6 ms·

e.g. "a confidential source" that we saw on here yesterday. in any case, it's good to see this decision. perhaps it's the beginning of the legal system recogni

e.g. "a confidential source" that we saw on here yesterday. in any case, it's good to see this decision. perhaps it's the beginning of the legal system recognizing that electronic data is private information and should be protected.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
Would you link to the source you're referring to?
- njharman 12y ago
  It's confidential, releasing it would impact [pick one] a) an ongoing investigation b) the safety of undercover agent c) national security. But, trust us, source had good reliable info. [edit: to the totally confused. My comment is political satire. And it purposefully misidentified which "source" you were referring to for purposes of bitching about USA law enforcement.]
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Now I'm totally confused. e.g. "a confidential source" that we saw on here yesterday. That implies some confidential source was featured on HN yesterday. Linking to that post should do none of those things.
    - gknoy 12y ago
      He's referring to the practice of Florida law enforcement claiming that the basis for a warrant came from "a confidential source" (which, in the context of warrants, appears to mean "an actual person"), when in reality they were using information captured via IMSI capturers ("stingrays") -- devices which MITM cell phone connections to surveil users of the cell network. In short, he was saying that we can reliably expect many warrants to have been obtained by law enforcement lying to judges. Based on the information (lies) presented to the judges, they're going to approve the warrant, because they operate on the premise that law enforcement wouldn't lie to them.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
hamiltonkibbe 12y ago
I believe this referring to a discussion on an article about the use of Stingray-type devices (If someone can provide the link that would be great), particularly how their use was concealed from courts when obtaining a search warrant. Instead of telling the court that the information was obtained by use of a Stingray, they told the court the information came from a "confidential source"
- joshlegs 12y ago
  you're correct. I'll try to find the source later, but this was exactly the case. Police would install the tracker or whatever, then tell the judge it came from a confidential source (the legal definition of which is a person). Meaning that police were outright lying to judges. edit: source -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7931548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7931548

sillysaurus3 12y ago

Would you link to the source you're referring to?

njharman 12y ago
It's confidential, releasing it would impact [pick one] a) an ongoing investigation b) the safety of undercover agent c) national security. But, trust us, source had good reliable info. [edit: to the totally confused. My comment is political satire. And it purposefully misidentified which "source" you were referring to for purposes of bitching about USA law enforcement.]
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Now I'm totally confused. e.g. "a confidential source" that we saw on here yesterday. That implies some confidential source was featured on HN yesterday. Linking to that post should do none of those things.
  - gknoy 12y ago
    He's referring to the practice of Florida law enforcement claiming that the basis for a warrant came from "a confidential source" (which, in the context of warrants, appears to mean "an actual person"), when in reality they were using information captured via IMSI capturers ("stingrays") -- devices which MITM cell phone connections to surveil users of the cell network. In short, he was saying that we can reliably expect many warrants to have been obtained by law enforcement lying to judges. Based on the information (lies) presented to the judges, they're going to approve the warrant, because they operate on the premise that law enforcement wouldn't lie to them.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]

hamiltonkibbe 12y ago

I believe this referring to a discussion on an article about the use of Stingray-type devices (If someone can provide the link that would be great), particularly how their use was concealed from courts when obtaining a search warrant. Instead of telling the court that the information was obtained by use of a Stingray, they told the court the information came from a "confidential source"

joshlegs 12y ago
you're correct. I'll try to find the source later, but this was exactly the case. Police would install the tracker or whatever, then tell the judge it came from a confidential source (the legal definition of which is a person). Meaning that police were outright lying to judges. edit: source -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7931548 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7931548