Slashdot Mirror
FBI's Hacks Don't Comply With Legal Safeguards
An anonymous reader writes: The FBI hacks computers. Specifics are scarce, and only a trickle of news has emerged from court filings and FOIA responses. But we know it happens. In a new law review article, a Stanford Ph.D. candidate and privacy expert pulls together what's been disclosed, and then matches it against established law. The results sure aren't pretty. FBI agents deceive judges, ignore time limits, don't tell computer owners after they've been hacked, and don't get 'super-warrants' for webcam snooping. Whatever you think of law enforcement hacking, it probably shouldn't be this lawless.
Is there anyone in the world who does not believe the American CIA/FBI/NSA don't spy on whoever they want without regard to the legal process? When you have that kind of power and secrecy, you use it. And you don't let some pesky 200+ year old document stop you. Warrants are a mere formality; by the time they get around to getting one they already have the info they want. All the warrant is for is to make it legally admissible in court.
Only that they have those in power behind them. When law enforcement is not bound by law anymore, that is a police state, the precursor to a totalitarian state. The signs are well-known from past occurrences, as is the further story: Unless constrained very tightly by the law again, these people will eventually cause a total catastrophe. Checks and balances are not fluff, they are essential to keep the likes of these people in check.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The FBI doesn't give a shit about the law or the rules. Who's going to stop them?
You can't sue, because you can't prove you have standing. They use their illicitly gathered evidence to parallel-construct a case without ever revealing whatever hacks they used. They classify volumes of information to hide evidence of their own wrongdoing. They use secret tools like stingrays to gather secret evidence which they attempt to present in secret, sealed and off the record. And in the event that an "activist judge" calls them on it, they withdraw the evidence so as not to have it revealed, and then re-file charges a month later to go shopping for a different judge.
The police state is strong in America. Hoover is jizzing in his grave, I'm sure.
I have news for you, people who intend to be criminals, pedophiles included, flock to join law enforcement agencies.
I remember someone relating a story about having a friend in the CIA who also happened to be a pedophile ...
Giving it a fancy name like 'parallel construction' is to conceal its nature. That is perjury, that is falsification of evidence, an officer goes into court and lies about the evidence trail, in front of a judge and denies the defense the chance to cross examine the TRUE evidence trail.
Quit calling it "parallel construction" can call it what it is and that's typically falsification of evidence (a police officer lies about "bad driving" or whatever reason he invented to justify a stop), followed by perjury to back that lie.
And it gives the spooks leverage over the police too, they know the police officer lied, they know the crime that was committed, so don't expect the police force to police the military spooks. General Alexander lied to Congress and they practically wiped his ass they were so afraid of him.
Thanks god for Snowden, because Alexander was doing a tour like he was planning a Presidential bid. Snowdens revelations squashed all that. We'd have a Putin figure running for president with access to a file on his opponents. Snowden put a stop to that.