Evidence exists against the defendant. It was derived from secret sources. It was as basis to acquire other evidence.
The evidence is too secret for anyone (judge or defendant) to see.
The Sixth Amendment requires that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to [...] be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation," and "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to [...] be confronted with the witnesses against him."
So the evidence is inadmissible, all being either of the poison tree or of its fruit. Dismissed. Defendant goes free.
Re-framing it for another legal area, every murder should be legal because: self defense.
It is especially annoying because, if any attempt was made to impose a requirement on Verizon to make any accommodation whatsoever for blind/deaf/dumb people, Verizon would immediately say, "Too expensive, excessive regulation, interference in the free market, blah blah blah."
So what does the Honorable Senator Stockman plan to due when the NSA tells him he can't have any metadata?
"We wouldn't be able to share such data with Congress due to national security concerns. You're not cleared to see it, Senator. Anyway, it doesn't exist, because we don't record that data on the IRS."
This is my estimation of what the cellphone sniffers do. It is based on reasoning, both on the basis of what is technically likely, combined with their rabid determination to keep its capabilities secret, which means that (in every case!) the worst truth is true.
Capabilities:
1) The sniffer can be set up anywhere. 2) Every cell phone in the area will connect to the sniffer, in preference to any other cell tower. 3) They can record the metadata of every phone call. 4) They can determine the phone type. 5) They can break the encryption capabilities of the cellphone and record voice for every call. 6) They can deploy exploits to a phone from a library containing exploits for every device type. This allows them to... 7) They can inspect anything on the connected cellphone including but not limited to: Contact lists, apps, pictures, instant messages, voice mail, call history and encryption keys. 8) They can turn the cellphone into a passive listening device. 9) They can prevent you from turning the cell phone off. 10) They can have the phone transmit its GPS location. 11) They can triangulate the physical location of a non-GPS phone to within 20 feet or so.
Usage:
1) They use the sniffer at any time without warrants. 2) It gives them enormous amounts of evidence to launder. 3) Wherever it is set up, they always capture all cell phones in the vicinity, regardless of cause or suspicion. 4) All phones so connected are permanently exploited, even after they return to normal cell service towers.
Assume this is true because it explains why they are so concerned about leaks. Then you won't be surprised when you find out the real truth.
The media says the ACLU is suing them, but that's really not true: the ACLU is actually suing us taxpayers. We're the ones who will pay.
The officers and the mayor will lay low while the case is in litigation because, "We can't discuss a case in litigation."
After a three year battle, the taxpayers will lose with a huge settlement being made to the victim. The settlement will include an agreement that the city, the mayor, and the officers "admit no wrongdoing".
Then the mayor will hold a press conference in which he bemoans our litigious society, and how people like Mr. Daniel get rich at taxpayer expense. Media bobble-heads will bobble and repeat his statements verbatim, and somehow will neglect to mention the mayor was ever in the wrong.
Then, when someone else criticizes the mayor, he'll do the same all over, perhaps with variations. Nothing changes, except the taxpayers get their wealth handed over to the victims of the mayor's abuses.
So it goes, with our "representatives" and public "servants" doing whatever they want, because there is no penalty for them.
So how could it change? Instead of these endless, ineffective civil lawsuits, we need to start filing criminal charges against these jerks. It gets you less money, but watching them try to stay out of jail would at least be much more entertaining. And, maybe...just maybe...they would think twice the next time.
When did they update the the old aphorism: "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, claim you're victim of a hate crime."
Well, it's not surprising the media is blaming "Slender Man". These shootings are probably because of the "rewarding" media coverage and the media need to shift the blame.
Let's put it into a different context. Suppose one of my next door neighbors is sneaking in through my doggie door to make international phone calls.
The police ask me to cooperate in catching the neighbor; to allow them to wait in my kitchen. I'm certainly entitled to give them that access: It is my house after all. I should have the right to not cooperate with the police; but the moocher has no right to insist that I not cooperate.
So it seems to me that someone who "enters" my house to borrow my WiFi has no grounds for complaint if I assist the police in finding out who they are. My WiFi, my choice.
I suspect that the NSA is attempting to brazen through two different lies at the same time to the court.
First of all, they talk about retention limits...and then talk about how they've copied the data to 70 different systems. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that they are using that copying to bypass the retention limits. (Suppose they have a retention limit of 90 days on some data. If they have that data on SYSA, it will expire in 5 days, but if they copy it to SYSB, when does it expire? Right.)
So then it would be a lie that they "can't keep the data" for the court, wouldn't it, since all the copying probably means they are keeping the data indefinitely in spite of the law?
Second of all, I believe they have asserted that they can't copy the data for the court now. The 70 system copies gives the lie to that statement, because they already are copying it. Therefore, they could copy the data now, and sequester the copy until the court settles the issue of what data is to be turned over.
