Hacker News Reader

Comment by pivnicek | Hacker News Reader

The thing is, as these things come out, it turns paranoia into reality. I preferred being paranoid, rather than correct, myself.

Maybe you are getting downvotes because you seem to be endorsing illegal activities by the federal authorities? It is a crime to fail to divulge the source of evidence, or worse, outright lie about it, is it not?

View on HN

I am not sure it is illegal to obtain information through lying and deceit, as police do this all the time, especially if the information is not used in a trial. If there is enough "clean" evidence to go to trial, I am not sure there is any reason to doubt the validity of the arrest, trial or the conviction of the defendant.

The collection of data may be illegal, and that is worth investigating. The collection of information of data of innocent people, people with no probable cause they are committing crimes or without a warrant, is not OK.

> The collection of information of data of innocent people, people with no probable cause they are committing crimes or without a warrant, is not OK.

Aye, there's the rub. The collection of the trawl data invariably will uncover some crimes being committed by people who are not suspected of committing crimes. In other words, search and seizure without probable cause. Now it appears this illegally begotten evidence is being used to point federal law enforcement at targets. Do you really not see a problem with this?

I see a problem with collecting information without probable cause or a warrant. Though I may not agree with drug laws, I do not see the problem with convicting individuals who are committing crimes regardless of how that information was collected unless the act of collecting the information affects the information (like confessions under duress). For example I am somewhat appalled at FBI deploying malware, but I hope they do not let child pornographers walk free because of the FBI's actions.

Do you not see the problem with allowing them to convict people based on illegal investigations? If they are allowed to use illegal methods and still get a conviction, they will continue to do so. Cases should be thrown out when the investigation was done illegally, as a way to strongly ensure such things do not happen. A guilty person going free is bad, but far worse is a rogue police force with no regard for the law and the good and proper limits placed upon them to prevent abuse.

Well, the problem is that you can't have a "guilty people only" filter on a data trawling system. You have no idea who the guilty people are, that is why you are trawling the data. So, I guess what you have to ask yourself, is if the fourth amendment is worth sacrificing in order to catch drug dealers.

I don't think it is, and I hope most Americans agree.

<edit> replacing drug dealer with terrorist doesn't change my view on the matter</edit>

Your arguments are not self consistent.

>I see a problem with collecting information without probable cause or a warrant.

>I do not see the problem with convicting individuals who are committing crimes regardless of how that information was collected...

The second case is not possible without making an exception to the first, which then leads to the selective application of fundamental rights and that is paradoxical.

Mass surveilance will undoubtedly unearth crimes that would not otherwise come under suspicion in a free society. By definition, the surveilance will also target those who have commmited no crimes. The question is whether that risk is worth it. The Fourth amendment says no. Making exceptions for certain classes of people (even if probable criminals) is just a slippery slope.

I interpreted it as meaning that btipling does not like such information collection but as long as they're doing it, any criminals they catch should still be prosecuted anyway. I think this is a terrible idea, but there seem to be many out there who do not consider the consequences and think that people should be put in prison regardless of any potential police actions that got them there.

> I see a problem with collecting information without probable cause or a warrant. Though I may not agree with drug laws, I do not see the problem with convicting individuals who are committing crimes regardless of how that information was collected unless the act of collecting the information affects the information (like confessions under duress).

You effectively contradict yourself: you can't say "no", reward them for doing it, and expect it to stop.

So effectively, your first sentence carries no weight, because you don't believe in enforcing it... you believe in rewarding law enforcement for doing the exact opposite.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com