4 ms·

It's hardly wild speculation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction Use of NSA info in the ma

It's hardly wild speculation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction Use of NSA info in the manner described above is scope creep because they aren't terrorists, or foreign.

diminoten 13y ago
What's wrong with this?
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  They are using data from 'national security' databases for ordinary investigations against Americans as opposed to foreigners. And obscuring that fact. If this is allowed to continue fourth amendment rights will mean very little. Ubiquitous surveillance not for international terrorism, but every little misdemeanor. You may argue they are criminals, but they have been subjected to e.g. an illegal search to get evidence. In cases where they are not actually criminals, the illegal search and coverup is indefensible. Here's the article linked from the wikipedia page. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... "A similar set of instructions was included in an IRS manual in 2005 and 2006, Reuters reported." [2] Basically they use "evidence" obtained illegally, tip off the DEA and it seems the IRS. Choice quote[1]: "Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011, described the practice of "parallel construction" as "a fancy word for phonying up the course of the investigation". It was one thing, she said, to create special rules for national security, but creating rules for ordinary crime threatened to undermine the bill of rights, set up as a check against the power of the executive." Ezekiel Edwards, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's criminal law reform project[1]: He said that the concealing of information about the source of an investigation was unconstitutional because it did not allow defendants their right to confront and examine the evidence the government has against them. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-department-surveillance-dea http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-departm... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE9761AZ20130808 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE...
  - diminoten 13y ago
    This argument throws out the baby with the bathwater, though. "Parallel construction" is how every investigation is conducted. Investigators start with hunches, and search for evidence that proves/disproves this hunch. Parallel construction happens any time an investigator takes evidence and tells a story with it. It doesn't matter much if you construct an investigation while being led by information obtained outside of the chain of evidence - at least it doesn't matter with any other kind of information. You say, "basically they use evidence obtained illegally to prosecute someone" - but that's not what they're doing. They're doing exactly the opposite. They're using the legally obtained evidence to prosecute someone, and taking guidance from the other data that can't be admitted.
    - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
      Based on the information from the article, 40% of the time, this illegally obtained evidence isn't any help. The data you say they are 'taking guidance from' is illegally acquired and used (at least 40% of the time, but maybe as high 100%). That's indefensible. "Current and former federal agents said SOD tips aren't always helpful - one estimated their accuracy at 60 percent. But current and former agents said tips have enabled them to catch drug smugglers who might have gotten away." [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... Your quotation marks are out of order, because I took pains not to say "basically they use evidence obtained illegally to prosecute someone". It's more subtle than that. In cases where the parallel construction was successful, it was probably illegal, and the convicted can appeal. In refutation of your general thrust that all investigations are like this and it doesn't matter[2]: "Not all evidence gathered by a private investigator is legal, however. For instance if the PI breaks into a private residence, taps a phone, or uses a planted microphone or listening device in a private place, then in these cases such evidence is not generally admissible. That is because any conversations or activities done in private places, behind closed doors have a reasonable expectation of privacy." [2] http://www.claydugas.com/legal-process/is-evidence-gathered-by-a-private-investigator-admissible-in-court/ http://www.claydugas.com/legal-process/is-evidence-gathered-... one last edit, just in case you had any doubt about the chance of successful appeal, this is legal terminology so it has a strange name but it is worth reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisoned_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisoned_tree Better article on the IRS link: [3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE9761AZ20130807 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE...

diminoten 13y ago

What's wrong with this?

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
They are using data from 'national security' databases for ordinary investigations against Americans as opposed to foreigners. And obscuring that fact. If this is allowed to continue fourth amendment rights will mean very little. Ubiquitous surveillance not for international terrorism, but every little misdemeanor. You may argue they are criminals, but they have been subjected to e.g. an illegal search to get evidence. In cases where they are not actually criminals, the illegal search and coverup is indefensible. Here's the article linked from the wikipedia page. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... "A similar set of instructions was included in an IRS manual in 2005 and 2006, Reuters reported." [2] Basically they use "evidence" obtained illegally, tip off the DEA and it seems the IRS. Choice quote[1]: "Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor who served as a federal judge from 1994 to 2011, described the practice of "parallel construction" as "a fancy word for phonying up the course of the investigation". It was one thing, she said, to create special rules for national security, but creating rules for ordinary crime threatened to undermine the bill of rights, set up as a check against the power of the executive." Ezekiel Edwards, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's criminal law reform project[1]: He said that the concealing of information about the source of an investigation was unconstitutional because it did not allow defendants their right to confront and examine the evidence the government has against them. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-department-surveillance-dea http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/06/justice-departm... [2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE9761AZ20130808 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE...
- diminoten 13y ago
  This argument throws out the baby with the bathwater, though. "Parallel construction" is how every investigation is conducted. Investigators start with hunches, and search for evidence that proves/disproves this hunch. Parallel construction happens any time an investigator takes evidence and tells a story with it. It doesn't matter much if you construct an investigation while being led by information obtained outside of the chain of evidence - at least it doesn't matter with any other kind of information. You say, "basically they use evidence obtained illegally to prosecute someone" - but that's not what they're doing. They're doing exactly the opposite. They're using the legally obtained evidence to prosecute someone, and taking guidance from the other data that can't be admitted.
  - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
    Based on the information from the article, 40% of the time, this illegally obtained evidence isn't any help. The data you say they are 'taking guidance from' is illegally acquired and used (at least 40% of the time, but maybe as high 100%). That's indefensible. "Current and former federal agents said SOD tips aren't always helpful - one estimated their accuracy at 60 percent. But current and former agents said tips have enabled them to catch drug smugglers who might have gotten away." [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE... Your quotation marks are out of order, because I took pains not to say "basically they use evidence obtained illegally to prosecute someone". It's more subtle than that. In cases where the parallel construction was successful, it was probably illegal, and the convicted can appeal. In refutation of your general thrust that all investigations are like this and it doesn't matter[2]: "Not all evidence gathered by a private investigator is legal, however. For instance if the PI breaks into a private residence, taps a phone, or uses a planted microphone or listening device in a private place, then in these cases such evidence is not generally admissible. That is because any conversations or activities done in private places, behind closed doors have a reasonable expectation of privacy." [2] http://www.claydugas.com/legal-process/is-evidence-gathered-by-a-private-investigator-admissible-in-court/ http://www.claydugas.com/legal-process/is-evidence-gathered-... one last edit, just in case you had any doubt about the chance of successful appeal, this is legal terminology so it has a strange name but it is worth reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisoned_tree https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisoned_tree Better article on the IRS link: [3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE9761AZ20130807 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/07/us-dea-irs-idUSBRE...