Quote Originally Posted by TFOGGER View Post
"Recreate evidence" sounds a lot like "fabricate evidence" to me...

Manufacture evidence, then charge based on that evidence...all of us on "lists" would be vulnerable.
Not necessarily, and this is where gray is the primary color. What they are doing is showing a different case initiation. Based on the article, they aren't fabricating evidence, but omitting what pointed them to a suspect initially. Here's an example.

I suspect that Ronin 13 is a drug dealer, but have nothing but conjecture based on a really flimsly gut feeling based on his posts here and my career as a Fed.. I can't as a Fed open a criminal investigation against him with this. So, I wait until a Friday night/Saturday morning and pull him over with the assistance of a local LE agency. We sweep his car and find two kilos of cocaine in his car and a wad of cash stuffed in his sock. BAM, case initiation based on the car stop. In reality, I suspected him originally based on my awesome crime fighting skills, but that shit doesn't work in court.

Now, replace the NSA sharing information in place of my awesome crime fighting skills and gut feelings. It's direction, but not evidence. The problem is it's information illegally acquired when the NSA shares it and therefore all additional information discovered based on it is "fruit of the poisonous tree". Awesome crime fighting skills is just overlooked and the investigation is denied due to credible information.

The difference is the integrity that is required in law enforcement. Sometimes it's a really hard thing to see the difference when you are in the middle of it all.