Bank robbery suspect wants NSA phone records for his defense
sun-sentinel.com
sun-sentinel.com
And a hero, because this makes clear the exact problem with these databases. Once they exist, there are endless uses for that each -seem- reasonable. This request illustrates that slippery slope in a way that makes even the NSA nervous.
They've admitted to at least five years.
See 1:58:45 [1] when Feinstein confirms with Alexander.
* monitoring the world
- better PR (how to spin news to the masses)
- better data for elections (get out to vote campains, donations) - this way they improve their elections machine
- better metrics for governmental activities and social development - this is what I hope it will be used for
* manipulation
- bubbling - presenting slanted/targeted results in searches and feeds - requires deal with FB and Google - in this way they can promote the opinions they want and actively downplay the activist movement
* propaganda
- using analytics they can target write articles in the media to influence public opinion
* blacklisting
- we've seen this in China and US, with The Great Firewall and No-fly List, it will probably become much more pervasive
- they can blacklist persons but also websites and specific messages in social networks
* targetting people
- they can auto-identify activists for any political orientation, networks of people, the social influencers
* blackmailing
- they know our most private interests and they can use that for blackmail when a person has been auto-identified or in any other situation
* wildcard - what will happen in the future with this information
- it could fall in the hands of Republicans
- similarly, other countries could make use of such datasets
- various companies could use the info for their own benefit (for example Google could use the data in many ways that would scare the people)
* slippery slope
- use of surveillance data in civil and crimilal lawsuits -> imposing a reign of terror on population
* the basic questions
- who has access?
- what data has been collected?
- how are they using it, and what machine learning tools are they applying on it?
- who is going to get such data in the future and how are they going to use it?
By controlling a few birds at the right moment, you can control where the whole flock goes, and it still thinks it's free.
I don't think it's that easy, though. China seems, at least to me, as a very divided nation. They can't keep it up forever, I mean - something's gotta give at some point.
When discussing China from a Western perspective, and not simply using "culture and history" as a catch-all/cop-out for differences, I would say two points need to be kept closely in mind: Scale and Paranoia.
No Western country operates at "China Scale". Entire societal functions operate less efficiently, or break down entirely, when you reach a certain size. You often hear bewildered statements, wondering "Why China does X instead of Y?", where X is an unsustainable notion for them. Sort of like how on HN we talk about "Facebook Scale" or "Twitter Scale" to emphasize sets of problems that most other companies don't have, and likely never will.
But size lends something else: Momentum. Things will continue forward tomorrow in a manner similar to today, if only because it would take a huge exertion of effort to change it. And in this case, 500 protests per day with a few dozen people each is not a huge exertion of effort relative to the population.
As for paranoia, I'm sure some of China's leaders agree with your "They can't keep it up forever" statement (at a national level--local is a different matter). They worry about this regularly and it colors much of what they do. Does a US Senator wake up in the morning and ask themselves "Is today the day that everyone decides democracy is a terrible idea? Is today the day it all crashes down?" Of course not. But many of China's leaders worry for their system.
Of course that paranoia is probably of a different flavor now than 20 years ago. China's economic success and continued upward trajectory has to help some leaders sleep easier at night.
As for the Illuminati: Please don't go there. It never helps.
I think China will be okay, as long as their economy doesn't collapse under its own weight.
They don't have his records, hence they must be operating only on the testimony of the person they have already jailed which should be suspect regardless.
So why should the prosecution get a free pass, if they are using cell phone records to prosecute the the other men but don't have any to tie Brown to the area they should be able to just assume his guilt. Its not like Brown lost the records. Apparently he is being prosecuted for not having a phone they could trace.
Welcome to America where you are not allowed on a jury if you even hint that police officers are human and therefore capable of error or dishonesty.
That was actually a really interesting experience. I've been meaning to write it up, but haven't taken the time to do it yet. I wish I'd done it sooner when the details were more fresh in my mind, but I think I still should at some point.
