Re: Congratulations Andrew

[Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:49:26 EDT, T Biehn said:

> The FBI was investigating the AT&T incident, presumably the AT&T incident
> was what the fed were serving against.

"presumably".  In other words, you don't know for certain.  Or even have
a clue about what really went down.  Doesn't help your credibility when
you say the search warrant won't hold up when you're apparently not even
sure what warrant it actually was...

Keep in mind that the vast majority of search warrants *are* proper, because
there is *nothing* that pisses off a DA than having to stand there in the
judge's chambers and be told that all the evidence they got has been thrown out
because the search warrant had a problem. Especially since if the suspect has
half a brain, the evidence will be gone by the time they get another search
warrant. "Intentionally destroying evidence? Why no your honor, my client just
repartitioned the drive and decided to do a destructive bad-block check while
he was there..."

> What possible valid search warrant could be executed? There was no hack,
> breach, illegal access of data, or anything else for that matter.

There was no hack?  ATT didn't have 144K user's info pilfered?  Claims like
that don't help your credibility.  Mind you, I've always supported
the right of the accused (and their supporters) to put forward any and all
plausible "he was framed" or "the cops got the wrong guy" theory.  But
saying "It didn't happen" puts you out there in left field with the
Holocaust deniers.

(There, have I Godwined the thread yet? ;)

Attachment: _bin
Description:

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/