Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Data Storage Government Hardware

DEA Lack of Data Storage Results In Dismissed Drug Case 242

Posted by samzenpus
from the wanna-borrow-a-flash-drive dept.
Nerval's Lobster writes "Dr. Armando Angulo was indicted in 2007 on charges of illegally selling prescription drugs. He fled the country in 2004, with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and U.S. Marshals Service eventually finding him in Panama. As the case developed (and Panama resisted calls to extradite Angulo back to the United States), the DEA apparently amassed so much electronic data that maintaining it is now a hardship; consequently, the government wants to drop the whole case. 'These materials include two terabytes of electronic data (which consume approximately 5 percent of DEA's world-wide electronic storage capacity),' Stephanie M. Rose, the U.S. attorney for northern Iowa, wrote in the government's July motion to dismiss the indictment. 'Continued storage of these materials is difficult and expensive.' In addition, information associated with the case had managed to fill 'several hundred boxes' of paper documents, along with dozens of computers and servers. As pointed out by Ars Technica, if two terabytes of data storage represents 5 percent of the DEA's global capacity, then the agency has only 40 terabytes worth of storage overall. That seems quite small for a law enforcement agency tasked with coordinating and pursuing any number of drug investigations at any given time."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DEA Lack of Data Storage Results In Dismissed Drug Case

Comments Filter:
  • The DEA (Score:4, Informative)

    by koan (80826) on Monday August 20, 2012 @02:07PM (#41057353)

    Is underfunded because they aren't there to stop drug trafficking, but rather to stop "unapproved" drug smugglers, some one/group in political power makes a lot of untraceable money by selling drugs, this is why they can not be made legal, the drug money finances black ops with money they don't have to ask congress for or get any approval on.

  • by fiordhraoi (1097731) on Monday August 20, 2012 @02:09PM (#41057389)
    Agreed. Even if you want to say that they need the storage network-available and in a RAID, you could buy an entry level commercial NAS for under a thousand dollars plus the cost of drives. So even with say, 6 drives, you're still looking at sub 3 grand for 10TB of usable storage, and that's assuming you probably paid too much for the drives. I would be that cost wise, that is about the equivalent maybe five to ten hours of a government lawyer's time, to say nothing of the investigators, etc, etc.
  • by tomhath (637240) on Monday August 20, 2012 @02:29PM (#41057639)
    FTFA:

    Yet the motion to dismiss refers to storage of evidence related to Angulo’s case as an “economic and practical hardship.” The reference to “practical” may be key

    No, the practical means the guy is in Panama, and Panama has already said they're not going to extradite him. So quit wasting time and resources - drop the case and move on.

  • by jbeaupre (752124) on Monday August 20, 2012 @02:32PM (#41057673)

    Did you even read the summary? It has nothing to do with illegal drugs. It's about illegally selling prescription (legal) drugs.

    They guy was selling to people that didn't have a prescription.

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Monday August 20, 2012 @03:01PM (#41058021) Homepage Journal

    Decriminalization is NOT the answer. If we'd simply decriminalized alcohol in 1933 rather than outright legalizing it, we'd still have the bar bombings etc we had when it was completely illegal.

    Legalize it and the gangs and gang violence goes away, the prices drop drastically so maybe that crackhead doesn't have to burglarize your house for his crack, etc.

    If someone wants to shoot heroin, let him shoot heroin. Your drug use is not my business. If you have to steal to support your habit, it's your theivery that's my business when you rob me, not your drug habit.

    However, there is one class of drugs I would keep illegal -- antibiotics. Your illicit use of heroin doesn't affect me, but your use of antibiotics breeds supergerms which DO affect me.

    Don't decriminalize it -- legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. I have a acquaintence who is a crack addict, she was surprised to find when she checked into rehab that there was not only cocaine in her system, but meth as well. Back in the '70s they used to dust pot with PCP. Regulation will keep adulterants out of dope, the dope they're doing is bad enough.

    Lagalizing alcohol worked well. Yes, we still have alcoholics, but a lot lower percentage of teenagers are drinking now than in 1925.

  • by CanHasDIY (1672858) on Monday August 20, 2012 @03:16PM (#41058239) Homepage Journal

    Because if the police were to stop him with deadly or non-deadly force,

    Point #1: The police will arrive too late to save you. Also, as the SCOTUS decided, [nytimes.com] protecting you is not their job, anyway.

    the risk of me getting sued or going to jail is close to nil.

    If I were to do it, the risk is considerably higher.

    Point #2: Dead men tell no tales; get a gun (and, of course, learn how to use it).

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20, 2012 @04:06PM (#41058919)

    When seconds count the police are but minutes away.

    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

    "Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

    The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5] "

    You are responsible for protecting yourself and your family. Any questions?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20, 2012 @04:08PM (#41058945)

    Five minutes or less huh?

    http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

    "Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

    The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5] "

  • by jeffmeden (135043) on Monday August 20, 2012 @04:16PM (#41059033) Homepage Journal

    Decriminalization is NOT the answer. If we'd simply decriminalized alcohol in 1933 rather than outright legalizing it, we'd still have the bar bombings etc we had when it was completely illegal.

    Legalize it and the gangs and gang violence goes away, the prices drop drastically so maybe that crackhead doesn't have to burglarize your house for his crack, etc.

    If someone wants to shoot heroin, let him shoot heroin. Your drug use is not my business. If you have to steal to support your habit, it's your theivery that's my business when you rob me, not your drug habit.

    However, there is one class of drugs I would keep illegal -- antibiotics. Your illicit use of heroin doesn't affect me, but your use of antibiotics breeds supergerms which DO affect me.

    Don't decriminalize it -- legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. I have a acquaintence who is a crack addict, she was surprised to find when she checked into rehab that there was not only cocaine in her system, but meth as well. Back in the '70s they used to dust pot with PCP. Regulation will keep adulterants out of dope, the dope they're doing is bad enough.

    Lagalizing alcohol worked well. Yes, we still have alcoholics, but a lot lower percentage of teenagers are drinking now than in 1925.

    It's been beaten to death (working on a pun here) but those with a drug habit ended up there in a lot of cases because they were already destitute and making crack $1 a hit instead of $10 a hit isn't going to make them less likely to want to steal to get it... they don't have a job and legalizing it won't change that. Drug use, joblessness, homelessness, mental illness, burglary, violence, and emergency health care are all tightly intertwined. The first 3 might be easy to ignore but the last 4 are *your* problem as a member of a first world country. The solution is not to simply take away the criminal atmosphere surrounding issue #1...

    As a student of Economics, I admit that this is appealing and possibly beneficial if part of a larger solution, but only if.

  • by rahvin112 (446269) on Monday August 20, 2012 @07:28PM (#41061633)

    In my state if they broke into my home I'm legally allowed to kill them. Their intent is irrelevant as the law allows me to assume they are there to kill me and to act accordingly.

    In particular I remember the story of an older gentleman. A 19 year old man broke into the house through the sliding glass door in the middle of the night. The older gentleman in question was woken by the break-in and armed himself with a firearm. He heard the intruder approaching on the stairs and shot a single shot through the wall (without any warning) and the 19 year old fled. After the police arrived and searched they found the 19 year olds body about 50' from the house dead from a gunshot wound to the chest. The older gentleman was never charged or even threatened with indictment.

    In fact just last year the legislature made it impossible for intruders to sue (although they likely couldn't win they could have still sued previously) homeowners due to injury they sustain in the act of a crime, including being shot.

A penny saved is a penny to squander. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...