3 ms·

> “I think that people and companies need to be convinced that everything we do in the cyber domain is lawful and appropriate and necessary,” Mr. Carter told st

by staunch 12y ago

> “I think that people and companies need to be convinced that everything we do in the cyber domain is lawful and appropriate and necessary,” Mr. Carter told students and faculty at Stanford. Good luck with the convincing. Quite a few of us can read, so it will be rather impossible. > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_... > Shortly after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush secretly told the N.S.A. that it could wiretap Americans’ international phone calls and collect bulk data about their phone calls and emails without obeying the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/us/politics/value-of-nsa-warrantless-spying-is-doubted-in-declassified-reports.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/us/politics/value-of-nsa-w... > On July 9, 2012, when asked by a member of the press if a large data center in Utah was used to store data on American citizens, Alexander stated, "No. While I can't go into all the details on the Utah data center, we don't hold data on U.S. citizens." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_B._Alexander#Statements_to_the_public_regarding_NSA_operations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_B._Alexander#Statements_t... Why are these people not in prison for violating the constitution on a mass scale? Their only defense can be that they were simply "following orders." The USA PATRIOT Act will be viewed by historians as something akin to the Reichstag Fire Decree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree#Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree#Backgroun...

afarrell 12y ago
So, it is not actually a criminal offense for law enforcement to violate the 4th amendment in collecting evidence. All that happens is that in pre-trial, a defense counsel can file a motion to suppress that evidence based on the exclusionary rule[1]. If the judge decides that the evidence was collected illegally, it is thrown out and cannot be presented to the jury. Less than 90% of cases go before a jury, but a knowledgable and zealous attorney can get evidence thrown out (or "c'mon, you know that will never fly with Judge Saris"d out) before a plea deal. This is the only way we have that warrants be sought, that they be validly[2] issued and that they be followed.--the threat that a criminal will "Get off on a technicality", either because the DA doesn't think she can prosecute, or because the evidence gets thrown out in pre-trial, or because an appeals/SCOTUS decision throws out the case. None of that matters if the evidence collected is never intended for criminal prosecutions. Either by the FBI or by the NSA. At least one of Boston's federal judges serves on the FISA court and I have it on the word of Boston's clerk of court that the FISA court judges care deeply about doing a good job and being a check on executive overreach. I believe him. But that doesn't matter at all. [1] Everyone should read http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585 and actually look at this flowchart for the 4th amendment http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256. [2] Most warrant requests are granted, not because it is a rubber stamp, but because the conditions for warrant approval are predictable and judges don't like having their time wasted with dumb requests. It's not like the patent office.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

by staunch 12y ago

afarrell 12y ago

So, it is not actually a criminal offense for law enforcement to violate the 4th amendment in collecting evidence. All that happens is that in pre-trial, a defense counsel can file a motion to suppress that evidence based on the exclusionary rule[1]. If the judge decides that the evidence was collected illegally, it is thrown out and cannot be presented to the jury. Less than 90% of cases go before a jury, but a knowledgable and zealous attorney can get evidence thrown out (or "c'mon, you know that will never fly with Judge Saris"d out) before a plea deal. This is the only way we have that warrants be sought, that they be validly[2] issued and that they be followed.--the threat that a criminal will "Get off on a technicality", either because the DA doesn't think she can prosecute, or because the evidence gets thrown out in pre-trial, or because an appeals/SCOTUS decision throws out the case. None of that matters if the evidence collected is never intended for criminal prosecutions. Either by the FBI or by the NSA. At least one of Boston's federal judges serves on the FISA court and I have it on the word of Boston's clerk of court that the FISA court judges care deeply about doing a good job and being a check on executive overreach. I believe him. But that doesn't matter at all. [1] Everyone should read http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1585 and actually look at this flowchart for the 4th amendment http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256. [2] Most warrant requests are granted, not because it is a rubber stamp, but because the conditions for warrant approval are predictable and judges don't like having their time wasted with dumb requests. It's not like the patent office.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]