[pqdbr]

I can't reply to replies, so I'll post here.

1. No, you don't make someone an alleged criminal by simply accusing them of a crime. You need preliminary proofs that a) a crime is happening and b) your target is most likely the author of that crime. Judges are really demanding when analyzing this proof before authorizing a wiretap.

If you authorize a wiretap and you find out a crime, but later the lawyer can demonstrate that the wiretap was illegal (because the judge didn't have enough preliminary proof), the crime discovered is considered to be discovered "by chance", so it nullifies the entire result of the wiretap, based on the theory named "fruits of the poisonous tree", and unless you have enough evidence that doesn't derive at all from the wiretap, the defendant won't be convicted.

2. Read the newspaper in Brazil and you'll see the country is harshly investigating our politicians. We have a senator in jail by a supreme court's order as we speak for god's sake.

3. The same law in Brazil that authorizes wiretapping (Law nº 9296 from 1996) criminalizes with 2 to 4 years of jail anyone that does a wiretap without judicial order or with abuse of power.

[egeozcan]

> You need preliminary proofs that a) a crime is happening and b) your target is most likely the author of that crime.

Definition of "most likely" varies wildly. Without concrete proof, any breach of privacy seems corrupt to me.

[simoncion]

> I can't reply to replies...

Click the timestamp of the comment (or find another way to access the permalink for the comment). The reply link should appear.