If there's a world where all these interactions are truly not subject to privacy protections... why not remove the illusion privacy entirely and have it a publicly accessible dragnet? Or, at least, provide full access to the dragnet machine to public defenders.
Federal laws are so numerous and complicated that even the federal government cannot NUMBER them. they literally can't even count them all. You and everyone else in this country is guilty of many of them.
but hey, if they decide to go after you for some reason, and bring you up on federal charges, please let me know how it goes in court accusing the judge and the prosecutor of "must have done something wrong too"
This is just a meaningless thing to say. The reason for the difficulty in answering is because the question ("how many laws are there") is flawed because it implies a static number. Some rules are temporary (e.g.: a safety zone around a small area for X hours while underwater explosives are used for dredging from June Y-Z). They receive temporary CFR citations that start with T and they expire when they are no longer in effect.
The number changes, it's not "uncountable" -- this meme needs to die.
Oh by the way, these are also by and large submitted to the Federal Register for people to have a chance to read and submit comments and request public meetings.
How realistic is it for a normal person, with a full-time job, perhaps a family, to keep track of every relevant Federal Register submission which may affect them?
Should they be keeping track of all newly-passed (and rescinded) laws, as well?
--
On a separate note, I wonder what the result would be of a legal system in which all laws have a mandatory expiry, and must be re-ratified/voted on to remain applicable. The period would have to be long, but not too long (somewhere 10-20 years maybe?) so as not to backlog, but even that might be a benefit in keeping the number of laws from growing too fast.
The biggest problems I can imagine is prosecution of subsequently expired laws, and how legal precedent could work, when it might have been made based on a wording different to the current.
Largely, no, because it would be a spectacular waste of their time. Why? Because the regulations are usually microscopically focused on class of actors that (a) know they exist, and (b) have a vested interest in staying current.
Moxie Marlinspike's example of the undersized lobster rule is especially telling in how it goes against the very point he was attempting to make. On the enforcement side, this particular regulation likely affects fewer than 10,000 people in the entire country -- that is, people fishing commercially for lobsters. The public interest it serves is that fisheries are subject to the tragedy of the commons[1], and must be regulated to preserve these public goods. It's basically the equivalent of that little tag on your mattress that says "ILLEGAL TO RESELL" -- people joke about getting arrested for this. No, it's targeted at the vanishingly small number of people that sell mattresses commercially.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
EDIT: Also, just a note -- laws are passed by Congress. Regulations are promulgated by agencies that have been delegated some task or authority from Congress ("we don't have time to draft/debate/vote on every little piece of trivia regarding airplane part advisories or what plants are on the invasive species list or what next year's technical specifications for automobile safety are -- FAA, USDA, NTSB, you guys have the experts and scientists, so here's your authority, now go and figure out the details and make it happen")
Of course, any reasonable court would/should dismiss this, even in the unlikely instance that someone would decide to prosecute, but the problem is that is a dangerous thing to rely on. And if it were recorded by not prosecuted, it's now a liability that can be used against you for other reasons, until the statute of limitations applies.
If the law prohibited selling, or possession in a commercial context (large lobstering boat, etc), it would be reasonable. The damage to lobster stocks is likely[1] due to the large commercial concerns, rather than individuals catching small numbers for personal consumption.
Likewise for the 'it's targeted at the vanishingly small number [...]'. If the law isn't specifically targeted at them, why not? One good reason would be the creation of loopholes that allow it to be broken without penalty, but if the alternative is allowing perfectly normal activities to bear the possibility of prosecution, subject to the whims of the legal system, I think I'd be in favour of being precise.
[1] wild-ass guess here, but I think reasonable
If the world decides that you're interesting, the symmetry that you describe may break. He-said/She-said situations are rarely regarded symmetrically.
Next step, political refugee uses NSA records to determine who was torturing him in Afghanistan.
