funsec mailing list archives
Fwd: Fwd: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please S tand Up?
From: "Jerry Hill" <malaclypse2 () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 15:54:47 -0400
Sorry guys, I can't seem to get the hang of replying to the right address. This should have gone to the list, not Valdis personally. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jerry Hill <malaclypse2 () gmail com> Date: May 15, 2006 3:53 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: [funsec] RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please S tand Up? To: "Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> On 5/15/06, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu <Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu> wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006 14:46:36 EDT, Jerry Hill said: If it's anything like how police currently deal with call records obtained in a shady manner, they use the call records to get a good idea of who the culprit(s) are, and then fill in the backstory via other investigative means once they know who to concentrate on, so the call records never get entered as evidence...
Sure, I understand that you can work around the fact that you have inadmissable evidence. What I don't understand is *why* you would go that route to begin with. You have a straightforward, legal method of obtaining call records by getting a subpoena. Why is everyone jumping to the conclusion that this information was obtained from the NSA? Not only is it of questionable legality and dubious admissibility, it's probably a lot more difficult. Not only do you need to know about the secret NSA call record database, you have to get someone to access it for you and send you the records for use in a politically charged domestic prosecution, the exact thing these records aren't supposed to be used for. So, Occam's razor suggests to me that this is a routine disclosure through legal means. I don't discount the possibility of conspiracy at work here I suppose, but it doesn't seem very likely. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Current thread:
- RE: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please S tand Up? Fergie (May 15)
- RE: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please Stand Up? StyleWar (May 15)
- Re: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please Stand Up? Dude VanWinkle (May 15)
- RE: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please Stand Up? StyleWar (May 15)
- Re: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please Stand Up? Brian Loe (May 15)
- Re: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please Stand Up? Dude VanWinkle (May 15)
- RE: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please Stand Up? StyleWar (May 15)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please S tand Up? Fergie (May 15)
- Message not available
- Fwd: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please S tand Up? Jerry Hill (May 15)
- Re: Fwd: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please S tand Up? Valdis . Kletnieks (May 15)
- Re: Fwd: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please S tand Up? Brian Loe (May 15)
- Message not available
- Fwd: Fwd: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please S tand Up? Jerry Hill (May 15)
- Message not available
- Re: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please S tand Up? Jerry Hill (May 15)
- Re: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please S tand Up? Valdis . Kletnieks (May 15)
- RE: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors PleaseS tand Up? StyleWar (May 15)