
The “plain hearing” doctrine now dictates when cops must hang up on wiretaps - Tomte
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/09/the-plain-hearing-doctrine-now-dictates-when-cops-must-hang-up-on-wiretaps/
======
gravypod
So if I'm a criminal from a super-evil gang or something can I pay someone to
come on any meeting call we are having, have him talk a bit on it, and kill
him once it's over (giving money to his family or whatever) in an attempt to
make it so people outside of the wiretap order are in the call thus making it
so the cops need to hang up?

It's a confusing example, but is it possible?

~~~
SilasX
My reading of the article is that they have to stop listening when _everyone_
listed on the warrant leaves the call, not when there exists a non-warrant-
listed person on the call.

That is, they can listen during OR of isOnWarrrant(), not just the AND.

~~~
maccam912
So everyone gets a text-to-speech victim, listens to the conversation, but at
gun point writes down something and makes their victim actually say it. Nobody
talking on the phones is part of the conspiracy.

~~~
tdb7893
I would guess that if someone is saying the exact words they are given it
would count as the person writing being on the call. I might be incorrect but
law doesn't seem to be a discipline where the specific wording is more
important than the intent.

------
gumby
It's weird that the article says which president nominated which judge to the
court.

~~~
dragonwriter
> It's weird that the article says which president nominated which judge to
> the court.

Its not really weird, federal judges are political appointees performing a
government function and research has shown, IIRC, that appellate judges tend
to act, on controversial issues, in a way consistent with the appointing
President on issues that were salient at the time they were appointed. So, who
appointed them is very often something that is of interest to the kind of
people concerned with reporting on judicial decisionmaking in the first place.

~~~
npiazza83
If you google "internet friendly supreme court justices" you get some results
but its very clear why we're seeing harsher sentences for computer crimes than
rape or murder in the US.

While google and facebook are courting the Obama administration on K street
the general public is seeing precedent set in lower courts like, "Zuckerberg
V. Im-not-touching-you" making headlines and setting the tone for
international policy (fucking crazy)

While programs written by humans run roughshod over our rights we're arming
them. We're driving them.

I still have the picture of my mother arm in arm with Sandra Day O'connor full
of pride.

Where's our pride? Where is our classroom? Where is our law?

While Google aims to eradicate Flash from the internet it aught to memorialize
Hypercard and the teachers that reached out to students who were more
interested in stop motion animation or gaming than the details of a
proprietary version of ECMA script. It aught to reach out to those children it
yet has time to influence in every school and small town. Every Iowan, every
Minneapolitan, every Fairfax and Mclean son of a nobody in a nobody town and
replace the infection with inflection. It aught to remember how much money it
spends on javascript testing.

~~~
npiazza83
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ60n_-
BK6Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJ60n_-BK6Q)

------
__derek__
Doesn't that doctrine only apply to the Ninth Circuit?

~~~
dragonwriter
Its only binding in the Ninth Circuit as a result of this decision, though in
the absent of any ruling on the issue from the Supreme Court or any other
Circuit court, the Ninth Circuit ruling is going to be among the strongest
pieces of _persuasive_ authority on the issue to present elsewhere, as well,
should the issue arise.

