6 ms·

While investigating a hosting company known for sheltering child porn last year the FBI incidentally seized the entire e-mail database of a popular anonymous we

While investigating a hosting company known for sheltering child porn last year the FBI incidentally seized the entire e-mail database of a popular anonymous webmail service called TorMail. Now the FBI is tapping that vast trove of e-mail in unrelated investigations. That says pretty much all about their methods.

retube 13y ago
That they'll share data across investigations? Why wouldn't they? Wouldn't it be utterly remiss not to?
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Due process. Fifth amendment. Unclean hands. Any evidence derived from or linked to this trove can AND SHOULD be tossed out of court.
  - yread 13y ago
    don't worry, parallel construction will save the day at court
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      PC should be recognized as fully unconstitutional.
      - TeMPOraL 13y ago
        I think the reason people are opposed to PC is the same why people are opposed to insurance companies knowing too much - we don't want them to perform their job (identifying crime, keeping a good probability distribution of bad events over population) in an optimal way, because the more wrong they are (to a limit), the more society benefits. I'm not sure what to think of it; it's just an observation.
        sp332 13y ago
        The potential for abuse goes up faster than the potential for good law enforcement, because more people are innocent than guilty. Data should only be collected when necessary for an active investigation.
        jerf 13y ago
        I kinda think the problem is the other way around; everybody's guilty of something, but most of what they are guilty of, prosecution is actively against society's best interest. Our legal system theoretically recognizes this as a problem, in practice it doesn't. The more information is collected, the more irrelevant infractions the government has at hand to do with as it pleases.
        sp332 13y ago
        I wouldn't automatically assume that most people are guilty, and in fact our justice system is explicitly not allowed to make that assumption. Law enforcement is not an end in itself, it is only one of the tools a government has available. There's nothing in the constitution that says "you must prosecute as many people as possible".
        TeMPOraL 13y ago
        > I wouldn't automatically assume that most people are guilty US of A already officially admitted that they've lost track of all the federal laws they have, so it's pretty sure at this point that everyone would be found guilty of breaking some obscure, forgotten rule that happens to be in force, if prosecutors would look hard enough.
        dredmorbius 13y ago
        US of A already officially admitted that they've lost track of all the federal laws they have Citation needed.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    If you read the article, it's clear the FBI got a warrant before reading any seized email.
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      "No one is saying that you broke any laws. We're just saying that it’s a little bit weird that you didn't have to." - John Oliver
  - Navarr 13y ago
    Nope. They got a warrant. Everything's by-the-book

retube 13y ago

That they'll share data across investigations? Why wouldn't they? Wouldn't it be utterly remiss not to?

dredmorbius 13y ago
Due process. Fifth amendment. Unclean hands. Any evidence derived from or linked to this trove can AND SHOULD be tossed out of court.
- yread 13y ago
  don't worry, parallel construction will save the day at court
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    PC should be recognized as fully unconstitutional.
    - TeMPOraL 13y ago
      I think the reason people are opposed to PC is the same why people are opposed to insurance companies knowing too much - we don't want them to perform their job (identifying crime, keeping a good probability distribution of bad events over population) in an optimal way, because the more wrong they are (to a limit), the more society benefits. I'm not sure what to think of it; it's just an observation.
      - sp332 13y ago
        The potential for abuse goes up faster than the potential for good law enforcement, because more people are innocent than guilty. Data should only be collected when necessary for an active investigation.
        jerf 13y ago
        I kinda think the problem is the other way around; everybody's guilty of something, but most of what they are guilty of, prosecution is actively against society's best interest. Our legal system theoretically recognizes this as a problem, in practice it doesn't. The more information is collected, the more irrelevant infractions the government has at hand to do with as it pleases.
        sp332 13y ago
        I wouldn't automatically assume that most people are guilty, and in fact our justice system is explicitly not allowed to make that assumption. Law enforcement is not an end in itself, it is only one of the tools a government has available. There's nothing in the constitution that says "you must prosecute as many people as possible".
        TeMPOraL 13y ago
        > I wouldn't automatically assume that most people are guilty US of A already officially admitted that they've lost track of all the federal laws they have, so it's pretty sure at this point that everyone would be found guilty of breaking some obscure, forgotten rule that happens to be in force, if prosecutors would look hard enough.
        dredmorbius 13y ago
        US of A already officially admitted that they've lost track of all the federal laws they have Citation needed.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  If you read the article, it's clear the FBI got a warrant before reading any seized email.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    "No one is saying that you broke any laws. We're just saying that it’s a little bit weird that you didn't have to." - John Oliver
- Navarr 13y ago
  Nope. They got a warrant. Everything's by-the-book