9 ms·

There are at least 3 scary factors in this. 1 - What will be next crime that is big enough that justify using this? File sharing? Drinking in public? Jaywalking

There are at least 3 scary factors in this. 1 - What will be next crime that is big enough that justify using this? File sharing? Drinking in public? Jaywalking? Driving above the speed limit? 2 - The data is collected forever! Our current law system is not just in a situation which the prosecutors can dig your past to find problems! Imagine you do some graffiti (ok, I know it is vandalism) to express your indignation, now, if you are ideologically an enemy of the state, they can dig for crimes your whole life...! 3 - The collected data can be used to prosecute you but it can not be used to innocent you. edit: spelling

ihsw 13y ago
> The collected data can be used to prosecute you but it can not be used to innocent you. Actually that would constitute a Brady violation[1]: > The prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence known only to the police. That is, the prosecutor has a duty to reach out to the police and establish regular procedures by which the police must inform him of anything that tends to prove the innocence of the defendant. Now, it's at the discretion of the prosecutor, but if you had evidence that evidence was withheld then can exercise some recourse against the prosecutor. Often-times it results in a re-trial rather than a cash settlement or the case being dismissed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure
- joseflavio 13y ago
  The problem is that as the data came from "parallel" investigations, it is way easier for the prosecutor justify that he did not have access to information that could innocent you, no?
  - commandar 13y ago
    Just a friendly tip: innocent generally isn't used as a verb in English. We generally use words like exonerate, absolve, or clear to mean "prove innocence." Your meaning was clear, just saw that you'd done it a couple of times. :)
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      He's so adjective he verbs nouns.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Courts have held it is still a brady violation, even if the prosecutor did not know, if, say, the police knew. Otherwise, prosecutors would just avoid knowing.
- cgshaw 13y ago
  Attorney here. What's perhaps scarier is that the prosecutor wouldn't even know when / if possible exculpatory evidence exist or whether their evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree (fancy way of saying legitimate evidence that is found as a result of illegal search & seizure). I spoke with 3 buddies yesterday that are prosecutors and they told me they hated this concept of "parallel construction," they felt like it took prosecutorial discretion out of their hands and made their job—to uphold our laws—more difficult. Now, there are bad prosecutors out there. People motivated by politics and self interest, but they are the few. The folks that just want convictions and to better their stats. Those folks will likely never care where they get the ammunition to "put away the bad guys."
  - xradionut 13y ago
    "Now, there are bad prosecutors out there. People motivated by politics and self interest, but they are the few." There's probably more than a few. Consider the large number of cases that have been overturned in Illinois and Texas over that last decade or so. Many of these folks were railroaded and only saved by volunteers and brave attorneys. And for all the damage these "common" criminals did, consider that much of the recent massive economic fraud done and damage caused by well connected "businessmen" and "bankers" will not go punished due to lack of enforcement and statue of limitations. TANJ!
    - Spooky23 13y ago
      If you dig into it, you're probably looking at a relatively small subset of District Attorney/State Attorneys whose offices handle a high volume of cases. Look at anyone like a cop, nurse, teacher, CPS worker, etc that works in a highly dysfunctional community, you'll find that some folks get really jaded and start to see things that don't really exist. The things that these people see are horrible and some folks can't cut it. It's hard to unsee the 30-40 active child abuse cases that a Chicago CPS worker deals with every week, and the support structures in the organizations are often nonexistent, which allows bad behavior to take place. They stop thinking of the people in the community as people and see them as perps. Potentially exonerating evidence is perceived as a speed-bump or excuse.
    - 13y ago
- mtgx 13y ago
  Are you talking about the same government that waited a few days to read someone's Miranda rights, because they thought that if they don't read them, the suspect doesn't have those rights? Or the same government that thinks that if it torture peoples and holds them indefinitely without charges in another country, then it's okay, because it didn't happen in their country? You think that government cares to divulge secret info that would make someone innocent in a trial?
  - ihsw 13y ago
    > it torture peoples and holds them indefinitely without charges Actually, the policy of holding them indefinitely after having been tortured is based on the assumption that they will be extremists after having been tortured. Yes it is as insane as it sounds: the military is torturing them, and then holding them in custody because they were tortured.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      I'd say that is a case of them not be incorrect, per se, just evil as fuck.
    - krichman 13y ago
      It's like Catch-22 but horrific instead of funny.
      - gohrt 13y ago
        The only difference is that fiction is funny, reality is horrific.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  The prosecutor isn't going to be withholding exculpatory evidence, because the NSA won't be passing along exculpatory evidence in the first place.
fr0sty 13y ago
when you say "innocent" I think you mean "exonerate".
- ak39 13y ago
  It actually sounds better - innocent as a verb. :-)
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    To my ear, it doesn't sound better, FWIW, even when I'm frequently on board with verbing.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      Verbing weirds language.
- cgag 13y ago
  verbing words is perfectly cromulent in english
drcube 13y ago
> The collected data can be used to prosecute you but it can not be used to innocent you. If you're innocent, you're innocent, no matter what the cops and courts say. I think the verb you are looking for is "acquit". Or the slightly longer but more general "prove your innocence".
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

