Originally Posted by claes
This perfectly explains your misunderstanding of the law and how evidence works.
None of these "criminals" are actually rapists, murderers, terrorists, etc; until the court has met it's burden to prove so (the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing).
This next bit perfectly explains your entrapment in an realist/security ideology:
"SOMEWHERE, there's a legitimate terrorist cell - we have no idea."
That's not a slippery slope if I've heard one...
Any decent (that is non-scumbag) prosecuting attorney will tell you exactly this. If they're relying on evidence based on conjecture they have a weak case. Any decent defense attorney will rip apart metadata and GPS with relative ease (given the number of judges across the country who dismiss the evidence).
I don't think you understand how this works.
It is highly unlikely that there's evidence that will directly
lead to a prosecution on that phone, or any phone.
Prosecutors use the evidence obtained from phones to complete timelines and implicate
a potential criminal. I challenge you to find a single court case where a terrorist cell or gang was brought to it's knees through evidence produced through communications. At best you'll find alibis proven false.
This is true, but probably something you should consider more seriously...
While this is true, they have pulled data from thousands of phones without unlocking them.
Has Google unlocked any phones for the FBI?
"Think about that for a minute."
Come on, get serious - real criminals use burners (metadata is the real threat to criminals). This is fear-mongering at it's best.
Well, clearly you are invested or it wouldn't be so "sickening," but I'm sure your buddy (assuming they're a lawyer) would also explain to you that the likelihood of reaching a conviction with that data (alone) is pretty slim, at least not attached to a timeline and less circumstantial evidence.
I stopped reading at this point so uh... my apologies.
Edit: PS: Since masked invoked the "ask any criminal lawyer" argument I suppose I should clarify that I actually am a lawyer.