On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
Here's a question, however: What, exactly, stands between the way it is supposedly done, today, and wiretapping with none of these "protections."
First and foremost Congress, then the Judicial system and finally the people themselves. As far as I know, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act still hasn't been enforced since Congress won't give them funding until better statistics are provided by the FBI as to why they need the ability to place wiretaps so extensively. I'm sure the reasonability of privacy would come into play with the court system along with who knows what other claims.
And another question I've never seen a satisfactory answer for: Why is there not an automatic policy to inform the person tapped, at least after the tap is removed, analogous to the level of information the victim of a search warrant normally gets?
Since I'm not exactly sure whether the targets of a wiretap are ever informed that their conversations were monitored if they aren't later prosecuted using the info gained through the wiretap, I couldn't really comment on why if that is the case. Personally, I think a better example could be used. When a person is placed under visual surveilance they also are uninformed that their actions are being scrutinized. Their conversations can be picked up using high powered microphones and they can be plainly seen with binoculars or even night vision goggles. I would assume that they probably aren't informed after the fact either unless the surveilance is used against them in court. Regardless, I think that if people aren't informed that they were the subject of an investigation after they are cleared, they should be. Bruce Marshall