ihsw 13y ago

> The collected data can be used to prosecute you but it can not be used to innocent you. Actually that would constitute a Brady violation[1]: > The prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence known only to the police. That is, the prosecutor has a duty to reach out to the police and establish regular procedures by which the police must inform him of anything that tends to prove the innocence of the defendant. Now, it's at the discretion of the prosecutor, but if you had evidence that evidence was withheld then can exercise some recourse against the prosecutor. Often-times it results in a re-trial rather than a cash settlement or the case being dismissed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure

joseflavio 13y ago
The problem is that as the data came from "parallel" investigations, it is way easier for the prosecutor justify that he did not have access to information that could innocent you, no?
- commandar 13y ago
  Just a friendly tip: innocent generally isn't used as a verb in English. We generally use words like exonerate, absolve, or clear to mean "prove innocence." Your meaning was clear, just saw that you'd done it a couple of times. :)
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    He's so adjective he verbs nouns.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Courts have held it is still a brady violation, even if the prosecutor did not know, if, say, the police knew. Otherwise, prosecutors would just avoid knowing.
cgshaw 13y ago
Attorney here. What's perhaps scarier is that the prosecutor wouldn't even know when / if possible exculpatory evidence exist or whether their evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree (fancy way of saying legitimate evidence that is found as a result of illegal search & seizure). I spoke with 3 buddies yesterday that are prosecutors and they told me they hated this concept of "parallel construction," they felt like it took prosecutorial discretion out of their hands and made their job—to uphold our laws—more difficult. Now, there are bad prosecutors out there. People motivated by politics and self interest, but they are the few. The folks that just want convictions and to better their stats. Those folks will likely never care where they get the ammunition to "put away the bad guys."
- xradionut 13y ago
  "Now, there are bad prosecutors out there. People motivated by politics and self interest, but they are the few." There's probably more than a few. Consider the large number of cases that have been overturned in Illinois and Texas over that last decade or so. Many of these folks were railroaded and only saved by volunteers and brave attorneys. And for all the damage these "common" criminals did, consider that much of the recent massive economic fraud done and damage caused by well connected "businessmen" and "bankers" will not go punished due to lack of enforcement and statue of limitations. TANJ!
  - Spooky23 13y ago
    If you dig into it, you're probably looking at a relatively small subset of District Attorney/State Attorneys whose offices handle a high volume of cases. Look at anyone like a cop, nurse, teacher, CPS worker, etc that works in a highly dysfunctional community, you'll find that some folks get really jaded and start to see things that don't really exist. The things that these people see are horrible and some folks can't cut it. It's hard to unsee the 30-40 active child abuse cases that a Chicago CPS worker deals with every week, and the support structures in the organizations are often nonexistent, which allows bad behavior to take place. They stop thinking of the people in the community as people and see them as perps. Potentially exonerating evidence is perceived as a speed-bump or excuse.
  - 13y ago
mtgx 13y ago
Are you talking about the same government that waited a few days to read someone's Miranda rights, because they thought that if they don't read them, the suspect doesn't have those rights? Or the same government that thinks that if it torture peoples and holds them indefinitely without charges in another country, then it's okay, because it didn't happen in their country? You think that government cares to divulge secret info that would make someone innocent in a trial?
- ihsw 13y ago
  > it torture peoples and holds them indefinitely without charges Actually, the policy of holding them indefinitely after having been tortured is based on the assumption that they will be extremists after having been tortured. Yes it is as insane as it sounds: the military is torturing them, and then holding them in custody because they were tortured.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I'd say that is a case of them not be incorrect, per se, just evil as fuck.
  - krichman 13y ago
    It's like Catch-22 but horrific instead of funny.
    - gohrt 13y ago
      The only difference is that fiction is funny, reality is horrific.
dllthomas 13y ago
The prosecutor isn't going to be withholding exculpatory evidence, because the NSA won't be passing along exculpatory evidence in the first place.

fr0sty 13y ago

when you say "innocent" I think you mean "exonerate".

ak39 13y ago
It actually sounds better - innocent as a verb. :-)
- dllthomas 13y ago
  To my ear, it doesn't sound better, FWIW, even when I'm frequently on board with verbing.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Verbing weirds language.
cgag 13y ago
verbing words is perfectly cromulent in english

drcube 13y ago

> The collected data can be used to prosecute you but it can not be used to innocent you. If you're innocent, you're innocent, no matter what the cops and courts say. I think the verb you are looking for is "acquit". Or the slightly longer but more general "prove your innocence".

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]