The entire exeption, and the broader exclusionary rule, is based around the self-evidently incorrect assumption that what happens in court will effect behaviour of investigators.
Comment on Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling
roguetrick@kbin.social 1 year ago
I am conflicted on how I feel about that. Obviously information dragonets are bad because they're specifically designed to produce false positives. In this case, however, they produced a definite positive that wouldn't have been achieved otherwise.
uniqueid198x@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 year ago
snooggums@kbin.social 1 year ago
The obvious potential harm in general outweighs the positive outcome in a specific case. Justifying broad surveillance because it works occasionally is the road to a police state.
hedgehog@ttrpg.network 1 year ago
Thus why it’s prohibited in the future.