3 ms·

No, it's far more than two devices, and it went on for 10 months. They placed surveillance all around the 2 courthouses: light fixtures, a bus stop, bushes, pol

by jflatow 10y ago

No, it's far more than two devices, and it went on for 10 months. They placed surveillance all around the 2 courthouses: light fixtures, a bus stop, bushes, poles, the steps, and inside several vehicles. And there's another similar case from last year with >200 hours of recordings in San Mateo. http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2016/05/11/fbi-hid-surveillance-devices-around-alameda-county-courthouse http://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2016/05/11/...

Supi-lee 10y ago
Wonder what the RoI on all this is, and how they allocate resources to each ongoing investigation. Seems like it would cost a heck of a lot. I mean, you would need trained people sitting around listening to all those recordings.
- ddalex 10y ago
  Or maybe you just need to feed it into a voice to text engine, and then grep through the output for interesting bits. I'm quite sure that the NSA capabilities in this regard are quite beyond what is publicly available.
  - Supi-lee 10y ago
    I have seen such systems in use by medical transcription companies. The key is you need to know what you are looking for. If not someone has to actually sit and listen to all those hours of recordings. Which translates to a high operational cost. Audio\Speech mining they call it, but it has a ways to go. Even with just one speaker in a noise less environment, there are all kinds of issues with transcription accuracy. I can imagine it being much worse in the kind of conditions the FBI needs it to work in. Ofcourse high end equipment can make things better but it all adds to the cost.
- marincounty 10y ago
  I'll get hammered for this, and I don't like FBI secretly recording anyone, but in this particuliar case; I'm kinda glad they were at least interested in stopping this alleged crime. The crime? Supposedly, guys were buying up foreclosed properties. Yea, they were just doing what every get rich in realeste book/seminar suggests. They were buying up forclosed houses/apartments by the thousands. They were paying off competitors to Not bid on certain properties. They were rigging the system. They were in violation of The Sherman Anti-trust Act. Again, I think it's wrong, but have no sympathy for shinagigans concerning public auctions, and rich guys breaking laws. (These forclosed properties usually only get a blurb in back of some newspaper. If I had money, I would be bidding on them. I went to one years ago in my county, and I was suprised how few people were there.)
Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago
Around courthouses? That's horrific. You couldn't step outside to have a private conversation with your lawyer.
s_q_b 10y ago
You're correct. I didn't realize how extensive this operation was. The Motion to Suppress is practically a lay-up, and definitely worth a quick read. If you're familiar with the fact pattern, you can skip down to the Summary of Argument (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/media/pdf/motiontosuppress.pdf http://www.eastbayexpress.com/media/pdf/motiontosuppress.pdf .) The prosecution really had no choice but to withdraw the recordings. However, I can't help but wonder if there was more to it than that. This pattern is becoming a more frequent occurrence: the FBI provides the DOJ with evidence obtained through an improper method. If the Constitutionality or legality of that method is strongly questioned, the DOJ either withdraws the evidence or drops the charges. Since the issue is dropped, the techniques used by law enforcement are never subject to judicial scrutiny. The reason reason for dropping key pieces of evidence and even whole cases would have to be significant. The clear reasons are first, to preserve the ability of agents to continue using these techniques, and second, to prevent direct precedent saying they can't use them. My grandfather, a former FBI agent, used to half-jokingly reply to my complaints about the erosion of the Fourth Amendment, and after briefly laughing jovially would say, "You don't need a warrant if you don't use it in court!" So this method has been around since J. Edgar ran the Bureau.

by jflatow 10y ago

Supi-lee 10y ago

Wonder what the RoI on all this is, and how they allocate resources to each ongoing investigation. Seems like it would cost a heck of a lot. I mean, you would need trained people sitting around listening to all those recordings.

ddalex 10y ago
Or maybe you just need to feed it into a voice to text engine, and then grep through the output for interesting bits. I'm quite sure that the NSA capabilities in this regard are quite beyond what is publicly available.
- Supi-lee 10y ago
  I have seen such systems in use by medical transcription companies. The key is you need to know what you are looking for. If not someone has to actually sit and listen to all those hours of recordings. Which translates to a high operational cost. Audio\Speech mining they call it, but it has a ways to go. Even with just one speaker in a noise less environment, there are all kinds of issues with transcription accuracy. I can imagine it being much worse in the kind of conditions the FBI needs it to work in. Ofcourse high end equipment can make things better but it all adds to the cost.
marincounty 10y ago
I'll get hammered for this, and I don't like FBI secretly recording anyone, but in this particuliar case; I'm kinda glad they were at least interested in stopping this alleged crime. The crime? Supposedly, guys were buying up foreclosed properties. Yea, they were just doing what every get rich in realeste book/seminar suggests. They were buying up forclosed houses/apartments by the thousands. They were paying off competitors to Not bid on certain properties. They were rigging the system. They were in violation of The Sherman Anti-trust Act. Again, I think it's wrong, but have no sympathy for shinagigans concerning public auctions, and rich guys breaking laws. (These forclosed properties usually only get a blurb in back of some newspaper. If I had money, I would be bidding on them. I went to one years ago in my county, and I was suprised how few people were there.)

Sir_Cmpwn 10y ago

Around courthouses? That's horrific. You couldn't step outside to have a private conversation with your lawyer.

s_q_b 10y ago

You're correct. I didn't realize how extensive this operation was. The Motion to Suppress is practically a lay-up, and definitely worth a quick read. If you're familiar with the fact pattern, you can skip down to the Summary of Argument (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/media/pdf/motiontosuppress.pdf http://www.eastbayexpress.com/media/pdf/motiontosuppress.pdf .) The prosecution really had no choice but to withdraw the recordings. However, I can't help but wonder if there was more to it than that. This pattern is becoming a more frequent occurrence: the FBI provides the DOJ with evidence obtained through an improper method. If the Constitutionality or legality of that method is strongly questioned, the DOJ either withdraws the evidence or drops the charges. Since the issue is dropped, the techniques used by law enforcement are never subject to judicial scrutiny. The reason reason for dropping key pieces of evidence and even whole cases would have to be significant. The clear reasons are first, to preserve the ability of agents to continue using these techniques, and second, to prevent direct precedent saying they can't use them. My grandfather, a former FBI agent, used to half-jokingly reply to my complaints about the erosion of the Fourth Amendment, and after briefly laughing jovially would say, "You don't need a warrant if you don't use it in court!" So this method has been around since J. Edgar ran the Bureau.