5 ms·

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

by retube 13y ago

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.
        sp332 13y ago
        In 1982, the Justice Department got sick of the scattered laws and, to show how ludicrous the situation was, they tried to organize them. After estimating ~3,000 criminal offenses, they gave up. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920.html http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230431980... The protest fell on deaf ears, Congress did nothing to clean up the criminal code, and no one has seriously tried it since.
      - summerdown2 13y ago
        I don't usually quote the bible, but this has stayed with me since childhood: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Psalms-130-3/ http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Psalms-130-3/ > If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? Also this, from a somewhat similar source, Cardinal Richlieu: http://quotationsbook.com/quote/19331/ http://quotationsbook.com/quote/19331/ > If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. And finally, this: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870447150... > The average citizen commits three felonies a day. ... I'm not sure anyone can survive perfect application of the law.
        dredmorbius 13y ago
        The Cardinal Richlieu line has been my G+ profile motto since registering my (2nd, pseudonymous) account. I'd deleted my initial account after only a couple of weeks. I'm now winding down my pseudonymous account and most Google activity.
        TeMPOraL 13y ago
        Also reminds me of an idea I read somewhere that the ability of law enforcement, judges, etc. to "look the other way" instead of following the rules to the letter is the grease for the engine of law - the rules are not perfect and they'd do a lot of damage if followed precisely.
      - dredmorbius 13y ago
        PC is based on a perversion and subverting of the Constitution. There's no way to argue around that. Among the reasons I argue so strongly against it is because I've seen how very similar methods work, myself, direct personal experience. Oh, and I was the party benefiting from the disclosure. Turns out that virtually all of what we had was in fact legitimately obtained. As for the insurance argument: what state do you live in? Do you have your car smogged? Are you aware that your smog data, which comprises a rather detailed data record, is sold in several large states (California and Washington, off the top of my head, along with a few others) to ISO, the Insurance Services Office (descriptive name, no?), a division of Verisk, to rate your auto insurance. See: http://www.verisk.com/underwriting/ http://www.verisk.com/underwriting/ http://www.iso.com/Products/QPC/Quality-Planning-Corporation-rating-integrity-tools.html http://www.iso.com/Products/QPC/Quality-Planning-Corporation... So, the question is: were you made aware of this when you brought your vehicle in for smogging? Did you realize that the dataset was 1) being collected, 2) being sold, and 3) could materially impact your insurance costs? Moreover: what's the equity here? Yes, as it turns out, miles driven is a significant statistically correlated risk factor in insurance costs. But what is the social purpose of insurance, how should those costs be allocated (often it's the less financially able who drive further to work because they cannot afford to live nearer their jobs), and what are the social equity effects of a hidden pricing and rating factor? Yes, insurance companies can perform useful functions. They're among the leading business voices for climate change risks, as the underwriting costs directly affect them. Insurance underwriting has either directly or indirectly supported huge improvements in workplace and product safety. Where it used to be possible for companies to argue that negative outcomes were "accidents" and "acts of God", comprehensively compiled incident statistics correlated with causal factors showed that specific patterns of behavior, design, use, etc., were predictably associated with accidents, damage, injury, and/or death. But gathering that information in a covert fashion strikes me as fundamentally unjust.
        Crito 13y ago
        > "As for the insurance argument: what state do you live in? Do you have your car smogged? Are you aware that your smog data, which comprises a rather detailed data record, is sold in several large states (California and Washington, off the top of my head, along with a few others) to ISO, the Insurance Services Office (descriptive name, no?), a division of Verisk, to rate your auto insurance. See:" So here is a question: the last time I had my car's emissions checked in Washington state, my car reported that it was not ready to report its status because I had disconnected the battery a week before, apparently resetting the stuff that it needed to report. I had to drive around for two hours on the highway before going back to the emissions place to have it re-tested. Is there any value in unplugging the battery shortly before getting your emissions checked?
      - a3n 13y ago
        The reason why people oppose parallel construction is that a) the methods used to gain the original information are illegal, and b) the acts then used to convince a judge of the evidence are a lie. We don't want a government and law enforcement that route around the Constitution.
      - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
        I strongly disagree with you. I am opposed to it because exculpatory evidence available to the NSA may be concealed at their discretion.
- 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

