7 ms·

>if these techniques and vulnerabilities were made public[...] Should the government prove that it followed the law when investigating a criminal? Did they obt

>if these techniques and vulnerabilities were made public[...] Should the government prove that it followed the law when investigating a criminal? Did they obtain the proper warrants that people recognize preserve stable law and order? It's unreasonable to assume that the vulnerability, that brought this case to justice, is the last one that could ever be used. More so, if you assume that most people are good and a healthy society needs privacy, we now know that there is a vulnerability that will affect more good people than bad and we are duty bound to protect good people's privacy. Checks on the government's power aren't there to let 'bad people' go free, there there because we know if we let the government's power reign free, more good people will be hurt than the few 'bad people' we punish.

onetimemanytime 7y ago
>>Should the government prove that it followed the law when investigating a criminal? Did they obtain the proper warrants that people recognize preserve stable law and order? That is the concern. A lot of people say "you either did it or not" but the Fourth Amendment disagrees...any evidence must be obtained by following the law.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  In theory, maybe. As in, I agree with you on principle, but if you do even a cursory read about recent abuses that include parallel construction, PATRIOT act and BSA, you may find that it is no longer the case. Hell, during my last attended CAMS conference, FBI guy outright said said that if the new lawyer doesn't know how to play ball with those ( informatikn gathered by SARs ), he gets pulled to the side and told whats what. Chilling. And no one questioned it. Including me.
pier25 7y ago
I'm not saying the authorities would not have to describe its investigative methods to a judge. What I'm saying is making them available to the general public.
MaupitiBlue 7y ago
> Should the government prove that it followed the law when investigating a criminal? They do, but only if the defendant requires them to do so. What’s happening here is that the prosecutors told the defendant “look, we all know you did it, so plead guilty and we’ll recommend a light sentence. You have a right to make us reveal our tor backdoor, but if you do the plea offer is off and we will have the trial, and win, and ask the judge to send you to prison until you die.” I’m sure the defendant is very interested in learning about the tor backdoor, but the idea of getting out of prison one day seems a little more compelling.
- RandomBacon 7y ago
  IIRC a year or two ago, weren't some criminals let off the hook because they didn't take a deal, and the law enforcement angency didn't want to reveal how the criminals were caught?
  - generatorguy 7y ago
    The article mentions that

onetimemanytime 7y ago

>>Should the government prove that it followed the law when investigating a criminal? Did they obtain the proper warrants that people recognize preserve stable law and order? That is the concern. A lot of people say "you either did it or not" but the Fourth Amendment disagrees...any evidence must be obtained by following the law.

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
In theory, maybe. As in, I agree with you on principle, but if you do even a cursory read about recent abuses that include parallel construction, PATRIOT act and BSA, you may find that it is no longer the case. Hell, during my last attended CAMS conference, FBI guy outright said said that if the new lawyer doesn't know how to play ball with those ( informatikn gathered by SARs ), he gets pulled to the side and told whats what. Chilling. And no one questioned it. Including me.

pier25 7y ago

I'm not saying the authorities would not have to describe its investigative methods to a judge. What I'm saying is making them available to the general public.

MaupitiBlue 7y ago

> Should the government prove that it followed the law when investigating a criminal? They do, but only if the defendant requires them to do so. What’s happening here is that the prosecutors told the defendant “look, we all know you did it, so plead guilty and we’ll recommend a light sentence. You have a right to make us reveal our tor backdoor, but if you do the plea offer is off and we will have the trial, and win, and ask the judge to send you to prison until you die.” I’m sure the defendant is very interested in learning about the tor backdoor, but the idea of getting out of prison one day seems a little more compelling.

RandomBacon 7y ago
IIRC a year or two ago, weren't some criminals let off the hook because they didn't take a deal, and the law enforcement angency didn't want to reveal how the criminals were caught?
- generatorguy 7y ago
  The article mentions that