Slashdot Mirror
DOJ: Defendant Has No Standing To Oppose Use of Phone Records
An anonymous reader writes with news of a man caught by the NSA dragnet for donating a small sum of money to an organization that the federal government considered terrorist in nature. The man is having problems mounting an appeal. From the article: "Seven months after his conviction, Basaaly Moalin's defense attorney moved for a new trial, arguing that evidence collected about him under the government's recently disclosed dragnet telephone surveillance program violated his constitutional and statutory rights. ... The government's response (PDF), filed on September 30th, is a heavily redacted opposition arguing that when law enforcement can monitor one person's information without a warrant, it can monitor everyone's information, 'regardless of the collection's expanse.' Notably, the government is also arguing that no one other than the company that provided the information — including the defendant in this case — has the right to challenge this disclosure in court."
This goes far beyond the third party doctrine, effectively prosecuting someone and depriving them of the ability to defend themselves by declaring that they have no standing to refute the evidence used against them.
Anything they suck up in their endless surveillance will only ever be used AGAINST you, never for your defense.
The argument makes sense to me. AFAIK a defendant has the right to know specifically how the evidence against him was collected, and to be given any potentially exculpatory evidence. If you want to claim "national security", then you can't prosecute.
The really scary think is that they can make claims like this in the open without fear of repercussions. Totalitarian bureaucrats all over the world must be so proud to have the US finally in their ranks.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
He is not claiming the evidence is wrong, which is a refutation. He is claiming the evidence was collected illegally, which would allow the court to exclude the evidence. The government is claiming that he doesn't have standing to claim the collection was illegal, only the company the data was collected from can do so because the data doesn't belong to him but rather to the company.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
We know (now) how the evidence was collected. We also know that most of it was collected without probable cause. The issue isn't the method of collection, but the justification for it. This isn't exculpatory evidence that they're withholding; it's evidence that they're using, but was obtained through improper means.
This is the "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument. It doesn't matter if it's true or not; evidence illegally collected by the government can't be used in court because of the "slippery slope" precedence that it sets.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
This is actually a good development. This is the type of case - supported by our government's pubic declaration that no more privacy actually exists (with or without a warrant) - that will end up in the SCOTUS. We may finally get this crap struck down ... or we'll all get the officially sanctioned OK to rise up against our oppressive government.
SCOTUS striking this down? You're joking, right?
A little more background, courtesy of the Daily Mail. The Slashdot summary is a bit vague, referring to "donating a small sum of money to an organization that the federal government considered terrorist in nature." Apparently Mr. Moalin once missed a telephone call from "Aden Hashi Ayrow, the senior al Shabaab leader," which makes it likely that a little more was going on than merely the donation of "a small sum of money." You may recall al Shabaab as the group behind the recent slaughter at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi. So to say "an organization that the federal government considered terrorist in nature" is to omit some rather important background. By any rational definition, al Shabaab is certainly a terror group.
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
This guy knew straight-up he was funding terrorist activities
I don't give a damn. I could care less if he's as guilty as sin. The Constitution is more important than catching some two-bit financial contributor to an organization the US government has labelled terrorist. You want the terrorists to win? Just keep wiping your ass with the Constitution. Then the terrorists win by getting us to abandon what's been the organic law of this country for over two centuries, and which every school child in this country is taught the importance of (apparently many people didn't pay attention in class).
As insulting as it is that we have to entertain this "appeal"
We won't know if it's being seriously entertained until he's granted a new trial, and the court takes his case seriously.
And what's insulting about it? I'll posit that he's guilty. It's still a defense attorney's obligation to try to get his client off. It wouldn't be the first time that evidence was tossed out because of a Constitutional violation. It's more important to defend the Constitution than it is to not let one or two criminals off.
Read up on the case, it's enlightening
What better source to get unbiased information than the FBI. Even believing everything the FBI says, this case is penny ante. Why not give them the same strict punishment that HSBC got for knowingly laundering billions of dollars over a period of years for terrorist organizations? I'd worry a lot more about that than a contribution that most people could put on their credit card.
Apparently Mr. Moalin once missed a telephone call from "Aden Hashi Ayrow, the senior al Shabaab leader," which makes it likely that a little more was going on than merely the donation of "a small sum of money."
Is this important?
He's claiming not that the evidence is wrong, he's claiming that it was collected illegally.
