My "friend" respectfully disagrees. If there's probable cause (legal standard of proof) there's fraudulent behavior occurring, it doesn't matter when law enforcement acts.
With respect to insider testimony, yup.. that's good... BUT... a machine with code and log files that shows fraudulent behavior is 34340394309 times more valuable in a court of law, than an affidavit by a witness.
I don't disagree in the slightest. But.. Winning the "Court of Public Opinion" on this is also a key element.
I wouldn't be doing anything to increase risk like this. But. I also don't know how well the whole thing can be forensically examined with determined investigators.
That is: how does "flashing new firmware" work on this machine. Precisely.
They had me at "120,000 heads in a row". Everything else is gravy.
Even non-political things of all stripes don't necessarily "leap immediately". There's no obvious "hostage situation" sort of thing, and if there's any sort of RICO/larger-than-one-crime thing going on, the choice of "now" or "tomorrow" is always a thing.
"We suspect A,B,C of a crime, we've got them dead to rights from the evidence in hand ... but is D in there too? Or not. His texts are inconclusive ... let's see what s/he does. (Checks TheDonald front page) Alters the rules midstream? Very interesting..."
I respectfully request you re-read what you had written... then balance that against the WAR we are involved in.
The Feds FREQUENTLY seize evidence and worry about "fruits of the poisonous tree" later. If those machines contain code which is incriminating, regardless of how it's obtained, it will resonate with the courts (SCOTUS). You can't un-ring a bell.
The longer the wait to look at machines, the longer they have to replace incriminating code (if it exists).
My "friend" respectfully disagrees. If there's probable cause (legal standard of proof) there's fraudulent behavior occurring, it doesn't matter when law enforcement acts.
With respect to insider testimony, yup.. that's good... BUT... a machine with code and log files that shows fraudulent behavior is 34340394309 times more valuable in a court of law, than an affidavit by a witness.
I don't disagree in the slightest. But.. Winning the "Court of Public Opinion" on this is also a key element.
I wouldn't be doing anything to increase risk like this. But. I also don't know how well the whole thing can be forensically examined with determined investigators.
That is: how does "flashing new firmware" work on this machine. Precisely.
They had me at "120,000 heads in a row". Everything else is gravy.
NO!! You're wrong! Sorry.. I don't mean to be belligerent.
"The Law" as it stands, CANNOT be swayed by public opinion. That's not how it works.
Even non-political things of all stripes don't necessarily "leap immediately". There's no obvious "hostage situation" sort of thing, and if there's any sort of RICO/larger-than-one-crime thing going on, the choice of "now" or "tomorrow" is always a thing.
"We suspect A,B,C of a crime, we've got them dead to rights from the evidence in hand ... but is D in there too? Or not. His texts are inconclusive ... let's see what s/he does. (Checks TheDonald front page) Alters the rules midstream? Very interesting..."
I respectfully request you re-read what you had written... then balance that against the WAR we are involved in.
The Feds FREQUENTLY seize evidence and worry about "fruits of the poisonous tree" later. If those machines contain code which is incriminating, regardless of how it's obtained, it will resonate with the courts (SCOTUS). You can't un-ring a bell.
The longer the wait to look at machines, the longer they have to replace incriminating code (if it exists).