos found on four hard drives in his house. Two of the hard drives had been in a computer that was kept at a beach house where numerous people had access to it, Gartenlaub said. > Jeff Fischbach, a forensic technologist for the defense, said there is no evidence that the child pornography was ever seen by anyone who used the computer, much less Gartenlaub. > The government’s own forensic expert, Bruce W. Pixley, said he could not find any evidence of the material being downloaded onto any of the computers, the defense noted. That means it had to have been copied onto the computer — but by whom is unknown. > Gartenlaub, 47, was fired in August 2014 and has been unemployed since. His attorney said his defense was hampered by an inability to obtain basic information about how the evidence was obtained and on what specific grounds the warrant was issued. > During his initial appearance in a federal courthouse in Santa Ana, Calif., the prosecutors indicated a willingness to reduce or drop the child pornography charges if he would tell them about the C-17, said Sara Naheedy, Gartenlaub’s attorney at the time. This reads like, after failing to find proof he was a spy, the FBI "found proof" he was a pedophile which given the sheer quantity of child porn the FBI has control over seems oddly suspicious. It is extremely easy to plant the information on the hard drives but it is much harder to create a chain of events that links the specific user to the chain of events from acquiring it to viewing it. [e.g. If you provide dates/times, what happens if he the guy can prove he wasn't home at the time?] So they went fishing with child porn charges in order to "encourage his cooperation". Admittedly, this could be a story the guy just tells to convince people he isn't a pedo but honestly...it reads like they went with the one charge no one would defend him on that was easy to fabricate. "We think he is a spy, we think he is guilty, so let us create a situation that allows us to pressure him to confessing what we really care about." It isn't like the FBI hasn't done this before. > According to two Boeing colleagues, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, there is no such job at the company. And Gartenlaub was, in any case, an IT manager. Moreover, they said, the breached files were accessible through servers in the field, such as at Air Force bases. These were not servers that Gartenlaub or his team of engineers who supported the plane’s designers had access to, they said. Wow. The guy didn't even have access to the stuff he was accused of leaking?!
JumpCrisscross 11y ago
> Justice Department officials added that Congress has always intended that information obtained through intelligence authorities could be used in criminal prosecutions. 'It would be irresponsible for the government to ignore evidence of criminal wrongdoing when such evidence is lawfully collected,' said Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi. Fair enough. Then on handover, from the intelligence community to domestic prosecutors, lift any specialness the warrant was given for having been granted through a FISA court.
mholt 11y ago
The main problem I see is this: > His attorney said his defense was hampered by an inability to obtain basic information about how the evidence was obtained and on what specific grounds the warrant was issued. Authorities can obtain secret warrants and conduct ordinary criminal investigations with it, conveniently withholding the evidence from the defense attorney on the grounds that it was obtained under FISA. So now a man who is innocent of the crime they got a warrant to investigate is unable to defend himself for another, more ordinary, crime. Not saying that crime is excusable and that jail time isn't justified for child porn, but the inability to defend himself seems unfair.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Was any evidence withheld here? Or is it instead the case that the original FISA warrant was withheld (being part of a complicated counterespionage case), and the defense feels that given the full warrant, they might be able to defeat the search and have the CP evidence excluded?
  - tremon 11y ago
    That doesn't matter. If the government can't prove how it obtained the evidence, it also can't prove that it didn't manufacture said "evidence".
    - tptacek 11y ago
      The government has explained how it obtained the evidence. That's not the basis of the defense's complaint.
  - mholt 11y ago
    I guess I meant "information about how the evidence was obtained." I just think blurring the lines between two totally separate investigations like that is bad practice and brings into serious doubt the integrity of the government's authority, especially if the perp is innocent of the secret one.
- mindslight 11y ago
sneak 11y ago
