3 ms·

Can this data be used for prosecution? How do you prove it’s accurate and not modified? If the PII is claimed to be scrubbed then how do you connect it to the f

Can this data be used for prosecution? How do you prove it’s accurate and not modified? If the PII is claimed to be scrubbed then how do you connect it to the felon? Seems you’d want other supporting info to prosecute with and keep silent on this stuff.

_8j50 4y ago
It is lawfully obtained so yes, but I can see the defense making a good argument otherwise during trial. You subpoeana employees of the company selling you the info to testify and have them maybe produce a chain of custody document for which they will be asked if it is accurate under oath. Depends on what is PII, an IP alone isn't PII for example so if it says IP 1.2.3 4 went to badguy.com at <timestamp> there is no PII there but they can subpoeana the ISP once the traffic is deemed to qualify as probable cause to prove their guy had the IP. The difference being they either obtain the IP with some other means and buy data associated with it or use some destination (could be their trap) and buy all info about traffic to it with very specific parameters without a warrant. But I am neither LE or a lawyer.
anfilt 4y ago
A lot of times information like this is used with parallel construction. So they never need to defend the accuracy of the data in court cause it's mainly used to direct the findings that will presented at trial. Let me give a hypothetical example, witness says the see a Ford Bronco leaving a murder scene. Police use this data to find all people in the area at the time of the crime. They then look to see which of those people in the area at the time are registered owners of a Ford Bronco. However, instead of presenting this data they used in court court to see was in the area they will then for instance search for instance traffic camera footage. Moreover, since they have detailed location information now know what traffic cameras to check or what gas stations to subpoena for camera footage ect.. Then they probably get a warrant for that persons car and house or start watching that person ect... However, what gets presented at trial is the Witness saying they saw a Ford Bronco and the camera footage. Nothing about the detailed phone tracking information. Basically parallel construction allows the LEO and the prosecutor avoid what is colloquially called fruit of the poisoned tree. Wiki article on parallel construction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
- dannyw 4y ago
  I have no doubt parallel construction is regularly abused to hide fruit of the poisoned tree, but the specific example you used seems fully legal.
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    You missed the part where they illegally used private data to ascertain every individual in the area. Then cross reference et cetera. There was the illegal part, at the beginning. The police could have just put in the effort and checking on information from various channels, determined the same information. However, that requires effort and occasionally intelligent actors. So, instead, they do the illegal part, scrub that from the record, and pretend they figured it out, with a pencil and a pad!

_8j50 4y ago

It is lawfully obtained so yes, but I can see the defense making a good argument otherwise during trial. You subpoeana employees of the company selling you the info to testify and have them maybe produce a chain of custody document for which they will be asked if it is accurate under oath. Depends on what is PII, an IP alone isn't PII for example so if it says IP 1.2.3 4 went to badguy.com at <timestamp> there is no PII there but they can subpoeana the ISP once the traffic is deemed to qualify as probable cause to prove their guy had the IP. The difference being they either obtain the IP with some other means and buy data associated with it or use some destination (could be their trap) and buy all info about traffic to it with very specific parameters without a warrant. But I am neither LE or a lawyer.

anfilt 4y ago

A lot of times information like this is used with parallel construction. So they never need to defend the accuracy of the data in court cause it's mainly used to direct the findings that will presented at trial. Let me give a hypothetical example, witness says the see a Ford Bronco leaving a murder scene. Police use this data to find all people in the area at the time of the crime. They then look to see which of those people in the area at the time are registered owners of a Ford Bronco. However, instead of presenting this data they used in court court to see was in the area they will then for instance search for instance traffic camera footage. Moreover, since they have detailed location information now know what traffic cameras to check or what gas stations to subpoena for camera footage ect.. Then they probably get a warrant for that persons car and house or start watching that person ect... However, what gets presented at trial is the Witness saying they saw a Ford Bronco and the camera footage. Nothing about the detailed phone tracking information. Basically parallel construction allows the LEO and the prosecutor avoid what is colloquially called fruit of the poisoned tree. Wiki article on parallel construction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

dannyw 4y ago
I have no doubt parallel construction is regularly abused to hide fruit of the poisoned tree, but the specific example you used seems fully legal.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  You missed the part where they illegally used private data to ascertain every individual in the area. Then cross reference et cetera. There was the illegal part, at the beginning. The police could have just put in the effort and checking on information from various channels, determined the same information. However, that requires effort and occasionally intelligent actors. So, instead, they do the illegal part, scrub that from the record, and pretend they figured it out, with a pencil and a pad!