Police and Fed's forgo supoenas, obtain phone records from shady data brokers...

[VTBob]

repost of the previous thread, since it went waaaay offtopic...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/20/pol....ap/index.html

I don't care what that legal analyst said in the latter portions of the article, this definitely seems to be walking all over the fourth amendment, and our government actively supports it. By not looking into how these data dealers mine their data, the government is not liable in using it? That'd be like me buying a bootleg CD off the street and not expecting the RIAA to get on my back due to the fact the artists name is written on the CD...

[Agrawog]

This explanation also makes little sense to me:

"If law enforcement is encouraging people in the private sector to commit a crime in getting these records, that would be problematic," said Mark Levin, a former top Justice Department official under President Reagan. "If, on the other hand, they are asking data brokers if they have any public information on any given phone numbers, that should be fine."

Private companies are "encouraged" by their customers when their customers buy or request their services in an ongoing manner. How do the agencies not "encourage" the data provider when they constantly go to them with requests and never ask how this is being done?

It seems a pretty clear run around their need for subpeonas. And how will this stuff stand up in court? The data provider would be looked at as an agent of the law enforcement agency making the request. Therefore any information not secured by subpeona would be tainted at trial along with any other information generated from the original poisonous fruit.

Is my analysis correct? Anyone with a legal background better than Law & Order re-runs care to chime in?

Originally Posted by Agrawog

This explanation also makes little sense to me:



Private companies are "encouraged" by their customers when their customers buy or request their services in an ongoing manner. How do the agencies not "encourage" the data provider when they constantly go to them with requests and never ask how this is being done?

It seems a pretty clear run around their need for subpeonas. And how will this stuff stand up in court? The data provider would be looked at as an agent of the law enforcement agency making the request. Therefore any information not secured by subpeona would be tainted at trial along with any other information generated from the original poisonous fruit.

Is my analysis correct? Anyone with a legal background better than Law & Order re-runs care to chime in?

the details are in the Patriot Act and the required access by the authorized agencies to use this information in federal cases. I believe this to be an "open" ended Act for main reasons of national security, but still law enforcement can test the waters on the case by case scenario.

[dukeuch]

You know, it's be one thing to deal with Russian gangsters in an effort to ferret out bin Laden, but it's another thing for US law enforcement agents to deal with scumbags like these data brokers, to obtain private info regarding US citizens.

[VTBob]

Where was it inferred its ok to deal with "Russian gangsters" as a segway for discussion from the original topic? The last thread went way off topic, I'd like to try and keep this one in line...

[dukeuch]

Originally Posted by VTBob

Where was it inferred its ok to deal with "Russian gangsters" as a segway for discussion from the original topic? The last thread went way off topic, I'd like to try and keep this one in line...

My point is that there may be circumstances when it is necessary, or maybe just acceptable, to deal with less-than-savory characters to reach a desired result. Some columnist soon after 9/11 made such an observation; that if we really wanted to find bin-Laden, an arguemnt could be made that Russian mobsters might have contacts that could help track him down. My point was that in my opinion the case of US law enforcement agents using data brokers does not qualify as one of those circumstances.

[VTBob]

oh ok, I misunderstood your original point, my apologies