4 ms·

1. Officer receives information $A through inadmissible means (which may be illegal, but not necessarily) 2. With information $A, officer is able to "prove" th

1. Officer receives information $A through inadmissible means (which may be illegal, but not necessarily) 2. With information $A, officer is able to "prove" that a suspect perpetrated a given crime 3. Knowing information $A, officer makes up bullshit showing that he reached $A solely from investigating leads from $B and $C. 4. $A is now admissible because the officer can show a link leading to $A from $B and $C, but he wouldn't have been able to without actually knowing what $A was. For example, if I gave you a billion files to go through and find one thing, you probably wouldn't be able to. If I gave you the same billion files and told you file X was the one you should look at, you can say "oh I knew to look in X because of <bullshit>".

jyrkesh 6y ago
Interesting...so it's kinda like clean-room reverse engineering, except that there's no mandate for the clean-room? I'd be interested to see what a clean-room-like proposal would look like for evidence collection. I.e. independent agencies that can't share evidence/information between them. Of course, then a 9/11 happens and there's lots of hand-wringing about how "we had all the data we needed, the agencies just weren't allowed to talk to each other". Ugh...
- hansjorg 6y ago
  I'm not sure that's a very helpful analogy. In these cases, the notion that there is something to be reverse engineered was obtained by illegal means.
- gruez 6y ago
  >I'd be interested to see what a clean-room-like proposal would look like for evidence collection. I.e. independent agencies that can't share evidence/information between them. I'm not sure why you'd want that. The reason why it's outlawed in the first place is because it's illegal search and seizure. Making it look like you obtained it legitimately doesn't right any wrongs, any more than making a murder look like an "accident" makes murder okay.
RichardHeart 6y ago
This is called parallel construction.

jyrkesh 6y ago

Interesting...so it's kinda like clean-room reverse engineering, except that there's no mandate for the clean-room? I'd be interested to see what a clean-room-like proposal would look like for evidence collection. I.e. independent agencies that can't share evidence/information between them. Of course, then a 9/11 happens and there's lots of hand-wringing about how "we had all the data we needed, the agencies just weren't allowed to talk to each other". Ugh...

hansjorg 6y ago
I'm not sure that's a very helpful analogy. In these cases, the notion that there is something to be reverse engineered was obtained by illegal means.
gruez 6y ago
>I'd be interested to see what a clean-room-like proposal would look like for evidence collection. I.e. independent agencies that can't share evidence/information between them. I'm not sure why you'd want that. The reason why it's outlawed in the first place is because it's illegal search and seizure. Making it look like you obtained it legitimately doesn't right any wrongs, any more than making a murder look like an "accident" makes murder okay.

RichardHeart 6y ago

This is called parallel construction.