Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Atlas of Surveillance

atlasofsurveillance.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 140 posts

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#41

Post by dllthomas »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #18
dllthomas wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We really need to start calling "parallel construction" what it is: willful, premeditated perjury.

There is nothing inherently wrong with parallel construction, it just means concealing a source. It seems like you have probably leant the term in the context of illegally obtained information, but that is orthogonal to concealing a source. Parallel construction is a completely normal and legitimate process. People who use it like a spooky term akin to "enhanced interrogation" or "extraordinary rendition" are just lo…

If I am accused of a crime, I have the right to face my accusers and contest all of the evidence against me. Parallel construction is deliberately depriving me of that right, by lying in court. The fact that it's common shouldn't make us lose track of that.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#42

Post by [deleted] »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #30
frandroid wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perjury. Read the other replies. There's nothing good faith about perjury. If you're trying to protect a source, get the source protected by a court order.

I have read the other replies, that don't appear to have been made by anyone with any experience of parallel construction.

[deleted]

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#43

Post by kls »

notduncansmith wrote: post #38
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, that they lied about how they got te evidence. Eg, they plant a hidden camera in your house, see you packing drugs and puting them in your car in your own garage, and driving away. Since they got the info that you had the drugs from illegally set cameras, they can't just stop and search your car, but they can "randomly" stop you for a traffic check, and just "randomly" have a drug sniffing dog present…

It might be worth coming up with an example that doesn’t illustrate an end that may justify precisely the means you describe. In your hypothetical scenario, the system would be working as intended according to many people, because the drug dealer would have otherwise gotten away with illegal activity that those people perceive as harmful.

But the end does not justify the means, due to the fact that it is a violation of their 4th Amendment specifically the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Illegal searches are illegal no matter the sound basis after the fact. As an order of our society, historically police where not supposed to go looking for crime. They where commissioned to enforce the law. One cannot enforce the law by breaking the law and it has set a very bad precedence that the police now go looking for crime. Because if they "believe" you are a criminal there is a better than average chance they are going to find something no matter how petty or insignificant. The point being, it does not matter the end result, it never justifies the action in retrospect as the person is and should be assumed innocent until legal evidence of a crime is uncovered. If it was obtained illegally all evidence even parallel construction should be tossed out for the taint it bring with it.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#44

Post by dllthomas »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #30
frandroid wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's perjury. Read the other replies. There's nothing good faith about perjury. If you're trying to protect a source, get the source protected by a court order.

I have read the other replies, that don't appear to have been made by anyone with any experience of parallel construction.

I don't have experience of extortion, either, but I'm plenty qualified to object.

Your position seems to be that there are legitimate reasons it was introduced. I don't disagree with that. That doesn't mean that the process doesn't involve lying in court to deprive people of their rights.

You say "conceal a source" but that is precisely depriving the accused of their explicit constitutional right to be "confronted with the witnesses against them".

(I will note that I've definitely been speaking with a US focus - not all of my comments will generalize.)

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#45

Post by JoeSmithson »

lmkg wrote: post #39
JoeSmithson wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not necessarily. In the UK, for example, all phone intercept is always inadmissible. The main incentive for paralleling something is to protect the source, to maintain its effectiveness.

In the UK, they do not have the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine. Parallel Reconstruction is not needed to bypass admissibility constraints because those constraints don't exist in the first place. Parallel Reconstruction is used to avoid scrutiny of the original source of evidence. Even when used to legitimate ends (and I have doubts how often it's used as such), there are fundamental problems with dodging accou…

Parallel construction is still used in the UK. That's my point - it is used to conceal sources in a wide variety of circumstances, and is orthogonal to any issues regarding illegality of evidence.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#46

Post by kls »

frandroid wrote: post #25
JoeSmithson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "So you're fine with money laundering as well?" Is this your best effort attempt at assuming good faith? > "parallel construction is inadmissible evidence laundering." Well, it's concealing a source, which is what I said. If you have an informant who's life would be in danger if they were revealed, then anything they tell you would have to be paralleled. There's nothing illegal about their evidence, they would just…

It's perjury. Read the other replies. There's nothing good faith about perjury. If you're trying to protect a source, get the source protected by a court order.

Exactly there are established legal proceedings to protect sensitive information be it a source that could be endangered, classified information or a method employed, the judge can seal that information, but it has historically been the judges call and that should not be taken out of the courts hands by law enforcement.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#47

Post by dllthomas »

JoeSmithson wrote: post #19
lmkg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The principle of the "Fruit of the Poisoned Tree" says that if $A is inadmissible, then evidence derived from $A is inadmissible. The perjury is claiming (possibly a lie by omission) that $B was not derived from $A. Sometimes this involves a (more direct) lie inventing an alternate history for $B. Perjury may or may not be the correct or most applicable transgression. Point is, if $A is what led to the collection of…

That's not right at all. Loads of stuff is inadmissible as evidence but not illegal. For example, in many countries phone intercept is inadmissible. For example, in The Wire, they might hear a drug deal being arranged on the phones, then arrange to be on patrol with a drug dog and find the stash. The phone recording would be inadmissible (even though it would help the prosecution), the evidence used to prosecute woul…

I loved The Wire, but it's a poor choice of reference for good police work.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#48

Post by kls »

netcan wrote: post #3

Does anyone know what's going on in florida with face recognition?

In Monroe county, FL we voted out a host of surveillance tech like traffic cameras etc. I was actually surprised to see that the sheriffs office signed onto the Ring data sharing as surveillance tech has been thoroughly rejected by our community, and we are small enough and close knit enough down here, that organized movements regularly vote people out that cross too far over the line.

That being said, the police force has a pretty stellar reputation of not looking for trouble and bad cops are usually shown the door pretty quickly. The rest of FL though is a mess, traffic light cameras everywhere, licence plate scanners, stingray. You name it they are decked out with it.

Re: Atlas of Surveillance

#50

Post by dllthomas »

kls wrote: post #43
notduncansmith wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be worth coming up with an example that doesn’t illustrate an end that may justify precisely the means you describe. In your hypothetical scenario, the system would be working as intended according to many people, because the drug dealer would have otherwise gotten away with illegal activity that those people perceive as harmful.

But the end does not justify the means, due to the fact that it is a violation of their 4th Amendment specifically the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. Illegal searches are illegal no matter the sound basis after the fact. As an order of our society, historically police where not supposed to go looking for crime. They where commissioned to enforce the law. One cannot enforce the law b…

All of that is true, and nonetheless the parent comment stands: it will be rhetorically more convincing if you show how this negatively impacts the law-abiding.
Post reply on HN