[163950] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PRISM: NSA/FBI Internet data mining project
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jun 21 18:31:14 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGVs2cvVchvpN+SRgxmK24cEmc5h-2YX4LEpTp3Q29vN=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 00:23:59 +0200
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jun 21, 2013, at 8:31 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Phil Fagan <philfagan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would think this is only an issue if they throw out the Fourth in =
that when
>>> they use that data collected "inadvertantly" to build a case a =
against you
>>> they use no other data collected under a proper warrant.
>>=20
>> That statement ignores a longstanding legal principle known as "fruit =
of the poison tree".
>=20
> Howdy,
>=20
> In spite of what you may have seen on TV, law enforcement is not
> required to ignore evidence of a crime which turns up during a lawful
> search merely because it's evidence of a different crime. Fruit of the
> poisonous tree applies when the original search for whatever it was
> they were originally looking for is unlawful. Supposedly the FISA
> court found the NSA's troll for terrorists to be lawful. Once that's
> true, evidence of any crime may be lawfully introduced in court.
True=85 The question here, however, is whether these are really lawful =
searches.
If we eliminate the need for any sort of check and balance and allow =
gross general permanent wiretapping, then there pretty much isn't a =
fourth amendment.
I would argue that the FISA court has far overstepped its mandate (or at =
least failed to uphold its oversight role) and that the searches are, in =
fact, still unconstitutional.
Owen
