There's something a bit unsettling about the future when you discover that drug offenders have lately been tracked down and charged by the same means used for terrorists. But let's talk about the present. Would you find the scenario below possible in this context and, if so, somewhat worrying:
1. There's nothing that special about drug crimes. It's reasonable to suspect other enforcement agencies are plugged into the NSA databases as well.
2. Let's say that, through complete surveillance of his communications, the Anti-X agency discovers that John Smith has probably committed crime X. However, there is no other way to obtain evidence on the matter.
3. As many people in this country, John Smith also happens to be a drug offender. Anti-X arranges for the DEA to be at precisely the right spot and time where the offense occurs.
4. John Smith is now in jail for interrogation, and there's a search warrant for his home to (also) look for the evidence that Anti-X was missing before.
I agree completely, there have been many articles written on how Americans break laws all the time without knowing it (No, I'm not saying that buying/selling/doing drugs falls into this umbrella) and the government cannot possibly prosecute everyone from every crime. This allows the government to pick and choose who they prosecute. Lets imagine the following scenario which is very similar to the one above.
1. Person P smokes marijuana by themselves, doesn't sell, doesn't buy large amounts, "Personal Use"
2. 3-letter-agency ABC is pretty sure person P smokes through some text/call/email/web browsing/etc but has bigger fish to fry
3. Person P is an outspoken critic of government G (or just a supporter of something government G is not a fan of)
4. Government G runs a search on person P through their database and find that ABC is 85% sure this person smokes marijuana
5. Government G tips off local police that they might just want to stop person P's car on X date
6. Person P is now either imprisoned which will greatly hamper their efforts or scared into shutting up and keeping their head down
Now let smoking marijuana be swapped out for some other crime, something that "everybody does", like downloading a song/movie/app, or maybe it's even more minor but they decide to "Make an example of you". The example zeteo gave is very good but most people can write it off with "Well he WAS committing a crime" but if the end goal of the first stop (the "Foot in the door") was actually to censor the person then I think people would see more of an issue.
this is what i find wonderful about tptacek hair splitting posts - they lead discussion away from the main issue - illegal surveillance in this case - to minutae details like whether Stasi power to fight drug crimes can be [ab]used to fight other crimes.
I agree, and the prospects for a sturdier pipeline between NSA and the DOJ is I think a good reason to ratchet programs like this way back.
(I'm less disquieted by the idea of DEA being at the right place at the right time; if that was the only implication of this program, I might be less bothered by it.)
I wonder what argument could be made for having any communication whatsoever between the two areas--how often does the DOJ deal with folks outside of the US, for example, thus "justifying" the use of NSA data sources.
Al Capone was arrested, tried, and jailed for tax evasion rather than all of the much more series crimes he committed. This approach to law enforcement has been going on for long time now, sometimes with good outcomes. I think the problem now is that (a) it's gotten much easier, (b) because it's easy it's being used more often for less serious crimes, and (c) it's being used to protect the power of the powerful rather than to protect the populace.
It was mostly because he was clever. He hired people that were loyal to do the killing/etc. So those people commited the crimes, and plead guilty every time they were caught. Al Capone could not be guilty of a crime someone else committed.
technically, the only place where he miscalculated was tax. so they got him for that. they didn't plant false tax evidence on him, as the NSA/FBI did recently with that guy that refused to join PRISM with google and others.
I can see in principle why this isn't really justice. But in the example you gave, I have a hard time siding with John Smith.
Anti-X was able to indict him because they found evidence by using another agency - this seems intuitive and useful because they could not have ordinarily found it. If he genuinely committed the crime, they're not obstructing justice or even his privacy here, they're just being creative.
Strictly speaking, I don't really mind that agencies in the United States can do that, because it opens avenues to evidence they would not otherwise have. What I would mind is if law enforcement decided they could find admissible evidence by deliberately retrieving and opportunistically analyzing inadmissible evidence as a springboard.
I understand that those two can seem really similar, but I honestly believe the latter case is a much more serious violation - it just seems like a much more slippery slope to me.
In principle, I don't care about John Smith[1] and I wouldn't advocate solely for the lawbreaker's sake. I'm advocating for innocent people whose rights are violated. Now, if this scheme were directed against a different class of criminal like theiving bankers or corrupt policemen; I'd feel better about the result, but not much. Along those lines, it is offensive to imagine that our supposed inalienable rights are discarded for something as pedestrian as drug offenses when it is clearly possible for some violent crimes to be stopped[2]. Note that I am not an advocate for that. But IMO it is an added insult that we're here living a version of Orwell's nightmare, having just begun to suffer its abuses, but because of the priorities of gov't don't receive the benefit of pervasive gov't protection.
On the ZOMG! slippery-slope angle, imagine just how abusive and corrupt an individual or small group of gov't agents can be when they are allowed to conceal so much of an investigation. One person, or a small group can completely frame an individual for a crime with relatively little opportunity for the accused to defend themselves.
[1] Personally, I am an advocate from drug legalization, but that's a separate issue.
[2] James Bamford alludes to the notion that NSA folk have had to observe some pretty terrible things in the course of duty. I don't envy them for it.
1. There's nothing that special about drug crimes. It's reasonable to suspect other enforcement agencies are plugged into the NSA databases as well.
2. Let's say that, through complete surveillance of his communications, the Anti-X agency discovers that John Smith has probably committed crime X. However, there is no other way to obtain evidence on the matter.
3. As many people in this country, John Smith also happens to be a drug offender. Anti-X arranges for the DEA to be at precisely the right spot and time where the offense occurs.
4. John Smith is now in jail for interrogation, and there's a search warrant for his home to (also) look for the evidence that Anti-X was missing before.