posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 03:59 PM
A peak into how the government seeks to obtain wire taps, e-mail and phone records and now the matter has been disclosed.
The challenge here is that they will now be able to tie actual cases back to these law enforcement actions and see if they in fact assisted in the
prosecution or were simply a wide net cast to get what ever they could actually get.
It is impossible to actually believe that, looking to obtain information on a crime, implementing these measures and finding none, but finding
information regarding another crime, a crime for which the measures were never approved is not pursued. The pursuit of those ancilliary crimes,
those not included in the writ for the initial wire tap is, of course illegal and the evidence obtained not admissable.
Of course it is troubling that cases might have been lost due to information about the prosecutions's strategy being leaked, but that is not the cause
of the consternation on the part of the government.
The consternation is that most of these measures will be found to have had no merit on the outcome of the case and could well have lead to other
subsequent convictions for crimes where there was in fact no probable cause to have the wire tap, et al implemented in the first place. The cause
of concern is that it will be found that the government backed into evidence obtained illegally - essentially following up on leads gained through the
electronic traps and building cases without specifically using the illegally obtained evidence.
It would be interesting to see how many of these government supported violations of privacy actually assisted prosecution in a meaningful sense vs.
which were simply a waste of time.
At some point with the increasingly intrusive measures take by law enforcement with respect to privacy, there needs to be some independant review of
these practices to ascertain their effectiveness and appropriateness.
The public has a right to know the value being placed on routine privacy violation.
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 22-4-2011 by dolphinfan because: (no reason given)