Prosecutors halt vast, likely illegal DEA wiretap operation

Re:Prosecutors halt vast, likely illegal DEA wiretap operation by beambot on Friday February 26, 2016 @05:14PM (#11184699)

"Likely illegal" means a lot! A guy kills his wife; his actions are "likely illegal"... it's just that we have a "innocent until proven guilty" system (thank goodness!). It isn't until the judicial branch rules that we know for sure that it was illegal, and that there was sufficient evidence to prove that it was illegal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Prosecutors halt vast, likely illegal DEA wiretap operation by matt_wulfeck on Friday February 26, 2016 @05:17PM (#11184719)

There's tons of precedent for murder. There's no precedent for massive surveillance. We may have some precedent with this case.

Thank goodness for Snowden or we'd probably have none of these cases going to trial. In many ways you can see agencies stopping the <shady thing> instead of taking it to court. They do that because if they lose then it becomes actually illegal and the power grab gets harder.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Prosecutors halt vast, likely illegal DEA wiretap operation by scrollaway on Friday February 26, 2016 @05:58PM (#11184933)

> There's no precedent for massive surveillance

But there is precedent for just "surveillance". In your own words, there's precedent for murder - would I be fine if I were the first "mass murderer"?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Prosecutors halt vast, likely illegal DEA wiretap operation by matt_wulfeck on Friday February 26, 2016 @06:23PM (#11185051)

That's a good point. I actually think that point would make a good argument in court.

[ Parent | on HN ]