Seems like this is a case of the government saying "trust us". They noted two ways that the feds could have gotten the IP address but how about a third, they targeted the guy and got the IP address from the ISP and said "look!, we found our guy" -occams razor.
I read the doc and it seems like the case is built on information gathered by the government but they won't say how. They don't want to say how because it's supposed to be a national security issue, which is understandable but not how our legal system works (or should work). They are saying that they got his IP via tor and that that IP address went to ISIS websites, but again they won't say how they have this information they are just saying "trust us". I'm saying that if they had targeted this individual, the feds thought he was up to something but had no real evidence, it would be really easy to find this guys IP address and then say he went to X website and he needs to go to jail -but we can't tell you how we found this out. Do you see where the problem is? We still have due process in this country or at least we're supposed to.
> I'm saying that if they had targeted this individual, the feds thought he was up to something but had no real evidence, it would be really easy to find this guys IP address and then say he went to X website and he needs to go to jail -but we can't tell you how we found this out. Do you see where the problem is? We still have due process in this country or at least we're supposed to.
Yeah, it's been a problem for a while now. I do think you're referring to Parallel Construction, a.k.a. evidence laundering.