To be fair it's absolutely brilliant - the only real defence we have against total surveillance is to be able to see what the guards are watching as they watch. This is a step along that road. Mr Brown may be doing the world a much bigger favour than we think.
I actually suspect that total surveillance is in fact, inevitable. Or possibly already here. All the NSA seems to be doing is pulling together existing digital records. There seems to be little original surveillance if that makes sense.
You've got more faith in the freedom of information than sadly I! Perhaps information will randomly go missing. Just like the spurious claim that the CCTV network was down on the London underground on 7/7 (really??)
Or you'll get it rebuffed under something like: ‘likely to prejudice the defence of the British Island’
http://peacenews.info/node/6840/remote-killing
Hot air from the Tories in 2010:
http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/04/~/med...
1. Never again be governed for years by a prime minister with no popular mandate. (Isn't that rather ironically exactly what we got!)
3. They'll expand on the freedom of information act.
7. They'll protect whistleblowers.
8. The right to data act, the public will have the right to appeal if public bodies refuse requests for data collected by the government.
They really need to sort it out.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege
People erroneously tortured by the govt had their cases thrown out. Cases as low as bank robbery have zero chance.
The only way to get around this is to open up the NSA to an independent team of international cyber experts from the UN. It would set a great precedent of 21st century democracy and challenge totalitarian regimes around the world.
I know Americans hate the UN, to socialist and dares to criticise the US, but for non Americans it's the closest thing to an authority that they can at least try to believe in as independent. We all trust the UN weapons inspectors, yes? Well, not GW Bush on a war path, true, but the rest of us?
So how about UN Data Inspectors?
Do Americans really believe the rest of the planet even slightly trusts the US government? No. So the UN would be the best bet. Unless the US is prepared to be audited by, say, the French.
B5 fans will understand that the US is nicely represented to many by Mr Morden. Nice hair, nice suit, winning smile, all the right words.... surrounded by shadows.
Frankly, as bad as this whole situation sounds, I trust the US government far more than Russia or China.
It may be fair to say Americans are skeptical about relinquishing State Sovereignty, such as the US refusal to sign the Rome Statute and come under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but most Americans would agree the UN is of great importance to the World.
>Do Americans really believe the rest of the planet even slightly trusts the US government? No
I think if you took a poll at any given time a majority of Americans would not trust their own government. American history teaches us to have a healthy skepticism for government. That skepticism would certainly extend to the UN, whereas at least the US is a democracy, in all its imperfection, which includes terms limits and elections, it only makes sense to be skeptical of relinquishing sovereignty to a UN that includes States represented by authoritarian and repressive regimes.
The UN is a powerless organization. Nations will always act in their own self-interests, and the power-players of the UN will ignore any efforts to intrude upon that authority if they can argue that it weakens national security.
If only we had a body of hundreds of people, chosen by citizens across the country charged with representing their interests and empowered to set the rules and budget for any such program. We could supplement that body with oversight from learned scholars; we can give them lifetime tenure in hopes that they'll remain impartial and give them the ability to find rules and actions inconsistent with fundamental principles.
We get the government for which we vote.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba...
De facto de-classification.
He's probably hoping that the government doesn't release records, as this could possibly be enough to free him.
The district court rejected the formal claim and ordered the documents
be produced; but, the government refused and the court entered final
judgment for plaintiffs on the grounds that the refusal to produce the
documents established the Air Force’s negligence.
And guess what? The US refused to release them, under the guise of "national security". Polish(and Russian) investigators NEVER got these records, even though they clearly exist.
Therefore, I don't think a guy like this would ever get what he wants from the US government, it's just not how it works.
Even if it could be applied without regard to whether the defendant objected, it has been gutted in recent decades by our radical right-wing Supreme Court, who think illegally-obtained evidence is just dandy so long as excluding it from court proceedings wouldn't actually change the government's behavior in collecting it.
