Slashdot Mirror
Prison Hack Shows Attorney-Client Privilege Violation (theintercept.com)
Advocatus Diaboli writes with this excerpt from The Intercept: An enormous cache of phone records obtained by The Intercept reveals a major breach of security at Securus Technologies, a leading provider of phone services inside the nation's prisons and jails. The materials — leaked via SecureDrop by an anonymous hacker who believes that Securus is violating the constitutional rights of inmates — comprise over 70 million records of phone calls, placed by prisoners to at least 37 states, in addition to links to downloadable recordings of the calls. The calls span a nearly two-and-a-half year period, beginning in December 2011 and ending in the spring of 2014."
"Particularly notable within the vast trove of phone records are what appear to be at least 14,000 recorded conversations between inmates and attorneys, a strong indication that at least some of the recordings are likely confidential and privileged legal communications — calls that never should have been recorded in the first place. The recording of legally protected attorney-client communications — and the storage of those recordings — potentially offends constitutional protections, including the right to effective assistance of counsel and of access to the courts.
"Particularly notable within the vast trove of phone records are what appear to be at least 14,000 recorded conversations between inmates and attorneys, a strong indication that at least some of the recordings are likely confidential and privileged legal communications — calls that never should have been recorded in the first place. The recording of legally protected attorney-client communications — and the storage of those recordings — potentially offends constitutional protections, including the right to effective assistance of counsel and of access to the courts.
The gun nuts get everything they want.
Utterly false but in any case...
Maybe there's something to be learned from a group of people who have combated an endless assault on their rights for decades and are still fairly free? Naw, forget that. I'll just mock them for actually caring enough to preserve their freedom.
Keep goosestepping there, fruviad. It suits you well.
Lynching niggers was a rather popular concept in some locales — a town, or even an entire State could've voted to decriminalize such a thing. Tax-evasion would be a more modern concern...
The way I see it, is that universal franchise itself is a mistake — it just as much of an extreme to allow everyone to vote, as the other extreme of making a monarch decide everything was.
I'd like to see access to the polls limited to people, who can a) solve a quadratic equation (randomly-generated by computer); b) cite (type into computer) an article from the Bill of Rights — of the would-be voter's choosing.
I also want everybody, who received over $10 worth of public assistance within 3 months prior to the current poll, to be automatically disenfranchised as well. We may or may not agree on whether criminals represent a big enough group to affect the vote, but public dole-recipients surely are, and the danger of these people voting more of other people's monies to themselves is evident.
First of all, some elections really do come down to only a few people: Al Franken's win, for example, was due to only 312 votes. This example is important, because it cites voting by at least 341 felons...
But I can turn your words around and claim, that, if the felons' numbers are so insignificant anyway, then who cares, whether they vote or not? That said, in my opinion, if the prescribed punishment for a particular crime does not officially include disenfranchisement, it should not be applied...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.