But they are probably brazenly lying on both counts, that they can't retain the data and that they can't sequester it now.
If I were the court, I would order them to copy and sequester the targeted data now, and accept no excuses.
But even if the court waits, it is nice that the court now knows that there are 70 machines that need to be searched for relevant data, isn't it?
It's actually a variation on an age old story: Old guard trumps up charge, gets new kid fired. There's nothing as annoying and dangerous to old guard as the industrious, clever new kid.
Computable processes are those that can be reproduced with a Turing machine. Turing machines are fine for computers--we use them all the time--but very pitiful for real life processes that involve such minor niceties as mathematical chaos. But not only do life processes live with chaos, they thrive on it and (in many cases) use it to their advantage.
It is pure conceit to think we could reproduce a brain with a Turing-complete machine of any kind. When to reproduce it, we would have to reproduce the non-deterministic mathematical chaos that is intrinsic in all life.
Non-deterministic on an intrinsically deterministic machine? Not likely.
Why is anyone asking a question like this? If cursive is obsolete, so is touch typing anymore. Instead, we're supposed to pick words off a touch screen designed to slow the written word as much as possible, and voice typing is coming in...complete with all its errors.
Looks like we're going video...text is just soooo passe.
On the post: Court Rejects Request That Secret NSA Evidence Used Against Terrorism Suspect Be Shared With Suspect's Lawyers
Simple remedy
Evidence exists against the defendant. It was derived from secret sources. It was as basis to acquire other evidence.
The evidence is too secret for anyone (judge or defendant) to see.
The Sixth Amendment requires that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to [...] be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation," and "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to [...] be confronted with the witnesses against him."
So the evidence is inadmissible, all being either of the poison tree or of its fruit. Dismissed. Defendant goes free.
Simple.
On the post: Verizon Lobbyists: That Deaf, Dumb And Blind Kid Sure Could Use An Internet Fast Lane
Rationale
Re-framing it for another legal area, every murder should be legal because: self defense.
It is especially annoying because, if any attempt was made to impose a requirement on Verizon to make any accommodation whatsoever for blind/deaf/dumb people, Verizon would immediately say, "Too expensive, excessive regulation, interference in the free market, blah blah blah."
On the post: College Pulls Support For Students' Parodic Musical Because It *Imagines* Disney Might Sue It
Terror
On the post: Peoria Mayor Continues To Defend Police Raid Of Twitter User's Home, Threatens To Sue For Defamation
Train
On the post: IRS Claims Two Years Of Emails Were Destroyed In A 'Computer Crash;' Congressman Asks The NSA To Supply 'Missing' Email Metadata
Good luck, Senator
"We wouldn't be able to share such data with Congress due to national security concerns. You're not cleared to see it, Senator. Anyway, it doesn't exist, because we don't record that data on the IRS."
On the post: More Details Emerge Showing The US Government Has No Idea How To Solve A Problem Like Snowden
Objection!
On the post: Administration Helping Bury Documents Related To Local Law Enforcement Use Of Cell Tower Spoofers
Think it is secret? Wrong.
Capabilities:
1) The sniffer can be set up anywhere.
2) Every cell phone in the area will connect to the sniffer, in preference to any other cell tower.
3) They can record the metadata of every phone call.
4) They can determine the phone type.
5) They can break the encryption capabilities of the cellphone and record voice for every call.
6) They can deploy exploits to a phone from a library containing exploits for every device type. This allows them to...
7) They can inspect anything on the connected cellphone including but not limited to: Contact lists, apps, pictures, instant messages, voice mail, call history and encryption keys.
8) They can turn the cellphone into a passive listening device.
9) They can prevent you from turning the cell phone off.
10) They can have the phone transmit its GPS location.
11) They can triangulate the physical location of a non-GPS phone to within 20 feet or so.
Usage:
1) They use the sniffer at any time without warrants.
2) It gives them enormous amounts of evidence to launder.
3) Wherever it is set up, they always capture all cell phones in the vicinity, regardless of cause or suspicion.
4) All phones so connected are permanently exploited, even after they return to normal cell service towers.
Assume this is true because it explains why they are so concerned about leaks. Then you won't be surprised when you find out the real truth.
On the post: Does Congress Believe In Protecting Your Privacy? Key Amendment Next Week Is The Test
Nothing will happen
On the post: ACLU Files Lawsuit Against Mayor And Police Officers Who Shut Down Parody Twitter Account, Arrested Its Owner
Here's wishing the ACLU *could* sue them
The officers and the mayor will lay low while the case is in litigation because, "We can't discuss a case in litigation."
After a three year battle, the taxpayers will lose with a huge settlement being made to the victim. The settlement will include an agreement that the city, the mayor, and the officers "admit no wrongdoing".