Data cannot 'deny' something. Ask your coffee cup what the weather is and all you get back is silence :)
The other issue that bothers me with respect to the defense lawyer's tactic here is that it does not appear he has complied with the Classified Information Procedures Act. Since the request was made in the middle of trial, perhaps the judge waived these, but failure to comply would be another way to get around the disclosure requirement.
Finally, line U.S. Attorneys really have no knowledge of these matters--Main Justice flies in CIPA specialists to assist whenever there is classified information.
First, under the law there is no entity called "government." I see these blanket statements about "the government must." The prosecutors don't belong to the NSA, and so we need to understand that laws rarely apply across the spectrum to the whole of the federal government.
Second, we need to understand that there are lots of rules and laws related to disclosure. The defense and prosecution can ask for many documents, and there are well-defined rules for what you can withhold, redact, and what you must produce. Because the entities are separate (see above) the rules that apply to the prosecution are different from those that apply to the NSA.
Finally, the NSA need only comply with the rules for issuing subpoenas. This is where things get messy. I'd be surprised if a subpoena gets issued at all, more surprised if the NSA responds, and I might die of shock if they said anything besides, "no, because national security."
The NSA works to catch criminals - not to defend anyone. I know it seems and probably is unfair, but this lawyer's request is going nowhere. It's the same as with "anything you say can be used against you," the police aren't required to disclose the things you tell them that would help your defense. Don't expect law enforcement to come to your aid in criminal defense. The sad truth is that the information recorded by the NSA can be used to prosecute, but it'll be a cold day in hell before the NSA lets you use their information for your defense.
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/foia/submit_foia_request/foia...
If they don't have to respond to discovery, they certainly are legally required to respond to this.
If they play the "national security" or "privacy" card, this defendant has a strong case to appeal any conviction considering that the existence of this database has been essentially "unclassified" by POTUS with his public acknowledgements.
Of course US will have to do something about the law mess. Whatever they do, it can be only improvement over current: we have too many laws to even count them, and we are sort of fine not enforcing most of them, most of the time because bunch of them are silly.
"The prosecution had told defense attorneys that they were unable to obtain Brown's cellphone records from the period before September 2010 because his carrier, MetroPCS, had not held on to them."
Suppose Alice and Bob are talking about a big drug deal over the phone, and Carol (working for the NSA) listens in. Carol lets her friend Dan know, and Dan's a police officer so he goes on a stakeout and catch Alice and Bob in the act, with $1M of cocaine in the trunk of Alice's car, and $1M of cash in the trunk of Bob's car. Open and shut case, right?
US case law states that the cocaine is "fruit of the poisonous tree", because the cocaine would never have been discovered by the police if it weren't for the illegal wiretap. Therefore it is inadmissible as evidence. The prosecution's case is sunk, and Alice and Bob go free. (Note that Dan never committed any crimes, might not be aware of the wiretap, and got good, hard, physical evidence that Alice and Bob were breaking the law.)
So if the government tries to use an illegal wiretap in an actual criminal case, it will probably do the prosecution more harm than good. Best chance for a conviction is to pretend the wiretaps never happened.
Edit: I think a good example here is "Nardone et al. v. United States." In this case, Nardone was convicted of smuggling alcohol etc. during a first trial based primarily on evidence acquired through illegal wiretaps. This conviction was overturned because the wiretaps were not admissible as evidence. On the second trial, Nardone was convicted again on other evidence. This conviction was also overturned, because the prosecutors wouldn't have had this evidence if it weren't for the wiretaps.
> Best chance for a conviction is to pretend the wiretaps never happened.
And this is why PRISM coming to light is a good thing as it gives the defense another reason to question intent, in the scenario above it would be Bob and Alice asking why Dan was staking out their house and searching their cars.
Also, let's be clear, and stop saying "the government". Let's say "the NSA" is doing the wiretap. Then we can talk about "state prosecutors" or "federal prosecutors", and talk about how those prosecutors ended up with evidence obtained by tainted means.
