4 ms·

> Former federal prosecutor John Franke led me down the staircase to the basement of his suburban Milwaukee home, stopping at a stash of bankers boxes. “They sa

> Former federal prosecutor John Franke led me down the staircase to the basement of his suburban Milwaukee home, stopping at a stash of bankers boxes. “They sat in storage in different houses for the last, what is it, 40 years?” he said. Franke peered inside one of the boxes, which was filled with court documents, FBI wiretap transcripts, notebooks and other files from the years he spent working to win convictions against Balistrieri and his associates. It’s surprising to hear that the prosecutor was permitted to keep all these documents for himself. No explanation is given in the article about whether this is legal.

qup 3y ago
Is there some reason to think they're the only copies?
- computator 3y ago
  Whether or not they are copies is irrelevant(*). Are software engineers normally allowed to keep copies of the proprietary source code of their employer after they leave the company? Do accountants normally keep copies of the financial records of their employer? Is it standard practice for doctors to store medical records of hospital patients in their basement? (*) If he kept the only copy, that's even worse since a new prosecutor wouldn't have access to the old records if they wanted to pursue a new prosecution or if there was an appeal to an old case.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    As long as there's an archive of the prosecutor's records, they're either public records (as most government records are, by default), or they're exempt, but the prosecutor already had access to them, and no interest is served in demanding their destruction. This isn't proprietary source code, and it isn't proprietary financial information.
    - computator 3y ago
      "FBI wiretap transcripts" sound like very private conversations, probably including innocent people and innocent topics. Just because they had a court order for the wiretap doesn't mean the conversations are now public record. So they are exempt, but then it's still private and not something that you should be taking home. > prosecutor already had access to them I don't think that argument works. The same could be said for a software engineer. He had access to the source code, so why can't he keep a copy of it?
      - tptacek 3y ago
        Because it has commercial value, and the engineer would be misappropriating it. Anyways, I don't much care beyond "the situations are not really comparable".
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        They seem comparable. Similarly, employee HR records also aren't source code or financial information, but you still wouldn't want copies in your former HR team members' houses.

qup 3y ago

Is there some reason to think they're the only copies?

computator 3y ago
Whether or not they are copies is irrelevant(*). Are software engineers normally allowed to keep copies of the proprietary source code of their employer after they leave the company? Do accountants normally keep copies of the financial records of their employer? Is it standard practice for doctors to store medical records of hospital patients in their basement? (*) If he kept the only copy, that's even worse since a new prosecutor wouldn't have access to the old records if they wanted to pursue a new prosecution or if there was an appeal to an old case.
- tptacek 3y ago
  As long as there's an archive of the prosecutor's records, they're either public records (as most government records are, by default), or they're exempt, but the prosecutor already had access to them, and no interest is served in demanding their destruction. This isn't proprietary source code, and it isn't proprietary financial information.
  - computator 3y ago
    "FBI wiretap transcripts" sound like very private conversations, probably including innocent people and innocent topics. Just because they had a court order for the wiretap doesn't mean the conversations are now public record. So they are exempt, but then it's still private and not something that you should be taking home. > prosecutor already had access to them I don't think that argument works. The same could be said for a software engineer. He had access to the source code, so why can't he keep a copy of it?
    - tptacek 3y ago
      Because it has commercial value, and the engineer would be misappropriating it. Anyways, I don't much care beyond "the situations are not really comparable".
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        They seem comparable. Similarly, employee HR records also aren't source code or financial information, but you still wouldn't want copies in your former HR team members' houses.