
Defense Claims Courthouse Was Illegally Bugged - morninj
http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202742595279/Defense-Claims-Courthouse-Was-Illegally-Bugged?slreturn=20151017120052#ixzz3rlZnXKdh
======
jimrandomh
> The defense motion claims that beginning in December 2009 government agents
> planted microphones in three locations near the entrance of the courthouse
> at 401 Marshall Street in Redwood City: inside a metal sprinkler box
> attached to the wall, in a large planter box and in vehicles parked on the
> street. The hidden microphones were activated at least 31 times through
> September 2010, according to the filing. > > The only authorization came
> from attorneys working for the FBI and Antitrust Division of the U.S.
> Department of Justice, the motion states.

In one sense, this is a small thing. There isn't any allegation that the
recordings caught privileged attorney-client communication or jury
deliberations. But it _is_ an attack on the integrity of the legal system, and
it's part of a pattern of attacks on the legal system that adds up to a
serious threat to the rule of law.

Defendants are asking for these recordings to be quashed. That is what is
customary, but it is not sufficient; there need to be consequences for those
who did it and who authorized it. The defendants are only incentivized to
argue as far as necessary for their own defense; it is up to the judges to
censure the parties responsible.

~~~
cryoshon
Read Glen Greenwald's book Liberty and Justice for Some.

The rule of law is largely a joke that the powerful trick the weak into
accepting. The constant drilling away at the supposed sanctity of the legal
system is evidence that the people who run things really don't care so much
about attorney client privilege or due process.

~~~
genericresponse
If this really is what Greenwald is saying, than he's pretty solidly turned
into the Glenn Beck of the left.

The rule of law might not seem always fair, but it hampers the powerful much
more than the weak. As an example: None of the billionaires in my city have
set up their own duchy pressed us into an army, enforcing their own laws.
Their taxes, while not as high as I would like, in fact pay for much of our
city budget including city services. Even the poor in my city have access to
clean water and the library system.

Just because we have to fight to maintain the sanctity of the legal system and
because every actor isn't perfect, does not mean that it's entirely corrupt
and captive. I would ask you to take a moment to compare the current rule of
law, rule of law in a developing country, and rule of law without the rights
guarded by a nation-state.

~~~
smokeyj
Are you kidding me? Prisons are filled with poor black drug offenders. If
you're wealthy you can literally be a convicted paedophile sex offender and
not do time.

The fact you attribute clean water as a sign of a functioning justice system
shows how low your bar is.

Edit: I will say we have rights that exist. You just need to able to afford
high power attorneys to prove such.

~~~
rayiner
> Prisons are filled with poor black drug offenders

How is that an example of the justice system not functioning? 80-90% of people
think drugs other than marijuana should be illegal. 32% see drug abuse as a
"crisis" and another 55% as a "serious problem": [http://www.people-
press.org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-pol...](http://www.people-
press.org/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-policy-landscape).

People thinking drug use is dangerous and making it illegal, and then putting
people in jail for trafficking in drugs (which accounts for the vast majority
of sentences), is not a failure of the justice system.

EDIT: Since people seem confused by certain FUD on this subject. The vast
majority of "drug offenders" filling prisons are there for _trafficking_ not
_possession_ :
[http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs](http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs)
(only 5.3% of federal drug prisoners are serving time for possession; 91.4%
are serving time for trafficking). And 80-90% of people support keeping
cocaine and heroin illegal: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/drug-
legalization-p...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/17/drug-legalization-
poll_n_5162357.html).

Also account for the time lag between changing public opinion and changes in
policy. As recently as 2001, 45% of people polled (and probably a much higher
percentage of actual voters, who skew older and more conservative), opposed
getting rid of mandatory minimum sentences for _non-violent drug crimes_.

~~~
smalley
Probably due to the inequality of enforcement. If everybody agrees something
should be a crime but offender group A gets a 5 year sentence and group B gets
10 years or one gets community service and the other gets jail there's some
kind of problem.

Study controlling for type of crime and circumstances finds ~10% more severe
punishment for crimes black to white:
[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1985377](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1985377)

Evidence that despite approximately equal occurrences of consumption of
narcotics black citizens are arrested much more frequently than white
citizens:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-b...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-
blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/)

------
atom_enger
It's not perfect but I'd much prefer this plaintext than that garbage website
any day:
[https://gist.githubusercontent.com/anonymous/2a3fda72943396a...](https://gist.githubusercontent.com/anonymous/2a3fda72943396ac11b1/raw/a52e4bc82154c444bd1bdc61f01b78ca6c445976/gistfile1.txt)

~~~
fabulist
For those ctrl+f'ing for "non-paywall", see above.

~~~
Bud
Or, just click on the "web" link, right before the article title, at the top
of this comment page.

This functionality is built-in to Hacker News.