> Just as the suppression of evidence does not require the return of such items as contraband, the introduction of "mere evidence" does not entitle the State to its retention if it is being wrongfully withheld. Pp. 307-308.
So just because the cocaine can't be used as evidence, doesn't mean that the police have to give it back -- it's still contraband. Maybe they would destroy it if they have no other use for it. But Alice would get her car back, if it were seized with the cocaine.
As for future prosecution, nobody is exempt, but the prosecution would probably have to come up with new charges (due the fifth amendment double jeopardy clause). Waiting a few weeks would not change legal circumstances and a judge would see right through such trickery, but if I were Alice or Bob I would keep my nose clean for a while.
No. They don't have to return illegal contraband found during an improper search, but it cannot be used as evidence in a trial against them.
Suppose that Alice has two kilos of Cocaine in her refrigerator, and then she breaks into Best Buy and steals a 72" TV. She gets caught on camera, but they're not sure it's her, so the police get a warrant to search her house. One officer goes into the attic and finds a 72" TV... bingo, she's gonna get convicted.
But another officer was in the kitchen, and found the Cocaine. No conviction. It's a legal search since they have a warrant, but the police can't use the Cocaine in the fridge as evidence, because they have a warrant to find a 72" TV. The fridge is too small for a 72" TV, so the police can't look in the fridge, and they can't use anything they find in the fridge as evidence.
Alice gets busted for stealing a 72" TV, but the conviction for Cocaine gets thrown out.
So, back to the wiretaps. Just because a wiretap is legal doesn't mean that all the evidence you get from a wiretap will be admissible as evidence.
Second, calling the wiretaps legal does not make them so. The courts might declare that they're illegal without a warrant.
Third, it's the executive branch that calls the wiretaps legal. We should be at least this specific. The executive branch can claim PRISM is legal, but only the judicial branch has the power to actually decide on the legality.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20007827-245.html?part=rss...
Also, even if the warrant was overbroad, the evidence wouldn't get thrown out as fruit of the tainted tree, because a bad decision by a judge (e.g. grant a bad warrant) won't cause the evidence to become tainted in that way. You can exclude evidence because the police broke the law, but the judge isn't breaking the law just by interpreting it poorly. Or put another way, we don't want the police to have second-guess judges' decisions.
I came across an example of how this works a couple of years ago when I came across a toddler left alone in a car while strapped into her car seat. This was at the local post office. It was easily 110 degrees outside. The car was not running (no air conditioner). After about 15 minutes the mother came out of the post office. I confronted her. She saud there was nothing I could do about it. I took down her licence plate and called the police. My jaw dropped when The cops told me they could not help me. Her licence plate was protected because her husband was a cop. They claimed they could not get any data on that plate. I was fuming. I called again and asked for a supervisor to come and talk to me. Two cops came to my home. I had them interview my kids --who were with me and saw it all-- to get the facts. I got the same story. I told them that this kid could have died and that I was sure the cop husband would want to know about it. I got the clear and distinct feeling that pushing further would have had potentially negative consequences for me. I had to balance the my indignation with the potential to piss off the brotherhood of cops and my family's well being and safety. I dropped the whole thing and threw away the number. I know people who were cops in other countries ad have heard enough stories in the general vein of "fuck with cops and you'll regret it" that I had to opt for self preservation.
My point is that there are sub-societies that do not live in the same reality the rest of us enjoy. The idea that surveillance would be applied and disclosed equally is, in my opinion, not aligned with reality.
I wonder whether this "protection" happened at the state or local level. License plates are given out by the state, so if you had traveled 100 miles in some direction but not left the state, and had a different city look up the plate, would they have told you the same thing?
Your story paints articles like this in a whole new light - http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Florida-Highway-Patrol-Tr...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3613020.stm
I also recall Saddam doing similar things in his trial. Is there not a name for this type of failed legal tactic?