3 ms·
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, sour
by 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 agoNow 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 agoHe'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]