Then the mayor will hold a press conference in which he bemoans our litigious society, and how people like Mr. Daniel get rich at taxpayer expense. Media bobble-heads will bobble and repeat his statements verbatim, and somehow will neglect to mention the mayor was ever in the wrong.
Then, when someone else criticizes the mayor, he'll do the same all over, perhaps with variations. Nothing changes, except the taxpayers get their wealth handed over to the victims of the mayor's abuses.
So it goes, with our "representatives" and public "servants" doing whatever they want, because there is no penalty for them.
So how could it change? Instead of these endless, ineffective civil lawsuits, we need to start filing criminal charges against these jerks. It gets you less money, but watching them try to stay out of jail would at least be much more entertaining. And, maybe...just maybe...they would think twice the next time.
On the post: Copyright Troll Malibu Media Tells Court That Its Critics (And Opposing Lawyer) Are Part Of A Psychopathic Hate Group
Hate crimes
On the post: The Real Blame For The 'Slender Man' Killings Is The Media Blaming Slender Man For The Killings
Can't be "us"
On the post: Appeals Court Says Using Open WiFi May Be A Crime
Agree with the court
Let's put it into a different context. Suppose one of my next door neighbors is sneaking in through my doggie door to make international phone calls.
The police ask me to cooperate in catching the neighbor; to allow them to wait in my kitchen. I'm certainly entitled to give them that access: It is my house after all. I should have the right to not cooperate with the police; but the moocher has no right to insist that I not cooperate.
So it seems to me that someone who "enters" my house to borrow my WiFi has no grounds for complaint if I assist the police in finding out who they are. My WiFi, my choice.
On the post: If The NSA's System Is Too Big To Comply With Court Orders, Court Should Require It To Change Its System
NSA brazen? Nah!
First of all, they talk about retention limits...and then talk about how they've copied the data to 70 different systems. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that they are using that copying to bypass the retention limits. (Suppose they have a retention limit of 90 days on some data. If they have that data on SYSA, it will expire in 5 days, but if they copy it to SYSB, when does it expire? Right.)
So then it would be a lie that they "can't keep the data" for the court, wouldn't it, since all the copying probably means they are keeping the data indefinitely in spite of the law?
Second of all, I believe they have asserted that they can't copy the data for the court now. The 70 system copies gives the lie to that statement, because they already are copying it. Therefore, they could copy the data now, and sequester the copy until the court settles the issue of what data is to be turned over.
But they are probably brazenly lying on both counts, that they can't retain the data and that they can't sequester it now.
If I were the court, I would order them to copy and sequester the targeted data now, and accept no excuses.
But even if the court waits, it is nice that the court now knows that there are 70 machines that need to be searched for relevant data, isn't it?
On the post: Court Calls A Do Over In Terror Hearings After Failure To Record
Prosecutor's Nightmare before Christmas
And outside the court,
Prosecutors were panicked,
That the case would abort.
They'd held a long hearing;
To grind 'neath their heel,
The defendant's full Rights;
But they gave him appeal.
The hearing was held,
Without an epistle,
A procedural error that,
Risked a dismissal.
"What shall we do?"
A desperate cry;
A solution occurs,
"The hearing we'll retry."
"It just didn't happen,
"Redone it will be;
"Because we respect,
"The Rights of the free."
On the post: Bogus Broadband Astroturf Organizations Always Have Names Pretending They Represent The Consumers They're Working To Screw Over
Play their game
On the post: Best Reporters On The Supreme Court Forced To Grovel Before Competitors To Prove They're Worthy Of A Press Pass
New kid
On the post: DailyDirt: Math & The Mind
Deterministic non-determinism?
This is just me talking here, but I would never have assumed anything else; and find myself astonished anyone did think otherwise.
Whether we are pursuing the Higgs boson or just discovering that bromine is the 28th element essential to life, we eventually find that nature has done it first and done it better.
Computable processes are those that can be reproduced with a Turing machine. Turing machines are fine for computers--we use them all the time--but very pitiful for real life processes that involve such minor niceties as mathematical chaos. But not only do life processes live with chaos, they thrive on it and (in many cases) use it to their advantage.
It is pure conceit to think we could reproduce a brain with a Turing-complete machine of any kind. When to reproduce it, we would have to reproduce the non-deterministic mathematical chaos that is intrinsic in all life.
Non-deterministic on an intrinsically deterministic machine? Not likely.
On the post: DailyDirt: Should Touch Typing Replace Cursive?
What touch typing?
Looks like we're going video...text is just soooo passe.
On the post: Patent Troll That Accused FindTheBest Of 'Hate Crime' For Fighting Back Now Has To Pay FTB's Legal Fees
Libel
On the post: Supreme Court Unanimously Smacks Down CAFC Two More Times
Count the week lost...
Guess this week wasn't a total loss for CAFC.
Next >>