Tell me again why well-off American programmers continue living in that country without the most basic of human rights? It's time to go. You can still access us-east-1 from the civilized bits of Europe, you know. It has now been between 2 and 10 years since the time where it became totally unreasonable to continue living there while other options are available to you. Don't wait until the trumped-up federal charges. Move now.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > Tell me again why well-off American programmers continue living in that country without the most basic of human rights? One thing to keep in mind if you move out of the US is that you will be subject to double-taxation as a US citizen. So technically if you want to reject the system you need to leave the country and lose the passport.
  - function_seven 11y ago
    You're not double-taxed as a US citizen abroad. You pay the higher of the two taxes. And you don't pay US taxes on the first 100k of income.
    - tremon 11y ago
      How does that work? If your local taxes are more than what the US would take, they take nothing? And if the US taxes are higher, the US only receives the surplus amount?
      - function_seven 11y ago
        Link below explains it better. I'm sure it's as complicated as the IRS can make it, and I'm sure there are situations where some of your income is double-taxed, but for most people, you choose either a tax credit in the amount of foreign taxes paid, or you get to exclude 100k of your income right off the bat. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-us-citizens-living-abroad-owe-us-tax.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-us-citizens-livi...
homero 11y ago
Pedo or not, the govt is guilty scum
- dang 11y ago
  Guilty scum or not, this is a bad HN comment. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.
lasermike026 11y ago
This is how democracies die. We must eliminate the secret court systems and reintroduce the use of warrants from the publicly accessible courts. There is no other alternative.
- meric 11y ago
  The democracy is already dead. This is what death of a democracy looks like.
darawk 11y ago
To be honest, nothing about this seems particularly bad. It seems like circumstantially there was some evidence that he may have been a spy, the government executed a FISA warrant on the basis of that belief, and then found evidence of child porn. I'm not generally a fan of secret warrants or broad search and seizure powers, but this really doesn't strike me as a particularly bad case. This seems, by and large, like an eminently reasonable and successful use of those powers.
- webjprgm 11y ago
  The article has one sentence about the videos being on a beach house computer that someone else could have used. So just from this article it is unclear exactly how damming that evidence is, but it is possible it was not his fault that the illegal videos were on his computers. So first suspicion and second being charged for something he didn't do but could not get out of because he didn't have access to all the legal information necessary. At least that is a possibility. If he really is guilty then I don't feel bad for him.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    That's true, but contested evidence has nothing to do with FISA. The defendant could just as easily have been searched because a houseguest saw the CP on a computer and tipped the police, and the same debate would have occurred.
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    > but it is possible it was not his fault that the illegal videos were on his computers. So? His home may have been searched for other reasons to discover this. Just like anyone else found with these materials on his computer, he'll have to get arrested and go to court over them.
    - webjprgm 11y ago
      Which he did, but then his defense was hampered by the secrecy around how the evidence was obtained. At least the article makes it sound like this.
sunstone 11y ago
This case seems to have reasonable doubt all over it, if this is all they've got.
SeanDav 11y ago
If, during the entire history of the USA, some FBI agents had never been proven to be corrupt, if judges had never been proven to be corrupt, if evidence had never been proved to be planted by authorities, then maybe, just maybe this would be justified. In the real world, however, this is very, very scary and I consider myself lucky I am not subject to this travesty. Since there does not appear to be any proof that he downloaded the images, or was involved in any way, other than pictures being found on various hard drives, it is quite plausible to me that the FBI/NSA/CIA planted evidence in order to blackmail him.
- lsh123 11y ago
  The past does not predict the future. Even if all the "ifs" were true, then it is still a bad idea and scary thing to do.
  - x1798DE 11y ago
    The past is not a guarantee of the future, but it's very often a great predictor of the future.
- threatofrain 11y ago
  I'd also add that the FISA court rubber-stamps almost all government requests. http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-really-rubber-stamp http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/foreign-intelligence...
- boosting7669 11y ago
