Too bad these people aren't required to show specific examples where the "bad guys" got away as a result of their failure to be able to do wiretaps.
I don't think asking for this evidence is a good idea. After all, there probably _are_ such examples. It stands to reason.
But so what? The issue is not whether extensive wiretapping would catch certain conspirators and head off certain crimes, the issue is one of how liberal and free societies are to operate. Our system has frowned upon such Orwellian schemes as mandating that video cameras be placed in all residences and in all hotel rooms, regardless of whether certain crimes would be detected or deterred.
The proper argument is not to demand proof of how useful such measures as the FBI would like to see are, but, rather, to focus on basic rights issues.
I must violently agree. Having escrowed video cameras in every room in every house will surely deter violence in the homes as most child and spousal abuse are (no big surprise) done by family. But even such horrors as child rape and beating cannot justify video cameras in every room; not because it is expensive, but because it is a gross violation of privacy. (But the FBI promises it would not use it without a court order, right? Sure.) People, in general, understand the severity of "video escrow". They just do not understand the severity of "key escrow" yet. Ern