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

by retube 13y ago

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

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.
        sp332 13y ago
        In 1982, the Justice Department got sick of the scattered laws and, to show how ludicrous the situation was, they tried to organize them. After estimating ~3,000 criminal offenses, they gave up. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920.html http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230431980... The protest fell on deaf ears, Congress did nothing to clean up the criminal code, and no one has seriously tried it since.
    - summerdown2 13y ago
      I don't usually quote the bible, but this has stayed with me since childhood: http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Psalms-130-3/ http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Psalms-130-3/ > If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? Also this, from a somewhat similar source, Cardinal Richlieu: http://quotationsbook.com/quote/19331/ http://quotationsbook.com/quote/19331/ > If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. And finally, this: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870447150... > The average citizen commits three felonies a day. ... I'm not sure anyone can survive perfect application of the law.
      - dredmorbius 13y ago
        The Cardinal Richlieu line has been my G+ profile motto since registering my (2nd, pseudonymous) account. I'd deleted my initial account after only a couple of weeks. I'm now winding down my pseudonymous account and most Google activity.
      - TeMPOraL 13y ago
        Also reminds me of an idea I read somewhere that the ability of law enforcement, judges, etc. to "look the other way" instead of following the rules to the letter is the grease for the engine of law - the rules are not perfect and they'd do a lot of damage if followed precisely.
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      PC is based on a perversion and subverting of the Constitution. There's no way to argue around that. Among the reasons I argue so strongly against it is because I've seen how very similar methods work, myself, direct personal experience. Oh, and I was the party benefiting from the disclosure. Turns out that virtually all of what we had was in fact legitimately obtained. As for the insurance argument: what state do you live in? Do you have your car smogged? Are you aware that your smog data, which comprises a rather detailed data record, is sold in several large states (California and Washington, off the top of my head, along with a few others) to ISO, the Insurance Services Office (descriptive name, no?), a division of Verisk, to rate your auto insurance. See: http://www.verisk.com/underwriting/ http://www.verisk.com/underwriting/ http://www.iso.com/Products/QPC/Quality-Planning-Corporation-rating-integrity-tools.html http://www.iso.com/Products/QPC/Quality-Planning-Corporation... So, the question is: were you made aware of this when you brought your vehicle in for smogging? Did you realize that the dataset was 1) being collected, 2) being sold, and 3) could materially impact your insurance costs? Moreover: what's the equity here? Yes, as it turns out, miles driven is a significant statistically correlated risk factor in insurance costs. But what is the social purpose of insurance, how should those costs be allocated (often it's the less financially able who drive further to work because they cannot afford to live nearer their jobs), and what are the social equity effects of a hidden pricing and rating factor? Yes, insurance companies can perform useful functions. They're among the leading business voices for climate change risks, as the underwriting costs directly affect them. Insurance underwriting has either directly or indirectly supported huge improvements in workplace and product safety. Where it used to be possible for companies to argue that negative outcomes were "accidents" and "acts of God", comprehensively compiled incident statistics correlated with causal factors showed that specific patterns of behavior, design, use, etc., were predictably associated with accidents, damage, injury, and/or death. But gathering that information in a covert fashion strikes me as fundamentally unjust.
      - Crito 13y ago
        > "As for the insurance argument: what state do you live in? Do you have your car smogged? Are you aware that your smog data, which comprises a rather detailed data record, is sold in several large states (California and Washington, off the top of my head, along with a few others) to ISO, the Insurance Services Office (descriptive name, no?), a division of Verisk, to rate your auto insurance. See:" So here is a question: the last time I had my car's emissions checked in Washington state, my car reported that it was not ready to report its status because I had disconnected the battery a week before, apparently resetting the stuff that it needed to report. I had to drive around for two hours on the highway before going back to the emissions place to have it re-tested. Is there any value in unplugging the battery shortly before getting your emissions checked?
    - a3n 13y ago
      The reason why people oppose parallel construction is that a) the methods used to gain the original information are illegal, and b) the acts then used to convince a judge of the evidence are a lie. We don't want a government and law enforcement that route around the Constitution.
    - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
      I strongly disagree with you. I am opposed to it because exculpatory evidence available to the NSA may be concealed at their discretion.
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