  And yet a jury convicted him. This kind of thing is far beyond the comprehension of the common juror. Knowing what I know about computer security and how EASY it is to plant digital evidence without leaving a trace, even from thousands of miles away, I'd have to see video evidence of the defendant downloading the material as it happens before rendering such a verdict, especially if it's going to mean decades in prison.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
matt_wulfeck 11y ago
> The court also found that “there is no indication of any false statements having been included in the FISA materials. Yes but how do we know that when it's kept a secret? We keep things like this from being a secret so that this very question can be determined. "Trust us. It's legit."
appleflaxen 11y ago
And the child porn charge doesn't really matter to the prosecutors. They offered to drop it in return for espionage data. The insidious part of all of this is that everybody is guilty of something. And for a sufficiently connected person, you can find a sufficiently broad law that you can charge them with a serious crime. Combine that with selective enforcement (witness the absence of charges in the wake of the subprime crisis), and you have an utterly arbitrary criminal justice system that only functions to protect and advance the interests of the 1%.
- lostgame 11y ago
  // I can handout a million vaccinations - // Or let 'em all die in exasperation. // Have 'em all healed from their lacerations, // Or have 'em all killed by assassination. // I can make anybody go to prison, // Just because I don't like them. // And I can do anything with no permission; // I have it all under my command, because - // I can guide a missile by satellite // By satellite // And I can hit a target through a telescope // Through a telescope // And I can end the planet in a holocaust // In a holocaust - 'flobots - handlebars' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLUX0y4EptA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLUX0y4EptA
ted12 11y ago
Quotes in the linked article seem like lawyerly smokescreen to me. Assuming that the government planted child porn on this guy is no more correct than assuming he's guilty before a trial.
notthegov 11y ago
The irony is that the Clinton Administration was accused of deferring to politics over intelligence warnings that Boeing was inadvertently or carelessly leaking technology to China.
rl3 11y ago
>Jeff Fischbach, a forensic technologist for the defense, said there is no evidence that the child pornography was ever seen by anyone who used the computer, much less Gartenlaub. >The government’s own forensic expert, Bruce W. Pixley, said he could not find any evidence of the material being downloaded onto any of the computers, the defense noted. That means it had to have been copied onto the computer — but by whom is unknown. This guy was still convicted regardless, not to mention the fishy nature of the case. I've always thought that so-called "Advanced Persistent Threats" or state-level actors—considering the ease and degree to which they can own most targets—are very likely capable of planting incriminating evidence with such precision so as to appear forensically sound in virtually every regard. In reality though, it seems all that's required is removable media, rudimentary technical skills, and a dumb jury.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
noonespecial 11y ago
So kiddie porn is just the new "drugs" is the new "he's a secret communist" is the new "he's a secret loyalist" is the new "she's a witch in league with satan". Par for the course. I think American exceptionalism gets in our way here. Instead of asking "how could this happen in the land of the free?", the real question is "You gave some people limitless power and no oversight!? What the hell did you expect? This is what always happens when you do that!"
ChiCommTroll 11y ago
Here's some newspaper coverage from when Gartenlaub was originally arrested. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gartenlaub-633671-fbi-home.html http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gartenlaub-633671-fbi-hom...
upofadown 11y ago
> ... the prosecutors indicated a willingness to reduce or drop the child pornography charges if he would tell them about the C-17, ... Doesn't the justice system have some sort of obligation to prosecute people who they feel have committed serious crimes? How can a prosecutor just ignore their clear duty in an attempt to extort cooperation from someone? How is this sort of thing any more acceptable than just straight up torturing the guy?
abyd 11y ago
FbI traffics in child porn. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/21/fbi-ran-website-sharing-thousands-child-porn-images/79108346/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/21/fbi-ran-websit... They fabricate evidence when they cannot make a case. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-fbi-entrapment... This is obviously coercion. Connecting the porn files to one of their websites would be very beneficial to the defense, and something I would love to see in the court record.

