RE: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction

From: Black Unicorn [in reply to Vlad the Conqueror]
I understand that it's difficult for you to grasp how firmly entrenched the concept of wiretapping is in law enforcement, courts and the legislature, and that your novel new approach has been tried before. ..................................................................
This should help him understand it. I won't say who this quote is from, but he was a very respected French author: "Both the English and the Americans have kept the law of precedents; that is to say, they still derive their opinions in legal matters and the judgements they should pronounce from the opinions and legal judgements of
At 11:54 PM 10/9/96 -0700, blanc wrote: their fathers. [...] Unicorn's response was inadvertently hilarious. He says that wiretapping is "firmly entrenched" in law-enforcement, but the truth is that it was "firmly entrenched" long before it was even legal! Ironically he said it, despite the fact that wiretapping is comparatively rare. Perjury, "drop guns," faking and planting evidence, accepting bribes, strongarming suspects, and similar techniques are probably far more commonly used than wiretapping ever was, but I don't see Unicorn describing those as "firmly entrenched" even though that would be an accurate characterization. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com

On Thu, 10 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:
Unicorn's response was inadvertently hilarious. He says that wiretapping is "firmly entrenched" in law-enforcement, but the truth is that it was "firmly entrenched" long before it was even legal!
Yep, seems right to me. While I share some part of your position on the undesirability of wiretapping, Uni's remarks about it being "firmly entrenched" in the minds of L.E. and Capitol Hill are quite on-target. Few here in DC believe in an absolute right to privacy. -Declan // declan@eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan@well.com //
participants (2)
-
Declan McCullagh
-
jim bell