3 ms·

Two reasons: (1) There were posts on HN around the time of the Snowden news of border agents presenting private emails, in one instance someone was traveling a

Two reasons: (1) There were posts on HN around the time of the Snowden news of border agents presenting private emails, in one instance someone was traveling as a tourist but had email inviting them to perform as a musician (2) In individual stories I read of searched phones, the agent already knew where to look (for example, went directly to an app with discussion arranging paid hookups) We already know that parallel reconstruction is common for surveillance used by law enforcement (DEA, local police using Stingray, etc) so that seems more believable than random spot checks on .007% of people.

tptacek 9y ago
We know that parallel reconstruction is "common"? Can you back that up with evidence?
- paulsutter 9y ago
  Google “parallel reconstruction stingray” or “parallel reconstruction dea” Nothing prevents police or prosecutors from using inadmissible evidence, they just can’t produce it in court.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    That's categorically false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
    - paulsutter 9y ago
      You should read your own link. Parallel reconstruction is an explicit exception to that rule. I would be thrilled if you can debunk parallel reconstruction, but that doctrine is the very reason for it. From your link: “The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if: - it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source”
      - tptacek 9y ago
        We're mis-communicating. You said: Nothing prevents police or prosecutors from using inadmissible evidence, they just can’t produce it in court. That statement by itself is clearly false. The police cannot illegally search you and use that evidence as a means to find additional evidence, and then present that evidence in court as if it was untainted. What I gather you meant now was that parallel construction allows them to do this. Parallel construction is the process by which unlawful evidence is used to direct the attention of LEOs, who, after plainly observing some other crime or probable cause indicator, then conduct a search. I know what parallel construction is, but what I do not know is why you believe the process is common. Do you have any evidence for the frequency with which it is used? The revelation that it had ever happened was a major news story just a few years ago. Is it your belief that it was common practice, and that even though there are something like 500,000 working law enforcement agents in the US, somehow the secret never got out until recently? To be very clear: I believe parallel construction has happened and will happen again in the future, but I do not believe it is routine or that any process at CBP is tuned to amplify it.
        paulsutter 9y ago
        I don't want to debate the meaning of the word "common", but given the number of Stingers in use, and their NDA prohibiting disclosure, I think it's naive to assume that parallel reconstruction is rare. And yes, that's just my opinion. When the police find a guy carrying $500,000 in his car, do you really think that was random chance? > That statement by itself is clearly false. No the statement is true. Detectives act on hearsay evidence all the time (which is inadmissible). They use everything they know about a suspect to drive an investigation. Inadmissible means only that it can't be presented in court. While a jury must ignore inadmissible evidence, police have no such requirement. Most of their work is outside the courtroom, the trial is just the presentation at the end.
        pas 9y ago
        > The police cannot illegally search you and use that evidence as a means to find additional evidence, and then present that evidence in court as if it was untainted. Isn't the problem that illegal (dragnet) searches still happen? Police only need one warrant or one instance of probable cause to "deploy Stingray" in a city block, and then flag suspicious things, and then use the legal search conducted by the border patrol, to check what was suspicious. Of course, the practicality of flagging a lot of people for minor things (that somehow are or become a crime when crossing a border) and then keeping those records somehow shared with the CBP in secret for all these years is simply not there.
  - Tomte 9y ago
    Why would I google a very idiosyncratic phrase that next to nobody except you is using?
    - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
      To understand what they're talking about?
      - Tomte 9y ago
        Generally, if someone uses a phrase that's slightly different from the usual phrase ("parallel reconstruction" vs. "parallel construction"), he is running in circles that are almost certainly conspiracy theorists.

tptacek 9y ago

We know that parallel reconstruction is "common"? Can you back that up with evidence?

paulsutter 9y ago
Google “parallel reconstruction stingray” or “parallel reconstruction dea” Nothing prevents police or prosecutors from using inadmissible evidence, they just can’t produce it in court.
- tptacek 9y ago
  That's categorically false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
  - paulsutter 9y ago
    You should read your own link. Parallel reconstruction is an explicit exception to that rule. I would be thrilled if you can debunk parallel reconstruction, but that doctrine is the very reason for it. From your link: “The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if: - it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source”
    - tptacek 9y ago
      We're mis-communicating. You said: Nothing prevents police or prosecutors from using inadmissible evidence, they just can’t produce it in court. That statement by itself is clearly false. The police cannot illegally search you and use that evidence as a means to find additional evidence, and then present that evidence in court as if it was untainted. What I gather you meant now was that parallel construction allows them to do this. Parallel construction is the process by which unlawful evidence is used to direct the attention of LEOs, who, after plainly observing some other crime or probable cause indicator, then conduct a search. I know what parallel construction is, but what I do not know is why you believe the process is common. Do you have any evidence for the frequency with which it is used? The revelation that it had ever happened was a major news story just a few years ago. Is it your belief that it was common practice, and that even though there are something like 500,000 working law enforcement agents in the US, somehow the secret never got out until recently? To be very clear: I believe parallel construction has happened and will happen again in the future, but I do not believe it is routine or that any process at CBP is tuned to amplify it.
      - paulsutter 9y ago
        I don't want to debate the meaning of the word "common", but given the number of Stingers in use, and their NDA prohibiting disclosure, I think it's naive to assume that parallel reconstruction is rare. And yes, that's just my opinion. When the police find a guy carrying $500,000 in his car, do you really think that was random chance? > That statement by itself is clearly false. No the statement is true. Detectives act on hearsay evidence all the time (which is inadmissible). They use everything they know about a suspect to drive an investigation. Inadmissible means only that it can't be presented in court. While a jury must ignore inadmissible evidence, police have no such requirement. Most of their work is outside the courtroom, the trial is just the presentation at the end.
      - pas 9y ago
        > The police cannot illegally search you and use that evidence as a means to find additional evidence, and then present that evidence in court as if it was untainted. Isn't the problem that illegal (dragnet) searches still happen? Police only need one warrant or one instance of probable cause to "deploy Stingray" in a city block, and then flag suspicious things, and then use the legal search conducted by the border patrol, to check what was suspicious. Of course, the practicality of flagging a lot of people for minor things (that somehow are or become a crime when crossing a border) and then keeping those records somehow shared with the CBP in secret for all these years is simply not there.
- Tomte 9y ago
  Why would I google a very idiosyncratic phrase that next to nobody except you is using?
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    To understand what they're talking about?
    - Tomte 9y ago
      Generally, if someone uses a phrase that's slightly different from the usual phrase ("parallel reconstruction" vs. "parallel construction"), he is running in circles that are almost certainly conspiracy theorists.