258 points by hackuser 11y ago

ekianjo 11y ago

nxzero 11y ago
Might seem repeative or unwarrented, but to me, it's very clear that the... US is a police state.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  More like, it has become like that. Because of complete disregard/disrespect for the US constitution. The constitution had numerous safeguards to restrict abuse of power, but the Federal Government is completely sitting on it.
  - X86BSD 11y ago
    "But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." -Lysander Spooner
    - webjprgm 11y ago
      Democracy is a form of government that can destroy itself. The French voted to put in an emperor their first time around. So we may have a good constitution but if the people vote to make bad laws that break it, and permit those laws to function, then it is the people's fault, not the founder's fault.
      - kazagistar 11y ago
        I mean, the binary choice clusterfuck that is modern politics is certainly the fault of the founders, and is certainly partially responsible for the current problems. And because of the reverence of the founders and the constitution as it exists, the self destruction and rebirth is looking likelier then meaningfully repairing the system.
        tajen 11y ago
        Tomorrow we'll have infinite disdain for binary-party democracies, just like we currently have for monoparty democracies. It baffles me that people still immigrate to Singapore. What a total disrespect for a thousand years fighting for the right to vote.
        SixSigma 11y ago
        I guess it's not so bad if you can leave when you feel like it. Singapore is a cool place if you're on the right side. Dubai is another even more extreme example.
  - Govannon 11y ago
    >but the Federal Government is completely sitting on it. Arguably in a democracy we Americans should all be blaming ourselves for that. Because of the whole voting/paying attention/holding elected officials accountable thing. The Federal Government is representative of our collective ability to do that well, plus our historic ability to do that well I suppose.
    - ekianjo 11y ago
      > Arguably in a democracy we Americans should all be blaming ourselves for that Maybe as a nation if you consider that the term makes any sense, but for the most part this has started to happen before most Americans alive today were born. Like always there is not a single date in History where you can pinpoint a decisive moment where the Constitution was destroyed, it's been a progressive and "death by thousands cuts" kind of thing.
      - rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
        I would argue that date was in 1917, when President Wildon founded the Committee on Public Information to sell WWI to Americans. The committee then hired Edward Bernays, who was struck by the ability for war to motivate people, and used his uncle Sigmund Freud's theories on psychoanalysis to contrive ways to get people to do or buy things they normally wouldn't. The stunning success of psychologically tuned propaganda taught generations of political masterminds how to not only rile up the public to make big changes, but to structure society as a disconnected atomized collection of individuals too caught up with their own lives and consumerism to seriously challenge the powers that be. From then on, it becomes easier and easier to circumvent the constitution and even basic ethics because people are less likely to care for longer than a news cycle.
        mindslight 11y ago
        What about 1861, when the mutual agreement of the Constitution was reinterpreted as an inescapable suicide pact? I don't think there's necessarily a specific turning point - it seems a long line of gradual erosion.
  - enlightenedfool 11y ago
    It will get worse when electorate instead of choosing the right candidates, chooses the more electable ones. The constitution cannot provide safeguard against ill-informed electorate. Not just the US, applies to any democracy. Most democracies have similar awesome constitution texts.
    - ekianjo 11y ago
      One of the key issues in elections is that candidates promise stuff to specific interest groups - which is basically the same thing as buying votes (with future government funds, on top of that). That kind of behaviour should be explicitly forbidden and should be prosecuted because it actively damages Democracy.
      - webjprgm 11y ago
        It would be interesting if candidates were not allowed to promise what they would do, but merely campaign on their morals and good standing in the community so we can pick people who would make intelligent decisions but not necessarily ones that would choose a specific way on a specific issue. That's what you're asking for here.
