At 08:07 PM 4/13/96 -0400, s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
Look, very carefully, at the last paragraph quoted above. Mr. Safdar says, "No reasonable person is objecting to the FBI's right to conduct a wiretap."
That's right. Because no reasonable person thinks they can convince Congress or the Supremes otherwise. It isn't impossible, but energies are best spent elsewhere, like getting the Burns bill passed.
But that's not entirely the issue. Mr. Safdar's wording is critical, because it concedes FAR too much about what the government is assumedly entitled to do. Below, you've admitted that everybody here believes in what Mr. Safdar claims "no reasonable person" believes. Is Mr. Safdar saying we're ALL not reasonable?!? Are you? Further, I've read of multiple polls (Unfortunately, I can't quote a specific one) that show that a substantial _majority_ of the population objects to wiretaps under most any circumstance. (The figure I seem to recall was somewhere between 60% and 70%) If this recollection is true, and if the poll was accurate, there is no reason to believe that even your adjustments to Mr. Safdar's position is a accurate limit on reasonableness. I claim: 1. The vast majority of the population does not believe that the ability to wiretap is a government "right." 2. A majority of the population does not believe that the government should wiretap, even if it is assumed to have this authority.
Now none of us think wiretaps are a right and I presume Shabbir isn't much of a fan either or he wouldn't take the trouble of supporting something that makes wiretapping pointless (crypto).
However, why did he make the claim the way he did? Is it just sloppy spokesmanship? Worse, why did no one else catch this gaffe? Is everybody else asleep? I saw no other commentary indicating that anybody noticed his statements. Are they ignoring Mr. Safdar's postings? Are they not reading them at all? Do these people not recognize that his comments practically grant the entire enchilada to the government? Why did he do this? And why hasn't he corrected what is apparently a huge mistake?
But we and he are not Washington and there lies all the difference.
Let's assume that my recollection is correct and most people don't want wiretapping at all. Why, exactly, should you believe that we're fated to get it anyway? (If you recall, I quoted part of a Brittanica article which said that from 1934 to 1968, a number of attempts to write wiretapping into law FAILED. Clearly, wiretapping wasn't inevitable then, and it doesn't have to be inevitable now.) Consider a hypthetical discussion with some Senator or Representative, where we point out that the public, as a whole, does not want wiretaps at all. "Why," we should ask, "should wiretaps occur when the public doesn't want them? Doesn't the majority get its way, at least in situations such as this? (It violates nobody's rights to NOT have wiretaps.)" The bigshot could come back and say, "But law-enforcement WANTS wiretaps!" Our next question should be, "Okay, but why does a tiny fraction of the population get more say in what happens than 70% of the public? Even if, arguably, wiretaps are beneficial, if the majority says they want to forgo this benefit, why don't they have this privilege?" At this point, the government sleazeball might not admit to the problem, but I doubt he'd have much of a response.
Do remember, Jim, that just 'cause most of this list is libertarian doesn't mean that the rest of the world is.
If, say, 70% or even 60% or 50% of the public doesn't want wiretaps at all, calling oneself libertarian is not required to share the opinion that government doesn't have the "right" to do them. Thus, I didn't couch my argument in terms that would require a libertarian to agree with them. This was intentional: I wasn't attempting to claim that the politicians are somehow obligated to follow libertarian opinions, but they damn well listen to MAJORITY opinions, at least when they limit what government should do!
I'm thankful that they can occasionally agree with us horsepeople, despite the hysteria. Be polite.
Hey, I _was_ adequately polite. However, unlike many of the people who are asleep at the switch around here, I am observant and I don't accept bullshit just because it is couched in terms that sound friendly. This incident, and particularly the failure of nearly all of the regular posters to see the problem with Shabbir's comments, has convinced me that a substantial fraction of the people who regularly post on CP aren't carefully considering issues such as rights of the population when they read this kind of material. You, at least, acknowledged that wiretapping isn't a "right." Where is everyone else's objection to Shabbir's statement? BTW, I'm not suggesting that I think that the majority of the population must necessarily have the "right" to do wiretaps if they want them: I'm saying that they have a right to NOT do wiretaps. There is a distinct difference between these two positions. The constitution may prohibit wiretaps even if the majority wants them; logic and history shows that the constitution does not MANDATE wiretaps even if the majority doesn't want them. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com