Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI and DEA Under Review For Misuse of NSA Mass Surveillance Data

Posted by timothy on from the we-figured-why-not? dept.

Patrick O'Neill writes: The FBI and DEA were among the agencies fed information from an NSA surveillance program described as "staggering" by one judge who helped strike the program down. Now the two agencies are under review by the Justice Department for the use of parallel construction as well as looking into the specifics and results of cases originating from NSA tips. (Here's some more on the practice of parallel construction in this context.)

86 comments

  1. My money is on.... by TheCarp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After investigating themselves, no wrongdoing will be found.

    I never find wrongdoing when I investigate myself. At least not anything that needs to be discussed in public, just a little internal housekeeping, you know, minor discipline issues, nothing to make a federal case over.

    One thing you can be certain of: This will lead to exactly 0 prosecutions, no matter how much abuse is found.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    1. Re:My money is on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ironic thing is that it was the FBI that collected the data in the first place with a NSL, or a FISA order...

    2. Re:My money is on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if there really was no wrong doing? Are we a lynch mob?

    3. Re:My money is on.... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. I think wrongdoing will be found... a few minor, isolated cases. That will give the government a chance to point out how the abuses are "minor" when compared to the "proven benefits" of the Surveillance State, as well a chance to talk about how they are "constantly improving" an already careful program so it's even better about not collecting any important information from "ordinary, law-abiding citizens"
      M

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:My money is on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The evidence was illegally obtained then misused to create a reason to obtain the evidence.

      I'm not sure how anyone could claim that isn't any wrongdoing, but I'm sure our good friend cold fjord will chime in with his pro-NSA propaganda.

    5. Re:My money is on.... by swb · · Score: 2

      Token wrongdoing will be found.

      A couple of people who were on their way out anyway will be offered off-the-books compensation and a promise of no consequences to be tainted by this.

      A couple of people they want to get rid of outright will get pinned with the most serious charges, but to protect the organization they will be allowed to resign quietly without any prosecution.

      In the end, it will be the same as no wrongdoing being found but with a little "accountability theater" to keep critics quiet.

    6. Re:My money is on.... by bigpat · · Score: 2

      Worse. It will be seen as a loophole in the law that only terrorists can be found out by indiscriminate mass surveillance. If terrorists, then why not... (fill in the blank terrible crime here). Then the law will be expanded to say that any felony crime inadvertently uncovered during mass surveillance is fair game.

      On the one hand, they are right... If you can be allowed to search without a warrant for terrorists then why not other criminals? If you find out someone went on a murderous rampage for personal reasons are you any less ethically obligated to try and stop them than if they have terrorist motives? No if it is constitutional, then you can't simply apply the standard to certain crimes.

      The answer is that government shouldn't be allowed to violate the constitution and seizing business records without a warrant is a clear violation of the 4th amendment... that applies to terrorism cases and everything else.

    7. Re:My money is on.... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      If the NSA's intrusive powers, constitutionality aside, are all about terrorists, what in God's name are they doing passing normal crime info on to the FBI and DEA?

      I don't think this revealation is all that secret. I recall some extra special terrorist power being granted to the FBI late Clinton era, and they immediately used it to bust drug people. They didn't even bother with the sophistry that drug distribution is a kind of terrorism.

      No, when asked directly, they said, "Well, I know what we promised to use it only for terrorists, but the law doesn't actually state terrorist investigations only, so tuff." They lied to get it through Congress, then immediately began misusing it in a way only a lawyer or someone planning to throw a coup would find reasonable.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re:My money is on.... by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      If the NSA's intrusive powers, constitutionality aside, are all about terrorists, what in God's name are they doing passing normal crime info on to the FBI and DEA?

      I don't think this revealation is all that secret. I recall some extra special terrorist power being granted to the FBI late Clinton era, and they immediately used it to bust drug people. They didn't even bother with the sophistry that drug distribution is a kind of terrorism.

      No, when asked directly, they said, "Well, I know what we promised to use it only for terrorists, but the law doesn't actually state terrorist investigations only, so tuff." They lied to get it through Congress, then immediately began misusing it in a way only a lawyer or someone planning to throw a coup would find reasonable.

      Yes, or course. I remember back in 2001 or 2002 discussing all the new powers the government gave itself with a friend of mine. He actually believed it would only be used for terrorism cases. I was stunned by the naivete. Anyone with any sense should have known that any new powers will be used for any damn thing the Feds want.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    9. Re:My money is on.... by random+coward · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, they are right... If you can be allowed to search without a warrant for terrorists then why not other criminals?