    - lettergram 11y ago
      That's actually why historically only land owners could vote. They had the most to lose and we're the most educated. Regardless of "right or wrong" that did provide a safeguard against the likes of people like Trump, probably Hillery and Bernie as well.
      - tremon 11y ago
        Would it have safeguarded against Nixon, Reagan, Bush or McCarthy though? (yes, I know, the latter was never president -- but still elected)
        tracker1 11y ago
        If you're throwing Reagan in as a bad president, you should throw JFK in too, since regarding policy/politically they were very close to each other.
  - at-fates-hands 11y ago
    >>> More like, it has become like that. Because of complete disregard/disrespect for the US constitution. Which has infected every level of government. From the president's "executive orders" every time he wants something done and congress refuses to do it, so he simply writes a new law and enacts it. From supreme court nominees who believe more in "social justice" then interpreting the constitution which is their job, not to dole out fairness when they feel their has been an injustice done to some party. From the do-nothing congress that simply doesn't work at all in the completely divided partisan environment they've created. No laws get passed, there is no working together for their constituents - which is their job. You can also toss in there the Republicans stone walling the supreme court nominee which has become high theater now - on both sides. Our government is being run like a fucking game now and its infuriating and depressing all at the same time. Remember those days when the two parties would work together and pass acts and laws that were good for the country? Remember when the economy was shit and both parties worked together and solve the problems? Yeah, I don't either.
    - tracker1 11y ago
      Is there really a need for more/new laws? Seriously. I mean most of what congress does is budgetary and campaign fund raising... very litle effectively gets done regardless... much of what passes, does so with very little backpressure, exception to some hot-potato political issues.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    This is the great fallacy of the theoretical ideal of "rule of law" which is the basis for the idea of a "republic". In physical reality, a law is a piece of paper with words on it. If you sit on it, it's not going to sprout arms and do something about it.
tptacek 11y ago
It is, but isn't it also the case that secret court filings are as old as the US courts? How else would espionage prosecutions work? Similarly, how would complicated organized crime investigations work without secrecy? Isn't the alternative that prosecutors get exactly one bite at the apple, and if they're wrong, the target of the investigation is tipped off? The case that ultimately appears before the court, of course, needs to be transparent. And the evidence collected by the prosecution must be made available to the defendant. But this isn't that.
- sneak 11y ago
  For espionage, your argument makes a little bit of sense. When they cross over into non-espionage routine prosecutions, this stuff should get thrown the fuck out. A warrant that can't be challenged for legality by the accused is a clear denial of due process. Also, scroll down the thread. The CP prosecution was used as a stick to further their espionage prosecution for which it turns out the guy was innocent.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > Similarly, how would complicated organized crime investigations work without secrecy? Secrecy is one thing, however the key issue here is the lack of civilian oversight. The whole FISA system is behind closed doors without any third party representative to confirm the lawfulness of investigations. That's what makes a difference between police state methods and due process: the fact that there is somehow some decentralization of responsibilities.
- fiatmoney 11y ago
  "Secret court filings" that are hidden from the defense during a trial are ridiculously uncommon. Sealed filings for, eg, warrants are common. They are typically made available to the defense & the public for the trial. Otherwise the evidence amounts to "trust us, we're the government". In counter-espionage cases, it is very common for the government to balance concern about disclosing its methods with likelihood of a conviction. If they fuck up the investigation and tip off the target before the trial, or tip off other targets during the trial, it's not the court's job to give them a do-over.
mineshaftgap 11y ago
If the US is a police state then there is no country that isn't, but at least you get a lot of up votes.