~~~
fabulist
Some of us have ethical issues with Google, and prefer not to give them
traffic.

------
sologoub
"According to court papers filed Friday, federal agents placed secret
recording devices in at least three locations around the entrance to the San
Mateo County courthouse in Redwood City without first getting judicial
approval."

The part of not getting a warrant is really the problem.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I don't disagree, but isn't it also a problem since they'll be
indiscriminately gathering a lot of irrelevant data? It's not like bugging a
suspect's house; they're bugging a lot of unrelated people.

~~~
GauntletWizard
Recording cameras on buses also catch plenty of indiscriminate random
conversation. These recording devices were placed in a public space, so you
have no expectation of privacy. However that doesn't mean that they should be
permitted in court or is that the FBI isn't quite rude in having placed them.

It really is up to the judges to prevent tainted evidence and flat out fishing
from being made cases of. The method is not unreasonable, in the right
circumstances, but the justification and building of a case makes all the
difference.

~~~
gleenn
They also don't record sound which is a huge difference. You can try and read
people's lips but that's a whole different ball game. Recording voice without
explicit consent in California is illegal.

------
rayiner
The title doesn't paint the full picture of what happened. The bugs were
placed near the courthouse entrance at public auctions held at the courthouse.
The defense "maintain[s] that their clients had a reasonable expectation of
privacy when they gathered to speak in hushed voices away from other auction
participants."

Unsettling nonetheless.

~~~
samstave
But, I still dont understand ___why_ __they felt they needed to record
anything? Can you explain their motive?

------
henryw
Google link to pass registration
[https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB8QqQIwAGoVChMI-o3Vv5CYyQIVBJmICh1GWgxl&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.therecorder.com%2Fid%3D1202742595279%2FDefense-
Claims-Courthouse-Was-Illegally-
Bugged&usg=AFQjCNEpnNa24zWZT6lhv7yeHkAIlPvqoQ&sig2=YS7IclkDtIr6ytEDSQg0DQ)

~~~
insensible
FWIW I tried to register and it wouldn't accept any password I tried to
register with. So thanks.

------
zerooneinfinity
Out of curiosity if I wanted to place microphones in random public places and
record could I? Isn't it legal to take someones photo in public? So could I
also place a camera where I'd like and record people?

~~~
tghw
While it's legal to take someone's photo in public, because they don't have an
expectation of privacy, it's generally not legal to record audio without their
knowledge.

It depends on states, but almost every state falls into the classification of
one-party or all-party. In one-party states, at least one person being
recorded must be aware of the recording. In all-party states, all parties
being recorded must be informed.

These laws were originally written for telephone tapping, but my understanding
is that they have been used in cases of bugging as well, even when no phone
was involved.

~~~
DrScump

      almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party.
    

Doesn't that apply to _wiretap_ laws (e.g. phone recordings, like the Monica
Lewinsky case) rather than open-air conversation? For example, I could see how
a hack activating their phone microphones and listening _that_ way would be
illegal, but open-air conversation?

~~~
LinuxBender
Yes, that applies to wiretap laws. Everyone (varies with state as mentioned)
has to be informed and accept that they are being recorded for the call to be
admissible as evidence in a court of law. Without that permission, it will be
discarded.

I should add; if this were not the case, then manufactures of modern gadgets
would be much less likely to have active monitoring of your microphone, for
fear of how that action could be interpreted in court. Siri, what are your
thoughts on this?

------
unabridged
The bugs were planted to catch people colluding at public foreclosure auctions
held at the courthouse steps, it had nothing to do with recording lawyers,
juries, or judges.

I like how they start some huge investigation to to try to fix the auctions
instead of just building an auction website and opening it up to the entire US
public. This would probably make collusion impossible and get better prices
for the property.

~~~
MaysonL
_it had nothing to do with recording lawyers, juries, or judges._

Even though it probably did that as well.

------
criddell
Does anybody know what the technical specs of the bug microphone is? Is there
some equivalent piece of equipment a civilian can buy?

Do the recorders have their own power supply? Their own cellular connection?
Are they essentially phones with giant batteries and a good external
microphone?

