DerAppie: Diogenes: Classified.Next?If the NSA argues that it is information that hasn't got any privacy implications because it is just the meta-data, why would the information need to be classified? Obviously it doesn't matter who has the information.
Kahabut: The NSA has no interest, no reason, and no precedent of playing ball here. Meaning that if they even bother to respond, it's going to be a perfunctory "no records".Legally, they are required to hand over those records. But Legally, you can't actually force them to do so without prior evidence of the records existence, and you don't have that, despite Prism breaking in the news.
Warlordtrooper: You have a right to see the evidence being presented against you.
"It might be a sincere attempt to clear his client, or it might be the single most audacious delaying tactic a lawyer has ever employed. "
Even it's a delaying tactic, they lawyer is supposed to do what's best for his client. At least he's trying something and especially if the defendant is innocent as he claims.
nmrsnr: Um, what records does the NSA have that were not previously available through your phone company? Since the phone company gave the NSA the records in the first place, I don't see what new evidence this could possibly bring to light.
Jacob_Roberson: ladyfortuna: You might get a more clear idea what I meant if you look at the URL...That's what I thought, but he just seemed so serious. Also that guy confuses me in general: The name says chick, the beard says dude, the first name says chick, but the first name also says suicide bomber. The last name says French but the accent says American. The last name says cattle but the clothing says he's human. And the face says clone of Wil Wheaton.
trippdogg: nmrsnr: Um, what records does the NSA have that were not previously available through your phone company? Since the phone company gave the NSA the records in the first place, I don't see what new evidence this could possibly bring to light.This.The only news here is that some people are farking morons, and that's not news.
Dr Dreidel: - so now the judge sides with the NSA that this info is secret. For the purposes of the trial, it doesn't exist.
Gyrfalcon: This concept that the NSA (or anyone) has some stash of phone records that would "prove" Mr. X was somewhere else despite the prosecution's claim that he was at the scene of the crime, and they are feloniously hiding this proof is just mind-boggling. Or, in the case of a financial crime, if the "proof" is that certain wire transfers did not take place, the NSA wouldn't be magically hiding that evidence that Mr. X's attorney couldn't get some other way.But either way, what Mr. X needs is A DATE (or dates). Either there is proof of that date or transaction--which he has--or there isn't. More records before or after that date from the NSA isn't going to make him more innocent just because there are more of them. And if they say "No, we don't have any evidence that Mr. X called from the Bahamas, but we do have evidence he was in New York just like the prosecutor says," what does that prove? Can he still insist Well, they have the exonerating evidence in their vaults but they're refusing to release it? How paranoid do we let him get before we admit there just IS NO EVIDENCE?
I_C_Weener: NSA - No.Defense lawyer - Fine. Judge, we have been denied potentially exculpatory evidence, move to dismiss the case.Judge - Well...damn Constitution.
Kahabut: Can you prove they have the records? No of course you can't. Case closed. "No such record exists". The irony here is that is how unions typically deal with discovery requests they don't like. They simply say "we have no such record" and unless you can prove otherwise, you are screwed. Meanwhile the record you want is in the box, right where it should be, and no one ever even looked.
skinink: "It might be a sincere attempt to clear his client, or it might be the single most audacious delaying tactic a lawyer has ever employed. "Even it's a delaying tactic, they lawyer is supposed to do what's best for his client. At least he's trying something and especially if the defendant is innocent as he claims.
doczoidberg: I can see this revelation causing a billion problems.Suppose we learn that they monitor internet traffic, as well. Then police agencies across the country will want to know why they can't also have that data to catch child pron lovers and pirates.
johnnieconnie: ...and the NSA will just stamp a big NO! on the request and that will be that.
jehovahs witness protection: Does the NSA also have white house phone records for Sept. 11, 2012?
If you like these links, you'll love
More Fark for your buck
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Dec 16 2017 06:49:09
Runtime: 0.342 sec (342 ms)