Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

The suspect could have told about it to somebody, or somebody (like informant) could have seen it sometime ago, or maybe even gave it to him while working undercover, or they could have observed the suspect receiving the file while working on the specific computer (i.e. via wiretap or by observing the connections on the sending side or while in transit). Of course, there's no proof that between that and current moment something didn't happen and the file wasn't deleted - but at least if it was not, the fact that it existed would not be news. That's like if I give somebody a secret document and he puts it in the safe, then the fact that he has the document in the safe is not news to me - even though in the meantime somebody could have broken into the safe and stolen it, for example, so I can't be 100% sure it's actually there.



So basically, prosecutors need to lie (or get someone to lie on their behalf, aka an informant). And since they have immunity, there's strong incentive to do so, right?

I don't see how this ends well for We, the People.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: