3 ms·

I don't understand this argument. If something illegal is going on anyway, how is making it legal the right answer ? Surveillance being illegal protects us fro

by linschn 11y ago

I don't understand this argument. If something illegal is going on anyway, how is making it legal the right answer ? Surveillance being illegal protects us from it being used against us in legal proceedings. Even if we can't prevent spies from spying, at least we don't have to worry about the evidence they collect being used in court.

mercurial 11y ago
> If something illegal is going on anyway, how is making it legal the right answer ? Where do I say that? What I am saying is that French intelligence services do not care what the law say, and the government is not interested in having existing laws enforced. As long as there is no independent entity to control their activity, with real power, these laws may as well be printed on toilet paper. > Even if we can't prevent spies from spying, at least we don't have to worry about the evidence they collect being used in court. That is a fair point, but if law enforcement agencies like Tracfin are already using this data anyway, it means we are not protected with the current laws.
dagw 11y ago
at least we don't have to worry about the evidence they collect being used in court. That's a distinctly US concept. In Europe in general all evidence is a priori admissible no matter how it was collected. It is them up to the lawyers and judges to argue that the way this evidence was collected makes it inadmissible in this situation on a case by case basis. So as long as an argument can be made that the illegality of the method used to collect the evidence didn't affect the reliability of the evidence then it can be used.
- sergiosgc 11y ago
  > In Europe in general all evidence is a priori admissible no matter how it was collected. That is not the case in Portugal and, since our laws are mostly inspired by French laws, I'd imagine that is not the case in France. Illegally obtained evidence, or evidence where there is a relevant probability that the chain of custody was compromised, is not admissible in court.
draugadrotten 11y ago
> Surveillance being illegal protects us from it being used against us in legal proceedings. Even if we can't prevent spies from spying, at least we don't have to worry about the evidence they collect being used in court. That is an argument to make surveillance legal. If the illegal surveillance is indeed useful in court proceedings to prosecute other illegal actions, then it makes sense to make the surveillance legal so that the true criminals can be brought to justice. The legal principles of appropriate measures should still apply - surveillance should not be used to prove jaywalking but rather be used to combat more serious crimes. Appropriate use of surveillance should be legal. The problem with illegal surveillance is when it is used to record legal behaviour and control citizens behaving legally but perhaps indecent. Such as recording amoral behaviour of political dissidents or political opposition and later releasing it to the press to gain politically. Gathering evidence of homosexuality of a priest or union leader could be another example, and use this surveillance to stop the union leader from becoming a problem for the political power. Also, surveillance used today can be used by a future power for nefarious purposes. Imagine that Hitler would have been able to access 10 years of video recordings of synagogues, which may have been originally recorded for the purpose of protecting the synagogues from attacks. The recordings can be used for something else entirely in the future. Surveillance in general is a very powerful weapon and should be treated like all powerful weapons - with respect and very carefully.
- sergiosgc 11y ago
  > The problem with illegal surveillance is when it is used to record legal behaviour and control citizens behaving legally but perhaps indecent. That is not the only problem. If illegal surveillance can be used as evidence, you have the tool of selective prosecution. Totalitarian states were known for using and abusing selective prosecution.

by linschn 11y ago

mercurial 11y ago

> If something illegal is going on anyway, how is making it legal the right answer ? Where do I say that? What I am saying is that French intelligence services do not care what the law say, and the government is not interested in having existing laws enforced. As long as there is no independent entity to control their activity, with real power, these laws may as well be printed on toilet paper. > Even if we can't prevent spies from spying, at least we don't have to worry about the evidence they collect being used in court. That is a fair point, but if law enforcement agencies like Tracfin are already using this data anyway, it means we are not protected with the current laws.

dagw 11y ago

at least we don't have to worry about the evidence they collect being used in court. That's a distinctly US concept. In Europe in general all evidence is a priori admissible no matter how it was collected. It is them up to the lawyers and judges to argue that the way this evidence was collected makes it inadmissible in this situation on a case by case basis. So as long as an argument can be made that the illegality of the method used to collect the evidence didn't affect the reliability of the evidence then it can be used.

sergiosgc 11y ago
> In Europe in general all evidence is a priori admissible no matter how it was collected. That is not the case in Portugal and, since our laws are mostly inspired by French laws, I'd imagine that is not the case in France. Illegally obtained evidence, or evidence where there is a relevant probability that the chain of custody was compromised, is not admissible in court.

draugadrotten 11y ago

> Surveillance being illegal protects us from it being used against us in legal proceedings. Even if we can't prevent spies from spying, at least we don't have to worry about the evidence they collect being used in court. That is an argument to make surveillance legal. If the illegal surveillance is indeed useful in court proceedings to prosecute other illegal actions, then it makes sense to make the surveillance legal so that the true criminals can be brought to justice. The legal principles of appropriate measures should still apply - surveillance should not be used to prove jaywalking but rather be used to combat more serious crimes. Appropriate use of surveillance should be legal. The problem with illegal surveillance is when it is used to record legal behaviour and control citizens behaving legally but perhaps indecent. Such as recording amoral behaviour of political dissidents or political opposition and later releasing it to the press to gain politically. Gathering evidence of homosexuality of a priest or union leader could be another example, and use this surveillance to stop the union leader from becoming a problem for the political power. Also, surveillance used today can be used by a future power for nefarious purposes. Imagine that Hitler would have been able to access 10 years of video recordings of synagogues, which may have been originally recorded for the purpose of protecting the synagogues from attacks. The recordings can be used for something else entirely in the future. Surveillance in general is a very powerful weapon and should be treated like all powerful weapons - with respect and very carefully.

sergiosgc 11y ago
> The problem with illegal surveillance is when it is used to record legal behaviour and control citizens behaving legally but perhaps indecent. That is not the only problem. If illegal surveillance can be used as evidence, you have the tool of selective prosecution. Totalitarian states were known for using and abusing selective prosecution.