As an aside, it's always annoyed me that cell phones don't all come with
built-in call recording capabilities.

~~~
christiangenco
> it's always annoyed me that cell phones don't all come with built-in call
> recording capabilities.

Oh but they do! Haven't you read the Snowden docs? You just don't have access
to the recorded files ;)

------
ajmarsh
Read "Enemies" by Pulitzer Prize winner Tim Wiener. This is not that out of
character for the FBI really.

[http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-
Weiner/dp/0812...](http://www.amazon.com/Enemies-History-FBI-Tim-
Weiner/dp/0812979230)

------
daguava
Sorry, won't register just to view the article. I also really enjoy how the
full site link takes you to a full site of ads and clickbait with zero
content.

------
Amorymeltzer
>To continue reading, become a free ALM digital reader.

Requiring registration to view even a limited number of articles is a great
way to get me to never read your articles.

~~~
clamprecht
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fD4utpl...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fD4utplPmmMJ:www.therecorder.com/id%3D1202742595279/Defense-
Claims-Courthouse-Was-Illegally-Bugged+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ar)

------
andrewclunn
Though I'm all about civil liberties, and very wary of the surveillance state,
this was public property outdoors. I mean no, there really isn't an
expectation of privacy there, and no warrant is or should be required in that
situation.

EDIT -

Yeah, that's right. Don't respond or disagree, just vote it down. Dear (non-
existent) God, echo chambers everywhere, with just different brands of stupid.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Having an agent standing there would be entirely acceptable. Use of
surveillance equipment, especially the hidden kind, has always had a higher
standard, even in public. So much so that one of the main ethical questions
right now regards the use of publicly placed microphones that supposedly can
only hear gunshots, in order to triangulate where those gunshots took place.

> _Don 't respond or disagree, just vote it down_

It's faster to produce bullshit ideas than to respond to them civilly, as
anyone who has an incompetent coworker can attest to. You aren't owed
anything.

~~~
andrewclunn
This can come back to bite you. Protect recordings in public places from
admission and suddenly the only law enforcement is able to admit such
evidence, as only they could ever get a warrant before hand (not private
citizens). Letting public spaces be fair game for admissible recordings will
protect the public because it can be used by the public.

A clear example here being a drone you're flying in a park. With that
interpretation only law enforcement's drones' recordings would ever have a
chance of being used in court. This is about protecting your right to have
equal footing with law enforcement for evidence.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
That's grasping at straws. What are the chances you're going to happen to need
an alibi for the very moment you were filming yourself with a drone, and your
drone just happened to be small enough not to be observed?

I would also submit that the critical factor in this case was the _state 's_
use of a _hidden_ camera. We've already agreed that there is no problem with
the FBI posting an actual agent on the steps.

Finally, this type of law applies much more to audio than to video. I am
allowed to record video to my heart's content. I am only allowed to record a
conversation with consent of all parties in my state. But even if I did so, no
sane court would prevent me from using such a recording in my own defense.

~~~
andrewclunn
No sane court? Come on now. If it's inadmissible then it's inadmissible.
That's not how the law works. You can either force law enforcement to get
warrants for public recordings (which isn't much of a barrier considering the
rubber stamping happening now), or you can allow the public to also make such
recordings admissible.

I want to have just as much a right to record law enforcement in public as
they have to record me. I'm not grasping at straws, I'm arguing for openness
rather than privacy in public, which I think is a much better and more
achievable outcome.

~~~
nikdaheratik
> Come on now. If it's inadmissible then it's inadmissible. That's not how the
> law works.

It really does depend alot on _who_ is making the recordings and _for what
purpose_. Incriminating evidence obtained illegally is always bared because
the state is in the business of snooping into people's business and needs
strict boundaries set. Exculpatory evidence collected by the neighborhood
busybody can be allowed even if the recordings were made illegally.

Of course, the Busybody's lawyer may try and get it struck as admitting it
would make any civil and/or criminal trial harder to defend against, but that
wouldn't necessarily stop them from doing so. Makes it more complex if the
Busybody is also the defendant, but then you're trading admission of guilt for
a lesser offense (illegal recording) to get you off from a higher offense,
like anti-trust type stuff.

And that's also assuming that the people you are recording decide they _want_
to press charges.

------
vonklaus
> FBI agents caught bugging courthouse.

> the _recorder_.com

~~~
pyre
Do you also point out articles in the _Free_ Press about people in _jail_?

~~~
herbig
Or New York Times articles about events in Syria?

