3 ms·

Illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in any sane court of law. How is this any different? This reads to me like: there's this bad area in town where d

by yarou 10y ago

Illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in any sane court of law. How is this any different? This reads to me like: there's this bad area in town where drug dealers are known to congregate. Does that make every person who hangs around there, or even passes by, a drug dealer by association?

gragas 10y ago
That's a ridiculous argument. You don't just "hang around" child porn websites without participating. Furthermore, the FBI achieved their goal at the end of the day. Just because evidence is obtained illegally doesn't mean that people who distribute CP are just off the hook. Sure, that's abuse of power. But it's absolutely ridiculous for any sane person to argue that these people should walk free because the FBI overstepped its bounds.
- sigmar 10y ago
  >That's a ridiculous argument. You don't just "hang around" child porn websites without participating. I'm pretty sure his argument was that the site could have had other purposes. >But it's absolutely ridiculous for any sane person to argue that these people should walk free because the FBI overstepped its bounds. That's actually how the legal system does (and should) work. Look up "fruit of the poisonous tree"
  - nl 10y ago
    > I'm pretty sure his argument was that the site could have had other purposes. But in this case it didn't. Not a single case coming out of it has claimed that it was some kind of mistake, or inadvertent visit or they were there to do something else.
- lettergram 10y ago
  Ugh... I've had friends who use to send people links to child porn sites as a joke. Use to say "Now you're on the FBI's wanted list" > Just because evidence is obtained illegally doesn't mean that people who distribute CP are just off the hook. In the U.S. that's exactly what it is supposed to mean. If the FBI, police, or just about anyone oversteps the law it's not admissible in court. There has to be a reasonable suspicion and motive to get a warrant - that could have been as easy as simply getting a warrant to host a Tor node and sniff traffic. They didn't do that. Now, lets get to what's scary about your argument. What if all the sudden it was illegal to visit Hacker News? Perhaps it was declared that way by your new president Trump. Trump got sick of people "hacking" things, so instead of just blocking all the websites he decided he wanted to simply monitor all the users who visit hacker news, then charge all of them with "hacking". It is a hacking website after all... And, although our justice branch of the government was never consulted, i'm sure you'll find some CNN poll showing 40% of American's should be jailed for life for hacking. Later on the news, someone in a suit will be saying "it's absolutely ridiculous for any sane person to argue that these people should walk free because the FBI overstepped its bounds." .... Hence, as a democracy we all try to get along, and that includes respecting each-others privacy as long as there is not a reasonable suspicion we are harming others. It's there to protect democracy, not the pedophiles.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

by yarou 10y ago

gragas 10y ago

That's a ridiculous argument. You don't just "hang around" child porn websites without participating. Furthermore, the FBI achieved their goal at the end of the day. Just because evidence is obtained illegally doesn't mean that people who distribute CP are just off the hook. Sure, that's abuse of power. But it's absolutely ridiculous for any sane person to argue that these people should walk free because the FBI overstepped its bounds.

sigmar 10y ago
>That's a ridiculous argument. You don't just "hang around" child porn websites without participating. I'm pretty sure his argument was that the site could have had other purposes. >But it's absolutely ridiculous for any sane person to argue that these people should walk free because the FBI overstepped its bounds. That's actually how the legal system does (and should) work. Look up "fruit of the poisonous tree"
- nl 10y ago
  > I'm pretty sure his argument was that the site could have had other purposes. But in this case it didn't. Not a single case coming out of it has claimed that it was some kind of mistake, or inadvertent visit or they were there to do something else.
lettergram 10y ago
Ugh... I've had friends who use to send people links to child porn sites as a joke. Use to say "Now you're on the FBI's wanted list" > Just because evidence is obtained illegally doesn't mean that people who distribute CP are just off the hook. In the U.S. that's exactly what it is supposed to mean. If the FBI, police, or just about anyone oversteps the law it's not admissible in court. There has to be a reasonable suspicion and motive to get a warrant - that could have been as easy as simply getting a warrant to host a Tor node and sniff traffic. They didn't do that. Now, lets get to what's scary about your argument. What if all the sudden it was illegal to visit Hacker News? Perhaps it was declared that way by your new president Trump. Trump got sick of people "hacking" things, so instead of just blocking all the websites he decided he wanted to simply monitor all the users who visit hacker news, then charge all of them with "hacking". It is a hacking website after all... And, although our justice branch of the government was never consulted, i'm sure you'll find some CNN poll showing 40% of American's should be jailed for life for hacking. Later on the news, someone in a suit will be saying "it's absolutely ridiculous for any sane person to argue that these people should walk free because the FBI overstepped its bounds." .... Hence, as a democracy we all try to get along, and that includes respecting each-others privacy as long as there is not a reasonable suspicion we are harming others. It's there to protect democracy, not the pedophiles.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]