nobody_nowhere 11y ago

Not even bothering with parallel construction in this one

fweespee_ch 11y ago

> In Gartenlaub’s case, the government made sealed filings, so neither the defense nor the public was able to see them. Based on the secret filings, the judge held that the government had shown probable cause that the house to be searched belonged to “an agent of a foreign power” or a spy. > “The government is increasingly using national security tools to investigate domestic criminal cases, bypassing key constitutional protections,” said Patrick Toomey, a staff lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. “This problem is only compounded in the digital age, where the FBI is collecting vast amounts of our data for intelligence purposes but then goes sifting through all that information in unrelated criminal investigations.” This is bullshit. You shouldn't be able to withhold evidence from the defense when you are talking about throwing someone in jail. They just want to get around the normal domestic constitutional protections because it makes their job easier. Yeah, well, you make the prosecution's job easier and you end up with prisons full of people because their key performance indicators are convictions and their conviction rate. > RIVERSIDE, Calif. — FBI agents entered Keith Gartenlaub’s home in Southern California while he and his wife were visiting her relatives in Shanghai. Agents wearing gloves went through boxes, snapped pictures of documents and made copies of three computer hard drives before leaving as quietly as they had entered. > In Gartenlaub’s case, the defense unsuccessfully argued that he could not be linked to identical copies of child pornography videos found on four hard drives in his house. Two of the hard drives had been in a computer that was kept at a beach house where numerous people had access to it, Gartenlaub said. > Jeff Fischbach, a forensic technologist for the defense, said there is no evidence that the child pornography was ever seen by anyone who used the computer, much less Gartenlaub. > The government’s own forensic expert, Bruce W. Pixley, said he could not find any evidence of the material being downloaded onto any of the computers, the defense noted. That means it had to have been copied onto the computer — but by whom is unknown. > Gartenlaub, 47, was fired in August 2014 and has been unemployed since. His attorney said his defense was hampered by an inability to obtain basic information about how the evidence was obtained and on what specific grounds the warrant was issued. > During his initial appearance in a federal courthouse in Santa Ana, Calif., the prosecutors indicated a willingness to reduce or drop the child pornography charges if he would tell them about the C-17, said Sara Naheedy, Gartenlaub’s attorney at the time. This reads like, after failing to find proof he was a spy, the FBI "found proof" he was a pedophile which given the sheer quantity of child porn the FBI has control over seems oddly suspicious. It is extremely easy to plant the information on the hard drives but it is much harder to create a chain of events that links the specific user to the chain of events from acquiring it to viewing it. [e.g. If you provide dates/times, what happens if he the guy can prove he wasn't home at the time?] So they went fishing with child porn charges in order to "encourage his cooperation". Admittedly, this could be a story the guy just tells to convince people he isn't a pedo but honestly...it reads like they went with the one charge no one would defend him on that was easy to fabricate. "We think he is a spy, we think he is guilty, so let us create a situation that allows us to pressure him to confessing what we really care about." It isn't like the FBI hasn't done this before. > According to two Boeing colleagues, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media, there is no such job at the company. And Gartenlaub was, in any case, an IT manager. Moreover, they said, the breached files were accessible through servers in the field, such as at Air Force bases. These were not servers that Gartenlaub or his team of engineers who supported the plane’s designers had access to, they said. Wow. The guy didn't even have access to the stuff he was accused of leaking?!

JumpCrisscross 11y ago

> Justice Department officials added that Congress has always intended that information obtained through intelligence authorities could be used in criminal prosecutions. 'It would be irresponsible for the government to ignore evidence of criminal wrongdoing when such evidence is lawfully collected,' said Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi. Fair enough. Then on handover, from the intelligence community to domestic prosecutors, lift any specialness the warrant was given for having been granted through a FISA court.

mholt 11y ago

The main problem I see is this: > His attorney said his defense was hampered by an inability to obtain basic information about how the evidence was obtained and on what specific grounds the warrant was issued. Authorities can obtain secret warrants and conduct ordinary criminal investigations with it, conveniently withholding the evidence from the defense attorney on the grounds that it was obtained under FISA. So now a man who is innocent of the crime they got a warrant to investigate is unable to defend himself for another, more ordinary, crime. Not saying that crime is excusable and that jail time isn't justified for child porn, but the inability to defend himself seems unfair.

tptacek 11y ago
Was any evidence withheld here? Or is it instead the case that the original FISA warrant was withheld (being part of a complicated counterespionage case), and the defense feels that given the full warrant, they might be able to defeat the search and have the CP evidence excluded?
- tremon 11y ago
  That doesn't matter. If the government can't prove how it obtained the evidence, it also can't prove that it didn't manufacture said "evidence".
  - tptacek 11y ago
    The government has explained how it obtained the evidence. That's not the basis of the defense's complaint.
- mholt 11y ago
  I guess I meant "information about how the evidence was obtained." I just think blurring the lines between two totally separate investigations like that is bad practice and brings into serious doubt the integrity of the government's authority, especially if the perp is innocent of the secret one.
mindslight 11y ago

sneak 11y ago

Tell me again why well-off American programmers continue living in that country without the most basic of human rights? It's time to go. You can still access us-east-1 from the civilized bits of Europe, you know. It has now been between 2 and 10 years since the time where it became totally unreasonable to continue living there while other options are available to you. Don't wait until the trumped-up federal charges. Move now.

