It just means they were completely transparent with the court when getting the data, and believed themselves it was lawful.
replyWhat’s hard to believe about that? They clearly put some effort into minimising the collateral privacy intrusions.
In retrospect, the part I quoted is very unclear for what I intended. I should have added more.
replyWhat's hard to believe is the data is apparently still allowed in the case. Like... how?
Because there are way too many existing precedents where "acting in good faith" was sufficient to overcome the Fruit of the poison tree doctrine.
replyThis court doesn’t care about precedent.
reply