In plain English, the agreement instructs police to try to convict people of crimes using the data collected from such devices while also concealing the existence of the devices themselves from judges, defendants, and juries. Lastly, it asserts the FBI holds the right to seek the dismissal of any charges brought against a suspect if the case is likely to result in the public learning “any information” about the devices or their capabilities... [More]
Securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity again, I see...
1 comment:
If this once goes sideways during "discovery" in a Federal case the jig will truly be up.
I noticed the casual dropping of the phrase "GLOMAR Response" in there.
"History of the Glomar Response
The term “Glomar” originates from a case related to the CIA’s classified Glomar Explorer project, in which the agency sought to recover materials for military and intelligence purposes from a sunken Soviet submarine in the Pacific Ocean.[1] After a document describing the project was leaked, the CIA attempted to convince the news media not to publish the story, and a journalist submitted a FOIA request seeking records related to these attempts by the agency.[2] However, the court held the agency could classify the fact of the existence of responsive records itself.[3] "
Yep. Thought so. I once owned stock in Global Marine who owned the GLOMAR Explorer, a deep sea mining rig that looked like a ship but could dredge items off the bottom in thousands of feet of water and then hoist them up, completely out of sight, through hatches in the bottom of the ship. The company had to do some fancy ducking and weaving when the story broke.
Post a Comment