      This is an equivocation fallacy. The arguement to do this for terrorism is because its not a crime, but an act of war, the terrorists aren't merely criminals, but foreign combatants. When its time to treat them as combatants, even if illegal combatants(i.e. violating the laws of war like the Geneva conventions) then the governemtn says it is just crime. Oh and since its just a crime we can use this for other things....

    10. Re:My money is on.... by bigpat · · Score: 2

      This is an equivocation fallacy. The arguement to do this for terrorism is because its not a crime, but an act of war, the terrorists aren't merely criminals, but foreign combatants.

      The government isn't claiming merely the necessity for mass surveillance in the face of imminent danger from terrorists, they are claiming a right to perform mass surveillance as a function of law and the ability to use evidence gained from the fruit of mass surveillance to prosecute criminal cases against people conspiring with terrorists. Either mass surveillance is constitutional as a tool against crime or it isn't. There is no false argument there. Evidence gained through mass surveillance and the fruit of mass surveillance should be inadmissible in ANY criminal cases.

      Either treat surveillance without a warrant as something that is inadmissible in court in all cases or forget the 4th amendment.

    11. Re:My money is on.... by random+coward · · Score: 1

      They are in fact claiming that, its just that the lie. They claim terrorism is different therefore give them what they want, when they get what they want they claim its just crime and their new powers are constitutional when they aren't. You start arguing that its unconstitutional and shouldn't be used as a tool against crime, and back to "But Terrorists!" implying the difference. The logical fallacy isn't yours, its the governments.

    12. Re:My money is on.... by Tharkkun · · Score: 1

      If the NSA's intrusive powers, constitutionality aside, are all about terrorists, what in God's name are they doing passing normal crime info on to the FBI and DEA?

      I don't think this revealation is all that secret. I recall some extra special terrorist power being granted to the FBI late Clinton era, and they immediately used it to bust drug people. They didn't even bother with the sophistry that drug distribution is a kind of terrorism.

      No, when asked directly, they said, "Well, I know what we promised to use it only for terrorists, but the law doesn't actually state terrorist investigations only, so tuff." They lied to get it through Congress, then immediately began misusing it in a way only a lawyer or someone planning to throw a coup would find reasonable.

      Yes, or course. I remember back in 2001 or 2002 discussing all the new powers the government gave itself with a friend of mine. He actually believed it would only be used for terrorism cases. I was stunned by the naivete. Anyone with any sense should have known that any new powers will be used for any damn thing the Feds want.

      Aside from paranoia do we have any real cases where the government has abused this surveillance footage? Did they call your wife and tell her you were looking at porn? Or are you just afraid they could do so? One is abuse, one is the perception of being abused.

    13. Re:My money is on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The blonde lead the blind and now I begin to see..."

    14. Re:My money is on.... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      They are fine with forgetting about the 4th.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    15. Re:My money is on.... by bigpat · · Score: 1

      They are in fact claiming that, its just that the lie. They claim terrorism is different therefore give them what they want, when they get what they want they claim its just crime and their new powers are constitutional when they aren't. You start arguing that its unconstitutional and shouldn't be used as a tool against crime, and back to "But Terrorists!" implying the difference. The logical fallacy isn't yours, its the governments.

      Sure, there are mixed messages. And in different cases there are claims being made by government agents that are completely contradictory. I was highlighting the arguments that are of greatest concern to me. It isn't of concern to me when the government occasionally exercises power in ways that exceed their authority. That is necessity. Like the police (or anyone) kicking down a door without a warrant if they think a kidnapped child is inside. But kicking down one door is different than going house to house and kicking down every door. Which is the equivalent of the mass surveillance approach now.

    16. Re:My money is on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you seem to be so willing to ignore (or maybe you're just very forgetful), perhaps at the very least you'll recall that whole deal with dozens of cases of NSA employees using the data to spy on their exes, wives and husbands, or anyone else they damn well please. And yes, even to look (and laugh) at your dick pics.

      On the other hand, can you find even one case of this surveillance accomplishing its goal of rooting out terrorists? Even the NSA has admitted they cannot cite a single case.

    17. Re:My money is on.... by random+coward · · Score: 1

      Here let me show you some nice video from Boston. Welcome to the current police state, where they do kick every door down, and they are doing mass surveillance, and they do lie to justify it.

    18. Re:My money is on.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cases like this move forward based on political will, because the Justice Dept is run by whoever POTUS assigns.

      If a right wing President is elected, I know nothing will come from this, because 'Merica needs protection'.

      If a left wing President is elected, I suspect very little will happen, because pressure will be on him/her to not look weak and to protect 'Merica from real, or more likely, imaginary enemies/criminals/Mooslims/hippies/SaulAlinskyTypes and of course, Unitarians.

    19. Re:My money is on.... by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

      Wrong doing started when they violated the supreme law of the land under an illegal war (not declared against a sovereign nation) to obtain these powers and a blank check. The clusterfuck starts there and they sure spent a lot of money and suppressed the effects of hyperinflation for quite a while, we all knew this could only last so long though.

    20. Re: My money is on.... by ememisya · · Score: 1

      Have some faith, maybe not.

    21. Re:My money is on.... by bentcd · · Score: 1

      If the NSA's intrusive powers, constitutionality aside, are all about terrorists, what in God's name are they doing passing normal crime info on to the FBI and DEA?

      There is no meaningful distinction between terrorism and crime, so this is how it must be.

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    22. Re:My money is on.... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > The arguement to do this for terrorism is because its not a crime, but an act of war, the terrorists aren't merely criminals, but foreign combatants

      I am fine with that, but they should have to prove THAT in a court of law too. Problem is, war, crime, these are just labels. The moment a government is arresting people, its law time...it court time. That is a fundamental check on the power of government that should be inviolate.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  2. Have the FBI or DEA EVER been punished? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Based on a review from the Justice Department?

    1. Re:Have the FBI or DEA EVER been punished? by knightghost · · Score: 1

      Never, because they work for the doj, who in turn work for politicians.

  3. lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The basic problem here is that "parallel construction" equals "lying under oath". Once judges start accepting outright lies, it rots the (already slightly decayed) system right down to the core.

    It's like when they're trying to indoctrinate you to be a terrorist, and they make you perform some unspeakably abominable act as your initiation. After that, you won't question your decision to join this iffy organization, because that would mean that you did this unforgivable thing, not for the greater good, but just because a bunch of assholes told you to. Which makes you yourself not only an asshole but also an idiot.

    So these judges will not only accept lies as testimony, they will defend the practice to the death, to anyone who raises the very obvious point that you shouldn't base your system of justice on blatant lies. Otherwise they're assholes and idiots, and nobody wants to admit that they're an idiot asshole.

    1. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's no reach with the definition he used.

      The police find the information by way of violating the law.
      Having uncovered the information in question, they concoct some *other* way that they can or could have discovered it.
      In court, under oath, they claim to have found the information this *other* way. That's the lie.

      "Parallel construction" is a known violation of the defendant's rights, cloaked in a lie to keep said violation secret.

    2. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

      You're right, how could I be so foolish? Of course parallel construction isn't lying! Because:

      I found out you were a fan of our local baseball team because I saw you at the ballpark last Tuesday night.

      ...is obviously 100% factually equivalent to:

      I found out you were a fan of our local baseball team because I snuck into your house and hacked your computer and the only entries in your browser history were mlb.com/teams/townburg_bumblebees and horseporn.com/underage_colt_on_colt/tenatacles.mp4"

      Stupid, silly, me! Thanks, kind stranger!

    3. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And illegally obtained evidence and evidence derived from it is not supposed to be admissible, precisely to discourage the illegal evidence taking in the first place. See Fruit of the poisonous tree

    4. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people keep acting like parallel construction is something new, invented by the NSA or something.
      It's a well-established principle, going back as far as the exclusionary rule.
      Didn't you ever watch Law and Order?
      The idea is not to admit the fruits of warrantless searches and coerced confessions, but to avoid suppressing valid evidence for pointless technical reasons.
      In every case, a judge has to approve the argument that the evidence would inevitably have been uncovered by other means. No lying is involved. The evidence is factual.
      If convicted, the defense is free to argue on appeal that the judge was in error.

    5. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I found out you were a fan of our local baseball team because I snuck into your house and hacked your computer

      Dammit, that sounds like a lot of work. How 'bout I just sit here on my fat ass then tell the court that I found out you were a fan of our local baseball team because of... well, I can't tell you because it's a state secret, but just trust me, and don't try to verify.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 0

      You people keep acting like child sex slaves are something new, invented by Ariel Castro or something. It's a well-established practice, going back at least as far as as ancient Athens. Didn't you ever read Phaedrus? The idea is to help the child develop sexually under the guidance of a kind and caring elder, before they get all fat and hairy. In every case, a parent has to approve the argument that sooner or later their child was going to get buggered, so they might as well make a few bucks out of it. No coercion is involved. The relationship is mutually beneficial. If sold to a old man, a boy is free to buy his freedom at age 21, if he can afford it.

    7. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by PPH · · Score: 1

      It's not a lie that the wrongdoing/crime occurred

      Two crimes were committed. The (illegally) found evidence proves the commission of a crime. But what about the crime of the illegal search. If you are going to throw someone in prison upon finding the dead body in the trunk, what will you do to the cop who had no business opening the trunk without a warrant in the first place? Nothing. Because the police are above the law. Whatever happens, society will end up paying for the bad actions of law enforcement. Either for violations of our Fourth Amendment rights or the release of a dangerous killer into our midst.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here we see one of several fallacies applied to attack the US government and legal system at all costs, including conflation with child sex trade. We are one step away from somebody saying "Hitler was in favor of parallel construction"

    9. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

      And here we see one of several fallacies applied to attack the US government and legal system at all costs, including conflation with child sex trade. We are one step away from somebody saying "Hitler was in favor of parallel construction"

      Wait, you're saying that conflation with the child sex trade is a tactic mainly used against the U.S. executive branch? I think you may have that backwards. It's a testament to how screwed up things are that I legitimately have no idea whether you're trolling or not.

      Hitler probably wasn't in favor of parallel construction, but only because he didn't need it.

    10. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The second problem is that there is a good reason not to have secret agencies feed law enforcement. The thing is, secret agencies are not bound by law in how they obtain their information, so nobody has any protection against them or any recourse under the law. Having them give information to law enforcement completely negates the essential checks and balances any working legal system has. Hence the DEA and FBI had to commit perjury on a mass-scale in order to use that information. That they were willing to do so already demonstrates the problem very clearly.

      To make it amply clear: If secret agencies feed law enforcement in your state, then you life in a police state or worse.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      Parallel construction is only legal in cases where it is, by definition, useless. If it was useful, it it poison fruit, and it it wasn't useful, it was pointless. Therefore, there cannot possibly be a justification for parallel construction.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Parallel construction is as follows (and proper).

      You break in (ahem "search") and discover Joe is a fan of the Sporting Team, which is very useful for the investigation. You don't use that information to secure a search warrant.

      You follow and stakeout Sporting Team Event with agents, and "discover" Joe attending, being a fan. You use THIS information for search warrant, because it is very useful for the investigation. You then use the search warrant to search the previously searched location, and discover additional incriminating evidence you already knew was there, but otherwise couldn't disclose.

      It is very useful technique to skirt the laws.You use alternative methods to rediscover things you already knew.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If parallel construction is useful, it means they found the evidence the wrong way first. A stupid accident of timing shouldn't suppress good evidence.

    14. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      parallel construction means they want to hide their illegal activities of how they came across the original evidence. Not that a crime was committed to reveal the evidence. That crime should be punished.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    15. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      There are two possibilities for the evidence:
      1) it would have inevitably be found in roughly the same time frame through conventional policing
      2) it would NOT have inevitably be found in roughly the same time frame through conventional policing
      If we have case 1, the NSA's actions were pointless. If we have case 2, the evidence is fruit of the poison tree. This is by definition, because if it has any effect on the second search, it has affected it, and thus is 'fruit.'

      The scenario you are concerned about is that just because the NSA gave the DEA info about George Jung being a drug dealer, that doesn't undermine evidence from local police that comes from a giant billboard that says "George Jung's Cocaine Emporium, Next Left."

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    16. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The idea is not to admit the fruits of warrantless searches and coerced confessions, but to avoid suppressing valid evidence for pointless technical reasons.

      The technical reasons are not pointless. They are there to keep Law Enforcement honest. It seems they are not entirely successful on that front.

      If they discover valid evidence by violating your rights, you don't really have rights. As always, the ends don't justify the means. Police and prosecutors bitch about technicalities because they don't care about your rights; they only care about convicting you, guilty or not. It is entirely proper that a guilty person go free on a technicality. It shows that even guilty people have rights, as it should be.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    17. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      To make it amply clear: If secret agencies feed law enforcement in your state, then you life in a police state or worse.

      I would argue that the US is already a police state. It's just subtle enough (and portrayed in the Media in such a way) that most people don't notice.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    18. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I would agree to that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    19. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a lifelong asshole, I have a specific talent for identifying and then naming and shaming other assholes. This is what we do. We are assholes.

    20. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how can the judge make this determination on the evidence if the fact that the evidence was procured based on an illegal search is hidden from them? That is the lie. TFA makes the fact that judges are lied to quite clear. So no judge makes a determination and the defense cannot appeal, because the illegal search is hidden from them.

    21. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scenario you are concerned about is that just because the NSA gave the DEA info about George Jung being a drug dealer, that doesn't undermine evidence from local police that comes from a giant billboard that says "George Jung's Cocaine Emporium, Next Left.

      Minus your hyperbole, the judge who admits the evidence under the parallel construction theory has decided exactly this. I see no problem.

    22. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is false. TFA has two instances of the word "judge", and neither one says anything about them being lied to.
      Since word of the NSA feeding evidence to the DEA got out there, a lot of people have acted like parallel construction was a brand new thing.
      Well, if judges are being lied to about the source of the evidence--and you're the first person to make that claim--that really would be a brand new thing.
      So what's your source?

    23. Re:lies, damn lies, and sworn testimony by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      The judge didn't know, as DEA agents perjured themselves by lying to the court as to the source of the evidence. This will give all of those cases grounds for appeal.

      If there's any justice, every agent who committed perjury will receive a sentence of at least a couple years, along with loss of job and pension. Hopefully a few will get more than that.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
  4. What a shocking surprise said absolutely no one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't even care anymore. I'll send them poop samples if they want to analyze them.

  5. Let's be clear here ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Parallel construction is effectively perjury at a huge scale.

    What it's doing is giving them access to information they either aren't supposed to have, or are unwilling to admit to having. And then they come up with a carefully crafted lie about how they might have found this information from another source.

    This bit of creative writing has the effect of denying you the ability to see the evidence against you, and know where it comes from.

    It allows them to operate with impunity, while essentially denying you a fair trial ... because the bullshit story they make up about how they heard from a guy who heard it form a guy is exactly that: bullshit.

    It's government agencies who are bypassing decades of court decisions about proper procedures and rules of evidence, and using secret laws and bold-faced lies to be able to trump up whatever charges they have, with information obtained through questionable means, and the lying to suppress the real source of the information to cheat the system and deny you the ability to know how they really got it.

    This is as bad as any Soviet era secret police ever was, precisely because it bypasses all legal safeguards, and totally ignores the law as it pertains to knowing the evidence against you and how it is obtained.

    Any police agency doing this is, in my opinion, committing a crime. There's no other way to see this other than these organizations lying to courts, and providing local police with a fucking manual to also lie to the courts.

    Give us your fucking papers, comrade.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Let's be clear here ... by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      I don't disagree with you. If we are being intellectually honest then your argument is perfectly correct. If we care to do the right thing then your argument is perfectly correct, IMHO.

      The problem is you had better be prepared for disappointment. The Feds abhor intellectual honesty "The law says we can't give aide to a country after a coup but it does not say we have to make the determination if a coup occurred." -- This is how they think. Any normal person I would consider having any sort of relationship other than strictly adversarial would recognize that as total bullshit, and that obviously laws or any sort of agreement do not need to contain a disclaimer that specifically states "you are not entitled to be willfully ignorant on matters relating or to ignore reality"

      The defense of parallel construction will be that they don't lie about, but rather evade the question.

      Defense Attorney: "How did you come to learn my client was in possession of $controlledSubstance"
      DEA Agent: "Well we might have discovered it during a traffic stop."

      They are going to argue that its not 'fruit of poison' as long as they reasonably could found it thru normal means.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Let's be clear here ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They are going to argue that its not 'fruit of poison' as long as they reasonably could found it thru normal means.

      See, the problem with that is it ignores how they actually got it.

      When you have information you're not supposed to have, and you can look back and then put together a bullshit argument about how you could have gotten it, it has nothing at all to do with reality.

      It is the fruit of the poison tree, because it was obtained without probable cause, and because the origins of it are being hidden from the accused.

      It's perjury, plain and simple. And if law enforcement is being encouraged to commit perjury, that pretty much means the justice system is completely fucked.

      It's taking information you can't justify having, and then effectively framing someone you believe is guilty but couldn't prove to a standard the courts would reject by re-building your evidence retroactively to suit your story.

      If the cops are doing that, they should be imprisoned, or shot on sight.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Let's be clear here ... by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Yes in the long term US intelligence service aspect seems to have been pulled into very simple domestic court issues.
      The GCHQ always seemed to have a deeper understanding of never going near courts or short term political requests.
      Early in the 1920-30's the UK found a fast way into Soviet embassy codes, one about links deep in the UK, staff, unions, cash. It was too good to be true but the UK had to spread the results of the code work as it was just such a perfect document as a domestic political win. Codes where changed and Russia understood the needs of fast crypto vs secure crypto. Code breaking and results much more hidden from that point on.
      The US seemed to have demand very public results from its very secret clandestine gathering systems vs just collect all and sort. No courts, news or press at any cost, no legal staff, drop convictions in open courts if needed. The use of the RUC Special Branch and CID are also telling in how the UK offered its most on time and vital gathered intelligence. The UK had a very clear understanding of who was doing criminal investigations and who was an intelligence service.
      If the UK needed crypto help in public, police like units thats could be seen in public could be presented to the secure or public legal system. Government Technical Assistance Centre (~ a Home Office unit), National Technical Assistance Centre. That would be very court friendly for early emails and computer hard drives that where decrypted quickly and legal teams, the press could see. No unsafe convictions or later questions about the speed of decryption of advanced trusted computer encryption software :)
      The US seems to have hoped that that its courts, lawyers, the press would always be unable to trace back basic domestic signals intelligence use for a few more decades?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:Let's be clear here ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the cops are doing that, they should be imprisoned, or shot on sight."

      Lol! "Who watches the watchers?"

    5. Re:Let's be clear here ... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      There is also the little problem that the step to completely making up "evidence" is a small one. They are already lying under oath to a court on how they got the evidence. If that becomes routine, why not just plant drugs on everybody they do not like where it is plausible and lie about that under oath? I am sure a significant amount of that is already going on, it is just so easy for them to improve their numbers and make themselves look good.

      "Parallel construction" is a technique right out of a police state, because it can easily be used to put anybody behind bars. Most people commit small crimes all the time. It is not the job of law enforcement to police those, it is their job to prevent large and significant crimes from becoming too common in order to keep society functioning. If they have access to masses of "evidence" obtained illegally or completely made up, then they are out of control. There are excellent reasons to limit the power of law enforcement. Not doing so has drastic negative consequences for society in the long run.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re:Let's be clear here ... by q4Fry · · Score: 1

      That should be totally covered by

      Officer, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

      Obviously, parallel construction does not lend itself to the whole truth. IANAL, but it sounds to me like your DEA Agent is perjuring herself.

  6. Unchecked power will ALWAYS be abused by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was a great episode of the old Penn & Teller show "Bullshit!" that dealt with this. They hired a bunch of random people as security monitors, gave them access to surveillance cameras, and told them not to use the cameras to spy on people's private lives (only on the fake security perimeter). Sure enough, 90% of them used the cameras to spy on people's personal shit.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Unchecked power will ALWAYS be abused by thedonger · · Score: 1

      ...90% of them used the cameras to spy on people's personal shit.

      Or at least 9 out of 10 times.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    2. Re:Unchecked power will ALWAYS be abused by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This. When I worked in hospital IT we were warned several times, the single most common reason for anyone in the hospital to be fired, is inappropriate records access. They had implemented auditing years ago. In fact, a decade before I worked at the hospital, my mother did, and there was a huge scandal involving medical records and a famous patient.

      By the time I left, they were implementing real time flagging. The system was able to flag on all sorts of things, accessing records within your family, accessing records of people who live near you, all things people actually do with alarming regularity when given access to records.

      The old adage is "power corrupts" and it is apt. People will misuse power given to them. Will all of them all the time? No. However, enough will and its impossible to say who will and who wont because almost every single one will given the right motivation or excuse.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:Unchecked power will ALWAYS be abused by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Years ago I worked tech support for one of the pre-web internet subscription communities.

      While working there I ended up in a flame war in one of their forums with a user, while logged in with my personal account.
      The war continued for about a week, escalating, as I didn't back down on my opinion and the other user continued to escalate the rhetoric, ending up with his threats of physical violence.

      I then looked up his account at work and discovered that he was around 14 yrs old, and that his father paid for the account.
      I messaged his father the threats he made in the forum. He replied a thank you and I never heard back from either of them.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    4. Re:Unchecked power will ALWAYS be abused by FeelGood314 · · Score: 1

      I worked in IT at a credit bureau. Everyone of us could have looked up any specific person in the files and there would have been no trace of it. I don't think anyone ever did. We had a couple of incidents in data entry and support people looking up people they knew. Considering how many people had access though the cases of abuse were very small. I suspect there has to be something about the environment that adds to people abusing the power.

    5. Re:Unchecked power will ALWAYS be abused by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      There was a great episode of the old Penn & Teller show "Bullshit!" that dealt with this. They hired a bunch of random people as security monitors, gave them access to surveillance cameras, and told them not to use the cameras to spy on people's private lives (only on the fake security perimeter). Sure enough, 90% of them used the cameras to spy on people's personal shit.

      Now couple that with the results of the Zimbardo Prison Study and you see how we got where we are and where we are going.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    6. Re:Unchecked power will ALWAYS be abused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly "Bullshit!" has pretty much become such a blatant shill for the Cato Institute, I wouldn't be surprised if that experiment was rigged. Someone needs to do a "Bullshit!" style show on "Bullshit!" some day. Magicians are sneaky folk.

    7. Re:Unchecked power will ALWAYS be abused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... used the cameras to spy on people's personal shit.

      Humans love to perv. It's why reality shows are so popular (they're also cheap). Staring at luggage is boring. It's why dedicated smugglers defeat screening so easily. It's why security staff is paid minimum wage.

  7. Re: What a shocking surprise said absolutely no on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No worries, they already have your poop samples and everything else they need.

  8. Watch what happens in a month - by pecosdave · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this story is forgotten, swept under the rug, no longer referenced.

    Just as suddenly as it appeared in the news, it disappears from the news and our short memories caused by modern low attention-span media causes us to forget.

    Then the parallel construction and misuse of data will continue.

    Just like everyone has forgotten about the persecution of real reporters that began in 08 and was heavily reported on for a short time. We still have mainstream news that's a result of what happened back then, but no mention of that fact.

    Just like everyone forgets about the global cooling scare that was a big deal in the 70's and still covered in the 80's.

    Just like everyone forgets about the various legal entities that have found "the smoking gun" and plan to go after the administration or some other powerful organization, never to hear anything more about it past the initial breaking news stories.

    This one will fall off the earth too.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:Watch what happens in a month - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as suddenly as it appeared in the news, it disappears from the news and our short memories caused by modern low attention-span media causes us to forget.

      Funny how the media never stops blabbering about celebrity gossip bullshit, or party-driven mudslinging, but never wants to cover things that actually matter.

  9. Parallel Construction Should Be Prosecuted by mbone · · Score: 1, Interesting

    My personal feeling is that parallel construction should be prosecuted as a felony. It's perjury, abuse of the juridicial process and contempt of court, and in a fundamental way (not some playing loose along the edges). Send someone to trial over this, and watch the abuse stop.

    1. Re:Parallel Construction Should Be Prosecuted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's your job to do it. They aren't going to prosecute themselves.

  10. Re:SERIAL construction aka perjury by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

    They call it parallel construction because they want to give the impression that the two evidence chains do not intersect.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  11. 1998 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep in mind the dragnet mass surveillance was put in in 1998, 3 years before 9/11

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0w36GAyZIA

    Content + metadata.

    1. Re:1998 by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yes, I am well aware that this government has been going down a slow march to totalitarianism for several decades now. It was the early 90s when they started militarizing the police and eroding away our rights.

      Do you know there was a time when police with a warrant would, in nearly every single case, knock on the door and wait for someone to answer, then, talk to them. Now they just yell "police" while they bust n the door and throw in a flashbang over just about anything at all.

      This has all been a long time coming, and nothing is good about it.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  12. separation until 9/11 showed drawbacks by raymorris · · Score: 1

    There was more separation between intelligence and law enforcement in the US prior to 9/11. The cops shouldn't be doing some of the sneaky stuff (or asking someone else to do it), so there were laws in place forbidding much data sharing.

    Looking into how an attack like 9/11 could be prevented in the future, it was found that more cooperation between agencies might have prevented it. The intelligence agencies had parts of the puzzle and the FBI had other parts. Nobody had enough to see the whole picture. The idea, the proposed benefit, was that something like 9/11 could be potentially be prevented by the FBI, CIA, and NSA sharing information. It stands to reason that they might be able to be more effective without the legal prohibition on sharing information, BUT we're now seeing why they SHOULD be clearly separated. It might make their job harder, but it's worth it.

    1. Re:separation until 9/11 showed drawbacks by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The problem with 9/11 wasn't that there was too little cooperation between agencies. It wasn't that government agencies were gathering too little information. Bush was warned beforehand about threats.

      The problem is that nobody expected such an attack. If people had considered it a possibility, they would have picked up enough traces to see it coming.

      It was something like the Pearl Harbor intelligence failures. There really wasn't a modern intelligence community, and the head of Naval intelligence saw it as a way to advance his career rather than to help defend the country. There were enough clues going on that you can go through them and pick out good reasons to be concerned about the attack, since you know it actually happened.

      If you've been intellectually blindsided, it's easy to pick out what you should have done, what you should have paid attention to, and make changes that would have helped in the story you've made up about your failure.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:separation until 9/11 showed drawbacks by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "There was more separation between intelligence and law enforcement in the US prior to" 2000? 1990? 1980?
      Pick a decade, any decade.
      Main Core https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "The data which is believed to come from the NSA, FBI, CIA, and other sources,[1] is collected and stored without warrants or court orders"
      MAINWAY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Operation CHAOS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Project MINARET https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Project SHAMROCK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  13. Re:SERIAL construction aka perjury by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The point being SERIAL construction (which this is) is perjury. Parallel construction they can pretend is "just more evidence", a separate chain that wasn't introduced as if its just extra information.

    A lot of thought has obviously gone into that name.

    Yet it is serial, the evidence is faked to cover the true (earlier) evidence chain. Which could well be tainted. It could be simply the agency concerned plants the drugs and has a nice way of covering the evidence chain with a patsy police officer.

  14. Anyone going to jail? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Is anybody going to jail over this? Then fuck it.

  15. SEE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They like to claim it's about stopping terrorist, but we can easily see they are doing a lot more, and THAT is the problem.

    The dunsel courts should have used the gavel and said, No you will not do these things.

  16. kinda proved the point by raymorris · · Score: 1

    You listed two programs exclusively used by intelligence agencies.

      You then listed the two 1940s era programs which directly (and openly) CAUSED Congress to pass the law saying that NSA cannot collect information on US persons. That's precisely the Act that was amended after 9/11 to reduce the restrictions on the NSA (FISA).

    You also list Main Core, which little more than a vague rumor that someone is collecting a bunch of data for some reason - we don't have nearly enough facts to even start discussing that.

    Are you under the impression that the PATRIOT ACT and FISA Act amendments did NOT occur, that that is not how Congress responded to 9/11?

  17. That is probably true. Also, indications NSA, FBI by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That's certainly true, few people were expecting that type of attack, or had any reason to suspect such an attack might occur, AS FAR AS WE KNOW. (We don't know what all information the spooks had.) They were thinking of terrorist acts as being old-fashioned hijacking.

    ALSO, we know that the CIA had names of people suspected to have links with Al Quaeda (the hijackers), the NSA had indications that a Al Quaeda was planning something big in the near future.* The FBI had some other relevant info.

    So it's POSSIBLE that someone (or some software) looking at all the information could come up with the following thought:
    Al Quaeda is planning something big, and these two guys seem to be Al Quaeda operatives, so maybe we should check in on them and see what they're doing this week."

    They wouldn't need to suspect exactly what happened- suspected terrorists both buying plane tickets screams "hijacking" (the old fashioned kind). It would have been possible to do a "random search" on these two suspects and discover the box cutters.

    Having said that, I'll repeat I don't think it's worth it. The NSA and CIA should be clearly and fully separated from domestic law enforcement. Of course that requires the balls to call terrorism "terrorism" and have it handled by the appropriate agency.

  18. Re:That is probably true. Also, indications NSA, F by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Bush was briefed on terrorist threats before 9/11. I believe he'd been told that there were indications that they involved airliners. That sort of warning is really all the spooks can do.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  19. The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)

    Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).

    UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...

    SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...

    BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...

    * See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)

    ---

    "which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

    WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...

    &

    ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.

    ---

    "your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

    See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!

    ---

    "I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)

    You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...

    +

    ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).

    ---

    YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    I finished YOU WITH IT all above!

    APK

    P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):

    "It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"

    So

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"

    ... apk

  20. The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Chrome has thankfully started warning users who try to download it." - by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @03:48PM (#49909947)

    Google can try explaining it vs. proof my ware's CLEAN:

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee who also has the source & verified it safe too) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    &

    It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    * :)

    In case you hadn't noticed it, like when you made your PUNY THREATS effetely *trying* to "blackmail me" on Hilton Hotels here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ?

    (which I could give 2 fucks about, I made the money already on a successfully done large scale project with them on contract)

    I SMOKED YOU TOTALLY @ EVERY TURN, & who started it twice here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... AND HERE TOO http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... saying "I should die painfully" etc. - et al?

    You failed badly on all accounts.

    APK

    P.S.=> Especially funny is that you work for CLOUDWORDS (an advertiser affiliate of Marketo) which tips your hand & PROVED YOUR ILL MOTIVES for your stupidity, running away from this most of all -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    ... apk