On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 13:49:26 EDT, T Biehn said: > The FBI was investigating the AT&T incident, presumably the AT&T incident > was what the fed were serving against. "presumably". In other words, you don't know for certain. Or even have a clue about what really went down. Doesn't help your credibility when you say the search warrant won't hold up when you're apparently not even sure what warrant it actually was... Keep in mind that the vast majority of search warrants *are* proper, because there is *nothing* that pisses off a DA than having to stand there in the judge's chambers and be told that all the evidence they got has been thrown out because the search warrant had a problem. Especially since if the suspect has half a brain, the evidence will be gone by the time they get another search warrant. "Intentionally destroying evidence? Why no your honor, my client just repartitioned the drive and decided to do a destructive bad-block check while he was there..." > What possible valid search warrant could be executed? There was no hack, > breach, illegal access of data, or anything else for that matter. There was no hack? ATT didn't have 144K user's info pilfered? Claims like that don't help your credibility. Mind you, I've always supported the right of the accused (and their supporters) to put forward any and all plausible "he was framed" or "the cops got the wrong guy" theory. But saying "It didn't happen" puts you out there in left field with the Holocaust deniers. (There, have I Godwined the thread yet? ;)
Attachment:
pgp7usvnpHldv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/