4 ms·

If I understood correctly(?), the claim is that PRISM data was used in only one case, and in that case it was later judged to be irrelevant, therefore PRISM dat

If I understood correctly(?), the claim is that PRISM data was used in only one case, and in that case it was later judged to be irrelevant, therefore PRISM data was never used to help secure a single conviction. But I'm not sure this is right, I found the article pretty confusing on the subject of what actually happened, so I'm not sure. Personally I agree with Imnimo's comment that this is just an overly confusing way of analyzing a surveillance program.

remus 6y ago
> PRISM data was never used to help secure a single conviction. I think it's worth noting that this is also fairly normal for signals intelligence of all types. If you want to use intelligence as evidence in a trial then you have to make that evidence available for scrutiny by the defense which is something intelligence agencies almost never want to do. As I understand it (obviously Im not very informed here!) you'd normally use intelligence to identify suspects, then gather further evidence with which to secure a prosecution so you don't have to rely on the original intelligence in court. I believe GCHQ in the UK have in the past gone so far as to abandon a strong cases that hinged on intelligence data so as to not reveal the source of the intelligence.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
  []u.s police departments have dropped cases that relied on evidence collected by stingrays. Anyways, using Intel to build a case so the Intel and methods aren't exposed is called parallel construction and it should be illegal to do against citizens except in extraordinary circumstances. Certainly not when police departments get bored and use the ray to take down the boys slinging bags on the block. [] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/10271327635/new-emails-show-that-feds-instructed-police-to-lie-about-using-stingray-mobile-phone-snooping.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/10271327635/new-e...

remus 6y ago

> PRISM data was never used to help secure a single conviction. I think it's worth noting that this is also fairly normal for signals intelligence of all types. If you want to use intelligence as evidence in a trial then you have to make that evidence available for scrutiny by the defense which is something intelligence agencies almost never want to do. As I understand it (obviously Im not very informed here!) you'd normally use intelligence to identify suspects, then gather further evidence with which to secure a prosecution so you don't have to rely on the original intelligence in court. I believe GCHQ in the UK have in the past gone so far as to abandon a strong cases that hinged on intelligence data so as to not reveal the source of the intelligence.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 6y ago
[]u.s police departments have dropped cases that relied on evidence collected by stingrays. Anyways, using Intel to build a case so the Intel and methods aren't exposed is called parallel construction and it should be illegal to do against citizens except in extraordinary circumstances. Certainly not when police departments get bored and use the ray to take down the boys slinging bags on the block. [] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/10271327635/new-emails-show-that-feds-instructed-police-to-lie-about-using-stingray-mobile-phone-snooping.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140620/10271327635/new-e...