This is the first time I hear about this, is this just a way to get normally inadmissable evidence admitted through some bullshit loophole or is there an actual good reason to have this system?
Seems like an “ends justifies the means” loophole. The original intent was to hide the source of NSA tips from terrorist prosecution. We’d all probably agree to that without thinking that it can also be used more widely, that the person is not a terrorist until proven so, that there are really no limits, and is an easy way for police to hide abuse of authority.
Analogous to “Civil Forfeiture”. That seemed so reasonable in the context of seizing wealth obtained through criminal activities by organized crime. But there were no real limits, and it allowed perverse incentives, so now we have local cops stealing people’s personal belongings, and actually creating budgets relying on this theft
It sounds like they’re buying time to find evidence that is admissable in court (ie not their illegal methods they used to first book the defendant while they try to scrounge together what they do need.)
So goes like this. You use illegal surveillance to track someone without a warrant. You arrest them and plant evidence as cause for lock up. Meanwhile now you can actually get a warrant to search the defendants computer, house, etc… To try to find something that does give you evidence of guilt that will actually be used to prove you think they’re guilty.
This is common knowledge for anyone who was around during the Chelsea Manning / Edward Snowden era and all the revelations of the depths of NSA spying, PRISM, etc.
Everything is being recorded, analysed, manipulated to whatever degree they’re technically capable of, laws be damned.
This is the first time I hear about this, is this just a way to get normally inadmissable evidence admitted through some bullshit loophole or is there an actual good reason to have this system?
Seems like an “ends justifies the means” loophole. The original intent was to hide the source of NSA tips from terrorist prosecution. We’d all probably agree to that without thinking that it can also be used more widely, that the person is not a terrorist until proven so, that there are really no limits, and is an easy way for police to hide abuse of authority.
Analogous to “Civil Forfeiture”. That seemed so reasonable in the context of seizing wealth obtained through criminal activities by organized crime. But there were no real limits, and it allowed perverse incentives, so now we have local cops stealing people’s personal belongings, and actually creating budgets relying on this theft
It sounds like they’re buying time to find evidence that is admissable in court (ie not their illegal methods they used to first book the defendant while they try to scrounge together what they do need.)
So goes like this. You use illegal surveillance to track someone without a warrant. You arrest them and plant evidence as cause for lock up. Meanwhile now you can actually get a warrant to search the defendants computer, house, etc… To try to find something that does give you evidence of guilt that will actually be used to prove you think they’re guilty.
Obviously he’s innocent though.
This is common knowledge for anyone who was around during the Chelsea Manning / Edward Snowden era and all the revelations of the depths of NSA spying, PRISM, etc.
Everything is being recorded, analysed, manipulated to whatever degree they’re technically capable of, laws be damned.