5 ms·

Do you have any cases where NSA illegal wiretaps were used as evidence in court in a standard trial like this against a U.S. citizen? If the FBI said well our e

Do you have any cases where NSA illegal wiretaps were used as evidence in court in a standard trial like this against a U.S. citizen? If the FBI said well our evidence is a confidential informant that would not be valid as the defense has a right to cross examine witnesses and evidence. This guy pled guilty. Maybe it was due to fear of courts handling tech cases, or maybe it was due to the fact that there was a large amount of evidence that he committed a crime that was not simply reporting.

CamperBob2 12y ago
Do you have any cases where NSA illegal wiretaps were used as evidence in court in a standard trial like this against a U.S. citizen? Under the doctrine of parallel construction, as revealed in the Snowden disclosures, there is no way for the court to know if illegal NSA wiretaps or other surveillance activities were involved. The fruit of the poison tree is now on sale at your local justice supermarket.
- specialp 12y ago
  By that logic every single case that the FBI prosecutes is fruit of the poison tree. I am in no way in support of NSA activities, but in order to make your claim you need some proof unfortunately. If it were ever proven that the FBI regularly uses NSA warantless wiretaps to aid in convictions of US citizens there will be many cases overturned.
  - mentat 12y ago
    Unfortunately that proof is made systematically unavailable, hence the injustice.
  - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
    Every case prosecuted by the FBI ever since parallel construction started is fruit of the poison tree.
    - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
      To downvoters: the truth hurts, doesn't it?
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        I'd rather they downvote me, than try to blackmail me and drive me to suicide like they've attempted to do in the past with other US citizens. (Oops, now I'm conflating the NSA and the FBI -- I'm sure someone from their fan club will be along to remind me of that important distinction.) It's as if they honestly don't understand why it's their responsibility to show they've reformed, and not our responsibility to show that they haven't. Life is just one big TV script to these people. Oh, well... if they had enough imagination to contemplate what will happen when the next J. Edgar Hoover gains "Total Information Awareness," they'd be even more dangerous.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Sorry, but on this topic, the Snowden disclosures decisively shift the burden of proof away from me. Read them, then moderate.
    - csandreasen 12y ago
      Two points: 1) the parallel construction headlines were not from the Snowden disclosures, they were from documents independently obtained by Reuters[1]. 2) This is what the original article actually had to say about NSA involvement in parallel construction (emphasis mine): "Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bout case; distributing tips from overseas NSA intercepts, informants, foreign law enforcement partners and domestic wiretaps; and circulating tips from a massive database known as DICE." ... "Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst." [1] http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc=932 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc...
      - CamperBob2 12y ago
        Two points: 1) the parallel construction headlines were not from the Snowden disclosures, they were from documents independently obtained by Reuters[1]. Ah, I stand corrected, thanks. I didn't know that. It's not the least bit material, but I'll be careful not to credit/blame Snowden for bringing us this little tidbit of knowledge in the future. 2) This is what the original article actually had to say about NSA involvement in parallel construction (emphasis mine): "Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bout case; distributing tips from overseas NSA intercepts, informants, foreign law enforcement partners and domestic wiretaps; and circulating tips from a massive database known as DICE." Only the article's second sentence matters, as far as I'm concerned: Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations (of American citizens) truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges. And with respect to "Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst." These people break countless laws and tell countless lies every day, with total impunity even when said lies are told before Congress. Excuse me if I don't believe "one senior law enforcement official and one former intelligence analyst" for one minute. Give me one reason to.
tptacek 12y ago
He didn't just plead guilty; he conceded several of the facts in the case as early as his effort to have the initial indictments dismissed.
fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
>Do you have any cases where NSA illegal wiretaps were used as evidence in court in a standard trial like this against a U.S. citizen? Okay please stop this nonsense. It is not necessary or reasonable to expect any individual to be able to collect of provide evidence that the most well-financed, most-powerful spy agency ever known to exist has spied on them and that the government (DOJ) has illegally used information obtained that way in a prosecution against same. It's not unprecedented, and it's not as if it is even possible to discover every case of this happening. >This guy pled guilty. Maybe it was due to fear of courts handling tech cases Or maybe because any individual is hopelessly outmatched by the state in a case such as this.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Non-falsifiable argument is non-falsifiable.
  - defen 12y ago
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE...
    - harry8 12y ago
      This was down voted with no response. ;-)
  - tedks 12y ago
    Sure it's falsifiable. The falsification test is that when the NSA/DEA/FBI are stormed by the citizenry in the same manner as their moral and spiritual predecessor, the Statsi, if those files contain no mention of doing such things, it is less likely that they occurred. There is always a possibility that the NSA could exchange information entirely covertly between itself and the DEA, but I think this is unlikely to be totally ironclad. The comment to which you reply is pointing out the very real asymmetry in ability between a citizen and the amalgamated federal government. It is, in fact, unreasonable to put the burden of proof on the much less able party when there is real evidence showing that the NSA->DEA information flow does in fact exist, and could potentially be used in any case. It's not likely to have been used in this case, because Brown seems to have indeed made real threats and probably plead guilty because of that. But that doesn't change the unreasonability in the general form of argument the comment grandparent makes.

