Reading about incidences such as this has made me think critically about all cloud services in the United States, and the conclusion is simply not to use them.

Sure, the probability is lower than getting struck by lightning. I certainly don't play in the rain and I won't be using cloud services where I'm exposed to this kind of nonsense with the FBI.

> Sure, the probability is lower than getting struck by lightning.

I don't think anyone can actually know that, because I don't think statistics are kept on how often these sort of dragnet programs result in civil liberty violations and secret grand juries. That should be the more immediate concern, because after that point you are depending on the goodwill of prosecutors... which is a super bad idea.

> '100% verified'

Just reading those words is rage-inducing, but I'm grateful to have learnt this example of government lying. I feel like it should become an expression that societies teach to their children to warn them about abuses of power. Other mottoes synonymous with government deception and corruption come to mind, but at the risk of being too controversial I will share only their initials and dates: "SAARH" (2013), "MA" (2003), "IANAC" (1973), "NHDAEMZE" (1961), "AMF" (1940).

Because I delight in delivering bad news, I'll point out that the real takeaway shouldn't be that federal LEOs regularly lie (though, they do) - it is that they are permitted to lie convincingly through handwavy technical means. All these tools are designed to give them permission to totally destroy your life. I'm aware of only two geewiz CSI methods that are actually founded in science: cryptography (this neural crap doesn't qualify) and DNA. Unlike fingerprints and bitemark analysis, those two tools were invented outside of law enforcement - instead of being purpose built for prosecution. Anybody doubting that should look into the history of the polygraph and its continued use in the face of evidence demonstrating how useless it is in the pursuit of truth... which begs the question: if they aren't interested in the truth, what are they doing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph

DNA is only mostly founded in science. There's the interpretive element in saying: Oh, this DNA matches the suspect, even though it's mixed with the victim's blood.

Nice big clean sample? It probably actually matches. Small sample? Mixed with other people's DNA? Especially in a place they tend to visit (or live in?)?

At that point the problem isn't the science behind DNA, it is the fact that your freedom depends on a jury understanding statistics. But at least there exists the opportunity to challenge the evidence on objective grounds, that unfortunately requires an expensive professional expert witness...