3 ms·
The loophole in the first part, of course, is that once you've spied on them, it's often straightforward enough to backtrack out a legal vector to investigate t
by pflats 13y ago
The loophole in the first part, of course, is that once you've spied on them, it's often straightforward enough to backtrack out a legal vector to investigate the target, and "discover" the information you already knew. And then you take that poisonous tree out back, burn it to the ground, and never mention spying anywhere in your case.
(As an aside, dragonwriter, your posts throughout topic have been outstandingly helpful. Thanks.)
- rhizome 13y agoit's often straightforward enough to backtrack out a legal vector to investigate the target, and "discover" the information you already knew This is the general idea behind the technique of Parallel Construction.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> The loophole in the first part, of course, is that once you've spied on them, it's often straightforward enough to backtrack out a legal vector to investigate the target, and "discover" the information you already knew. I agree that that's a problem with the original decision even beyond taking the government's representation at face value (and, really, a fundamental problem with the general approach that the exclusionary rule is usually the exclusive remedy for illegal search and seizure, which goes far beyond just the NSA electronic surveillance issue.)