CamperBob2 12y ago

Do you have any cases where NSA illegal wiretaps were used as evidence in court in a standard trial like this against a U.S. citizen? Under the doctrine of parallel construction, as revealed in the Snowden disclosures, there is no way for the court to know if illegal NSA wiretaps or other surveillance activities were involved. The fruit of the poison tree is now on sale at your local justice supermarket.

specialp 12y ago
By that logic every single case that the FBI prosecutes is fruit of the poison tree. I am in no way in support of NSA activities, but in order to make your claim you need some proof unfortunately. If it were ever proven that the FBI regularly uses NSA warantless wiretaps to aid in convictions of US citizens there will be many cases overturned.
- mentat 12y ago
  Unfortunately that proof is made systematically unavailable, hence the injustice.
- FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
  Every case prosecuted by the FBI ever since parallel construction started is fruit of the poison tree.
  - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
    To downvoters: the truth hurts, doesn't it?
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      I'd rather they downvote me, than try to blackmail me and drive me to suicide like they've attempted to do in the past with other US citizens. (Oops, now I'm conflating the NSA and the FBI -- I'm sure someone from their fan club will be along to remind me of that important distinction.) It's as if they honestly don't understand why it's their responsibility to show they've reformed, and not our responsibility to show that they haven't. Life is just one big TV script to these people. Oh, well... if they had enough imagination to contemplate what will happen when the next J. Edgar Hoover gains "Total Information Awareness," they'd be even more dangerous.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  Sorry, but on this topic, the Snowden disclosures decisively shift the burden of proof away from me. Read them, then moderate.
  - csandreasen 12y ago
    Two points: 1) the parallel construction headlines were not from the Snowden disclosures, they were from documents independently obtained by Reuters[1]. 2) This is what the original article actually had to say about NSA involvement in parallel construction (emphasis mine): "Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bout case; distributing tips from overseas NSA intercepts, informants, foreign law enforcement partners and domestic wiretaps; and circulating tips from a massive database known as DICE." ... "Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst." [1] http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc=932 http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97409R20130805?irpc...
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      Two points: 1) the parallel construction headlines were not from the Snowden disclosures, they were from documents independently obtained by Reuters[1]. Ah, I stand corrected, thanks. I didn't know that. It's not the least bit material, but I'll be careful not to credit/blame Snowden for bringing us this little tidbit of knowledge in the future. 2) This is what the original article actually had to say about NSA involvement in parallel construction (emphasis mine): "Today, the SOD offers at least three services to federal, state and local law enforcement agents: coordinating international investigations such as the Bout case; distributing tips from overseas NSA intercepts, informants, foreign law enforcement partners and domestic wiretaps; and circulating tips from a massive database known as DICE." Only the article's second sentence matters, as far as I'm concerned: Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations (of American citizens) truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges. And with respect to "Wiretap tips forwarded by the SOD usually come from foreign governments, U.S. intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. Because warrantless eavesdropping on Americans is illegal, tips from intelligence agencies are generally not forwarded to the SOD until a caller's citizenship can be verified, according to one senior law enforcement official and one former U.S. military intelligence analyst." These people break countless laws and tell countless lies every day, with total impunity even when said lies are told before Congress. Excuse me if I don't believe "one senior law enforcement official and one former intelligence analyst" for one minute. Give me one reason to.

tptacek 12y ago

He didn't just plead guilty; he conceded several of the facts in the case as early as his effort to have the initial indictments dismissed.

fnordfnordfnord 12y ago

>Do you have any cases where NSA illegal wiretaps were used as evidence in court in a standard trial like this against a U.S. citizen? Okay please stop this nonsense. It is not necessary or reasonable to expect any individual to be able to collect of provide evidence that the most well-financed, most-powerful spy agency ever known to exist has spied on them and that the government (DOJ) has illegally used information obtained that way in a prosecution against same. It's not unprecedented, and it's not as if it is even possible to discover every case of this happening. >This guy pled guilty. Maybe it was due to fear of courts handling tech cases Or maybe because any individual is hopelessly outmatched by the state in a case such as this.

tptacek 12y ago
Non-falsifiable argument is non-falsifiable.
- defen 12y ago
  http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE...
  - harry8 12y ago
    This was down voted with no response. ;-)
- tedks 12y ago
  Sure it's falsifiable. The falsification test is that when the NSA/DEA/FBI are stormed by the citizenry in the same manner as their moral and spiritual predecessor, the Statsi, if those files contain no mention of doing such things, it is less likely that they occurred. There is always a possibility that the NSA could exchange information entirely covertly between itself and the DEA, but I think this is unlikely to be totally ironclad. The comment to which you reply is pointing out the very real asymmetry in ability between a citizen and the amalgamated federal government. It is, in fact, unreasonable to put the burden of proof on the much less able party when there is real evidence showing that the NSA->DEA information flow does in fact exist, and could potentially be used in any case. It's not likely to have been used in this case, because Brown seems to have indeed made real threats and probably plead guilty because of that. But that doesn't change the unreasonability in the general form of argument the comment grandparent makes.