General Discussion

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)

9. Which is what I am saying.

Thu Jun 13, 2013, 04:52 PM

Jun 2013

The Police will get access through the courts, and therefor you have to provide information to the Defense, or allow the Defense attorney to ask every Government witness if evidence within the NSA could prove the innocence of the defendant.

The only honest answer is yes, it could theoretically exist, although that possibility may be very remote.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I am a little surprised that nobody else has thought of this. [View all] Savannahmann Jun 2013 OP

Like I asked earlier this week, if they are doing this and it is for our security liberal N proud Jun 2013 #1

Because they can't look at the data without a warrant. randome Jun 2013 #4

Which is what I am saying. Savannahmann Jun 2013 #9

I did not read your Jenoch Jun 2013 #53

Procedures that everyone knows about, about Data that everyone is now aware is being collected Savannahmann Jun 2013 #56

You keep repeating that they "cant look at the data without a warrant." Where did you hear that? rhett o rick Jun 2013 #12

Snowden SAYS he looked at the data without a warrant. But he's a proven liar. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #18

What is the proof? Maedhros Jun 2013 #23

Of what? That he lied. He lied about his salary and his educational background. pnwmom Jun 2013 #31

Yes - I hadn't seen it. Maedhros Jun 2013 #33

In addition to the lies about his education, which are detailed here pnwmom Jun 2013 #34

Hmmm. Maedhros Jun 2013 #49

The White House disputed many of the details of what he said. pnwmom Jun 2013 #50

Is that a "lie" Maedhros Jun 2013 #55

Betting he received a lot of overtime so Live and Learn Jun 2013 #54

So you are saying that he had a warrant? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #40

I'm saying that his claim that he could look at anyone's emails, including pnwmom Jun 2013 #41

And you are basing that on what?? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #44

I'm basing it on the fact that he didn't provide a bit of proof of it; pnwmom Jun 2013 #46

I wish you the best. nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #48

Actually, it's in the warrant that Snowden produced thucythucy Jun 2013 #30

But if you had been paying attention, Snowden isnt the only one confirming that rhett o rick Jun 2013 #42

Who else is confirming Snowden and on what points? pnwmom Jun 2013 #45

Here are a few. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #63

I have been paying attention, thank you very much. thucythucy Jun 2013 #57

I was overly snarky. I got frustrated yesterday with all those that want to put everything rhett o rick Jun 2013 #59

Thank you for the clarification thucythucy Jun 2013 #60

I agree 100 percent with you sikofit3 Jun 2013 #61

Excellent post. Thank you. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #43

This message was self-deleted by its author rhett o rick Jun 2013 #47

Here About not getting FISA warrant on Tamerlan: DevonRex Jun 2013 #32

Haven't I heard meta data, such as location, doesn't require a warrant? dkf Jun 2013 #51

Then why did the NSA request a warrant to see it? thucythucy Jun 2013 #58

You can't listen to the call or read the contents til you do dkf Jun 2013 #62

An interesting angle on the story. nt avebury Jun 2013 #2

In general, anything the NSA collects as part of its national security geek tragedy Jun 2013 #3

The telephone company had already deleted the data prior to the request Savannahmann Jun 2013 #6

Supposedly it exists on the NSA servers. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #10

It was a Brinks Truck robbery Savannahmann Jun 2013 #15

if as a category NSA documents are inadmissible in court, that bites geek tragedy Jun 2013 #16

We are heading down that road. Savannahmann Jun 2013 #19

government says "he was not the target of electronic surveillance ergo geek tragedy Jun 2013 #20

But they also said Savannahmann Jun 2013 #21

Just because his cell phone is one place doesn't mean he's where It is.... bobalew Jun 2013 #5

Certainly that's the next step Savannahmann Jun 2013 #8

But with the collection of meta-data that can be fed into a computer, rhett o rick Jun 2013 #13

Police do this already riverbendviewgal Jun 2013 #7

A few things. JoePhilly Jun 2013 #11

Interesting stuff, but the OP is about defense uses of the information in court Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #26

Excellent. bvar22 Jun 2013 #14

Zing! HangOnKids Jun 2013 #25

BUT...if he had the phone and made a call and they can test his voice then its good! dkf Jun 2013 #52

I hope it isn't tied up in court too long because the NSA deletes their data after five years. Tx4obama Jun 2013 #17

Yeah, and J. Edgar Hoover purged his files every 5 years too. Fuddnik Jun 2013 #22

I believe it is the phone companies that purge their data after 5 or fewer years. SunSeeker Jun 2013 #24

The telecoms delete their meta-data after 30 to 90 days depending on which company. Tx4obama Jun 2013 #29

I know for certain AT&T here in Cali keeps it for at least 4 years. Not sure about elsewhere.nt SunSeeker Jun 2013 #35

Are you talking about the actual call conection meta- data OR 'billing info' regarding your bill? Tx4obama Jun 2013 #36

Individual customers' phone records, listing all their called numbers and time they called them. nt SunSeeker Jun 2013 #37

The only thing it might prove is that his cell phone wasn't near the crime MiniMe Jun 2013 #27

But proving his cell phone was not at the crime Savannahmann Jun 2013 #28

The feds always have the trump card ... GeorgeGist Jun 2013 #38

Looking a little weaker. Savannahmann Jun 2013 #39