ekianjo 11y ago
> Tell me again why well-off American programmers continue living in that country without the most basic of human rights? One thing to keep in mind if you move out of the US is that you will be subject to double-taxation as a US citizen. So technically if you want to reject the system you need to leave the country and lose the passport.
- function_seven 11y ago
  You're not double-taxed as a US citizen abroad. You pay the higher of the two taxes. And you don't pay US taxes on the first 100k of income.
  - tremon 11y ago
    How does that work? If your local taxes are more than what the US would take, they take nothing? And if the US taxes are higher, the US only receives the surplus amount?
    - function_seven 11y ago
      Link below explains it better. I'm sure it's as complicated as the IRS can make it, and I'm sure there are situations where some of your income is double-taxed, but for most people, you choose either a tax credit in the amount of foreign taxes paid, or you get to exclude 100k of your income right off the bat. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-us-citizens-living-abroad-owe-us-tax.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-us-citizens-livi...

homero 11y ago

Pedo or not, the govt is guilty scum

dang 11y ago
Guilty scum or not, this is a bad HN comment. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

lasermike026 11y ago

This is how democracies die. We must eliminate the secret court systems and reintroduce the use of warrants from the publicly accessible courts. There is no other alternative.

meric 11y ago
The democracy is already dead. This is what death of a democracy looks like.

darawk 11y ago

To be honest, nothing about this seems particularly bad. It seems like circumstantially there was some evidence that he may have been a spy, the government executed a FISA warrant on the basis of that belief, and then found evidence of child porn. I'm not generally a fan of secret warrants or broad search and seizure powers, but this really doesn't strike me as a particularly bad case. This seems, by and large, like an eminently reasonable and successful use of those powers.

webjprgm 11y ago
The article has one sentence about the videos being on a beach house computer that someone else could have used. So just from this article it is unclear exactly how damming that evidence is, but it is possible it was not his fault that the illegal videos were on his computers. So first suspicion and second being charged for something he didn't do but could not get out of because he didn't have access to all the legal information necessary. At least that is a possibility. If he really is guilty then I don't feel bad for him.
- tptacek 11y ago
  That's true, but contested evidence has nothing to do with FISA. The defendant could just as easily have been searched because a houseguest saw the CP on a computer and tipped the police, and the same debate would have occurred.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  > but it is possible it was not his fault that the illegal videos were on his computers. So? His home may have been searched for other reasons to discover this. Just like anyone else found with these materials on his computer, he'll have to get arrested and go to court over them.
  - webjprgm 11y ago
    Which he did, but then his defense was hampered by the secrecy around how the evidence was obtained. At least the article makes it sound like this.

sunstone 11y ago

This case seems to have reasonable doubt all over it, if this is all they've got.

SeanDav 11y ago

If, during the entire history of the USA, some FBI agents had never been proven to be corrupt, if judges had never been proven to be corrupt, if evidence had never been proved to be planted by authorities, then maybe, just maybe this would be justified. In the real world, however, this is very, very scary and I consider myself lucky I am not subject to this travesty. Since there does not appear to be any proof that he downloaded the images, or was involved in any way, other than pictures being found on various hard drives, it is quite plausible to me that the FBI/NSA/CIA planted evidence in order to blackmail him.

