Forwarded message:

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1998 18:31:49 -0800 From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net> Subject: Re: Most elegant wording against privacy/law-enforcement "balance"

...

Compromising the public's right to privacy gives away not only our own rights, but those of our descendants. The government must make an extraordinary case to justify undermining those rights, and so far it has not done so.

"So far it has not done so."

This "argument based on utilitarian need" is at odds with the First Amendment.

It's at odds with the entire concept of 'inalienable rights' and 'government instituted by the governed'.

I am drawing the parallel with the Fourth deliberately: no amount of "study," even a study by such august persons as Denning and Baugh, could ever conclude that wholesale, unwarranted searches are permissable. The Fourth was put in just to stop such broad conclusions.

I would say more broadly the Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights was implimented to eliminate these issue from the federal level. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The most powerful passion in life is not love or hate, | | but the desire to edit somebody elses words. | | | | Sign in Ed Barsis' office | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|