It's often been said that the defense of freedom is the defense of scoundrels (H. L. Mencken). We believe that a kiddie porn merchant has the right to a fair trial, the KKK has the right to assemble, and Rosa Parks has the right to sit in the front of the bus.
Should we base the legitimacy of rights and freedoms on the character of the accused party?
You may recall al Shabaab as the group behind the recent slaughter at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi.
As terrible as that was, I wish I could say that qualified as a major slaughter in Africa. Are you aware of what's happened in, for example, the Congo in recent years? The Second Congo War was the bloodiest war since WWII, and most Americans have never even heard of it. I don't know if the US should have gotten involved to stop it, but it didn't. Now we're sanctimonious about a mall shooting? That's called a political agenda, not a concern for human life.
The list of banned organizations are not public. The Electronic Frontier Foundation could be considered a "terrorist organization" under a secret NSA list. Once you donated to that organization and later the government declares that organization is considered "Terrorist organization" it is too late. It is now for you to sell all your belongings to get a good lawyer just to stay out of jail.
New Economic Perspectives
don't see why people keep making a fuss about this part,
They're making a fuss about it because companies don't give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut about your civil rights, or anyone else's. They're only too happy to cooperate with the government, or anyone else with money. These records contain more personal information than would often be obtained if I ransacked your house. And having a phone, internet, etc., is essential for surviving in today's society. It isn't optional if you want a job, friends, or anything other than living in the woods. Corporations track everything about you; Bank records, cell phone records, medical records -- everything you do has a record of it kept by a corporation, somewhere.
It's an attempt to deprive someone of their rights against unreasonable search and seizure by simply asking somebody else to do it. And by attempt, I mean they already did it. And by already did it, I mean they've been doing this since the 1960s; but improvements in technology now mean they can do this globally, against everyone, for next to nothing. It's like the argument about how sharing music, etc., was legal... until advances in technology made it trivially easy, and suddenly, we had to throw people in jail for decades at a go and fine them hundreds of millions of dollars for doing the exact same thing, except they were doing it faster, and better, now.
Now personally, I don't care that the government wants to collect 'all the things', but they need probable cause to search all the things. In other words, collect everyone's cell phone records if you want, but you need a reason to look at them that passes constitutional muster. Because if we allow this to stand, then everyone will be a criminal in some fashion, and the government can, via selective enforcement, get rid of anyone they want.
The fact is, the laws are so complex that even our own government can't keep track of them all. If you let them gather evidence on everyone in bulk, you've created a system of efficiently removing political adversaries under the guise of the justice system. It all but destroys the democratic process.
THAT, is why people keep making a fuss; They can't create eloquent arguments to explain this, but it doesn't mean their fears are any less justified!
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
An improper warrant results in dismissal of the evidence it produces. It's called "fruit of the poisoned tree". I'm not a lawyer, but our lawyer used it in court once to keep my brother out. When police raid a house without a warrant, everyone walks. When police get evidence without a proper warrant, it is removed with prejudice. A proper warrant is a vital requirement for the collection of evidence.
This is basically accepting someone else's word, their records about you, as evidence. It is now legally acceptable for the government to enter "hearsay" as evidence against you. You aren't even allowed to challenge it, like you can any other evidence. It basically boils down to, "You're guilty because we say you are. Now take it like a bitch!"
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
Hypothetical: The police need a warrant to search your house, but it's OK to have 24/7 surveillance of the inside of your house because you purchased a Kinect, and Microsoft decided to send the stream to the authorities. Why would anyone be upset over that?
How did you miss the point here? This isn't about technology, this is about due process, it's about human rights, it's about the balance of power between the government and its citizens, and it is most importantly about answering whether a democracy can survive with this level of intrusion into people's personal lives by the government.
It is said that you defend democracy with four boxes; The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box. You are to use them in that order. The soap box I think we can say has safely failed. The ballot box has become useless -- every candidate you can choose is going to support this as a pre-condition to his political career. This is the jury box now.
This isn't a technology problem. This is a social problem. And it's one that's rapidly running out of peaceful solutions. :( Is this case going to trigger a civil war? No. But the large number of cases like it paint a pattern -- and it's that pattern that everyone is worried about.
Things that nobody is worried about: The three guys who actually bought the new XBone.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie