People have been let off for crimes they obviously committed because the rock-solid evidence against them was illegally gathered or handled. I assume that's the sort of argument that should be leveled here: your evidence is illegal, you can't include that.
And I believe that's what the argument against secrecy with these systems is. How can you know whether legal lines have been crossed if the system is shrouded in secrecy?
And I believe that's what the argument against secrecy with these systems is. How can you know whether legal lines have been crossed if the system is shrouded in secrecy?