lsh123 11y ago
The past does not predict the future. Even if all the "ifs" were true, then it is still a bad idea and scary thing to do.
- x1798DE 11y ago
  The past is not a guarantee of the future, but it's very often a great predictor of the future.
threatofrain 11y ago
I'd also add that the FISA court rubber-stamps almost all government requests. http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-court-really-rubber-stamp http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/foreign-intelligence...
boosting7669 11y ago
And yet a jury convicted him. This kind of thing is far beyond the comprehension of the common juror. Knowing what I know about computer security and how EASY it is to plant digital evidence without leaving a trace, even from thousands of miles away, I'd have to see video evidence of the defendant downloading the material as it happens before rendering such a verdict, especially if it's going to mean decades in prison.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

matt_wulfeck 11y ago

> The court also found that “there is no indication of any false statements having been included in the FISA materials. Yes but how do we know that when it's kept a secret? We keep things like this from being a secret so that this very question can be determined. "Trust us. It's legit."

appleflaxen 11y ago

And the child porn charge doesn't really matter to the prosecutors. They offered to drop it in return for espionage data. The insidious part of all of this is that everybody is guilty of something. And for a sufficiently connected person, you can find a sufficiently broad law that you can charge them with a serious crime. Combine that with selective enforcement (witness the absence of charges in the wake of the subprime crisis), and you have an utterly arbitrary criminal justice system that only functions to protect and advance the interests of the 1%.

lostgame 11y ago
// I can handout a million vaccinations - // Or let 'em all die in exasperation. // Have 'em all healed from their lacerations, // Or have 'em all killed by assassination. // I can make anybody go to prison, // Just because I don't like them. // And I can do anything with no permission; // I have it all under my command, because - // I can guide a missile by satellite // By satellite // And I can hit a target through a telescope // Through a telescope // And I can end the planet in a holocaust // In a holocaust - 'flobots - handlebars' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLUX0y4EptA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLUX0y4EptA

ted12 11y ago

Quotes in the linked article seem like lawyerly smokescreen to me. Assuming that the government planted child porn on this guy is no more correct than assuming he's guilty before a trial.

notthegov 11y ago

The irony is that the Clinton Administration was accused of deferring to politics over intelligence warnings that Boeing was inadvertently or carelessly leaking technology to China.

rl3 11y ago

>Jeff Fischbach, a forensic technologist for the defense, said there is no evidence that the child pornography was ever seen by anyone who used the computer, much less Gartenlaub. >The government’s own forensic expert, Bruce W. Pixley, said he could not find any evidence of the material being downloaded onto any of the computers, the defense noted. That means it had to have been copied onto the computer — but by whom is unknown. This guy was still convicted regardless, not to mention the fishy nature of the case. I've always thought that so-called "Advanced Persistent Threats" or state-level actors—considering the ease and degree to which they can own most targets—are very likely capable of planting incriminating evidence with such precision so as to appear forensically sound in virtually every regard. In reality though, it seems all that's required is removable media, rudimentary technical skills, and a dumb jury.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

noonespecial 11y ago

So kiddie porn is just the new "drugs" is the new "he's a secret communist" is the new "he's a secret loyalist" is the new "she's a witch in league with satan". Par for the course. I think American exceptionalism gets in our way here. Instead of asking "how could this happen in the land of the free?", the real question is "You gave some people limitless power and no oversight!? What the hell did you expect? This is what always happens when you do that!"

ChiCommTroll 11y ago

Here's some newspaper coverage from when Gartenlaub was originally arrested. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gartenlaub-633671-fbi-home.html http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gartenlaub-633671-fbi-hom...

upofadown 11y ago

> ... the prosecutors indicated a willingness to reduce or drop the child pornography charges if he would tell them about the C-17, ... Doesn't the justice system have some sort of obligation to prosecute people who they feel have committed serious crimes? How can a prosecutor just ignore their clear duty in an attempt to extort cooperation from someone? How is this sort of thing any more acceptable than just straight up torturing the guy?

abyd 11y ago

FbI traffics in child porn. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/21/fbi-ran-website-sharing-thousands-child-porn-images/79108346/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/21/fbi-ran-websit... They fabricate evidence when they cannot make a case. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-fbi-entrapment-is-inventing-terrorists-and-letting-bad-guys-off-the-hook-20120515 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-fbi-entrapment... This is obviously coercion. Connecting the porn files to one of their websites would be very beneficial to the defense, and something I would love to see in the court record.