SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Justice Department is set to argue Wednesday before a federal appeals court that it may prosecute people for crimes based on evidence obtained from their computers—evidence that was outside the scope of an original probable-cause search warrant.
That's a big deal in today's digital age. Society has evolved to the point that many people keep all of their papers and effects co-mingled on their computer hard drives.
The highly nuanced legal dispute initially seems innocent enough. It concerns an accountant's tax evasion conviction and two-year prison sentence in 2012 that was based on a court-authorized search and imaging of his computer files. Stavros Ganias' files were copied as part of an Army overbilling investigation into one of his clients. Holding on to the imaged files for nearly three years, Connecticut authorities discovered fresh evidence unrelated to the initial search of the files and got new search warrants to investigate more of the accountant's mirrored files that were already in the government's possession. All the while, Ganias had subsequently deleted those files from his hard drives after the government had imaged them, according to court records.
The case asks how long the government can retain somebody's computer files—files that are unrelated to a court warrant. The accountant's lawyers said that once the government got what it needed regarding the accountant's client, the remainder of Ganias' files should have been purged. Federal prosecutors disagreed and said they retained the imaged files for numerous reasons, including for authentication purposes and to allow "the government to comply with its discovery obligations imposed by the Constitution."
What if it were a 3-D capture of all things in view while executing a search warrant — like a "cop-cam" on steroids?
(Score: 2) by AnonymousCowardNoMore on Wednesday September 30 2015, @05:01PM
That and retroactive laws. Sure, those aren't supposed to be valid. But that's the funny thing about retroactive laws—they become valid retroactively.
(On a different can of worms: I'd argue that Common Law is sometimes retroactive anyway. You sit with a mess of legislation and previous rulings from which it is impossible to determine what is and isn't allowed in some particular case. A lawyer can give you an expensive opinion but no guarantees except in certain limited cases. Then you end up in court, and the court decides what the actual law should be henceforth. Which it immediately applies to you.)
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Thursday October 01 2015, @02:34AM
Then you end up in court, and the court decides what the actual law should be henceforth. Which it immediately applies to you.
... unless you're a government agent who was violating the Constitution, in which case it's "Please stop doing that."
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.