4 ms·
Interesting. So basically they say: 1) Trust us that the IP we gave was really from the person who triggered the alert. (vs real log samples) 2) trust our ma
by gwittel 6y ago
Interesting. So basically they say:
1) Trust us that the IP we gave was really from the person who triggered the alert. (vs real log samples)
2) trust our magical computer powers that we know it belongs to Jones’ address at the time in question (Vs say we spoke with X at Comcast and they verified....)
Is that all it takes in terms of “evidence” to get a warrant like this?
- detaro 6y agofor the second I have no idea whats common there, it surprised me a bit too, but the first that seems normal. The judge is not going to say "actually, that doesn't look like a valid log entry" (that'd be trivial to fake too).